Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
need the info on a
.243
.243 AI
Super 6
looking into that world
need the info on a
.243
.243 AI
Super 6
looking into that world
- Thread starter bohem
- Start date
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
very useful information. thank you
very useful information. thank you
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
I have a new 5-25 S&B scope but really do not have a gun to mount it on that will do it justice. I was thinking about a GAP 300 WM or maybe a TG42 and I want to shoot suppressed for elk, bench, and maybe hogs. Anyone have thoughts on the right gun?
I have a new 5-25 S&B scope but really do not have a gun to mount it on that will do it justice. I was thinking about a GAP 300 WM or maybe a TG42 and I want to shoot suppressed for elk, bench, and maybe hogs. Anyone have thoughts on the right gun?
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pahoben</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a new 5-25 S&B scope but really do not have a gun to mount it on that will do it justice. I was thinking about a GAP 300 WM or maybe a TG42 and I want to shoot suppressed for elk, bench, and maybe hogs. Anyone have thoughts on the right gun? </div></div>
do some more reading....this would not be the thread to determine that.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pahoben</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a new 5-25 S&B scope but really do not have a gun to mount it on that will do it justice. I was thinking about a GAP 300 WM or maybe a TG42 and I want to shoot suppressed for elk, bench, and maybe hogs. Anyone have thoughts on the right gun? </div></div>
do some more reading....this would not be the thread to determine that.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Can someone comment on the 300 WSM, this round is one that I'm looking at. I do know that no one that I'm aware of makes match grade ammo/loads, I know that the AMU is has been using it for 1000-yard matches. I can figure out the ballistics using a calculator, but how is it on barrel life, wind bucking, proven accuracy, real world tactical, etc?
Can someone comment on the 300 WSM, this round is one that I'm looking at. I do know that no one that I'm aware of makes match grade ammo/loads, I know that the AMU is has been using it for 1000-yard matches. I can figure out the ballistics using a calculator, but how is it on barrel life, wind bucking, proven accuracy, real world tactical, etc?
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Alpine 338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can someone comment on the 300 WSM, this round is one that I'm looking at. I do know that no one that I'm aware of makes match grade ammo/loads, I know that the AMU is has been using it for 1000-yard matches. I can figure out the ballistics using a calculator, but how is it on barrel life, wind bucking, proven accuracy, real world tactical, etc? </div></div>
Alpine,
Cor-Bon makes match ammo for it:
300 WSM 190gr Match
The 300 WSM holds 80.5 grains of water, the 300 Win Mag holds 88 grains of H2O. Basically it's a short 300 Win Mag. Barrel life will be a bit better (less powder), ballistic's are similar, accuracy similar, wind bucking ditto, especially when loaded to 3.14" in a Seekins DBM. When held to 2.850" it puts it a little more behind the 300 Win Mag, but not enough to matter much, unless you are shooting north of 1300 yds.
Except for the Cor-Bon load, for match shooting it's strictly a reloader's round. If you don't reload, the 300 Win Mag allows more choice in match grade fodder.
Bob
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Alpine 338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can someone comment on the 300 WSM, this round is one that I'm looking at. I do know that no one that I'm aware of makes match grade ammo/loads, I know that the AMU is has been using it for 1000-yard matches. I can figure out the ballistics using a calculator, but how is it on barrel life, wind bucking, proven accuracy, real world tactical, etc? </div></div>
Alpine,
Cor-Bon makes match ammo for it:
300 WSM 190gr Match
The 300 WSM holds 80.5 grains of water, the 300 Win Mag holds 88 grains of H2O. Basically it's a short 300 Win Mag. Barrel life will be a bit better (less powder), ballistic's are similar, accuracy similar, wind bucking ditto, especially when loaded to 3.14" in a Seekins DBM. When held to 2.850" it puts it a little more behind the 300 Win Mag, but not enough to matter much, unless you are shooting north of 1300 yds.
Except for the Cor-Bon load, for match shooting it's strictly a reloader's round. If you don't reload, the 300 Win Mag allows more choice in match grade fodder.
Bob
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Alpine 338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can someone comment on the 300 WSM, this round is one that I'm looking at. I do know that no one that I'm aware of makes match grade ammo/loads, I know that the AMU is has been using it for 1000-yard matches. I can figure out the ballistics using a calculator, but how is it on barrel life, wind bucking, proven accuracy, real world tactical, etc? </div></div>
Aline,
Cor-Bon makes match ammo for it:
300 WSM 190gr Match
The 300 WSM holds 80.5 grains of water, the 300 Win Mag holds 88 grains of H2O. Basically it's a short 300 Win Mag. Barrel life will be a bit better (less powder), ballistic's are similar, accuracy similar, wind bucking ditto, especially when loaded to 3.14" in a Seekins DBM. When held to 2.850" it puts it a little more behind the 300 Win Mag, but not enough to matter much, unless you are shooting north of 1300 yds.
Except for the Cor-Bon load, for match shooting it's strictly a reloader's round. If you don't reload, the 300 Win Mag allows more choice in match grade fodder.
Bob
</div></div>
300WSM is NOT my expertise, but I have an acquaintance that has dabbled a bit with this caliber (sub-5" 10-shot groups at 1000yds.) and he loads 210 JLK's in a long action with a special reamer so he can run them out and increase case capacity.
Someone else who is really familiar with these may be able to fill in the blanks.
I can call him and get specifics if you want them (if he'll tell
)
John
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Alpine 338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can someone comment on the 300 WSM, this round is one that I'm looking at. I do know that no one that I'm aware of makes match grade ammo/loads, I know that the AMU is has been using it for 1000-yard matches. I can figure out the ballistics using a calculator, but how is it on barrel life, wind bucking, proven accuracy, real world tactical, etc? </div></div>
Aline,
Cor-Bon makes match ammo for it:
300 WSM 190gr Match
The 300 WSM holds 80.5 grains of water, the 300 Win Mag holds 88 grains of H2O. Basically it's a short 300 Win Mag. Barrel life will be a bit better (less powder), ballistic's are similar, accuracy similar, wind bucking ditto, especially when loaded to 3.14" in a Seekins DBM. When held to 2.850" it puts it a little more behind the 300 Win Mag, but not enough to matter much, unless you are shooting north of 1300 yds.
Except for the Cor-Bon load, for match shooting it's strictly a reloader's round. If you don't reload, the 300 Win Mag allows more choice in match grade fodder.
Bob
</div></div>
300WSM is NOT my expertise, but I have an acquaintance that has dabbled a bit with this caliber (sub-5" 10-shot groups at 1000yds.) and he loads 210 JLK's in a long action with a special reamer so he can run them out and increase case capacity.
Someone else who is really familiar with these may be able to fill in the blanks.
I can call him and get specifics if you want them (if he'll tell
John
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
jrob and bob hit it well. I load this caliber for a friend, his Model 7 300 WSM has a 22" barrel and we get almost identical results from that 300 that I do with my 26" barreled 30-06.
Loading the rounds long with a custom cut reamer is a perfectly reasonable way to maximize case capacity. I'm doing something similar with a 7mm/300 WSM that Dave Kiff is making me. Loaded length should be about 3.1" instead of 2.85" making them much more suited to a long action.
With a 26" barrel on a 300 WSM you should see appx. the results below. They're certainly not cut in stone, just ball park numbers
150 class - 3200-3250fps
180 class - 3050-3100 fps
210 class - 2925-3000 fps
With 210gr BC's handily over 0.6 the round has excellent long range capabilities.
jrob and bob hit it well. I load this caliber for a friend, his Model 7 300 WSM has a 22" barrel and we get almost identical results from that 300 that I do with my 26" barreled 30-06.
Loading the rounds long with a custom cut reamer is a perfectly reasonable way to maximize case capacity. I'm doing something similar with a 7mm/300 WSM that Dave Kiff is making me. Loaded length should be about 3.1" instead of 2.85" making them much more suited to a long action.
With a 26" barrel on a 300 WSM you should see appx. the results below. They're certainly not cut in stone, just ball park numbers
150 class - 3200-3250fps
180 class - 3050-3100 fps
210 class - 2925-3000 fps
With 210gr BC's handily over 0.6 the round has excellent long range capabilities.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vkc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of the 6.5mm bullets (.260Rem, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5x47 Lapua, etc),
Which one provides the longest barrel life, and what is the estimated count?
Which one has the most available factory ammo? Most accurate factory ammo? </div></div>
firts post, ( long time lurker ) and a newbie to long range shooting. i'd like a little bit more info on these calibers as well.
this post has a lot of good and usefull info
thanks
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vkc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of the 6.5mm bullets (.260Rem, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5x47 Lapua, etc),
Which one provides the longest barrel life, and what is the estimated count?
Which one has the most available factory ammo? Most accurate factory ammo? </div></div>
firts post, ( long time lurker ) and a newbie to long range shooting. i'd like a little bit more info on these calibers as well.
this post has a lot of good and usefull info
thanks
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
The 260, 6.5 CM and 6.5x47L are listed in decreasing case capacity and increasing barrel life.
The 260 is (again, load and bullet dependent, barrel abuse, etc) going to have the shortest life at appx 3000 rounds to MOA performance. Long strings of heavy loads for something like 1k F-class will eat the barrel faster than relaxed target shooting and hunting will.
The 6.5CM probably has the best factory ammo available, and the 6.5x47L has the best off the shelf brass.
243 Brass from Lapua can be easily formed to 260 brass in a single step, and 6.5 CM brass is hard to get ahold of since only 1 company is making it (to my knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong).
Any of the 3 will make good 1000yd competition rounds. The 6.5x47L shoots the 123-130gr bullets at appx the same speed as the 260 shoots the 140gr bullets.
This isn't necessarily a hit on the 47L though since there's a few 130gr class bullets out there which rival the 140s for ballistic coefficient.
One of the biggest bonuses to the 47L that I see is it's shorter than the 260 and is much easier to fit "long loaded" VLD's into the case at magazine compatible lengths.
The 260, 6.5 CM and 6.5x47L are listed in decreasing case capacity and increasing barrel life.
The 260 is (again, load and bullet dependent, barrel abuse, etc) going to have the shortest life at appx 3000 rounds to MOA performance. Long strings of heavy loads for something like 1k F-class will eat the barrel faster than relaxed target shooting and hunting will.
The 6.5CM probably has the best factory ammo available, and the 6.5x47L has the best off the shelf brass.
243 Brass from Lapua can be easily formed to 260 brass in a single step, and 6.5 CM brass is hard to get ahold of since only 1 company is making it (to my knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong).
Any of the 3 will make good 1000yd competition rounds. The 6.5x47L shoots the 123-130gr bullets at appx the same speed as the 260 shoots the 140gr bullets.
This isn't necessarily a hit on the 47L though since there's a few 130gr class bullets out there which rival the 140s for ballistic coefficient.
One of the biggest bonuses to the 47L that I see is it's shorter than the 260 and is much easier to fit "long loaded" VLD's into the case at magazine compatible lengths.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
.250 Savage (.250-3000)
The first commercial round to achieve the 3000 fps mark as a standard for it's ammunition. Originally intended by the inventor to shoot 100 gr. bullets as he felt that would be the minimum for deer, no matter what the velocity was. The round was loaded with 87 gr. bullets so that it could reach the 3000 fps mark (consistently with factory ammo). 87 gr. bullets are more than adequate for deer if proper shot placement is used. The misconception that any non-kill zone shot on a deer could kill it with a bigger caliber is wrong. As would any other caliber bullet, at most any speed, you still need to place the shot into the area (zone) that will kill the deer.
Pro's:
Best 'pop' of the .257 Cal's <span style="text-decoration: underline">in a magazine fed short action</span>. This caliber can be loaded to full potential in the short action (to fit the mag) while the .257 can't with heavier bullets.
Typical standard rifle made for this cartridge is light weight yet still light recoiling.
Pushes any bullet big enough to kill any big game in North America. Shooting 120 gr. bullets @ 2700 fps.*
Economical to shoot as far as reloads go. Components are inexpensive*
Made in the very fast lever action Savage 99.
Cons:
*Shooting factory ammo can be inaccurate due to the different twists used over the years. Savage used 1-14" to get the 87 gr. to 3000 fps. They then changed the twist to 1-12" and then to 1-10". Winchester chambered the model 70 pre-'64 in 1-12" And then 1-10"
Remington went 1-12" and 1-10" as well.
So, the cartridge won't shoot as well in some barrel twists with some weights. Most factory loads will shoot from the 1-12" AND 1-10" as they are 100 gr. and stabilize from that twist in that caliber.
Not an overabundance of energy to kill large big game animals. Enough but not overbearing power as some people prefer.
In a lever action tight "accuracy intended" cases are hard to chamber and the lever action isn't conducive to good closure of the bolt with tight cases.
Round clearly doesn't have the power of the 25-06.
Favorite load:
37 gr. of VVN140 behind a 75 gr. A-max*. Mild load but still sends the 75 gr. A-max pretty fast. Same load can be used with 87 gr. bullets. But work up from 36.
*My rifle has the 1-14" twist.
.250 Savage (.250-3000)
The first commercial round to achieve the 3000 fps mark as a standard for it's ammunition. Originally intended by the inventor to shoot 100 gr. bullets as he felt that would be the minimum for deer, no matter what the velocity was. The round was loaded with 87 gr. bullets so that it could reach the 3000 fps mark (consistently with factory ammo). 87 gr. bullets are more than adequate for deer if proper shot placement is used. The misconception that any non-kill zone shot on a deer could kill it with a bigger caliber is wrong. As would any other caliber bullet, at most any speed, you still need to place the shot into the area (zone) that will kill the deer.
Pro's:
Best 'pop' of the .257 Cal's <span style="text-decoration: underline">in a magazine fed short action</span>. This caliber can be loaded to full potential in the short action (to fit the mag) while the .257 can't with heavier bullets.
Typical standard rifle made for this cartridge is light weight yet still light recoiling.
Pushes any bullet big enough to kill any big game in North America. Shooting 120 gr. bullets @ 2700 fps.*
Economical to shoot as far as reloads go. Components are inexpensive*
Made in the very fast lever action Savage 99.
Cons:
*Shooting factory ammo can be inaccurate due to the different twists used over the years. Savage used 1-14" to get the 87 gr. to 3000 fps. They then changed the twist to 1-12" and then to 1-10". Winchester chambered the model 70 pre-'64 in 1-12" And then 1-10"
Remington went 1-12" and 1-10" as well.
So, the cartridge won't shoot as well in some barrel twists with some weights. Most factory loads will shoot from the 1-12" AND 1-10" as they are 100 gr. and stabilize from that twist in that caliber.
Not an overabundance of energy to kill large big game animals. Enough but not overbearing power as some people prefer.
In a lever action tight "accuracy intended" cases are hard to chamber and the lever action isn't conducive to good closure of the bolt with tight cases.
Round clearly doesn't have the power of the 25-06.
Favorite load:
37 gr. of VVN140 behind a 75 gr. A-max*. Mild load but still sends the 75 gr. A-max pretty fast. Same load can be used with 87 gr. bullets. But work up from 36.
*My rifle has the 1-14" twist.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
This is a great thread. I am currently having a rifle built and need to make a decision on cartridge very soon. I want the rifle to shoot tactical first and foremost. I expect the rifle to weight about 12 lbs total with scope and have a 22" barrel. Here are some factors I have been considering in my decision:
Not only are short actions stiffer, a Short action allows you to cycle the bolt without lifting your head from the stock. Long actions vary depending on LOP and how close the bolt comes to your face when open.
I know there are tons of reasons to like 308 despite what it lacks in long range FPS and BC. One more thing which may be a benefit is F-class. With a 308, you can compete in F-Class F-T/R. This class requires competitors to shoot either 223 or 308 from a bipod. Much more appropriate for a tactical rifle. I don't know how 260, 6.5x47 and others fare in the F-Open class where many competitors are using 18lbs rifles from sandbag rests. But F-Class could be good practice especially when tactical matches seem few and far between.
Lastly, I'll just say I'm leaning towards 308 a little in my decision because I know loading for it will be cheaper, and easier to get it to perform. 6.5x47 is very tempting, but the cost of brass is worrisome. 260 is tempting, but having to form all my brass from 243 or 308 is not as appealing. Also, I hear some complain that 260 can be finicky to load for. 308 is hard to beat when consider all 20-30 factors, but I still haven't made up my mind just yet. Maybe 7-08 with Winchester brass and 162-168gr. as a good compromise?
This is a great thread. I am currently having a rifle built and need to make a decision on cartridge very soon. I want the rifle to shoot tactical first and foremost. I expect the rifle to weight about 12 lbs total with scope and have a 22" barrel. Here are some factors I have been considering in my decision:
Not only are short actions stiffer, a Short action allows you to cycle the bolt without lifting your head from the stock. Long actions vary depending on LOP and how close the bolt comes to your face when open.
I know there are tons of reasons to like 308 despite what it lacks in long range FPS and BC. One more thing which may be a benefit is F-class. With a 308, you can compete in F-Class F-T/R. This class requires competitors to shoot either 223 or 308 from a bipod. Much more appropriate for a tactical rifle. I don't know how 260, 6.5x47 and others fare in the F-Open class where many competitors are using 18lbs rifles from sandbag rests. But F-Class could be good practice especially when tactical matches seem few and far between.
Lastly, I'll just say I'm leaning towards 308 a little in my decision because I know loading for it will be cheaper, and easier to get it to perform. 6.5x47 is very tempting, but the cost of brass is worrisome. 260 is tempting, but having to form all my brass from 243 or 308 is not as appealing. Also, I hear some complain that 260 can be finicky to load for. 308 is hard to beat when consider all 20-30 factors, but I still haven't made up my mind just yet. Maybe 7-08 with Winchester brass and 162-168gr. as a good compromise?
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Blue Ridge-
The thing I would point out here is that I have found the 260 to be extremely easy to load for in several rifles. I'm not sure who's complaining about it being finicky, but my experience and the experiences that I've been told by several others on here are quite the opposite.
Blue Ridge-
The thing I would point out here is that I have found the 260 to be extremely easy to load for in several rifles. I'm not sure who's complaining about it being finicky, but my experience and the experiences that I've been told by several others on here are quite the opposite.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Blue Ridge-
The thing I would point out here is that I have found the 260 to be extremely easy to load for in several rifles. I'm not sure who's complaining about it being finicky, but my experience and the experiences that I've been told by several others on here are quite the opposite.</div></div>
I don't load for the .260 but I get the same feedback as Bohem about loading for it. Very easy to get what you need from it.
Personally, I went with the 7mm-08 just for that little bit more range and wind resistance. Both pretty much hand the .308 it's lunch.
So, to me it boils down to what you want to do. If you shoot Palma, F/TR, or any comp that requires a .308 then that's the thing to get. If you want the best ballistics it's almost a toss-up between the 6.5's {.260, 6.5 CM, 6.5x47} and the 7mm-08. A step up would be the 6.5-.284 or the .280/.280AI Even further would be the 6.5 Rem mag/.264 Win or 7mmWSM/7 Rem mag. Barrel life begins to be huge at that point.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Blue Ridge-
The thing I would point out here is that I have found the 260 to be extremely easy to load for in several rifles. I'm not sure who's complaining about it being finicky, but my experience and the experiences that I've been told by several others on here are quite the opposite.</div></div>
I don't load for the .260 but I get the same feedback as Bohem about loading for it. Very easy to get what you need from it.
Personally, I went with the 7mm-08 just for that little bit more range and wind resistance. Both pretty much hand the .308 it's lunch.
So, to me it boils down to what you want to do. If you shoot Palma, F/TR, or any comp that requires a .308 then that's the thing to get. If you want the best ballistics it's almost a toss-up between the 6.5's {.260, 6.5 CM, 6.5x47} and the 7mm-08. A step up would be the 6.5-.284 or the .280/.280AI Even further would be the 6.5 Rem mag/.264 Win or 7mmWSM/7 Rem mag. Barrel life begins to be huge at that point.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Blue Ridge-
The thing I would point out here is that I have found the 260 to be extremely easy to load for in several rifles. I'm not sure who's complaining about it being finicky, but my experience and the experiences that I've been told by several others on here are quite the opposite.</div></div>
I don't load for the .260 but I get the same feedback as Bohem about loading for it. Very easy to get what you need from it.
Personally, I went with the 7mm-08 just for that little bit more range and wind resistance. Both pretty much hand the .308 it's lunch.
So, to me it boils down to what you want to do. If you shoot Palma, F/TR, or any comp that requires a .308 then that's the thing to get. If you want the best ballistics it's almost a toss-up between the 6.5's {.260, 6.5 CM, 6.5x47} and the 7mm-08. A step up would be the 6.5-.284 or the .280/.280AI Even further would be the 6.5 Rem mag/.264 Win or 7mmWSM/7 Rem mag. Barrel life begins to be huge at that point. </div></div>
Thanks. For me, I like the real world application of rifle to be used at long range, unknown ranges, moving targets, portable and can balance well enough to easily shoot prone, sitting and offhand. That said, I'll be using this rifle in F-class for practice. So F-T/R vs. F-Open (or 308 vs. the 6.5mm and 7mm cartridges) is a factor.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Blue Ridge-
The thing I would point out here is that I have found the 260 to be extremely easy to load for in several rifles. I'm not sure who's complaining about it being finicky, but my experience and the experiences that I've been told by several others on here are quite the opposite.</div></div>
I don't load for the .260 but I get the same feedback as Bohem about loading for it. Very easy to get what you need from it.
Personally, I went with the 7mm-08 just for that little bit more range and wind resistance. Both pretty much hand the .308 it's lunch.
So, to me it boils down to what you want to do. If you shoot Palma, F/TR, or any comp that requires a .308 then that's the thing to get. If you want the best ballistics it's almost a toss-up between the 6.5's {.260, 6.5 CM, 6.5x47} and the 7mm-08. A step up would be the 6.5-.284 or the .280/.280AI Even further would be the 6.5 Rem mag/.264 Win or 7mmWSM/7 Rem mag. Barrel life begins to be huge at that point. </div></div>
Thanks. For me, I like the real world application of rifle to be used at long range, unknown ranges, moving targets, portable and can balance well enough to easily shoot prone, sitting and offhand. That said, I'll be using this rifle in F-class for practice. So F-T/R vs. F-Open (or 308 vs. the 6.5mm and 7mm cartridges) is a factor.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Bohem, Are you sure 7x57, 257 Roberts and 6mm Rem (necked down from 7x57 case) are short action cartridges? 57mm seems longer than your avg short action receiver will fit. As a comparison, you have 6.5x55 listed under long action and it is 2mm shorter.
Bohem, Are you sure 7x57, 257 Roberts and 6mm Rem (necked down from 7x57 case) are short action cartridges? 57mm seems longer than your avg short action receiver will fit. As a comparison, you have 6.5x55 listed under long action and it is 2mm shorter.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blue_ridge</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bohem, Are you sure 7x57, 257 Roberts and 6mm Rem (necked down from 7x57 case) are short action cartridges? 57mm seems longer than your avg short action receiver will fit. As a comparison, you have 6.5x55 listed under long action and it is 2mm shorter.</div></div>
Blue ridge,
Those three cartridges are stuffed into a short action by Remington. Winchester and Ruger put them in their standard long action. Savage doesn't chamber any of the three.
FWIW, the 6mm Rem isn't just a 7x57 necked down to 6mm. The case shoulders are moved forward to give a 26 deg. angle instead of the parent cartridge angle of 20 deg. Also, the shoulder is just the tiniest bit wider at .431" instead of .429"
<span style="color: #3333FF">Edit:
Of course the Mauser action is just a bit shorter than the Rem, Win and Ruger long actions.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blue_ridge</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bohem, Are you sure 7x57, 257 Roberts and 6mm Rem (necked down from 7x57 case) are short action cartridges? 57mm seems longer than your avg short action receiver will fit. As a comparison, you have 6.5x55 listed under long action and it is 2mm shorter.</div></div>
Blue ridge,
Those three cartridges are stuffed into a short action by Remington. Winchester and Ruger put them in their standard long action. Savage doesn't chamber any of the three.
FWIW, the 6mm Rem isn't just a 7x57 necked down to 6mm. The case shoulders are moved forward to give a 26 deg. angle instead of the parent cartridge angle of 20 deg. Also, the shoulder is just the tiniest bit wider at .431" instead of .429"
<span style="color: #3333FF">Edit:
Of course the Mauser action is just a bit shorter than the Rem, Win and Ruger long actions.</span>
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blue_ridge</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bohem, Are you sure 7x57, 257 Roberts and 6mm Rem (necked down from 7x57 case) are short action cartridges? 57mm seems longer than your avg short action receiver will fit. As a comparison, you have 6.5x55 listed under long action and it is 2mm shorter.</div></div>
Blue ridge,
Those three cartridges are stuffed into a short action by Remington. Winchester and Ruger put them in their standard long action. Savage doesn't chamber any of the three.
FWIW, the 6mm Rem isn't just a 7x57 necked down to 6mm. The case shoulders are moved forward to give a 26 deg. angle instead of the parent cartridge angle of 20 deg. Also, the shoulder is just the tiniest bit wider at .431" instead of .429"
<span style="color: #3333FF">Edit:
Of course the Mauser action is just a bit shorter than the Rem, Win and Ruger long actions.</span> </div></div>
Thanks for the clarification. Very interesting. But I do think what we're mostly after is a cartridge launching high BC bullets and quite often out of detachable box magazines. Basically anything that can fit the longest bullets without seating below the neck/shoulder junction but still keep the COAL below 2.800"-2.950" depending on specific action and magazine used. So the choices get narrowed to families of cartridges based on the 308, 6BR, 7.62x39, WSSM, 30TC (6.5 Creedmoor), 6.5x47, 223, 300 Savage and not much else.
For me, to get the best performance out of a tactical rig w/DBM and 24" or shorter barrel, at up to 1000yds., it boils down to 308, 260, 6.5x47, 6.5 Creedmoor and 7mm-08. Of those, I think I am down to 260 and 308. 308 would be a little easier/cheaper to load and allow me to shoot F-T/R for fun/practice. 260 may be the best all around for my purposes, may require some experimentation with different brass and I could still shoot in F-class Open for fun even though I may not be very competitive. 6.5x47 is my dark horse because it seems inherently accurate (like the 308), offers ballistic advantage of 6.5 bullets and load it straight from Lapua brass. Decisions, decisions...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blue_ridge</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bohem, Are you sure 7x57, 257 Roberts and 6mm Rem (necked down from 7x57 case) are short action cartridges? 57mm seems longer than your avg short action receiver will fit. As a comparison, you have 6.5x55 listed under long action and it is 2mm shorter.</div></div>
Blue ridge,
Those three cartridges are stuffed into a short action by Remington. Winchester and Ruger put them in their standard long action. Savage doesn't chamber any of the three.
FWIW, the 6mm Rem isn't just a 7x57 necked down to 6mm. The case shoulders are moved forward to give a 26 deg. angle instead of the parent cartridge angle of 20 deg. Also, the shoulder is just the tiniest bit wider at .431" instead of .429"
<span style="color: #3333FF">Edit:
Of course the Mauser action is just a bit shorter than the Rem, Win and Ruger long actions.</span> </div></div>
Thanks for the clarification. Very interesting. But I do think what we're mostly after is a cartridge launching high BC bullets and quite often out of detachable box magazines. Basically anything that can fit the longest bullets without seating below the neck/shoulder junction but still keep the COAL below 2.800"-2.950" depending on specific action and magazine used. So the choices get narrowed to families of cartridges based on the 308, 6BR, 7.62x39, WSSM, 30TC (6.5 Creedmoor), 6.5x47, 223, 300 Savage and not much else.
For me, to get the best performance out of a tactical rig w/DBM and 24" or shorter barrel, at up to 1000yds., it boils down to 308, 260, 6.5x47, 6.5 Creedmoor and 7mm-08. Of those, I think I am down to 260 and 308. 308 would be a little easier/cheaper to load and allow me to shoot F-T/R for fun/practice. 260 may be the best all around for my purposes, may require some experimentation with different brass and I could still shoot in F-class Open for fun even though I may not be very competitive. 6.5x47 is my dark horse because it seems inherently accurate (like the 308), offers ballistic advantage of 6.5 bullets and load it straight from Lapua brass. Decisions, decisions...
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
blue-
When I placed them in that category it was done because of the reasons that Sandwarrior gave. I did the same thing for one of the 6.5mm mag rounds as well. It was shoved into a short action but we all know it really belongs in a long action.
To my knowledge, Remington/Winchester/Ruger/Savage never put the 6.5x55 in a short action and we're all running it in a long action. That's the whole reason.
I don't consider the Mauser to be a long or a short, it's split between them and I think it's a "medium" action as the length of the magazines on a model 98 is ~ 3.3" instead of 2.85" or 3.65"
If you were to split that list up by what caliber will fit long, heavy VLD's into the magazine without giving up powder capacity most of the short action rounds would get pushed to a long action. The short and long of the situation is that bullet lengths have quickly outpaced the action lengths of the rounds that are commonly associated with them.
Sticking to a DBM further gives a reduction because it depends what DBM you have in mind. There are some SA DBM setups which allow for 2.800" COAL and some that allow as much as 3" as I've been told. If you take a 260 and load it at 2.800" instead of 2.950" you can easily see the differences that would make such a breakdown quite complicated.
Cross referencing each case/bullet/reamer combination against each bottom metal would not be a reasonable reference list. Case in point:
I just got a 7mm/300 WSM reamer custom ground from PTG to shoot 180 VLD's but I had Mr. Kiff shorten up the freebore some so that it would "burn in" and allow me a little longer throat life. To avoid any hassles I simply plan to put the round into a long action and run a long action bottom metal so I can seat the bullets as long as I dare in the neck.
If I were to do this on a short action (since technically the WSM cases should fit there) I could hold myself to as short as 2.800 or as long as 3.00" but either way I'm still about 0.050" short of where the reamer sets up the 180's to start.
Now, this isn't to say you don't raise a valid point. Correctly stated, these rounds (57mm muaser case) really don't fit in a short action and I like to see the discussion about how to best use them. I have them currently listed in both places for that reason. I hesitate to take them out of the short action list because someone will say "Hey, I have a factory Rem 700 that's chambered in 7mm Mauser and your list is wrong".
blue-
When I placed them in that category it was done because of the reasons that Sandwarrior gave. I did the same thing for one of the 6.5mm mag rounds as well. It was shoved into a short action but we all know it really belongs in a long action.
To my knowledge, Remington/Winchester/Ruger/Savage never put the 6.5x55 in a short action and we're all running it in a long action. That's the whole reason.
I don't consider the Mauser to be a long or a short, it's split between them and I think it's a "medium" action as the length of the magazines on a model 98 is ~ 3.3" instead of 2.85" or 3.65"
If you were to split that list up by what caliber will fit long, heavy VLD's into the magazine without giving up powder capacity most of the short action rounds would get pushed to a long action. The short and long of the situation is that bullet lengths have quickly outpaced the action lengths of the rounds that are commonly associated with them.
Sticking to a DBM further gives a reduction because it depends what DBM you have in mind. There are some SA DBM setups which allow for 2.800" COAL and some that allow as much as 3" as I've been told. If you take a 260 and load it at 2.800" instead of 2.950" you can easily see the differences that would make such a breakdown quite complicated.
Cross referencing each case/bullet/reamer combination against each bottom metal would not be a reasonable reference list. Case in point:
I just got a 7mm/300 WSM reamer custom ground from PTG to shoot 180 VLD's but I had Mr. Kiff shorten up the freebore some so that it would "burn in" and allow me a little longer throat life. To avoid any hassles I simply plan to put the round into a long action and run a long action bottom metal so I can seat the bullets as long as I dare in the neck.
If I were to do this on a short action (since technically the WSM cases should fit there) I could hold myself to as short as 2.800 or as long as 3.00" but either way I'm still about 0.050" short of where the reamer sets up the 180's to start.
Now, this isn't to say you don't raise a valid point. Correctly stated, these rounds (57mm muaser case) really don't fit in a short action and I like to see the discussion about how to best use them. I have them currently listed in both places for that reason. I hesitate to take them out of the short action list because someone will say "Hey, I have a factory Rem 700 that's chambered in 7mm Mauser and your list is wrong".
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Blue,
Whether a cartridge is a SA or LA one depends more on it's final COAL (as you or the factory loads it).
The boundary where a a SA Rem 700 stops and a LA Rem 700 begins has been changing over time, as new products come to market.
At one time a REM 700 SA was limited to 2.825", because that was the length MAX of it's internal magazine. But today there are a variety of extend internal mag boxes and DBM's.
Just considering DBM's, here are the most common readily available:
First original AI Mags:
AW 10rd Mag 2.980" OAL
AICS Mags 5 or 10 RD 2.880" OAL
AE mk1 5rd Mag 2.980" OAL
MORTA Mags:
Type 1 2.850" OAL
Type 2 2.960" OAL
Seekins Precision Proprietary
.308 2.940" OAL
WSM 3.14" OAL
As you can see, you could load a 284 Win. into a Seekins WSM DBM and stretch out to near 3.14". No need to necessarily put it into a LA to maximize performance. In addition, Wyatts makes a number of extended internal mag boxes, that can expand your choices.
So some cartridges normally though as LA, can be shoehorned into some SA with clever planning and some modest surgery. And cartridges normally thought as SA only, loaded with long VLD type bullets can be modified to work in LA's.
So what Remington put in a LA or SA, from the factory at one time, does not always apply now.
Bob
Blue,
Whether a cartridge is a SA or LA one depends more on it's final COAL (as you or the factory loads it).
The boundary where a a SA Rem 700 stops and a LA Rem 700 begins has been changing over time, as new products come to market.
At one time a REM 700 SA was limited to 2.825", because that was the length MAX of it's internal magazine. But today there are a variety of extend internal mag boxes and DBM's.
Just considering DBM's, here are the most common readily available:
First original AI Mags:
AW 10rd Mag 2.980" OAL
AICS Mags 5 or 10 RD 2.880" OAL
AE mk1 5rd Mag 2.980" OAL
MORTA Mags:
Type 1 2.850" OAL
Type 2 2.960" OAL
Seekins Precision Proprietary
.308 2.940" OAL
WSM 3.14" OAL
As you can see, you could load a 284 Win. into a Seekins WSM DBM and stretch out to near 3.14". No need to necessarily put it into a LA to maximize performance. In addition, Wyatts makes a number of extended internal mag boxes, that can expand your choices.
So some cartridges normally though as LA, can be shoehorned into some SA with clever planning and some modest surgery. And cartridges normally thought as SA only, loaded with long VLD type bullets can be modified to work in LA's.
So what Remington put in a LA or SA, from the factory at one time, does not always apply now.
Bob
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Bob,
In addition to your point about mag lengths, don't you also have to modify the receiver so a cartridge over 2.8 will feed up through the bottom of the receiver? I don't know if there are any drawbacks to filing a notch in the receiver, except my gunsmith did not recommend it. how much of an issue is it?
Bob,
In addition to your point about mag lengths, don't you also have to modify the receiver so a cartridge over 2.8 will feed up through the bottom of the receiver? I don't know if there are any drawbacks to filing a notch in the receiver, except my gunsmith did not recommend it. how much of an issue is it?
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Depending upon the receiver, yes. It is not a problem to take some material out of the feed ramp for the round to load as long as you do so within reason.
It is much less advisable to aggressively remove material with a double stack magazine instead of a single stack (or center feed) model. To make it feed properly from either side you need to take out more of the material.
I've done the stress modeling to validate material removal for some rounds in various actions. It's far too lengthy to detail in this thread. It also represents a significant amount of work on my part that I consider intellectual property. I know of only 2 other companies that have used a FEM analysis to validate their receiver designs for strength and rigidity, on that alone, I won't discuss the methods and assumptions used.
To make it work in a SA and blend out material to make a 2.8" action into a 3.0" action it is safe for anything modern and thru-hardened.
Depending upon the receiver, yes. It is not a problem to take some material out of the feed ramp for the round to load as long as you do so within reason.
It is much less advisable to aggressively remove material with a double stack magazine instead of a single stack (or center feed) model. To make it feed properly from either side you need to take out more of the material.
I've done the stress modeling to validate material removal for some rounds in various actions. It's far too lengthy to detail in this thread. It also represents a significant amount of work on my part that I consider intellectual property. I know of only 2 other companies that have used a FEM analysis to validate their receiver designs for strength and rigidity, on that alone, I won't discuss the methods and assumptions used.
To make it work in a SA and blend out material to make a 2.8" action into a 3.0" action it is safe for anything modern and thru-hardened.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blue_ridge</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bob,
In addition to your point about mag lengths, don't you also have to modify the receiver so a cartridge over 2.8 will feed up through the bottom of the receiver? I don't know if there are any drawbacks to filing a notch in the receiver, except my gunsmith did not recommend it. how much of an issue is it? </div></div>
It's not a issue as far as I'm aware of it. In this tread, post # #1839886, JR Rose has some pictures of his self notched feedramp:
Sniper Hide Morta Mags Thread
I would speak to some of the gunsmiths who frequent here about the merits of this modification. Not doubting your gunsmith, but in some cases, if he's never done it; equals not recommended.
Bob
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blue_ridge</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bob,
In addition to your point about mag lengths, don't you also have to modify the receiver so a cartridge over 2.8 will feed up through the bottom of the receiver? I don't know if there are any drawbacks to filing a notch in the receiver, except my gunsmith did not recommend it. how much of an issue is it? </div></div>
It's not a issue as far as I'm aware of it. In this tread, post # #1839886, JR Rose has some pictures of his self notched feedramp:
Sniper Hide Morta Mags Thread
I would speak to some of the gunsmiths who frequent here about the merits of this modification. Not doubting your gunsmith, but in some cases, if he's never done it; equals not recommended.
Bob
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Bob made some great points in regards to DBM begin a factor in what OAL you are going to be able to load, and thus should be a consideration in caliber/DBM selection. I want my next build to be either a .260 Rem or a 6.5x47L. I was planning on running a Surgeon DBM obviously with the AI mags. I know the AW is a double stack, double feed and has a greater OAL ability than the AI mag but I do not know of a DBM that accepts them besides an ACIS AW Chassis. I have an A5 on order that is to be inletted for a Surgeon DBM. Would either caliber be a problem tring to feed them for the AI mag?
In regards to OAL what is a common OAL for the .260Rem as well as the 6.5x47L.
Second would an 8 twist be better than a 8.5? I just had Roscoe build be a .308Win and went with a 10 twist which has worked well thus far. Several builds go slightly slower with the 11 or 11.25 twist.
Third I know most guys in a .260 Rem finish with a barrel length of 24"-26" what is the "normal" finish length in 6.5x47L?
Thanks in advance.
Bob made some great points in regards to DBM begin a factor in what OAL you are going to be able to load, and thus should be a consideration in caliber/DBM selection. I want my next build to be either a .260 Rem or a 6.5x47L. I was planning on running a Surgeon DBM obviously with the AI mags. I know the AW is a double stack, double feed and has a greater OAL ability than the AI mag but I do not know of a DBM that accepts them besides an ACIS AW Chassis. I have an A5 on order that is to be inletted for a Surgeon DBM. Would either caliber be a problem tring to feed them for the AI mag?
In regards to OAL what is a common OAL for the .260Rem as well as the 6.5x47L.
Second would an 8 twist be better than a 8.5? I just had Roscoe build be a .308Win and went with a 10 twist which has worked well thus far. Several builds go slightly slower with the 11 or 11.25 twist.
Third I know most guys in a .260 Rem finish with a barrel length of 24"-26" what is the "normal" finish length in 6.5x47L?
Thanks in advance.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Barney,
Lots of questions:
First: The GUARDIAN mag well is an innovation of Randy Cain at R&D Precision and it allows the rifle to be fed from Accuracy AI OR AW magazines. Typically a rifle can only be fed from one or the other, not both.
I would contact Randy to see if this mag well conversion can be done on your action, or if you you want to run AW mags at all.
Second: Either the 260 or 6.5x47 will feed nicely from the standard AI Mag. @ slightly less than 2.880".
Third: Standard COAL for the 260 Rem is 2.80". I could not find the COAL for the 6.5x47 Lapua, but as loaded by Lapua it is a bit shorter than 2.800".
Fourth: 1-8 twist to be safe for the heaviest 6.5 bullets like the 142 gr SMK.
Fifth: 26" for the 6.5x47, 260 can do as well with a 24" barrel. The 6.5x47 has less capacity.
IMHO,
Bob
Barney,
Lots of questions:
First: The GUARDIAN mag well is an innovation of Randy Cain at R&D Precision and it allows the rifle to be fed from Accuracy AI OR AW magazines. Typically a rifle can only be fed from one or the other, not both.
I would contact Randy to see if this mag well conversion can be done on your action, or if you you want to run AW mags at all.
Second: Either the 260 or 6.5x47 will feed nicely from the standard AI Mag. @ slightly less than 2.880".
Third: Standard COAL for the 260 Rem is 2.80". I could not find the COAL for the 6.5x47 Lapua, but as loaded by Lapua it is a bit shorter than 2.800".
Fourth: 1-8 twist to be safe for the heaviest 6.5 bullets like the 142 gr SMK.
Fifth: 26" for the 6.5x47, 260 can do as well with a 24" barrel. The 6.5x47 has less capacity.
IMHO,
Bob
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Definitely learned a few things here. Thanks for all the work putting this thread together.
Definitely learned a few things here. Thanks for all the work putting this thread together.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Definitely learned a few things here. Thanks for all the work putting this thread together.
Definitely learned a few things here. Thanks for all the work putting this thread together.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Have to say ... I'm enjoying this
Have to say ... I'm enjoying this
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vkc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of the 6.5mm bullets (.260Rem, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5x47 Lapua, etc),
Which one provides the longest barrel life, and what is the estimated count?
Which one has the most available factory ammo? Most accurate factory ammo? </div></div>
Most accurate ammo will most likely come from the creedmore... As far as the factory goes. But I think the .260 will shoot straighter for the handloader. The x47 has primer issues too often for my liking.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vkc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of the 6.5mm bullets (.260Rem, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5x47 Lapua, etc),
Which one provides the longest barrel life, and what is the estimated count?
Which one has the most available factory ammo? Most accurate factory ammo? </div></div>
Most accurate ammo will most likely come from the creedmore... As far as the factory goes. But I think the .260 will shoot straighter for the handloader. The x47 has primer issues too often for my liking.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Right now i,m on a x47 kick
Primer issues? requires bushed firing pin or correct size firing pin....none issue just common sense
243, 6SLR, 6.5SLR
243/260 done right, shoulder pushed back not AI
243 shown with 6GAP, neck up 6.5GAP, best thing since sliced bread
But for me until i prove myself wrong x47 is king, but oh i long to do a 6.5gap
Right now i,m on a x47 kick
Primer issues? requires bushed firing pin or correct size firing pin....none issue just common sense
243, 6SLR, 6.5SLR
243/260 done right, shoulder pushed back not AI
243 shown with 6GAP, neck up 6.5GAP, best thing since sliced bread
But for me until i prove myself wrong x47 is king, but oh i long to do a 6.5gap
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Like AI's, I think that the smaller cases tend to get run hotter. I know this is counterintuitive, but I think that if you don't get the hotloading bug, the .260 will be able to deliver the good performance (not necessarily the peak performance) with less pressure, etc. in the engine room.
I know a lotta folks are wedded to the idea of wringing out that last drop of performance. It comes at a price, and that price is burnt throats.
But fact is, whatever the drop and drift are, they are, and getting the wind wrong with the hotshot is just as disappointing as it is with any other level of performance. Save you a point or two once in awhile? Sure, but what's it costing you in worn out barrels?
What do we really need? We need to be doing around 1200fps-maybe 1300fps at the target. More than that? Why? I know there are good reasons, I just don't know if they're good enough to justify the additional barrel wear.
Greg
Like AI's, I think that the smaller cases tend to get run hotter. I know this is counterintuitive, but I think that if you don't get the hotloading bug, the .260 will be able to deliver the good performance (not necessarily the peak performance) with less pressure, etc. in the engine room.
I know a lotta folks are wedded to the idea of wringing out that last drop of performance. It comes at a price, and that price is burnt throats.
But fact is, whatever the drop and drift are, they are, and getting the wind wrong with the hotshot is just as disappointing as it is with any other level of performance. Save you a point or two once in awhile? Sure, but what's it costing you in worn out barrels?
What do we really need? We need to be doing around 1200fps-maybe 1300fps at the target. More than that? Why? I know there are good reasons, I just don't know if they're good enough to justify the additional barrel wear.
Greg
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
the question regarding which 6.5mm / .260 cartridge to pick keeps popping up. Here is a link to the thread that has truly been beaten to death. Hopefully this will slow down the rate of meaningless posts.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">6.5x47 vs 260 and 6.5creedmore</span></span>
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...1776#Post901776
the question regarding which 6.5mm / .260 cartridge to pick keeps popping up. Here is a link to the thread that has truly been beaten to death. Hopefully this will slow down the rate of meaningless posts.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">6.5x47 vs 260 and 6.5creedmore</span></span>
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...1776#Post901776
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ranger1183</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the question regarding which 6.5mm / .260 cartridge to pick keeps popping up. Here is a link to the thread that has truly been beaten to death. Hopefully this will slow down the rate of meaningless posts.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">6.5x47 vs 260 and 6.5creedmore</span></span>
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...1776#Post901776
</div></div>
I'm not sure the other thread came to a solution, but for that purpose, the 6.5x47 not only has great brass but you can also chase the lands out a little farther while still being mag length. As Greg noted, and I've said this many times too, when you go with a shorter case and try to get the same velocity you wear out barrels faster. So, it's the consumate tradeoff. It depends on what you want the most of. As Zak Smith pointed out, if you have one neither of the other two is going to be an improvement. But, if looking for one or the other then each has a facet you may prefer.
I'm still all about a moderately pushed 7mm of higher BC.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ranger1183</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the question regarding which 6.5mm / .260 cartridge to pick keeps popping up. Here is a link to the thread that has truly been beaten to death. Hopefully this will slow down the rate of meaningless posts.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">6.5x47 vs 260 and 6.5creedmore</span></span>
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...1776#Post901776
</div></div>
I'm not sure the other thread came to a solution, but for that purpose, the 6.5x47 not only has great brass but you can also chase the lands out a little farther while still being mag length. As Greg noted, and I've said this many times too, when you go with a shorter case and try to get the same velocity you wear out barrels faster. So, it's the consumate tradeoff. It depends on what you want the most of. As Zak Smith pointed out, if you have one neither of the other two is going to be an improvement. But, if looking for one or the other then each has a facet you may prefer.
I'm still all about a moderately pushed 7mm of higher BC.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
The same is true of the bigger case. The key is to find a case (AND bore length) with an expansion ratio that approaches, but does not arrive, at the overbore range. This is why (IMHO)the .308 can perform so well with a shorter barrel, the expansion ratio changes.
The .260, and the .30-'06 have this expansion ratio relationship if one uses appropriate length bores. For the larger bore diameter (7mm), the larger case (.280) maps out this better expansion ratio in the same way as the .260 does for the .308's case capacity. By the time one gets up to the 7mm mags, the overbore threshold has been crossed.
IMHO...
Greg
The same is true of the bigger case. The key is to find a case (AND bore length) with an expansion ratio that approaches, but does not arrive, at the overbore range. This is why (IMHO)the .308 can perform so well with a shorter barrel, the expansion ratio changes.
The .260, and the .30-'06 have this expansion ratio relationship if one uses appropriate length bores. For the larger bore diameter (7mm), the larger case (.280) maps out this better expansion ratio in the same way as the .260 does for the .308's case capacity. By the time one gets up to the 7mm mags, the overbore threshold has been crossed.
IMHO...
Greg
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Jedi-
I'm not sure what the 6 GAP has over the 6 Rem AI (as I believe it's the same case with a different shoulder angle?) and the 7 GAP has on a 7x57 AI (parent case for the 6 Rem).
Without numbers to support the claims as to why it's better than sliced bread I'm not convinced. In the mindset of this thread, could you please put up some corroborating evidence to support the pros/cons of the rounds you've mentioned?
I do like the Super LR series of cases. Same case capacity as the 243/260/7-08 bretheren but longer necks and sharper shoulders to help with brass life and throat life and the same performance.
I'm not making this a personal attack, just a reminder that we're trying to keep this sticked topic running as information and hard support, not opinion based "do this and don't look back" type input. No offense meant, please don't take it that way.
Jedi-
I'm not sure what the 6 GAP has over the 6 Rem AI (as I believe it's the same case with a different shoulder angle?) and the 7 GAP has on a 7x57 AI (parent case for the 6 Rem).
Without numbers to support the claims as to why it's better than sliced bread I'm not convinced. In the mindset of this thread, could you please put up some corroborating evidence to support the pros/cons of the rounds you've mentioned?
I do like the Super LR series of cases. Same case capacity as the 243/260/7-08 bretheren but longer necks and sharper shoulders to help with brass life and throat life and the same performance.
I'm not making this a personal attack, just a reminder that we're trying to keep this sticked topic running as information and hard support, not opinion based "do this and don't look back" type input. No offense meant, please don't take it that way.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
no offense taken
6GAP is indeed variation of 6rem AI
the rest is open to much conjecture, personal opinions being what they are.
INFO can be found here, 6br and many other websites
those who have a quest for info can find it easy enuff
Digest as you see fit, i simply provided an input and my opinion.
6.5/257 AI, 6.5/6rem AI or whatever ya wanna call it
IMHO has many attributes of interest, whether or not you agree is subjective....as is this topic
no offense taken
6GAP is indeed variation of 6rem AI
the rest is open to much conjecture, personal opinions being what they are.
INFO can be found here, 6br and many other websites
those who have a quest for info can find it easy enuff
Digest as you see fit, i simply provided an input and my opinion.
6.5/257 AI, 6.5/6rem AI or whatever ya wanna call it
IMHO has many attributes of interest, whether or not you agree is subjective....as is this topic
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dstnpyn1/</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what kind of barrel life could one expect out of a 7mm SAUM?
</div></div>
Barrel life and case capacity (in H2O) are closely related.
So:
7mm-08 54 grains
7mm Mauser 59 grains
284 Winchester 66 grains
280 Rem 68 Grains
280 Rem AI 73 grains
7mm SAUM 74 grains
7mm WSM 81 grains
7mm Rem Mag 84 grains
I not sure anyone can give you a definitive answer, as actual barrel life is dependent on many things, such as your barrel steel, your load, number of rounds fired in quick sequences, accuracy goals, et al.
But many have postulated, that a 7mm-08 is good for 3k to 4.5k rounds, then a 7mm SAUM will be less. I would guess between 2k and 2.5k rounds with careful shooting, and still retaining accuracy for tactical (not benchrest match) shooting.
But it is still just a guess on my part. Build one and let us know!
But I will say that high performance in terms of maximum FPS with heavy 7mm bullets, and long barrel life, are not mutually compatible. The reason for the 7mm SAUM is to approach magnum velocities with heavy bullets, in a short action, in a case that is minimally overbore. Very Long barrel life would not necessarily be one of it's attributes, as compared to smaller and lessor performing 7mm cartridges.
Everything is a trade off. If you want 2900 FPS plus with a 180 gr. 7mm bullet, then you need to burn powder to get there, and barrel life will be what it will be.
Best of luck with your project.
Bob
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dstnpyn1/</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what kind of barrel life could one expect out of a 7mm SAUM?
</div></div>
Barrel life and case capacity (in H2O) are closely related.
So:
7mm-08 54 grains
7mm Mauser 59 grains
284 Winchester 66 grains
280 Rem 68 Grains
280 Rem AI 73 grains
7mm SAUM 74 grains
7mm WSM 81 grains
7mm Rem Mag 84 grains
I not sure anyone can give you a definitive answer, as actual barrel life is dependent on many things, such as your barrel steel, your load, number of rounds fired in quick sequences, accuracy goals, et al.
But many have postulated, that a 7mm-08 is good for 3k to 4.5k rounds, then a 7mm SAUM will be less. I would guess between 2k and 2.5k rounds with careful shooting, and still retaining accuracy for tactical (not benchrest match) shooting.
But it is still just a guess on my part. Build one and let us know!
But I will say that high performance in terms of maximum FPS with heavy 7mm bullets, and long barrel life, are not mutually compatible. The reason for the 7mm SAUM is to approach magnum velocities with heavy bullets, in a short action, in a case that is minimally overbore. Very Long barrel life would not necessarily be one of it's attributes, as compared to smaller and lessor performing 7mm cartridges.
Everything is a trade off. If you want 2900 FPS plus with a 180 gr. 7mm bullet, then you need to burn powder to get there, and barrel life will be what it will be.
Best of luck with your project.
Bob
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
I'm working on building my first custom rifle. I've got a savage action with a 300 win mag bolt face. I have no idea what cartridges can be used with this bolt face i will be using this for hunting and target shooting at 1000+ yards. I have a 308 win but i would like something a lot hotter either in 30 cal or 338 cal. I really like the lazzeroni cartridges but i just don't kwow much about them or if they would even work in my action. Any advice would be great. Thanks
I'm working on building my first custom rifle. I've got a savage action with a 300 win mag bolt face. I have no idea what cartridges can be used with this bolt face i will be using this for hunting and target shooting at 1000+ yards. I have a 308 win but i would like something a lot hotter either in 30 cal or 338 cal. I really like the lazzeroni cartridges but i just don't kwow much about them or if they would even work in my action. Any advice would be great. Thanks
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Wahoo, the first post of this thread has a lengthy breakdown of cases that work with a long action, mag bolt face rifle.
Wahoo, the first post of this thread has a lengthy breakdown of cases that work with a long action, mag bolt face rifle.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
When it comes to choosing a caliber, one area that I would also recommend factoring-in are overall procurement costs. Believe it or not, higher costs might actually translate to lower accuracy. I can hear many of you protesting already, but I ask that you follow me on this one.
We’ve all seen the posts of those who are new to SH asking, “What’s the best <blank>?” I apologize for giving the generic business consultant’s answer but, “It depends.” One of the biggest unnamed factors is budget. I think many beginner and intermediate shooters can suffer from “sticker shock” when contemplating the possible initial costs associated with the long gun – reloading press, dies, tools, barreled action, scope, bipod, stock, brass, powder, projectiles, primers, cases, and various “gotta have’s”. Consequently, they may skimp on the two most important elements of shooting – proper training and instruction.
Some of the discussions that I have seen on the Hide centered solely on the cost of ammo. It is easy to understand why we focus on this so readily – go to MWUSA, look-up a price, average the cost, order, receive, load, and shoot. In reality though, many of us might spend more on our platform (rifle, optics, bipod) than we would on ammunition. To elaborate, it’s not just the initial cost of the gear, but also for any after-market products, machining, or modifications that are performed. When factoring all of the costs associated with building a great rifle, the cost of shooting isn’t just about the cost of the projectile or the powder; one must consider the entire cost of acquiring and operating the platform. In other words for a single rifle’s lifetime - it’s not just the cost of the bullet, it’s the cost of squeezing the trigger.
One keen member posted a message in this thread about burnt throats versus flatter trajectories. Several other astute members have pointed-out the inverse relationship between barrel life and velocity. I think we all know at a fundamental level that all of those burnt throats and barrels translate to greater costs (new barreled actions, machining, and shipping), more down-time, less ammo, and (most importantly) less trigger time.
I know all of us are dedicated shooters and willing to bear the financial costs associated with our chosen passion, but I’m sure I speak for the vast majority of the members when I say that we are on limited budgets. Consequently, every dollar spent on, for example, calibrated seating dies is a dollar that can’t be spent on, say, an AI 2.0 chassis. For that matter, budget affects our ability to purchase 338 Lapua Magnum brass (if it’s even available!) at $1.60 as compared to 308 brass at $0.91 (43% less than 338).
Ultimately, I hope to show that taking a “globally optimized” view (looking at all pertinent costs) versus “locally optimized” (only considering the cost of the ammo) might benefit the end-user. I am not advocated 308 outright in this string but as an example, 308 and the Remington 700 have excellent depth and breadth of market and after-market products and services. For this discussion I’m defining breadth as the wider range of products and services that one might find for one particular caliber or model versus another. For example, a machining service that is readily available for 700’s might not be available at all (or at least considerably more expensive) for another caliber and model.
As for depth, I define that as the range of prices, quality, and variations of products and services that one might find in a particular product line. An example might be bottom metal. Finding a range of quality bottom metal suppliers and great gunsmiths at competitive prices for the 700 is very easy. In economic terms, one could call this an “elastic market”; where prices respond quickly to supply and demand. The depth of supply and vendors tends to drive down cost while increasing quality.
On the other side of the supply / demand equation, vendors see the 700 as a ready market, thus their motivation to enter or even expand their current line of goods and services. Ultimately, 308 continues to be so popular because, well, it’s so popular. Conversely, just because there might be several shooters who own a relatively uncommon caliber doesn’t directly translate to a comparable number of vendors to service that caliber.
By going with 308 and a Remington 700 (or any other very common caliber and model) instead of something more exotic and esoteric, it allows the owner the ability to “scale-up” the level of involvement and financial commitment over time versus plunking-down a massive amount of cash for gear at the outset. One can start with an out-of-the-box rifle and ease into the rest of the gear and machining (if desired) over several months or even years. In fact, this is exactly what I have been doing ever since procuring my long gun.
One of my best friends, who is an avid SH participant, has been guiding me through the process of upgrading. My good friend has promised to stop spending net money on his long guns. He has challenged himself to use current rifles and gear to finance future purchases. In short, he must sell a rifle to get a rifle (or other gear). Because of this eye on price (cost), he is driven to consolidate his collection and search-out the best gunsmiths and equipment possible while still retaining the important budget for range time. Consequently, I am able to coat-tail his work. Due to the fact that I use a 700 in 308 (SA), it is very easy for him to make recommendations for products and vendors who offer competitive prices, thus helping me to achieve the hot-sh*t rifle that I am looking for. In the mean time, I can garner more trigger time due to the fact that I haven’t made a massive purchase on the frontend. The good Lord knows I need it.
Few of us want to admit it, but costs matter. It’s not just the cost of the gear; it’s a cost to our ability to send projectiles down range. When we look at the three critical elements that comprise a single shot, they are 1) the platform, 2) the ammo, and 3) the trigger nut actuator. I think we can all agree on the weakest link in that chain – the shooter. High / lower cost translates to less / more practice time. Sure, one can own a rifle that shoots ¼ MOA at 1000 yards with tuned reloads. But, does the shooter have the trigger time and resulting ability to estimate range and read the wind in order to match his “hot sh*t” rifle? Another way to look at it - there is no doubt that the 308 is simply incapable of approaching the near-mythical precision of the 6PPC. Yet what beginner or intermediate shooter would be able to purchase such an amazing platform, reload the ammo, and garner enough range time to equal the capabilities of this caliber?
Additionally, shooting is a highly perishable skill. Anything that impinges our consistent practice (i.e. high costs) is a detriment to accuracy and precision. Put a great rifle in a safe, wait 20 years and it will still be a great rifle. I’m sure we can all agree that putting our training on-hold for 20 years would not result in equally great performance.
As an analogy, when I teach others how to shoot handguns, I **always** start them on the 22 cal. It helps the student to avoid flinch, thus helping me to diagnose what they’re doing incorrectly. Ultimately, this encourages the user to do the one thing that we all need to do – sling a lot of lead correctly. The low cost (about 2 cents / pop) means that my students are very comfortable with shooting 200 – 300 rounds in a single session. That translates to a mere $4 - $6 per session. Compare this to the cost of shooting 45 caliber and that is only 10 – 15 rounds, which translates to about 1/20th the practice. Additionally, due to the low cost of shooting, we will have addressed “9-out-of-10” of the shooting fundamentals. Then, we can work on the final fundamental – dealing with flinch. Using this methodology, I have seen tremendous improvements in accuracy, consistency, and all-around performance from my students. Lowering the cost of operation has actually increased their overall accuracy and shooting skill, especially with the bigger calibers. Increasing the per-shot price would have actually been detrimental to their training. Costs matter.
In the spirit of this thread, as a suggestion, it might be useful to post prices associated with the myriad products and services associated with each caliber, especially some of the lesser known calibers. This might help relatively inexperienced shooters to get a better grasp of how involved it might be to break into the field. Having a better idea of the initial costs will help the shooter make an informed decision before plunking-down good money. My hope is that lowering the costs (and barriers) will actually raise the quality of the shooter, typically the weakest link in the chain.
I realize that this post is more qualitative than quantitative, but I’m hoping that a slightly broader view of costs (versus “price”) might help guide the question of “What caliber?” I don’t think that I’m stating anything in this post that anyone else has not thought about already. But, I do think that I’m bringing to the forefront how this single factor affects the final answer to the perennial questions “What caliber?” and “How accurate?”
When it comes to choosing a caliber, one area that I would also recommend factoring-in are overall procurement costs. Believe it or not, higher costs might actually translate to lower accuracy. I can hear many of you protesting already, but I ask that you follow me on this one.
We’ve all seen the posts of those who are new to SH asking, “What’s the best <blank>?” I apologize for giving the generic business consultant’s answer but, “It depends.” One of the biggest unnamed factors is budget. I think many beginner and intermediate shooters can suffer from “sticker shock” when contemplating the possible initial costs associated with the long gun – reloading press, dies, tools, barreled action, scope, bipod, stock, brass, powder, projectiles, primers, cases, and various “gotta have’s”. Consequently, they may skimp on the two most important elements of shooting – proper training and instruction.
Some of the discussions that I have seen on the Hide centered solely on the cost of ammo. It is easy to understand why we focus on this so readily – go to MWUSA, look-up a price, average the cost, order, receive, load, and shoot. In reality though, many of us might spend more on our platform (rifle, optics, bipod) than we would on ammunition. To elaborate, it’s not just the initial cost of the gear, but also for any after-market products, machining, or modifications that are performed. When factoring all of the costs associated with building a great rifle, the cost of shooting isn’t just about the cost of the projectile or the powder; one must consider the entire cost of acquiring and operating the platform. In other words for a single rifle’s lifetime - it’s not just the cost of the bullet, it’s the cost of squeezing the trigger.
One keen member posted a message in this thread about burnt throats versus flatter trajectories. Several other astute members have pointed-out the inverse relationship between barrel life and velocity. I think we all know at a fundamental level that all of those burnt throats and barrels translate to greater costs (new barreled actions, machining, and shipping), more down-time, less ammo, and (most importantly) less trigger time.
I know all of us are dedicated shooters and willing to bear the financial costs associated with our chosen passion, but I’m sure I speak for the vast majority of the members when I say that we are on limited budgets. Consequently, every dollar spent on, for example, calibrated seating dies is a dollar that can’t be spent on, say, an AI 2.0 chassis. For that matter, budget affects our ability to purchase 338 Lapua Magnum brass (if it’s even available!) at $1.60 as compared to 308 brass at $0.91 (43% less than 338).
Ultimately, I hope to show that taking a “globally optimized” view (looking at all pertinent costs) versus “locally optimized” (only considering the cost of the ammo) might benefit the end-user. I am not advocated 308 outright in this string but as an example, 308 and the Remington 700 have excellent depth and breadth of market and after-market products and services. For this discussion I’m defining breadth as the wider range of products and services that one might find for one particular caliber or model versus another. For example, a machining service that is readily available for 700’s might not be available at all (or at least considerably more expensive) for another caliber and model.
As for depth, I define that as the range of prices, quality, and variations of products and services that one might find in a particular product line. An example might be bottom metal. Finding a range of quality bottom metal suppliers and great gunsmiths at competitive prices for the 700 is very easy. In economic terms, one could call this an “elastic market”; where prices respond quickly to supply and demand. The depth of supply and vendors tends to drive down cost while increasing quality.
On the other side of the supply / demand equation, vendors see the 700 as a ready market, thus their motivation to enter or even expand their current line of goods and services. Ultimately, 308 continues to be so popular because, well, it’s so popular. Conversely, just because there might be several shooters who own a relatively uncommon caliber doesn’t directly translate to a comparable number of vendors to service that caliber.
By going with 308 and a Remington 700 (or any other very common caliber and model) instead of something more exotic and esoteric, it allows the owner the ability to “scale-up” the level of involvement and financial commitment over time versus plunking-down a massive amount of cash for gear at the outset. One can start with an out-of-the-box rifle and ease into the rest of the gear and machining (if desired) over several months or even years. In fact, this is exactly what I have been doing ever since procuring my long gun.
One of my best friends, who is an avid SH participant, has been guiding me through the process of upgrading. My good friend has promised to stop spending net money on his long guns. He has challenged himself to use current rifles and gear to finance future purchases. In short, he must sell a rifle to get a rifle (or other gear). Because of this eye on price (cost), he is driven to consolidate his collection and search-out the best gunsmiths and equipment possible while still retaining the important budget for range time. Consequently, I am able to coat-tail his work. Due to the fact that I use a 700 in 308 (SA), it is very easy for him to make recommendations for products and vendors who offer competitive prices, thus helping me to achieve the hot-sh*t rifle that I am looking for. In the mean time, I can garner more trigger time due to the fact that I haven’t made a massive purchase on the frontend. The good Lord knows I need it.
Few of us want to admit it, but costs matter. It’s not just the cost of the gear; it’s a cost to our ability to send projectiles down range. When we look at the three critical elements that comprise a single shot, they are 1) the platform, 2) the ammo, and 3) the trigger nut actuator. I think we can all agree on the weakest link in that chain – the shooter. High / lower cost translates to less / more practice time. Sure, one can own a rifle that shoots ¼ MOA at 1000 yards with tuned reloads. But, does the shooter have the trigger time and resulting ability to estimate range and read the wind in order to match his “hot sh*t” rifle? Another way to look at it - there is no doubt that the 308 is simply incapable of approaching the near-mythical precision of the 6PPC. Yet what beginner or intermediate shooter would be able to purchase such an amazing platform, reload the ammo, and garner enough range time to equal the capabilities of this caliber?
Additionally, shooting is a highly perishable skill. Anything that impinges our consistent practice (i.e. high costs) is a detriment to accuracy and precision. Put a great rifle in a safe, wait 20 years and it will still be a great rifle. I’m sure we can all agree that putting our training on-hold for 20 years would not result in equally great performance.
As an analogy, when I teach others how to shoot handguns, I **always** start them on the 22 cal. It helps the student to avoid flinch, thus helping me to diagnose what they’re doing incorrectly. Ultimately, this encourages the user to do the one thing that we all need to do – sling a lot of lead correctly. The low cost (about 2 cents / pop) means that my students are very comfortable with shooting 200 – 300 rounds in a single session. That translates to a mere $4 - $6 per session. Compare this to the cost of shooting 45 caliber and that is only 10 – 15 rounds, which translates to about 1/20th the practice. Additionally, due to the low cost of shooting, we will have addressed “9-out-of-10” of the shooting fundamentals. Then, we can work on the final fundamental – dealing with flinch. Using this methodology, I have seen tremendous improvements in accuracy, consistency, and all-around performance from my students. Lowering the cost of operation has actually increased their overall accuracy and shooting skill, especially with the bigger calibers. Increasing the per-shot price would have actually been detrimental to their training. Costs matter.
In the spirit of this thread, as a suggestion, it might be useful to post prices associated with the myriad products and services associated with each caliber, especially some of the lesser known calibers. This might help relatively inexperienced shooters to get a better grasp of how involved it might be to break into the field. Having a better idea of the initial costs will help the shooter make an informed decision before plunking-down good money. My hope is that lowering the costs (and barriers) will actually raise the quality of the shooter, typically the weakest link in the chain.
I realize that this post is more qualitative than quantitative, but I’m hoping that a slightly broader view of costs (versus “price”) might help guide the question of “What caliber?” I don’t think that I’m stating anything in this post that anyone else has not thought about already. But, I do think that I’m bringing to the forefront how this single factor affects the final answer to the perennial questions “What caliber?” and “How accurate?”
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
jey6941 Nice posting, in particular for a first one ;-).
If one is shooting mostly factory ammo (for what every reason*), the 308 Win tends to get the node (if only for Fed GMM that one can easily find), the other (or second) choice for a single (or primary) rifle shooting factory ammo, might be a .223 with low cost, low recoil and easy supply, if the limits of the .223 caliber at a distance are not an issue (while can setup something for bullets heavier than MK262, this is no longer really a multiple purpose 223 and .223 bullets are small to spot for field shooting, one reason still like the 50 BMG with API ;-).
* Myself, while have best luck with reloads, tend to keep a 308 (standard PSS with Leupold Mk4 ;-) and .223 (Heavy barrel AR with a higher power Leupold) around with a case or two of factory GMM and Mk262 so I have something stable to shoot with ammo (tend to be too busy at times with the day job, not necessarily a bad think now days) plus makes a good practice/second rifle.
Once one moves to mostly (all) hand loaded ammo the per round cost starts to even out. The 338 LM is the same cost to shoot as the 308, just shoot the 338 LM half as much (or comparing reloads to factory - which is not really fair but the case for me until I get a good 175 gr SMK load done for 308 Win)
All that said, moving to better optics than the standard issue Leupold, I am re-vising advantages of having fewer, but nicer rifles and thus find the thread very interesting (not sure though I would ever wish not to have at least the PSS in 308 Win around, and ARs don't really count they just fill in the gaps like big 10-22s ;-). I am also seeing advantages in friends Desert Tactical Rifles (one scope for 6mm thru 510 "Wisper" clone's) if only to save optics cost.
A side discussion more along what my thoughts are at the moment, is a comparison caliber choices as a two to four gun set (light, heavy/standard, long range for past 1000 yards and semi auto). My current 223 / 308 Win / 338 LM / 50 BMG works but has duplicates, overlaps and still fall back on the "hunting" rifles for something lighter. (My old .223 and 300 Win Mag might have been more efficient).
jey6941 Nice posting, in particular for a first one ;-).
If one is shooting mostly factory ammo (for what every reason*), the 308 Win tends to get the node (if only for Fed GMM that one can easily find), the other (or second) choice for a single (or primary) rifle shooting factory ammo, might be a .223 with low cost, low recoil and easy supply, if the limits of the .223 caliber at a distance are not an issue (while can setup something for bullets heavier than MK262, this is no longer really a multiple purpose 223 and .223 bullets are small to spot for field shooting, one reason still like the 50 BMG with API ;-).
* Myself, while have best luck with reloads, tend to keep a 308 (standard PSS with Leupold Mk4 ;-) and .223 (Heavy barrel AR with a higher power Leupold) around with a case or two of factory GMM and Mk262 so I have something stable to shoot with ammo (tend to be too busy at times with the day job, not necessarily a bad think now days) plus makes a good practice/second rifle.
Once one moves to mostly (all) hand loaded ammo the per round cost starts to even out. The 338 LM is the same cost to shoot as the 308, just shoot the 338 LM half as much (or comparing reloads to factory - which is not really fair but the case for me until I get a good 175 gr SMK load done for 308 Win)
All that said, moving to better optics than the standard issue Leupold, I am re-vising advantages of having fewer, but nicer rifles and thus find the thread very interesting (not sure though I would ever wish not to have at least the PSS in 308 Win around, and ARs don't really count they just fill in the gaps like big 10-22s ;-). I am also seeing advantages in friends Desert Tactical Rifles (one scope for 6mm thru 510 "Wisper" clone's) if only to save optics cost.
A side discussion more along what my thoughts are at the moment, is a comparison caliber choices as a two to four gun set (light, heavy/standard, long range for past 1000 yards and semi auto). My current 223 / 308 Win / 338 LM / 50 BMG works but has duplicates, overlaps and still fall back on the "hunting" rifles for something lighter. (My old .223 and 300 Win Mag might have been more efficient).
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
its easy , 300 win mag. problem solved !
its easy , 300 win mag. problem solved !
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
Just a reminder to a few, the goal of this thread is to put a Pros/Cons list together for a caliber and to give real performance numbers out on your experience for a caliber.
Please refrain from statements such as "300 WM is the best... look no further" or "308 don't look back"
Thanks to all of those who've taken the time to put in a detailed list of specs and options.
Just a reminder to a few, the goal of this thread is to put a Pros/Cons list together for a caliber and to give real performance numbers out on your experience for a caliber.
Please refrain from statements such as "300 WM is the best... look no further" or "308 don't look back"
Thanks to all of those who've taken the time to put in a detailed list of specs and options.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
what about .270. I just bought a J.C. Higgins model 50 chambered in it, and would like an opinion on wether to stick with that or use the FN Mauser action with something else any input would be awesome. As im sure you all have figered im new to this. and would like to take the rifle and make it more or less my own in some way. Thank you and if there is another thread that would be better help please point me in the right direction.
Thank you
OORAAAH
what about .270. I just bought a J.C. Higgins model 50 chambered in it, and would like an opinion on wether to stick with that or use the FN Mauser action with something else any input would be awesome. As im sure you all have figered im new to this. and would like to take the rifle and make it more or less my own in some way. Thank you and if there is another thread that would be better help please point me in the right direction.
Thank you
OORAAAH
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
vkc,
I just started load development for a 6.5x55 built on an FN SPR action w/ 24" Krieger #4 8.5 twist barrel. I have chronographed the following loads:
140 SST, H4350 - 2800 fps
129 SST, RL17 - 3000 fps
130 Barnes TSX, H4350 - 2875 fps
All shoot well under MOA. This is my 2nd 6.5x55. The FN is a short action, but I am using the WSM magazine box which allows an OAL of 3.1". Both have been shooters and very easy to load for. I use Lapua brass which doesn't require much prep. I size it and chamfer the necks. I had to trim the cases after the 3rd firing. I have not had any trouble with the non-standard rim size in this rifle or a M70 push-feed action. The only con might be the cost of brass, but to me the quality is worth it. The lack of modern load data might concern some people, but like anything else you start low and work up.
vkc,
I just started load development for a 6.5x55 built on an FN SPR action w/ 24" Krieger #4 8.5 twist barrel. I have chronographed the following loads:
140 SST, H4350 - 2800 fps
129 SST, RL17 - 3000 fps
130 Barnes TSX, H4350 - 2875 fps
All shoot well under MOA. This is my 2nd 6.5x55. The FN is a short action, but I am using the WSM magazine box which allows an OAL of 3.1". Both have been shooters and very easy to load for. I use Lapua brass which doesn't require much prep. I size it and chamfer the necks. I had to trim the cases after the 3rd firing. I have not had any trouble with the non-standard rim size in this rifle or a M70 push-feed action. The only con might be the cost of brass, but to me the quality is worth it. The lack of modern load data might concern some people, but like anything else you start low and work up.
Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
@JTinIN: Thanks buddy! The SH community is one of the nicest group of people around. In fact, the shooting community in general is one of the nicest communities in general!
@JTinIN: Thanks buddy! The SH community is one of the nicest group of people around. In fact, the shooting community in general is one of the nicest communities in general!
Similar threads
