12 FV 6.5mm Creedmoor - compilation of 22 months of results

[CFJunkie]

I have already reported on my compiled data for my Savage 12 FV in .223, so I thought it might be good to do the same thing for my Savage 12 FV in 6.5mm Creedmoor.

I put together a comparison of the long-term results with each configuration by stock, by scope and by jump for all the bullets and powders I have used.

As you probably already know from my previous posts, I have shot the 12 FV 6.5mm Creedmoor with the factory stock and an Oryx chassis with both a Sightron II 36X42mm fixed power scope and a NightForce 8-32x56mm variable power scope.

Some of you have followed my threads for the 12 FV 6.5mm Creedmoor on the Ammunition and Reloading forum and the 110-Series Bolt-Action forum.
For the new 12 FV 6.5mm rifle with the factory stock:
https://www.savageshooters.com/showt...-5mm-Creedmoor

For the results after the change to the Oryx stock on the 110-Series Bolt-Action forum:
https://www.savageshooters.com/showt...-5mm-Creedmoor

I also published the results for a Sierra 130 grain Tipped Game King (Game Changer) hunting bullet versus its 130 grain Tipped Match King equivalent:
https://www.savageshooters.com/showt...406#post448406

Performance of the loads shot in the 12 FV 6.5mm Creedmoor from February 2018 to Sep 2020

12 FV 6.5mm CM Performance
--------------------- Top 10 -- Top 25 -- All Loads
Average---------- 0.268 --- 0.285 ---- 0.342
Median ---------- 0.272 --- 0.291 ---- 0.337
St Dev ------------ 0.050 --- 0.048 ---- 0.069
# Groups ----------- 41 ------ 100 ------ 508
% of Groups ----- 8.1% ---- 19.7% --- 100.0%

I gathered data on 24 powder-bullet combinations by bullet since I started shooting the 12 FV 6.5 CM and the chart below shows which powder bullet combinations worked the best on average and what the best load and velocity was. All the loads listed used Lapua brass.

5 Rnd Groups ----- Savage 12 FV 6.5 mm Creedmoor ---------By Average - Hand Loads

# Grps – Powder----- Bullet--------------------------Weight – Avg. -- Best Load Velocity -- Rank
3 -------- RL-17 -------- Sierra TMK #7430 ---------- 130 ---- 0.296 -- 0.296 ------ 2803 ------- 1
43 ------ H4350 ------- Hornady ELD-M # 26333 - 147 ----- 0.311 -- 0.243 ------ 2661 ------- 2
15 ------ IMR 4451 --- Hornady ELD-X #2635 ----- 143 ---- 0.312 -- 0.288 ------- 2656 ------- 3
45 ------ H4350 ------- Hornady ELD-M # 26331 – 140 ---- 0.313 -- 0.286 ------- 2688 ------- 4
8 -------- H4350 ------- Berger Match # 26401 ---- 140 ----- 0.320 -- 0.317 ------ 2691 ------- 5
41 ------ H4350 ------ Sierra TMK #7430 ---------- 130 ----- 0.323 -- 0.255 ------ 2723 ------- 6
20 ------ H4350 ------ Hornady ELD-X #2635 ----- 143 ----- 0.326 -- 0.288 ------ 2677 ------- 7
38 ------ H4350 ------ Sierra SMK #1742 ----------- 142 ----- 0.337 -- 0.290 ------ 2686 ------- 8
29 ------ H4350 ------ Hornady ELD-M # 26177 – 130 ----- 0.338 -- 0.328 ------ 2719 -------- 9
22 ------ IMR 4451 -- Sierra TMK #4330 ----------- 130 ----- 0.345 -- 0.321 ------ 2702 ------- 10
29 ------ IMR 4451 -- Sierra SMK #1742 ----------- 142 ----- 0.345 -- 0.324 ------ 2663 ------- 11
29 ------ IMR 4451 -- Sierra TMK #7430 ----------- 130 ----- 0.349 -- 0.347 ------ 2698 ------- 12
44 ------ IMR 4451 -- Hornady ELD-M # 26331 – 140 ------ 0.349 -- 0.290 ------ 2667 ------ 13
7 -------- IMR 4350 -- Berger Match # 26401 ----- 140 ----- 0.356 -- 0.327 ------ 2693 ------- 14
17 ------ IMR 4350 -- Hornady ELD-M # 26333 – 147 ------ 0.357 -- 0.344 ------ 2660 ------- 15
14 ------ IMR 4350 -- Sierra TMK #7430 ---------- 130 ----- 0.360 -- 0.313 ------ 2729 ------- 16
4 -------- IMR 4350 -- Hornady ELD-M # 26177 – 130 ----- 0.362 -- 0.362 ------ 2719 ------- 17
10 ------ IMR 4451 -- Hornady Match # 26177 – 130 ------ 0.362 -- 0.332 ------ 2698 ------- 18
12 ------ IMR 4350 -- Sierra SMK #1742 ----------- 142 ----- 0.363 -- 0.358 ------ 2678 ------- 19
33 ------ IMR 4451 -- Hornady ELD-M # 26333 – 147 ------ 0.369 -- 0.318 ------ 2640 ------- 20
15 ------ H4350 ------ Sierra MK #4330 ------------ 130 ----- 0.373 -- 0.328 ------ 2726 ------- 21
15 ------ IMR 4350 -- Hornady ELD-M # 26331 – 140 ----- 0.374 -- 0.300 ------ 2693 ------- 22
13 ------ IMR 4451 -- Berger Match # 26401 ----- 140 ----- 0.384 -- 0.333 ------ 2672 ------- 23
2 ------- RL-17 ------- Hornady ELD-M # 26331 --- 140 ----- 0.558 -- 0.558 ------ 2763 ------- 24
508 Total groups -------------------------------------------------- 0.342 Overall Average

The overall average for 5-round groups since the inception is just under 0.35 inches for 508 groups.
The table lists the average of all the groups for each powder bullet-combination for each bullet without regard for seating depth, velocity, etc.
However, I did include the best load average and its velocity to give you all some idea of what worked the best for me with each powder-bullet combination.
From this data, I think you can get a reasonable idea of what combinations worked best.
However, as I stated for my compilation of the 12 FV .223 data, I caution you that these results are for a particular rifle barrel of 26-inch length and specific chamber. Your rifle might not exhibit the same preferences.

The Top 10 powder-bullet combinations account for almost 52% (264) of the total groups (508) and all but two of the powder-bullet combinations have statistically significant samples.
H4350 holds 7 of the top 10 slots and accounts for 224 groups.
IMR4451 holds 2 of the top 10 slots and accounts for 37 groups.
RL-17 holds the top slot but accounts for only 3 groups. (This is not a statistically significant sample especially when it also holds the 24 and worst slot, with another sample that is not statistically significant, only 2 groups).

I admit that I have concentrated on the powders and bullets that provided the best results. Once I got the initial indication, I have avoided the combinations that did not measure up and did not waste time and resources on looking for a miracle.
Over the last 22 months I have shot these powder bullet combinations with two different scopes, two different stocks.
Comparing Stocks:
The performance with the factory stock and an Oryx Chassis is enlightening. I made the switch from the factory synthetic stock without an aluminum stiffener to an aluminum chassis because I could feel the factory stock flex as I shot it.

------------ Factory Stock -- Oryx Chassis
Average ------- 0.365 ------------ 0.328
Median -------- 0.358 ------------0.324
St Dev ---------- 0.076 ------------0.061
# Grps ---------- 198 --------------- 259
# Loads --------- 59 ----------------- 66
-------------------Top 10 --Top 25 -- Top 50 --Total
Factory Stock
Average -------- 0.269 --- 0.286 -- 0.307 -- 0.365
# Loads ------------- 2 -------- 6 ------- 15 ----- 59
Oryx Chassis
Average -------- 0.271 --- 0.289 -- 0.303 --0.328
# Loads ------------ 8 --------19 ------ 35 ----- 66

The Oryx Chassis shows an overall average improvement of 32.75% over the factory stock. Based upon feel during shooting, I believe that is almost all due to the flexing of the factory stock compared to the totally rigid Oryx chassis.

Comparing Scopes:
The performance with a Sightron 36x42mm fixed power scope with a target dot reticle and a NightForce 8-32X56mm Benchrest scope with an NP2-DD reticle are also enlightening.

Sightron 36X42mm Big Sky II Scope (18 Loads)
-------------- Top 10 --- Top 25 -- Top 50 -- Total
Average ----------------------------- 0.318 ---- 0.375
Median ------------------------------ 0.320 ---- 0.372
St Dev -------------------------------- 0.028 ---- 0.070
# Grps. ---------------------------------- 3 --------- 59

# Oryx ----------------------------------------------- 1
# Factory ------------------------------- 1 --------- 17

NightForce 8-32x56mm Benchrest
------------- Top 10 --- Top 25 --- Top 50 ---Total
Average --- 0.271 ---- 0.289 ---- 0.304 ---- 0.336
Median --- 0.281 ----- 0.294 ---- 0.304 ---- 0.329
St Dev ----- 0.052 ----- 0.051 ---- 0.053 ---- 0.067
# Grps. ------- 41 -------- 99 -------- 192 ------ 386

# Oryx -------- 8 --------- 19 ---------- 35 ------- 65
# Factory ----- 2 --------- 6 ----------- 14 ------- 38

The NightForce, using a maximum power (32X) had 10.4% better overall average than the Sightron II (36X).
The top 32 loads were shot with the NightForce scope and the lone Sightron load (#34) was the only Sightron load until #66.
The averages for the top 10 loads (0.271) and the top 50 loads (0.289), all with NightForce, were significantly better than the best Sightron load (0.318).
The NightForce shot 103 loads and placed 49 in the top 50 and 72 in the top 75. That is a pretty resounding result in favor of the NightForce optics.

Comparing Scopes by Bullet:
The same result is confirmed by analyzing performance based upon the scopes with individual bullets.

--------------------------------------------NF-32x --------------S-36x ----------------Improv. (Sightron - Nightforce)
Wgt. -- Bullet ------------------------------ Avg. --- # Grps ----- Avg. --- # Grps --------- Improved --- Pct.
130 --- Hornady Match # 26177 ---- 0.340 ---- 36 --------- 0.374 ---- 7 -------------- 0.034 ------- 9.1%
130 --- Sierra TMK #7430 ------------- 0.328 ---- 65 --------- 0.379 ---- 10 ------------ 0.051 -------13.4%
130 --- Sierra TGK #4330 -------------- 0.356 ---- 37 -----------------------------------------------------------------
140 --- Hornady ELDM # 26331 ----- 0.331 ---- 84 --------- 0.379 ---- 9 -------------- 0.048 ------- 12.6%
140 --- Berger Match # 26401 ------- 0.386 ------ 7 --------- 0.284 ---- 5 -------------- (0.102) ----- -36.1%
142 --- Sierra SMK #1742 ------------- 0.337 ---- 53 --------- 0.374 ---- 10 -------------- 0.038------- 10.0%
143 --- Hornady ELD-X #2635 -------- 0.320 ---- 35 ------------------------------------------------------------------
147 --- Hornady ELD-M # 26333 ----- 0.335 ---- 80 --------- 0.370 --- 13 -------------- 0.035 ------- 9.5%
--------------------------------------Total -- 0.335 -- 405 --------- 0.375 ---- 55 -------------- 0.040 ------- 10.7%

The only bullet that showed better performance with the Sightron was the Berger 140 gr but the sample size was small and I had a lot of trouble finding a jump that the Berger liked.

Comparing Performance based upon Jump:

I even have also compiled results based upon jump.

12 FV 6.5mm Creedmoor - Performance by Jump
Jump Avg. Med St Dev # Grps Rank
0.000 - 0.000 -- 0.330 -- 0.327 -- 0.046 ---- 25 ----- 3
0.001 - 0.010 -- 0.342 -- 0.325 -- 0.069 ---- 26 ----- 5
0.011 - 0.020 -- 0.326 -- 0.324 -- 0.067 ---- 75 ----- 2
0.021 - 0.030 -- 0.333 -- 0.332 -- 0.068 ---- 62 ----- 4
0.031 - 0.040 -- 0.323 -- 0.311 -- 0.057 ---- 40 ----- 1
0.041 - 0.050 -- 0.347 -- 0.346 -- 0.052 ---- 42 ----- 7
0.051 - 0.060 -- 0.369 -- 0.359 -- 0.070 ---- 40 ----- 10
0.061 - 0.070 -- 0.371 -- 0.369 -- 0.094 ---- 59 ----- 11
0.071 - 0.080 -- 0.351 -- 0.347 -- 0.053 ---- 40 ----- 8
0.081 - 0.090 -- 0.345 -- 0.345 -- 0.066 ---- 16 ----- 6
0.091 - 0.100 -- 0.360 -- 0.376 -- 0.053 ---- 11 ----- 9

Even considering the loads that were in the lands, the performance between 10 and 40 thousandths averaged within 0.024 thousandths.
The standard deviation averaged more than the total differences in the averages between the best and the worst jump.
‘Shooter induced variation’ has made it difficult to determine a clear winner based upon jump alone.

[Fuj']

Sure eats up resources. Going thru your numbers, I bet the barrel
is over due to be swapped. I was just counting up where I stand
with that SA284 wild cat of mine. At 890 rounds and counting.
Possibilities are endless. I have just enough primers to finish my
work with the 180 class bullets, then give Brux another call.

What is your preferred primer ?? In the heavier class bullets, I have
been seeing better groups by average with the WLR's over the BR2's,
as I built velocity with the 6.5 Creed.....Best overall load I settled
on was with the 140 Nosler RDF sitting on top of R-16, Hornady case
with WLR primer. .015 off the lands kept em' tight.

Good work, and good read.....

[CFJunkie]

Fuj'

After reading all the comments on this and other sites, I was suspecting that the barrels would be shot out by now, but they are still shooting as well as ever.
Actually, I have two 6.5mm CMs that have 3072 and 4338 rounds down their barrels respectively.
With the records I keep, I haven't noticed any change in the accuracy with either of them.
They are now both shooting better with NightForce scopes than they did when new.

The reason I bought the Savage 12 FV was to be a load development mule to save the barrel in my Savage 12 LRP.
They actually shoot about the same as long as I use the bullet mix I use now for the 12 FV.
I learned what works best from the 12 LRP and realized that I needed a development mule to protect the already heavily used barrel.

As you can see from the velocities, I don't load near Pmax.
That apparently prolongs barrel life and definitely prolongs brass life.

[CFJunkie]

Fuj'

Sorry, I forgot to comment on primers.

I am a bit remiss in reporting on primer testing for my Savage 12 FV 6.5mm Creedmoor because I only have used CCI BR-4 primers with it.

With my first 6.5mm Creedmoor, the Savage 12 Long Range Precision rifle with a HS Precision Stock, I experimented with the following:
Primer ----- Avg. ---- Median --- St. Dev. --- # Groups
CCI BR-4--- 0.349 --- 0.340 ----- 0.066 ------ 373
CCI 400 --- 0.373 --- 01.363 ---- 0.070 ------ 97
Fed 205M -- 0.445 --- 0.435 ---- 0.092 ------- 27
Fed 210M -- 0.426 --- 0.406 ---- 0.092 ------- 53

The Fed 210M Large Rifle Primers were used with my initial sets of Norma and Hornady brass.
I swear by Fed 210M primers for my .308 bolt actions and was surprised they shot so poorly with both the Norma and Hornady brass.

The rest of the groups were shot with Lapua brass once I was able to get delivery of Lapua brass.
They had small rifle primer pockets so I switched to primers I use for my .223 bolt actions and semis.
I didn't shoot many Fed 205M small rifle primers because they performed so badly, something I didn't suspect since they perform well with my .223 bolt actions.

The 12 FV and the 12 LRP shoot about the same with the same bullets and powders but the 12 LRP overall average is slightly higher than the 12 FV because I shot all kinds of bullets and had to experiment a lot before I knew what worked.
The 12 LRP has an overall average of 0.364.
The 12 FV got the benefit of only using the better performing bullets and has an overall average of 0.342.
But the top 25 loads for the 12 LRP average 0.284 and the top 25 loads for the 12 FV average 0.285, so they really do shoot about the same.

In addition, the 12 LRP never got the benefit of using H4350 powder which performs best with the 12 FV. Unfortunately, I didn't get a supply of H4350 until I was already protecting the 12 LRP from load development duty.

[Fuj']

I hear ya' about having a mule. This current SA284 of mine has been
one of my best, and I have done a few laughable's Fire
forming brass from my die shortened Norma .284 Winchesters takes a
toll. I shoot bullets and not creme of wheat when forming. So during the
forming process I can get a general idea about various powders. In my
case, I have 3 Savage 3 screw target actions. The first is my Creedmoor
which I am abandoning for other effort. The second is the SA284 used for
all forming and testing with a 26.5" Bartlein. The third is reserved for the
new Brux barrel and also the SA284. Once this is chambered up with my
reamer, I will have twice fired Norma brass for it ready to go, and a list
with targets to get a good head start.....And like you, I'm not a speed
demon. Them 7mm/.284 180gr class bullets from 2765 to 2800 put a smile
on my face !!

[mikeinco]

the one number i see nowhere is distance.
since this is a 6.5 cm i assume all shooting was at 1000 yards.
what good is a bunch of 100 yd shots if it is never tested at the hyped advertised distance ?

[CFJunkie]

As usual, your assumptions prove the old adage about assumptions.
All rounds were shot at 100 yards, as listed in the referenced threads.
I would think that you might more logically have assumed that a compilation the data from the referenced threads that all list 100 yards as the distance would be at 100 yards rather than 1000 yards.

The compilation can be very valuable as a comparative measure for anyone who wants to see enough data to make statistically valid conclusions.
It probably wouldn't be all that valuable to some who only reports on the best shot or best group of a session and who conveniently forgets that the rest of the shots or groups were much larger.

Our range is in the middle of Fairfax County, VA, a county with a population over 1 million people in 406 square miles (2660 people per square mile).
Fairfax county has 1/2 of the population of the entire state of New Mexico that has 121,590 square miles (17 people per square mile).
That amounts to 0.03% of the area with 50% of the population. Quite a difference in population density.
We're lucky to still have an outdoor range of 100 yards in such a populated area.

Some of us aren't as fortunate as some of you all who have lots of wide open spaces to shoot in.

[mikeinco]

my comment was sideways , i agree, but the 6.5 is not a 100 yard rifle it is hyped as a 1000 yard rifle.
so unless some testing is done at long range, it just book fodder with no real use.
IMHO a waste of time, unless tested at long range

[charlie b]

Mike, you really can be a PITA sometimes. Dumb comments.

[hamiltonkiler]

Mike, you really can be a PITA sometimes. Dumb comments.

I use the ignore feature


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikeinco]

you defend the 6.5cm as a great long range round but yell at me when i mention 100 yard testing proves nothing to
support the CLAIMS of the great 6.5cm.

lets see some long range targets/data to support all the ficticous claims about the 6.5cm.

[charlie b]

Who is defending the 6.5CM? I certainly never have and I'd not consider buying one.

And this shooting at 100yd is not to prove anything about 1000yd shooting, just an exercise in developing accurate loads for the cartridge and rifles. CF has access to a 100yd range and uses it to develop loads as well as improving his own shooting. What is the problem with that?

Yes, he could go out and get a custom barrel installed and shoot .22/6PPC or 6BR, but, he is using Savage rifles, not customs. Yes, there is a good comparison of the Savage stock and an aftermarket chassis.

[PhilC]

I use the ignore feature

Works great too doesn't it?

[yobuck]

Well i dont use the ignore feature on Mikey.
I actually find that when he isnt busy leaning on his own horn, he has some intelligent things to say.
We all tend to be our own worst enemies at times, how many times is the issue. lol
As for all the data, thats another trait some of us have.
I personally dont care much for data, unless of coarse i can see it live.
Then im either impressed, or im not.
Id venture that someone living in Va. who collects lots of data, also knows that there are places to shoot 1000 yds there.
I mean its hard for me to keep my eyes on the road when i drive down I 81, and that dosent count the actual ranges.

[CFJunkie]

yobuck

Unfortunately, 77 year old geezers like me don't like to have to drive three hours to get to shoot at one of those ranges that you believe inundate I-81.
In Northern VA traffic it can take me 2 hours to even reach I-81. And hitting gongs at 1000 yards when I can't measure the results and keep data really doesn't float my boat.

You're preferences are your own and I don't question your right to them.
Personally, I have been a engineer for too many years not to depend on data to guide my decisions.
Some of us realize that glimpses of things can be very misleading and prefer to see lots of results before we make our decisions.
Therefore, that is my preference and I don't care if you or Mike don't see it that way.

I hope you all had a Happy Thanksgiving.

[jims]

Impressive shooting. Good write up.