Author Topic: Opinions on caliber 6.5 mm (Read 3751 times)

fortress49 · « **on:** October 24, 2005, 05:21:14 AM »

I have become interested in the 6.5 mm caliber. I would like to get some opinions on the different options that are available.

There is the old 6.5 x 55 swede which seems to be the "standard". And, there are a few "wildcats" that seem intriguing too. Particualrly the 6.5 mm BRM from EABROWNCO and the 6.5 mm Grendel from Alexander Arms. Also, there is the .260.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of each of these? I know of a few of them, but I would like to get others opinions as well. Which ones have greater versatility? Which one offers the least recoil? Etc. Of course we need to compare similar weight bullets in each instance.

I plan on re-loading so that is not an advantage or disadvantage for me.

Thanks for any ideas or thoughts.

Matt

Lone Star · « **Reply #1 on:** October 24, 2005, 06:02:11 AM »

I've had two .260s (M7 and M700), and they performed very well for me. Is there much difference between the .260 and 6.5x55? Not handloaded in modern rifles, although the .260 works great in a short action and the 6.5 really does not. You can gain some velocity with larger cases like the 6.5-.284 and 6.5-06, but for most uses the velocity gain is modest if pressures are kept within SAAMI guidelines (the Nosler #5 Manual shows little practical velocity differences with most bullets). Beware of some velocity claims for the latter two wildcats - much available data is not pressure-tested and likely exceeds SAAMI standards for similar cartridges. Pressure-tested data often looks rather mild compared to most of the on-line loads I've seen....

The 6.5 BRM was designed to give good performance with the limited bolt thrust that the EBCo rifle will safely withstand. It does this through its smaller case diameter. It is several hundred fps behind the .260 (140@2500 fps) , but in a rifle of the same weight it would recoil less.

The Grendel uses oddball, expensive brass compared to the others and is limited by the platform it was originally designed for. If you want a 6.5mm AR-15 then it is likely one of the best, but for a bolt rifle it has little to recommend it besides lower recoil (120@2600 fps). The .260 has a long pedigree of match-winning accuracy as does the 6.5-.284.

Brithunter · « **Reply #2 on:** October 24, 2005, 10:25:56 AM »

Hi All,

The only one cartridge from your list that I can shed any light upon is the old Swedish cartridge the 6.5x55 and the be quite frank it's a superb cartridge. One that I have used for many years, accurate with mild recoil, for instance I can remember watching the bullet hit a Fox early one morning through the 4x scope and watching the halo of spray coming off his coat (it had rained just before dawn). The load was the 100 grn Nosler Bal Tip and very effective on the Red Fox.

Now the thing which puzzles me is why on earth SAMMI had to invent pressures for this cartridge when there was already an established standard for it under the CIP rules. As for the short action thing, well it's all in the mind. A difference of bolt travel of less than 1/4" is really neither here nor there!

There seems to be something about the bullets in 6.5mm that they perform much better than what the paper figures say they should. I also have a 6.5x53R and the 6.5x54MS who of course made their reputations against the heaviest of game using the 160 grn round nose bullets at modest velocity ( about 2300 fps).

Now depending upon the bullet weight which you are planning on using, then there are other established 6.5mm cartridges to ponder upon, like the 6.5x68mm Schuler which was designed for high alpins cross canyon type shots at Chamois. A 108 grn bullets at around 4000fps seems to be effective althoug I doubt that you would find cases nor a rifle easily in the US in this chambering. Steyr offered in their rifles I understand :wink: .

Now as to the .260, well I understand that it loses out when trying to use the 160 Grn bullets due to it's short neck which means that the bullet pushes down into the case body past the neck, this of course does not happen with the 6.5x55 swede :lol:

It's your money so ultimately your choice, so have fun and good luck with which ever you decide upon :wink: :grin:

jh45gun · « **Reply #3 on:** October 24, 2005, 11:53:13 AM »

I also vote for the Swede and if you find a good surplus rifle you are getting one of the finest mausers made.

reelhook · « **Reply #4 on:** October 24, 2005, 12:40:16 PM »

Perhaps one of the finest deer rounds ther is. This round is NOT made for heavy bullets. Ideal weights are the 120 & 130 with the 140 as max in my opinion. I have a 260 and it will fill one hole @ 100 yds with sierra's 120 gamekings. It also shoots out of a short action and is a pleasure to carry.

Lawdog · « **Reply #5 on:** October 24, 2005, 01:10:01 PM »

My wife went through the same process that you are. Trying to decide on which 6.5(.264) to get. She finally decided on the 6.5mm Swede. Although there isnt too much difference between the .260 Rem. and the old Swede in factory loads the real advantage shows when reloading. Advantage goes to the Swede. Case capacity of the .260 is 54 gr., the 6.5mm Swede is 58 gr.. Now if you really want to go with a wildcat try the 6.5mm-284. Case capacity of 66.3 gr. sets it head on shoulders above the other two. Handles the longer/heavier weight bullets and has a history of accuracy. When the .260 Rem. came out many though it would spell the end of the 6.5mm Swede. Now its beginning to look like the Swede is going to out live the Remington. Go with either the Swede or the 6.5mm-284 and you wont be going wrong. Lawdog

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #6 on:** October 24, 2005, 03:04:54 PM »

I think that the .260 rem is doing the same thing for 6.5x55 that .450 marlin did for 45/70. I also forsee the .260 going the same route that the .450 has already taken.

Ramrod · « **Reply #7 on:** October 24, 2005, 03:20:55 PM »

For a young fella, that Krochus sure has some good conclusions.
Funny how the new poser rounds usually do nothing but help keep the old classics alive! I remember when the 6.5 Rem Mag, and the .264 Win Mag were going to kill off the old 6.5 Swede, and the .444 Marlin was supposed to do the old .45-70 in. History constantly reapeats itself.

poncaguy · « **Reply #8 on:** October 24, 2005, 03:40:44 PM »

I have a Ruger 77 260 that is a real shooter...............

Mikey · « **Reply #9 on:** October 24, 2005, 04:58:41 PM »

fortress: depends on whatcha want to do with it! If you want to take it afield once in a while but mostly shoot on a range or have a nice custom rifle to play with, the 6.5 Swede is probably your best and least expensive bet if you don't reload and maybe even if you do. Mil-surps are available as are Remingtons and Winchesters in that caliber.

If you want a lighter weight mountain rifle the 260 would be an excellent choice in the shorter action. There is so little difference in ballistics that the lighter weight Remingtons would make a sweet woods and mountain rifle.

All else considered, what Lone Star said. Mikey.

Slamfire · « **Reply #10 on:** October 24, 2005, 05:33:54 PM »

I haven't shot 'em all, but I have played with the6.5x50SR, 6.5x52, 6.5x53, 6.5x54, 6.5x55, 6.5-.257 (6.5x57), and .256 Newton. Starting with the 6.5x55 and the following, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between these cartridges and the .260 Remington. The variations you see in the manuals, might be surpassed by the differences in individual rifles. I've got two .260s, one a rebore, and the other a rechamber job. I think I'll keep 'em.

PEPAW · « **Reply #11 on:** October 25, 2005, 01:25:59 AM »

I have one of the earlier .260's. Light, short action, accurate, easy on recoil. I would never consider another 6.5 since the factory .260 is available. Maybe a custom stock.
Awesome deer hunting caliber. I don't need 160 grainers for deer, 140's work perfectly and have better trajectory.

pepaw

missouri dave · « **Reply #12 on:** October 25, 2005, 03:29:16 AM »

I have one of the 6.5 swede's in a cz 550 mannlicher. The cartridge and the rifle are superb in every way. I can't speak about any of the wildcats as I haven't shot any of them. I can say I don't see the point in them. I'm quite comfortable that the swede will take any game I intend to hunt at any reasonable range I would take the shot.

beemanbeme · « **Reply #13 on:** October 25, 2005, 05:36:24 AM »

It looks like you just can't go wrong whichever 6.5 you pick. Just grab the one that scratches your itch and you're good to go.

I THINK that Rem is offering the .260 in a mannlicher stocked model 7 from their custom shop if you want something a little fancy.

Lawdog · « **Reply #14 on:** October 25, 2005, 10:14:25 AM »

Quote from: Krochus

I think that the .260 rem is doing the same thing for 6.5x55 that .450 marlin did for 45/70. I also forsee the .260 going the same route that the .450 has already taken.

The BIG difference between the .260 Remington and the .450 Marlin is the .450 is being added to more models of rifles every year and the .260 is being dropped. The .450 Marlin will be around for a long time to come. The future of the .260 is fading. Lawdog

RaySendero · « **Reply #15 on:** October 25, 2005, 01:01:42 PM »

Think you should be prepared to reload for any 6.5 you may ultimately choose.

The 260 Rem is a good round. Why it's not catching on is beyond me!

The 6.5x55 is available in factory loads but can be bettered reloading. If I ever acquire a Swedish Mauser it will stay a 6.5x55.

The 6.5 Win. mag and 6.5 Rem. mag are obsolete but both good cartridges.

Apart from the 260, the wildcats have my interest - A 6.5/06 will be a good round here to choose; I think a 6.5/270WSM and the 6.5x284 also have real good long range possibilities!

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #16 on:** October 25, 2005, 01:10:43 PM »

Quote from: Lawdog

Quote from: Krochus
I think that the .260 rem is doing the same thing for 6.5x55 that .450 marlin did for 45/70. I also forsee the .260 going the same route that the .450 has already taken.

The BIG difference between the .260 Remington and the .450 Marlin is the .450 is being added to more models of rifles every year and the .260 is being dropped. The .450 Marlin will be around for a long time to come. The future of the .260 is fading. Lawdog

Really? because when I thought about getting a handi-rifle in .450 I noticed that midway no longer carries ammo or brass. Kinda killed that Idea for me.

Lawdog · « **Reply #17 on:** October 25, 2005, 01:37:21 PM »

Quote from: Krochus

Quote from: Lawdog
Quote from: Krochus
I think that the .260 rem is doing the same thing for 6.5x55 that .450 marlin did for 45/70. I also forsee the .260 going the same route that the .450 has already taken.

The BIG difference between the .260 Remington and the .450 Marlin is the .450 is being added to more models of rifles every year and the .260 is being dropped. The .450 Marlin will be around for a long time to come. The future of the .260 is fading. Lawdog

Really? because when I thought about getting a handi-rifle in .450 I noticed that midway no longer carries ammo or brass. Kinda killed that Idea for me.

The following right from Midway.

For brass go to;
http://www.midwayusa.com/ebrowse.exe/browse?TabID=1&Categoryid=9128&categorystring=9315***652***670***9013***

For ammo go to;
http://www.midwayusa.com/ebrowse.exe/browse?TabID=3&Categoryid=8954&categorystring=653***690*** At this moment they are temporally out of stock due to the gaining popularity of this cartridge. At least according to the gal I just talked to over the phone.

I dont use factory ammo in either of my .450 Marlins. Load my own from the very beginning. Reloading is where the .450 Marlin rally shows its stuff. The brass is stronger than the .45-70 due to being thicker from the web to the neck. The .450 Marlin is gaining in popularity everyday. Lawdog

nomosendero · « **Reply #18 on:** October 25, 2005, 04:05:31 PM »

Lawdog

I think you are right about the .450 Marlin. as you mentioned the case is
stronger, but I think a big factor is also the case design (rim). This design
lends itself to use in bolt actions & also the BLR & in these you can use
x bullets or spitzers also instead of flat noses that must be used in a
tub. mag.

I mention this for general info & not for your info because if I am not
mistaken, you have a .450 bolt gun!

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #19 on:** October 25, 2005, 04:28:50 PM »

Back on the subject of 6.5mm, I would really like to see the little 6.5 grendel round standardized, Can you inagine a CZ527 carbine chambered in this round.

nomosendero · « **Reply #20 on:** October 25, 2005, 05:17:25 PM »

Krochus

As I am sure you know, the ballistics of the 6.5 Grendel sure are better
than the 6.8SPC & yes the rifle you mentioned would be great.
I would like to have a match grade AR in that round that would shoot as
well as my RRA 223!

fortress49 · « **Reply #21 on:** October 26, 2005, 05:25:14 AM »

Thanks for all the replies. I never imagined I would get such a response. I am still not sure which direction I will go, but I am leaning in one direction for sure now.

I am left eye dominant and do not like working "right hand" rifles by reaching over the rifle to work the bolt. So, the surplus military rifles in 6.5 x 55 are out for me. That is one reason I was looking at the EBCo rifle and the 6.5 mm BRM. But, I can get any chanmering in a TC Encore including the Swede, the .260, etc.

At this point I am leaning toward the Swede since it allows the use of the larger bullets should I need. Will I ever need it? Doubtful, but it is nice to have the capability if required.

A manlicher stocked swede would be nice if they made it in a lefty version...I will have to see if they are available.

Thanks for all the replies!
Matt

Slamfire · « **Reply #22 on:** October 26, 2005, 01:00:24 PM »

The need for a 160 grain bullet in a 6.5mm is overblown, and most favored by those who are big bullet fans. I once shot a cow elk between the hams with a 140 grain Hornady round nose. We found it up against her brisket. Can't fault that kind of penetration. It was messy, though I don't advise that shot. Too bad Hornady quit makin' that bullet, they still make the spire point version though, I just don't have any use for it now.

Lone Star · « **Reply #23 on:** October 26, 2005, 01:36:04 PM »

Quote

The BIG difference between the .260 Remington and the .450 Marlin is the .450 is being added to more models of rifles every year and the .260 is being dropped. The .450 Marlin will be around for a long time to come. The future of the .260 is fading.

Perhaps, perhaps not. According to the 2004 RCBS Top 50 Die Set list, the .260 is #37, ahead of long time favorites like the .257 Weatherby, .220 Swift, .454 Casull and .444 Marlin. Immediately above the .260 are the 7x57 and the .375 H&H, both of which are obviously on the way out too.

The .45-70 is firmly entrenched at #15 behind the .500 S&W at #13. The 6.5x55 is at #27. The .450 Marlin is, surprisingly, nowhere to be found.....

Note: past history is no guaranty of future performance.

.

Barstooler · « **Reply #24 on:** October 27, 2005, 09:31:53 AM »

I only have experience with the 256 Newton and the 6.5-06. Some would argue that they are twins, but making 6.5-06s is a hell of lot easier.

I find the 6.5-06 to be a great cartridge and easily handles 120 to 140 gr bullets. Mine is built on a 1903/A4 Springfield action with a new stock, fitted with a milled 1903 Springfield trigger guard/floor plate, a Timney trigger, a premium Shielan barrel, and a Leupold Vari III 3.5X10 scope. This was a lot of work to create a Newton-like rifle!

Barstooler

jdt48653 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 27, 2005, 03:53:06 PM »

i do not think there is a bad 6.5 cartridge.i like them all!
the 6.5 is near the center of the caliber spectrum.i think that if you could have only one caliber for all the game on earth,the 6.5 would cover the largest variance,by not obliterating the smallest,yet harvesting a good percentage to the largest.
of these my pick would be the 264 win mag,with proper barrel,powder and bullets.

cal sibley · « **Reply #26 on:** November 03, 2005, 08:28:33 PM »

I have 3 older Swedish M96 mausers in 6.5x55 and a Remington 700 Classic in the same caliber. It rapidly became my favorite. I got the military M96 mausers to restore as winter projects. I had no idea the old rascals were so accurate. Recoil is quite pleasant for a fairly large caliber rifle. The Remington, having a newer and much stronger action can be beefed up to mive it along at a good clip. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

kombi1976 · « **Reply #27 on:** November 04, 2005, 04:02:38 PM »

Much like the .25's I think there are no ineffective cartridges in 6.5 cal.
While I like some more than others there is little doubt that all are effective on medium to big game.
I'd particularly like to have a 6.5x54 Mannlicher Schoenauer or a sporterised T38 Arisaka in 6.5x50R as both of these, like their slightly bigger cousin the Swede, are darkhorses.
The most neglected cartridge in the family and arguably the blacksheep is the 6.5x52 Carcano.
Chambered in a suitable rifle it has all the makings of a good sporter but since the Carcano rifle's reputation can be described as inconsistant at best there's virtually no chance of it making a comeback, especially in these days of hyper velocity of small bore cartridges.
I'm not as tempted as others are by the newer 6.5s like the .260(which I see as extraneous) or the 6.5/284, but they certainly have their place and a mate has a Browing 1885 6.5WSM wildcat he uses both for competition and hunting and swears by.
Give me a T38, a good Carcano, a Mannlicher Schoenauer and a M96.
Mind you don't expect anything sensible out of me or even to see much of me for quite a while. :wink:

Put it this way.....you could do MUCH worse than buy a good sporting rifle in 6.5 Swede.

Slamfire · « **Reply #28 on:** November 04, 2005, 05:46:53 PM »

Quote from: Krochus

Back on the subject of 6.5mm, I would really like to see the little 6.5 grendel round standardized, Can you inagine a CZ527 carbine chambered in this round.

If you really want a short short 6.5mm in a bolt action, I suggest the 6.5 mm Kurtz. Chambered in some commercial Mausers that were originally designed for the .250 Savage, they won't hold a .308 length case. It does use a shortened case with a standard head though. Loading data can be found in back issues of Handloader Magazine. You won't find any data for bullets over 120 grains though, not enough capacity for reasonable velocity.

Lawdog · « **Reply #29 on:** November 05, 2005, 09:54:54 AM »

Quote from: Slamfire

Quote from: Krochus
Back on the subject of 6.5mm, I would really like to see the little 6.5 grendel round standardized, Can you inagine a CZ527 carbine chambered in this round.

If you really want a short short 6.5mm in a bolt action, I suggest the 6.5 mm Kurtz. Chambered in some commercial Mausers that were originally designed for the .250 Savage, they won't hold a .308 length case. It does use a shortened case with a standard head though. Loading data can be found in back issues of Handloader Magazine. You won't find any data for bullets over 120 grains though, not enough capacity for reasonable velocity.

If you really want a short 6.5mm why not go the 6.5mm WSSM. Near powder capacity and performance of the 6.5mm-06 but on a MUCH shorter case. There are a few being built according to the ShortMag.org. forum. Some of the shooters over there are reporting great results and fabulous accuracy. Lawdog