6.5x55 vs. .270


PDA






grafsk8er
August 3, 2007, 08:44 PM
i know ballistically that the .270 is ballistically superior in all aspects. but from an ammo price stand point how do these two compare? is the 6.5x55 just as adequate for north eastern white tails as well?

If you enjoyed reading about "6.5x55 vs. .270" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jakk280rem
August 3, 2007, 09:43 PM
i would hope so. if its not, iwouldnt want to see them deer.

jakk280rem
August 3, 2007, 09:44 PM
btw, a 280 rem i ballisticly superior to a 270

R.W.Dale
August 3, 2007, 09:46 PM
a 280 rem is ballisticly superior to a 270

the differences between the two are so insignificant they practically don't exist.

Richard.Howe
August 3, 2007, 09:49 PM
Either is fine. I favor the 6.5x55 for its nostalgia, but be aware that if you want it to perform at modern levels in a modern gun, you're going to need to handload. Being a long action, the 270 has never flipped my switch, but if you will depend solely on factory loads, the 270 will be a much more flexible cartridge than the 6.5x55.

Rich

sumpnz
August 4, 2007, 12:59 AM
The 6.5x55 works just fine for elk, so any deer would not pose much of a problem from a terminal ballistics standpoint. If you're not a handloader though, I'd take the .270. There's just not that much out there for 6.5 Swede factory loads compared to the .270, and as mentioned earlier the 6.5 factory loads are weaker than a modern gun justifies. They download the factory ammo to keep those of us with M96 Mausers from blowing them up with full, modern pressure loads.

GunTech
August 4, 2007, 01:10 AM
I do handload, so I'll take the 6.5. Too many great long range bullets. The 270 may be popular, but it does nothing for me.

jefnvk
August 4, 2007, 01:15 AM
Past few deer I've shot have been with Rem factory 6.5x55. Every deer I have ever shot has been with a 6.5. Price and availability in MI is pretty similiar, I'd give the heads up to .270 for availability. Meijers and wally world both have had 6.5 on the shelf in the past.

ftierson
August 4, 2007, 02:35 AM
The 6.5x55mm is my favorite cartridge, so you can probably guess what my answer will be...:)

I own a number of rifles in 6.5x55mm...

I don't own any .270 Win. rifles...

In modern rifles and loaded to it's full potential, I think that the 6.5x55mm is a much more versatile cartridge than the .270 Win. There are certainly many more bullets available in 6.5mm than are available for the .270...

Keep in mind that most commercially available 6.5x55mm rifles will be built on the same long action as the .270 Win., so there's no advantage for that reason.

Forrest

iamkris
August 4, 2007, 02:53 AM
is the 6.5x55 just as adequate for north eastern white tails as well?

How have we, as a society, come to believe that we need a ,600 RemWin Super Nitro Ultra Monster Magnum to put down a deer?

M1 Shooter
August 4, 2007, 07:16 AM
The .270 and 6.5X55 are both excellent cartridges for deer. I shot my first deer with an old Swedish Mauser in 6.5X55. My hunting partner with me that day was using a .270 and he got a deer too. When we looked at the bullet wounds on the two deer, we could not see any difference in them. Think about it, the .270's bullet is .277" and the 6.5's bullet is .264", a difference of .013", and the bullet I used weighed 140grs while his .270 was loaded with 130gr bullets, only a 10gr difference. There's really not much difference to worry about. The .270 may have more velocity, but the damage to those deer was identical. IMO, the added velocity of the .270 would only be helpful if you shoot long range, since it will have a flatter trajectory. The .270 also has the advantage of being easier to find in more variety of factory loads, but if you are planning on reloading that doesn't really matter much anyway.

USSR
August 4, 2007, 10:57 AM
I do handload, so I'll take the 6.5. Too many great long range bullets. The 270 may be popular, but it does nothing for me.

+1. The lack of quality, high BC bullets eliminates the .270 from consideration as a great LR cartridge, however, for hunting purposes you will find many more commercial loads for the .270 and it is loaded hotter in this country than the 6.5x55, which is deliberately loaded down due to Norwegian Krags still being around.

Don

viking499
August 4, 2007, 11:44 AM
I own and new and old 6.5. Brother-in-law owns a 270. Have shot both. Both are fine. As said, if planning to reload, go with the 6.5. I went with the 6.5 because I like the down range numbers and it seems like every other person around here has a 270. I guess I just wanted to be a little different...

atblis
August 4, 2007, 11:58 AM
You can load 6.5x55 to pretty much the same OAL as 270. Interesting that back in the day cases were used to contain powder and not the bullet.

6.5x55 is a great cartridge
270 Winchester is a great cartridge

I have both, and like both.

However
i know ballistically that the .270 is ballistically superior in all aspects. but from an ammo price stand point how do these two compare? is the 6.5x55 just as adequate for north eastern white tails as well?

The 270 is most certainly not superior. Truthfully, for all practical purposes they are equals (especially for white tails).

6.5x55 actually wins out on the ammo price thing. There are some European off brands that are actually quite decent that are considerably cheaper than any 270 ammo you're going to get.

aspade
August 4, 2007, 02:01 PM
If you're thinking Igman, Wolf, Prvi, etc. they load cheap .270 too.

Looking at full powered loads, the .270 will give 250fps or so over the 6.5x55 with any given bullet weight, which is a fair step up. It's fair to say that no deer will ever discern the difference, but 20% more power (and 20% more powder) is superior somewhere even if not for deer hunting.

I really like the old Swedish Mausers, but in a new production long action rifle I don't see much advantage. If you don't reload, domestic factory ammo is neutered in deference to hundred year old guns and the full power European stuff is a mail order proposition at $40 a box. If you do reload, you can download a .270 or 30-06 to any level you want but you can't make the 6.5 into a larger cartridge.

That said, I'll probably buy a CZ 6.5x55 to round out the collection eventually, but I can't spin it as making any sense.

rangerruck
August 4, 2007, 05:14 PM
checking the norma ballistic calculator, the diff between 140 grn 6.5 's and 130 to 150 grn 270's, is about 1 inch diff in trajectory, between all 3 , and less than 100 fps , between all 3, with a 80 yds zero, measurements all checked at 150 yards. So then, If you can get 6.5 cheaper than 270 , which you should be able to easy, then i would go 6.5 all day.

Float Pilot
August 5, 2007, 12:25 AM
6.5 x 55 max overall length 3.062in,,,,,,, case 2.160 inch
270 Win max overall length 3.340 inch... case 2.540 inch

6.5mm (26.4 caliber) Barnes 140 grain XFB= B.C. 522 or a 140 grain matchking at a .526 BC

270 cal. (27.7 caliber) Barnes 140 gr XFB= BC 462 or a 140 grain XBT for a BC or .497

A XFB 140 grain 6.5mm at 2750 fps muzzle velocity (About what you can expecvt in a reasonable handload) will still be going 2200 fps at 300 yards. And it will be 14 inches low at 300 if you are sighted for 100.

A XFB 140 grain 270 at 3,000 fps muzzle velocity (a good listed top vel in the barnes book) will still be going 2,396 fps at 300 yadrs. It will be 11 inches low at 300 yards if sighted for 100 yards.

So they are within 3 inches of each other out to 300 yards. A deer or caribou would not be able to tell the difference between the two he he was shot with either...

This is an apples and oranges comparison. One cartirdge (the 6.5 x 55mm) was developed in the 1890s as a military round to replace Black Powder cartridges.

The 270 was developed in 1925 from the 30-06 case (1906) as a hunting cartridge.

Richard.Howe
August 5, 2007, 07:11 AM
This is an apples and oranges comparison.

Not really, if you handload. In fact, the June issue of Handloader Magazine went so far as to say the handloaded 6.5x55 made the .270 unnecessary. That's 'bout the most apples-to-apples you can get!

It definitely is an apples-and-oranges discussion if you're talking factory loads only.

Rich

atblis
August 5, 2007, 01:19 PM
i know ballistically that the .270 is ballistically superior in all aspects
No, they're really about equal. The 6.5x55 has better bullets available simply due to its popularity on the benchrest circuit. Those are target bullets though so...not ideal for deer.

but from an ammo price stand point how do these two compare?
It used to be that 6.5x55 was available pretty cheap, but looking at the usual ammo stores it appears to be about the same as 270. You might be able to find some of the offbrand Euro stuff for under $10 a box still (Bosnian, Serbian, whatever). Kinda doubt it though.

is the 6.5x55 just as adequate for north eastern white tails as well?
Absolutley. Both are delightful deer rounds.

Some more 6.5x55 ramblings

http://www.filebox.vt.edu/users/atblis/65comp.jpg
270 on the far right. 6.5x55 loaded such that it still fits in the mag box and feeds from my M96. Chances are a commercial 6.5x55 is built on a 06 length action so you could also load it that long.

It looks like things have changed since I last bought 6.5x55 (started handloading and never looked back). Used to be that you could get Serbian/Bosnian/etc. 6.5x55 for $8 a box. Look like Wolf bought all those factories and it is now $15 a box.

6.5x55 and 270 are about equals when loaded to their potential. The OALs published for 6.5x55 I don't think are correct. The old guns have long mag boxes and are throated long. Why wouldn't they be loaded that long?

At practical deer hunting ranges there is no distinguishable difference between the two.

GunTech
August 5, 2007, 01:31 PM
How have we, as a society, come to believe that we need a ,600 RemWin Super Nitro Ultra Monster Magnum to put down a deer?

:) Ain't that the truth.

Whe I started deer hunting (back in the mists of time) 243 was considered a great deer cartridge, along with 257 Bob and 30-30. 30-06 was the do all cartridge for deer, elk and bear. The rich guys had those new magnums.

Now, it seems like everything is an ultramag or short mag, etc.

My personal favorites for deer: 243, 257, 6.5x55, 260, 7x57. I;ve lately become a convert to 260, which is just a sightly faster 6.5x55 stuffed into a smaller case.

Sunray
August 5, 2007, 01:47 PM
"...come to believe that we need..." Marketing. Aided and abetted by the gun rags.
"...due to its popularity on the benchrest circuit..." I suspect we have a lot to thank the benchrest shooters for. There'd be no match grade 6mm bullets either if it weren't for them.
"...The 6.5x55 works just fine for elk..." It's been used for moose in Sweden for eons too. The Swedes won't let you hunt with just anything either.

ftierson
August 5, 2007, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by GunTech
I've lately become a convert to .260 Rem., which is just a slightly faster 6.5x55mm stuffed into a smaller case.

And, of course, loaded to the same pressures (for the same strong, modern actions), the 6.5x55mm will outperform the .260 Rem.

In no way should that comment be construed as saying anything negative about the .260 Rem., which I think is a fine cartridge.

It's just that the 6.5x55mm is better...

:)

Forrest

Gewehr98
August 5, 2007, 01:55 PM
The 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser has some long legs.

The .270 is relegated as a hunting cartridge, and that's about it.

I have several 6.5x55 rifles, and find them more than adequate for hunting and target work.

I also have a 6.5-06, and therefore see no need for the .270 whatsoever. ;)

Float Pilot
August 5, 2007, 06:52 PM
Not really, if you handload. In fact, the June issue of Handloader Magazine went so far as to say the handloaded 6.5x55 made the .270 unnecessary. That's 'bout the most apples-to-apples you can get!

Well if you look at it another way, the (28.4 caliber) 7x57mm Mauser (Jack O'Conners wife thought so) also made the 270 unnecessary, As did the 30-06 from which the 270 is based...

My point being that one was an 1890s military round (which has a case head and brass length that was not common in the US until the last couple decades, nor common with other Mausers) while the 270 Win was a 1925 commercial hunting round designed to take advantage of the fact that brass making and matching it to existing commercial actions / bolt faces was a breeze...

Note:: I own a 6.5x55mm, I do not own, nor care for the 270.. But somebody sure does...

If Spain and several South American counties had adopted the 6.5mm Swede /Norwe Mauser back around the late 1890s instead of the 7x57mm we would probably have been loaded down with old sporters in that caliber for the last century.

Guns_and_Labs
August 5, 2007, 07:00 PM
Is now the time to mention that the .264 WinMag beats them both?

Colt46
August 5, 2007, 07:08 PM
It's accurate, deadly, and easy to shoot. Domestically chambered rifles are sometimes hard to find. That's the only knock I have on this fine cartridge.

The .270 doesn't do it for me. Seems like a .30-06 or .280 Remington will do just as much and have wider selection of bullets than the oddball .277 cal.

If more kids were introduced to hunting w/ the Swede we'd have fewer rifles in .30-06 or .243 stacked like cordwood at the local gunshop.
What I'm trying to say is the swede makes a perfect starter rifle that you can use on just about any large, non dangerous, game in the states.

CB900F
August 5, 2007, 07:23 PM
Fella's;

I'll second that comment by Colt46. I bought my son his first center fire game rifle for his 16th birthday. The Remington Classic in 6.5 Swede.

Go ahead, try to get it away from him. You won't like the results. Unfortunately he's not able to use it now as he's vacationing at sunny Baghdad International Airport & they frown (severely) on non-standard toys.

900F

If you enjoyed reading about "6.5x55 vs. .270" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!