6.5 Creed/ 260 Rem / 6.5-284 from a 20" barrel

MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior MemberPosts: 4,751 Senior Member
Is there a whole lot of difference here between these three if all fired from a 20" barrel? Besides the 284 being a bit longer and the rifle a bit heavier ( looking at a rifle available in all 3)
Wambli Ska wrote: »
Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.

Replies

  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,143 Senior Member
    Handload or factory ammo?
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,751 Senior Member
    Factory for now....coming up short finding components around town. Rifle is a Savage (I know...) Lightweight Hunter. 5.5lbs on the 6.5 and 260, 6lbs on the 284. I can get one discounted purchase from Savage per year....been trying to figure out an ultralight for my possible alpine hunt. Seems like an easy fit. A bit confused its offered in 3 such closely configured choices. Several other choices too, but I've never had a 6.5. Kinda leaning Creedmore
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,143 Senior Member
    I know jack squat about The Creedmoore. I probably would not touch the 284 case unless it was in a long action. The difference between the 260 and the 6.5-284 is probably only going to be a couple hundred feet per second give or take. But, that is just me thinking off the top of my head I would have to do the math to be actual about it.

    I don't know much about the factory ammo available for the 6.5 – 284. I know it's out there but I don't know how much is available or who makes it other than HSM.

    Simple answer is that I would go with the .260 Remington. But, that does not mean the other two would be a bad choice. So, take your pick, figure out what is most available in the bullets you like and go from there.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,751 Senior Member
    Creedmore is pretty much a drop in the hat with the 260. Its on the 22-250 case blown out a bit. Being shorter, theory behind its creation was heavier bullets in a SA without eating up powder. Powder capacity is very close.

    Kinda figured 20" was too short for the 6.5-284. Nosler and Double tap both make hunting ammo...bit pricey though.
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,751 Senior Member
    260andcreed175.jpg




    Forgot to add, just for mule deer. Or sheep/goats if I win the lottery or somehow beat the odds on drawing.
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,143 Senior Member
    You're call. I have nothing to compare between the two.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,143 Senior Member
    Just promise me this, you'll actually see something through to fruition.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • Ernie BishopErnie Bishop Senior Member Posts: 6,881 Senior Member
    Max distance on Game?
    Probably lean to the creed.
    Ernie

    "The Un-Tactical"
  • wildgenewildgene Senior Member Posts: 1,036 Senior Member
    ...I went w/ the Creedmoor. Figured I could give up 50-100fps to make sure I could set those damnlong 6.5 boolits out where they should be, & still have 'em fit. I think a 20" barrel would pretty much negate the increased case capacity of the 6.5-284, you'ld just be blowing a lot of powder out the muzzle, while burning up a barrel for no significant increase in MV. There are more ammo options for the .260, but the 6.5 Creedmoor seems to be gathering a fair following, especially in competition, Nosler has cataloged brass & ammo this year. Might keep in mind the Scandahoovians have been whacking "Elk" (moose) w/ the 6.5X57 that loaded to a lower pressure/ MV for decades...

    ...fun little video...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2COAcHZRlI

    ...140gr. A-Max (shots 21-26)/ 6.5 Creedmoor/ Browning A-Bolt Long Range Hunter 200yd. zero...

    65CM200yd1-23-4.jpg

    65CM200yd5-6.jpg
  • Ernie BishopErnie Bishop Senior Member Posts: 6,881 Senior Member
    260 would be my second choice
    Ernie

    "The Un-Tactical"
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,751 Senior Member
    Zee wrote: »
    Just promise me this, you'll actually see something through to fruition.

    I've finally accepted being a brand snob is above my pay grade for a while, and so is doing the build I wanted to do :( A flat out purchase is attainable (especially at a significant discount), and if I get drawn for this hunt I don't fancy carrying a 9lbs rifle at 12-14k ft.
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,751 Senior Member
    Max distance on Game?
    Probably lean to the creed.

    I think below 500, which I know means pretty much ANY chambering that rifle comes in, is doable. But, I've listened to you guys go on about the 6.5's for long enough, I wanna play too! I think below 500 should be attainable, as well. If I get drawn I'm going to do scouting trips over the summer and I'll have a better idea of the type of shots I may encounter. I did take altitude into effect when playing with a ballistics calculator, I noticed it made enough difference to matter.

    Now.....that brings up a good Q for you Ernie (or whoever). I'm going to want to sight in my rifle for THAT elevation, how do I go about figuring out where on paper I'd be sighting in down here in the city?
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,751 Senior Member
    Gene I searched at work for an A-bolt, doesn't look like I'll be able to go that direction, that was actually my first thought after seeing your targets. Shame Browning dumped all the cool calibers this year...no more 6.5-284, no 6.5 Creed, no 300 RUM...there were a few others from last year that didn't cross over. They REALLY cut down on chamberings for the A-bolt all together this year. Makes me wonder if they're phasing it out with the introduction of the A-Bolt III and making the X-bolt the premium with the most offerings. Seemed the last 3-4 years the A-bolt had more variety then the X-Bolt.
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • WORLD TWORLD T Member Posts: 260 Member
    I have a Browning A Bolt in 6.5 Creedmoor that is deadly accurate. I shot a .345" 3 shot group at 100 yards with this combo. I have shot deer, hogs and coyotes with this gun. Love the 6.5 Creedmoor.
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,143 Senior Member
    Plug in your velocity, bullet weight, BC, altitude (at projected hunt location), temp up there at that time of year, and zero range (ex: 300 yards) into your ballistic calculator.

    It will estimate the hight of impact at 100 yards. There is your estimated zero at 100.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,250 Senior Member

    Now.....that brings up a good Q for you Ernie (or whoever). I'm going to want to sight in my rifle for THAT elevation, how do I go about figuring out where on paper I'd be sighting in down here in the city?
    Only thing I can think of (other than actually zeroing @ elevation) is running the paper ballistics at your zero altitude and say 200 yrd zero, then JUST change altitude and see where your POI moves @ 100. Say 200 "-0-" puts you +1.5 at current altitude @ 100 and +1.25 @ hunting altitude. Sight in the +1.25" and figure you have a 200 yrd zero at your hunting altitude and make any further adjustments based off that 200 yard -0- (All numbers and trajectories picked at random to show the general principal)
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,143 Senior Member
    Beat ya to it.

    :-)
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,751 Senior Member
    Ok did that, plugged everything in and it gives me

    3.13 @ 100 for a 250yd zero.

    I left everything the same but changed elevation from 12500 to 5300 and it pulled up 3.25". Not much of a difference for 100 so I should be safe as long as its consistently going just above the 3" mark here in town.
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,751 Senior Member
    And yes that was with an AMAX Zee :up:
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,250 Senior Member
    Zee wrote: »
    Beat ya to it.

    :-)
    :wink:

    Naaaaa, yours was just shorter to type :whip2:
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,143 Senior Member
    And yes that was with an AMAX Zee :up:

    Good man.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,143 Senior Member
    MHS,

    Don't forget to look at the projected velocity upon impact. See where the bullet drops below 1,800 fps. That is your safe max distance.

    The A-Max is reported to be effective below the 1,800 fps mark, but there's not much reason to chance it.

    Remember, you are shooting a 20" barrel, so estimate you muzzle velocity accordingly. The higher BC bullets (like A-Max) will get you further and retain the speed needed. But, you know that.

    By the way, heavy for caliber/high BC retains better than light for caliber/low BC. But, you knew that as well.

    ;-)
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,751 Senior Member
    Thankfully I found several good write ups on the 6.5 in the LWH. Seems the average velocity loss is about 125fps vs stated velocity from Hornady. Not bad! I also found a nice chart in a magazine I had at home that did a 500 yard chart. Looks like the 129gr SST retained the most velocity and energy compared to the 120gr and 140gr AMAX bullets. Looks like that might just be the sweet spot, kind of like the 180gr '06

    But, going by that 1,800 mark....that would be 900 yards with the SST
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,143 Senior Member
    Good deal.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • Ernie BishopErnie Bishop Senior Member Posts: 6,881 Senior Member
    Should be far enough
    Ernie

    "The Un-Tactical"
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.