6.5 Creedmoor: All Around Round?

[JASmith]

The Creedmoor is an excellent all around cartridge, especially for the bolt gun. European hunters have been using the 6.5x55 for Moose for many decades.

If you are thinking of an AR, the 6.5 Grendel might be a very comfortable choice because one can use the slightly smaller AR15 platform.

There is a reloading manual with a fairly extensive discussion of the suitability of hunting medium game with the 6.5 caliber all the way through moose. (http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?7643-Volume-2-6.5-Grendel-Reloading-Handbook) I would highly recommend the book even if one is only casually considering the Grendel because the primary difference between the two is how far out one can get reliable expansion of bullets. The Grendel gets to 300 yards and more with 16" to 18" for several bullets. The Creedmoor would get 100 - 150 yards more.

[limige]

Its a great all around caliber. Others may excell in areas but it has a great balance.

[m796rider]

6.5 Creedmoor is very easy to handload, and as everyone has said the Hornady factory ammo is both reasonably priced and accurate. There are also TONS of 6.5 bullets you can experiment with to tailor your handloads to whatever shooting situation you wish to address.

I really love shooting my 10FP-SR in 6.5 Creedmoor. Low recoil, excellent accuracy, great external ballistics (even with the relatively short 22" barrel). Plus, the 6.5 Creedmoor ammo plays nicely with the 10 round AICS mags I use.

http://personal.visualitymedia.com/personal/boltguns/10fpsr_65cm_hsp_1000.jpg

[thermaler]

As far as basing these puppies on an AR platform--you're gonna need an AR 10/ LR 308 receiver for the creedmore--kinda hefty if you're thinking practical woods gun, though a few specialty versions are cutting the weight down to "near reasonable."

I recently built an AR 264 lbc--basically the same thing as a grendel. My experience with this 6.5 caliber in an AR is that it shoots fabulously--BUT--and this is a big but--it can be "finicky" with loads due to the complexity of the cartridge design, the bullet used and how it feeds in the ramps etc--so don't expect it be a "workhorse spray gun" like 5.56 or even 6.8 spc. 2's. Although the grendel clearly out-performs the 6.8 ballistically--I would now give the nod to the 6.8 if it was to be a hunting gun and used inside 300 yds in an AR 15 carbine style setup--only because of it's over-all proven reliability.

[thermaler]

Having said all that--if you still are left with a hankering for a 6.5 in an AR15 compatible configuration--I suggest wandering over to AR performance's website (For informational purposes only) and scroll down the page and take a look at the soon-to-be-released "Six5." I think these guys are on to something and suspect that they too are focusing on a simpler case configuration that chambers more reliably than the grendel spawn (which also have "finicky" bolt issues BTW). Lot's of milheads want the grendel to be adopted by the military--I bet it will never happen. I'm watching this closely.

[emtrescue6]

A 6.5 is one of my next builds...and after doing all the homework, mine will be a 260 Rem AI on a long action. Just can't beat it without going to like a 6.5-06 or a 26 Nosler!

[thermaler]

Great choice and look forward to your results. I like the 6.5 bullet but 6.5 284 norma is as big as I will go with it--I'll take more heft in a bullet beyond that. On the other hand, I'm curious to see if Deano can get 5000 fps out of the 26 Nosler. ; )

[Vince]

I'm shooting a 6.5x284 this year as my deer, coyote, mountain lion, and antelope gun. For an "all around" caliber however I prefer the .338 Win Mag. The smaller 6.5 caliber isn't quite as versatile when you get to the bigger stuff, moose, elk, and bear in my opinion.

[JASmith]

I'm shooting a 6.5x284 this year as my deer, coyote, mountain lion, and antelope gun. For an "all around" caliber however I prefer the .338 Win Mag. The smaller 6.5 caliber isn't quite as versatile when you get to the bigger stuff, moose, elk, and bear in my opinion.
My uncle used the .264 Winchester Magnum (Lat '50s and into the '60s) to hunt elk. He was very successful with the Sierra GameKing of the day, taking elk out to at least 600 yards. He was one of the first to actually tape balistic tables on his stock and to ensure they were right.

As for moose and bear, tons of moose have fallen to the 6.5x55 with standard bullets but I would suggest a 140gr all-copper hunting bullet if one intentionally goes after moose. Bear will likely be vulnerable too and having a couple of those 140gr copper bullets (Lapua Naturalis, for example) for the second or third shot is likely prudent if one is hunting an area where accidental encounters are possible. But, a larger caliber with heavier bullets is likely a smarter choice when the intent is to go after brown bear.

[JASmith]

... recently built an AR 264 lbc--basically the same thing as a grendel. My experience with this 6.5 caliber in an AR is that it shoots fabulously--BUT--and this is a big but--it can be "finicky" with loads due to the complexity of the cartridge design, the bullet used and how it feeds in the ramps etc--so don't expect it be a "workhorse spray gun" like 5.56 or even 6.8 spc. 2's. Although the grendel clearly out-performs the 6.8 ballistically--I would now give the nod to the 6.8 if it was to be a hunting gun and used inside 300 yds in an AR 15 carbine style setup--only because of it's over-all proven reliability.
Apologies in advance for continuing to be slightly off the Creedmoor topic --

Had your build been with a 6.5 Grendel SAAMI spec chamber and standard hardware, your experience could well have been different.

Several Grendel shooters have gone through the trouble of shooting factory ammunition in all available bullet weights. The results have been consistent sub-moa groups at 100 yards, sometimes below 0.3 moa. Cycling and feeding problems are near non-existent with properly installed hardware. Some of these shooters have also run groups using handloads with bullets as light as 85 grains to as much as 140 grains. Again, no problems with cycling, and accuracy consistently sub-moa with some truly outstanding groups popping up.

The few instances where this was not a Grendel shooter's experience have almost always been traced to non-standard chambers with the .264 LBC being one on the better performing non-standard chambers or to inappropriately selected bolt heads, etc.

The 'finicky' part of the loads is largely a result of the parallel freebore used in the LBC and most of the Grendel knock-offs. The compound throat in the Grendel was implemented precisely to ensure accuracy over a very wide range of bullet weights and nose shapes.

[thermaler]

Apologies in advance for continuing to be slightly off the Creedmoor topic --

Had your build been with a 6.5 Grendel SAAMI spec chamber and standard hardware, your experience could well have been different.

Several Grendel shooters have gone through the trouble of shooting factory ammunition in all available bullet weights. The results have been consistent sub-moa groups at 100 yards, sometimes below 0.3 moa. Cycling and feeding problems are near non-existent with properly installed hardware. Some of these shooters have also run groups using handloads with bullets as light as 85 grains to as much as 140 grains. Again, no problems with cycling, and accuracy consistently sub-moa with some truly outstanding groups popping up.

The few instances where this was not a Grendel shooter's experience have almost always been traced to non-standard chambers with the .264 LBC being one on the better performing non-standard chambers or to inappropriately selected bolt heads, etc.

The 'finicky' part of the loads is largely a result of the parallel freebore used in the LBC and most of the Grendel knock-offs. The compound throat in the Grendel was implemented precisely to ensure accuracy over a very wide range of bullet weights and nose shapes.I appreciate your input--I've heard it both ways--that the compound throat design in a SAAMI complaint grendel can be touchy as well--but admittedly I've only experienced the 264 lbc flavor. I'm not questioning the accuracy--I've had groups that I've never seen in an AR platform and rarely even in a bolt gun.

My personal opinion is that the overall design with it's wide case (relative to a 5.56) and sharp shoulder angle is problematic in terms of adapting to a robust AR15 environment. I could of course be totally off base and wrong, and you're right I'm judging from my limited experience with a slightly modified version. Once again--just my opinion-- and I'm not suggesting it's not a great shooter.

[Sawfish]

I confess to being an old Geezer. Many years ago, I built a 6.5 x 55 Swede on a M98 action. This was long before the Creedmoor, the Grendel, or the .260 Remington had ever seen the light of day. In reading the ballistic comparisons for 140 gr bullets in the Swede, the Creedmoor, and the .260 Remington, I do not see where there is a nickel's worth of difference between them. If I am missing something, please enlighten me. Thanks.

[thermaler]

I've never seen a Swede in the flesh (gun, that is) though I know they're out there. Part of the problem is relative late realization of the inherent accuracy of the 6.5 in this country, I think.

[Sawfish]

I've never seen a Swede in the flesh (gun, that is) though I know they're out there. Part of the problem is relative late realization of the inherent accuracy of the 6.5 in this country, I think.

Could be. Today's astronomical prices on decent military rifles, not to mention ammunition, probably discourage interest in that caliber.

[n4ue]

I just saw an ad for a new Heavy bbl rifle by Ruger (horrors!) in 6.5 Creedmore. Currently, I shoot both a 14" TC Contender and a rebarrelled Axis in 6.5 TCU. I have been 'tempted' by both the Grengel and the Creedmore. Those 6.5 mm bullets are fantastic......

Always the maverick, when everyone in my IHMSA group was flocking to the 7 mm TCU, I 'had' to go to the 6.5. I never lost a target.
ron

[thermaler]

My "philosophy" about the 6.5 is that the American market is still searching for the ideal cartridge that will "break away from the pack" and assert itself as a true standard-bearer. I don't have anything against any of the current configurations--but they all seem to have issues which hamper them from gaining wide-spread acceptance across both target and hunting communities. Maybe some more wildcatting will find that ideal load?

[bythebook]

My "philosophy" about the 6.5 is that the American market is still searching for the ideal cartridge that will "break away from the pack" and assert itself as a true standard-bearer. I don't have anything against any of the current configurations--but they all seem to have issues which hamper them from gaining wide-spread acceptance across both target and hunting communities. Maybe some more wildcatting will find that ideal load?

I have been loading since 1966 so many cart. I cannot remember some of them . There are so many cal. that will do the same thing if the shooter does his part that we would not need any more. But where is the fun in that ? We have to keep trying for that ultimate load .

[thermaler]

I have been loading since 1966 so many cart. I cannot remember some of them . There are so many cal. that will do the same thing if the shooter does his part that we would not need any more. But where is the fun in that ? We have to keep trying for that ultimate load .The ultimate load is the one that gets "SAAMI-ized" and embraced by the major manufacturers--the chambers, brass, etc follow--and the costs finally become reasonable. IMO that has not happened yet in any flavor of 6.5

[JASmith]

The ultimate load is the one that gets "SAAMI-ized" and embraced by the major manufacturers--the chambers, brass, etc follow--and the costs finally become reasonable. IMO that has not happened yet in any flavor of 6.5
True, being standardized through the SAAMI / CIP process is a necessary first step in popularizing a cartridge. Of course, the cartridge generally has a good following in the wildcat and specialty ammunition manufacturing community first. A notable example is the multiple decade history of the 25-06 as a wildcat before Remington standardized it.

After that, popularity depends on several factors, ultimately being determined by how many shooters actually buy rifles chambered for a particular cartridge. The easy path is a cartridge standardized by the military -- that brings an automatic popularity. Next is a major manufacturer whose marketing folks' imagination is triggered by a particular cartridge and they hype, place ads, and encourage articles by well-known gun-writers who, coincidentally(?), know that it is far better to pat than to pan these products. Last in importance are the actual ballistics of the cartridge.

At least seven cartridges in 6.5mm /.264" caliber have SAAMI Specifications, including the venerable 6.5X55 Swede that is enormously popular in Europe. Ammunition for this cartridge can be purchased for as low as $18.00 per box at Midway.

260 Remington ammunition runs at about the same price as what one calls 'standard' or 'normal' ammunition in cartridges like the .308 Winchester, 270 Winchester, 25-06 and the .243 Winchester with bargain basement ammunition running about $5.00 / box less. Ammunition for the 6.5 Grendel runs a tad less than that of the .260 Rem -- probably because less powder is used and less metal goes into the brass.

The real question is: "Has the 6.5mm / .264 caliber arrived as a major factor for the American shooting public?" My view is that it is getting there but agree that large scale acceptance of the caliber is in the (likely near) future..

[BoilerUP]

6.5s will NEVER be as popular in the US as other "standards", due to a number of factors that involve historical precedence in this country (military use of 30 calibers, Jeff Cooper's regaling of the 270, OMFG its a Euro metric caliber GTFO, etc.)

Case in point: the classic recommendation of a 308 over ________ (insert more modern cartridge design with better ballistics here) for a new shooter.