This came to me from Primary Arms comparing these two calibers. http://news.primaryarms.com/q/MjccR...YXJ0ZXJ0bi5uZXTDiANQnVUEEadIWLEwMdO7wU0KzQO1A
Interesting .308 Win vs. 6.5 Creedmore
- Thread starter hso
- Start date
- Status
That does a good job of explaining the difference. I've been loading 308 with 178 gr ELD's and that helps keep the 308 closer to the 6.5 in energy for a little longer. You get more bullet drop, but out to reasonable hunting ranges not enough to matter.
Three points they didn't address is recoil, barrel life, and sectional density. The 6.5 CM has recoil much closer to 243 than 308. And a 140-147 gr 6.5 bullet will out penetrate 150-168 gr .308 bullets at any range. If you move up to 180's in 308 then you start getting similar penetration. The only category where 308 wins is barrel life. And the 6.5 CM isn't too bad.
Three points they didn't address is recoil, barrel life, and sectional density. The 6.5 CM has recoil much closer to 243 than 308. And a 140-147 gr 6.5 bullet will out penetrate 150-168 gr .308 bullets at any range. If you move up to 180's in 308 then you start getting similar penetration. The only category where 308 wins is barrel life. And the 6.5 CM isn't too bad.
Dr T
Member
As I get a bit older, my right shoulder has a louder voice in my selection of hunting rifles. For years, I have used a 308 Ruger M77 Frontier as a primary hunting rifle with a 243 Tikka T3 as my backup. This year it looks like it will be a 6.5 CM TC Venture primary with the same 243 backup.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,947
It’s all old news. Anyone who is interested in these pursuits will find plenty of this kind of information out there, and most folks who really follow long range shooting have heard this all a long time ago now. Frankly, outside of games which require 308win, like tactical rifle, high power, Palma, etc, it hasn’t been a popular long range competition rifle for a long, long time. Even for deer hunting, the heavy 30’s have been losing air time for a long time. Misguided newbies buy a lot of 308wins, but all-too-often their second rifle comes quickly, in something NOT 308.
Anyone who knows a thing or two about cartridges but doesn’t see the advantages of the 6.5 creed - or a dozen similar cartridges - over the 308win is choosing to be ignorant. Some folks are still convinced the world is flat.
Anyone who knows a thing or two about cartridges but doesn’t see the advantages of the 6.5 creed - or a dozen similar cartridges - over the 308win is choosing to be ignorant. Some folks are still convinced the world is flat.
I earned my Distinguished with an M1a and I accepted my Distinguished Rifleman's medal on stage at Camp Perry, so I have a great fondness for the 308 Win and the M1a. The 7.62 mm round was designed as a combat round, not a target round. The Army is ultra conservative and hates change, and it turned out the 7.62 round duplicated the 30-06 service round in a shorter package. Which was not bad, in my opinion. The extra weight of a 30 caliber bullet, over a 6.5 round, was considered beneficial. As a combat round, those countries that had anemic 6.5 rounds, (that is the Japanese 6.5 and the Italian 6.5) were making a transition during WW2 to a larger bullet. Don't know why the Swedes stayed with their 6.5, maybe because it had a little more velocity.
The 8mm Mauser had everyone beat in terms of a heavy bullet, a steel buttplate K98 really kicks with a 200 grain bullet. But, never heard any complaints about on target performance.
The 7.62 Nato round is a fine battle round, because of the number of weapons out there firing it, the round will probably outlast anyone reading this. As a military round, I doubt any 6.5 will be replacing it, as whatever long range advantages the 6.5 has, it is not so overwhelming that a critic could say, it was 200% better overall. To convince any military to make an expensive change over, those sort of numbers are needed to move the project against the inertia of the organization.
I think the Sec Def made a mistake dumping the M14, while I only own M1a's, it is a great rifle.
I have fired at distance enough times to become very skeptical about long range shooting for any purpose except fun. I remember being squadded at 1000 yards, with a former Wimbleton cup winner, and discussing how either of us would be just ecstatic if our first sighting shot was inside the 8 ring. This is at a range where both of us had 1000 yard zero's , on that firing point, with the rifles and ammunition we were using in that match. I have been able to shoot a lot more 600 yard practice at CMP Talladega, and you know, 600 yards is a long way. CMP no longer lets lever action shooters blaze away at 600 yards, because the target frames are so expensive to repair. So when I read of 700, 800, 1200 yard shots, sure, people do that. And it is fine if you are shooting on paper, because if you mis place your shot, you are not hurting anything. I don't consider it ethical for hunting. I have sighted my hunting rifles in at 300 yards down at CMP Talladega, maybe if they had a 400 yard target I would have confidence at that range, but even then, the typical rifle takes 3 MOA to go from 200 yards to 300 yards, and that is a nine inch drop. My 6.5 Swedes are somewhat less than the 30 calibers, but it is somewhat less. And I am going to say, 300 yards is a long way with a hunting rifle. Now a heavy weight rifle with a bipod and sand bag rest, 300 yards is not that hard once you are dialed in. Still, if you don't have good 600 yard zero's, good bullets, good bedding, and a good barrel, don't be surprised if you don't stay on the eight foot by eight foot target frame at 600 yards. With rifles that would hold six to eight inches at 300 yards, I have shot groups that only stayed in the black at 600 yards. Still puzzling over that.
Rifle liked Sierra Match Kings at 200 and 300 yards
Seemed to do well with Fed Fusion pulled bullets at 300 yards.
Was the one out me or the bullet? Hard to know
Not a bragging group at 600 yards.
And, on one 6.5 Swede, I ran out of elevation on the scope going from 300 to 600 yards.
The range master at the 600 yard range was hitting golf balls at 600 yards with his 6.5 Creedmoor, but he knew the range, and its winds, to an inch. Then his rifle blew up, and based on what he told me, neither of us has a clue why. I think his load was a 140 SMK (or Berger) with 42 grs H4350. Don't know how you mess that up.
Of course, the further you go out, the better ballistics of the 7mm and 6.5 mm will always provide an advantage, but only if the shooter is capable of hitting something beside planet earth. Shooting is a skill game, not some deterministic thing, where some combination of expensive equipment will make up for lack of shooting skills. And that is what you basically read on the web, just buy expensive equipment and all you have to do is pull the trigger and you will hit something. It also seems that 2 miles is now the old 1000 yards.
Something is true, is that the barrel life of a 6.5 Creedmore is less than a 308 Win. I have talked to several buds, a 6.5 Creedmoor barrel life is around 3500 rounds, which is pretty good. I think the barrel life on the 6.5-284's was around 1200. A good 308 barrel will still be clustering around 4000 to 4500, sometimes 5000 rounds. When a barrel replacement is going to cost around $600.00, that ought to be factored in, especially as everyone is going to be using their 6.5 Creedmore at 700 plus yards. A high mileage barrel will actually shoot pretty good out to 300 yards, but the further you go out, the more it pukes shots.
This is has to be close to the ultimate long range gun:
Just buy one of these and have at it, 700 yards is spitting distance for these guns.
The guys with the five inch cannons are just wannabees
five inchers are secondary armament on a battleship. Just a step above the anti air craft mounts.
The 8mm Mauser had everyone beat in terms of a heavy bullet, a steel buttplate K98 really kicks with a 200 grain bullet. But, never heard any complaints about on target performance.
The 7.62 Nato round is a fine battle round, because of the number of weapons out there firing it, the round will probably outlast anyone reading this. As a military round, I doubt any 6.5 will be replacing it, as whatever long range advantages the 6.5 has, it is not so overwhelming that a critic could say, it was 200% better overall. To convince any military to make an expensive change over, those sort of numbers are needed to move the project against the inertia of the organization.
I think the Sec Def made a mistake dumping the M14, while I only own M1a's, it is a great rifle.
I have fired at distance enough times to become very skeptical about long range shooting for any purpose except fun. I remember being squadded at 1000 yards, with a former Wimbleton cup winner, and discussing how either of us would be just ecstatic if our first sighting shot was inside the 8 ring. This is at a range where both of us had 1000 yard zero's , on that firing point, with the rifles and ammunition we were using in that match. I have been able to shoot a lot more 600 yard practice at CMP Talladega, and you know, 600 yards is a long way. CMP no longer lets lever action shooters blaze away at 600 yards, because the target frames are so expensive to repair. So when I read of 700, 800, 1200 yard shots, sure, people do that. And it is fine if you are shooting on paper, because if you mis place your shot, you are not hurting anything. I don't consider it ethical for hunting. I have sighted my hunting rifles in at 300 yards down at CMP Talladega, maybe if they had a 400 yard target I would have confidence at that range, but even then, the typical rifle takes 3 MOA to go from 200 yards to 300 yards, and that is a nine inch drop. My 6.5 Swedes are somewhat less than the 30 calibers, but it is somewhat less. And I am going to say, 300 yards is a long way with a hunting rifle. Now a heavy weight rifle with a bipod and sand bag rest, 300 yards is not that hard once you are dialed in. Still, if you don't have good 600 yard zero's, good bullets, good bedding, and a good barrel, don't be surprised if you don't stay on the eight foot by eight foot target frame at 600 yards. With rifles that would hold six to eight inches at 300 yards, I have shot groups that only stayed in the black at 600 yards. Still puzzling over that.
Rifle liked Sierra Match Kings at 200 and 300 yards
Seemed to do well with Fed Fusion pulled bullets at 300 yards.
Was the one out me or the bullet? Hard to know
Not a bragging group at 600 yards.
And, on one 6.5 Swede, I ran out of elevation on the scope going from 300 to 600 yards.
The range master at the 600 yard range was hitting golf balls at 600 yards with his 6.5 Creedmoor, but he knew the range, and its winds, to an inch. Then his rifle blew up, and based on what he told me, neither of us has a clue why. I think his load was a 140 SMK (or Berger) with 42 grs H4350. Don't know how you mess that up.
Of course, the further you go out, the better ballistics of the 7mm and 6.5 mm will always provide an advantage, but only if the shooter is capable of hitting something beside planet earth. Shooting is a skill game, not some deterministic thing, where some combination of expensive equipment will make up for lack of shooting skills. And that is what you basically read on the web, just buy expensive equipment and all you have to do is pull the trigger and you will hit something. It also seems that 2 miles is now the old 1000 yards.
Something is true, is that the barrel life of a 6.5 Creedmore is less than a 308 Win. I have talked to several buds, a 6.5 Creedmoor barrel life is around 3500 rounds, which is pretty good. I think the barrel life on the 6.5-284's was around 1200. A good 308 barrel will still be clustering around 4000 to 4500, sometimes 5000 rounds. When a barrel replacement is going to cost around $600.00, that ought to be factored in, especially as everyone is going to be using their 6.5 Creedmore at 700 plus yards. A high mileage barrel will actually shoot pretty good out to 300 yards, but the further you go out, the more it pukes shots.
This is has to be close to the ultimate long range gun:
Just buy one of these and have at it, 700 yards is spitting distance for these guns.
The guys with the five inch cannons are just wannabees
five inchers are secondary armament on a battleship. Just a step above the anti air craft mounts.
Last edited:
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,947
You do realize there is an Army solicitation currently in search for a 6.5 round to replace the 308, right?
I thought they were trying to replace the 5.56 with a 6.5. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...again-looking-to-replace-the-5-56mm-cartridge https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...-round-special-ops-getting-new-sniper-bullet/ Or is the concept du jour going to be another universal round?. One that combines the stopping power of a 20mm cannon round with the recoil of a 9mm, all in a seven pound package?
I have not checked Biz Ops recently, might find a solicitation for a trans warp speed space ship. Only for a well connected 8A.
Last edited:
Ks5shooter
Contributing Member
Shoot what you like I say,just like wine, drink what you like. I have many calibers and none that the 6.5 niche wont fit within a few hundred feet per second etc. You can sell me on coefficient etc,but I have yet to see a deer that knows the difference.I will hear ....but at so and so yards etc. I have killed deer at 30 yds out to 400 and all went well. Bullet choice is your friend and with all modern choices I am happy with all current options for my current calibers.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,947
I don’t believe it’s a universal replacement strategy, as I have not heard anything about M4’s being reviewed against 6.5 creeds. However, many of the non-M4 small arms are already in question, if not already replaced. The squad auto 5.56 is one solicitation, intended to be replaced by a 6.5 creed. It was reported quite a while ago USSOCOM announced they’re already replacing 7.62 sniper rifles with 6.5’s.
Special Operations gets to play with anything they want. One of the reasons they are Special.
Charlie98
Member
Personally, and this is my cynicism poking through, usefulness, utility, or superiority have nothing to do with why the military decides to try and find something 'better,' and I think the ultimate 'winner' of the selection process is bought and paid for. Arms are at the heart of the Military Industrial Complex... there is just too much gravy there to ignore.
Having said that, just like the A-10, they are really trying to disappear the M-14 platform. There is nothing wrong with it, they just want something 'different.'
mcb
Member
Yeah the big army is not going to get rid of 7.62x51 any time soon. Sure some of the SOCOM guys will get their boutique 6.5mm guns to play with but there are thousands of M24 and other bolt and gas 7.62x51 guns out there in unit armories across the Army and all the other branches that are not going to get converted and are not going away. Not to mention common supply chains with our NATO allies. 6.5 might weasel into a few niche special forces units but it not going to replace 7.62x51 anytime soon if ever, Army or DOD wide.
How many time did they put out a solicitation for a new Army sidearm before we got one and it was still a 9mm gun. How many times have they solicited a replacement to the M16/M4, 249, 240, etc that have failed to produce a new weapon system with or without a caliber change. There is little the 6.5 can do that can't be done with 308 and by the time you get ranges far enough to see the difference between the two cartridges the skill required to shoot that far becomes far more important than what pushed the bullet out there.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,947
I’m not sure why it always comes up, @LoonWulf , but it does always... I personally don’t really care if surplus ammo is available for any cartridge I own. I haven’t ever fed a 7.62 NATO surplus round to any rifle I have ever owned, haven’t shot surplus 5.56 in probably 15yrs, and then only a handful. Not even surplus x39 in that time. Never found the savings to be worth the quality I was buying, vs. reloading on a progressive.
But it does always come up. As if any world condition will suddenly put all commercial manufacturers to work as we did during World War II and civilian supply would dry up....
Some people really like green popsicles, that doesn’t make sense to me either. I was the guy 20yrs ago suggesting rounds like the 7-08, 7x57, 6.5x55, 280, 260, etc over a 308win for any general purpose rifle, especially anything doing work past 400yrds. We have a handful of better options today than even that list. If I need more bullet weight than a 6.5 Creed can handle or more power, then I wouldn’t consider stopping at a 308win, or even really at a 30-06. But some people like green popsicles...
Civilians aren’t stuck with military cartridges, thankfully not. “Logistically impossible to change” isn’t a deciding factor in the .civ world.
But it does always come up. As if any world condition will suddenly put all commercial manufacturers to work as we did during World War II and civilian supply would dry up....
Some people really like green popsicles, that doesn’t make sense to me either. I was the guy 20yrs ago suggesting rounds like the 7-08, 7x57, 6.5x55, 280, 260, etc over a 308win for any general purpose rifle, especially anything doing work past 400yrds. We have a handful of better options today than even that list. If I need more bullet weight than a 6.5 Creed can handle or more power, then I wouldn’t consider stopping at a 308win, or even really at a 30-06. But some people like green popsicles...
Civilians aren’t stuck with military cartridges, thankfully not. “Logistically impossible to change” isn’t a deciding factor in the .civ world.
That is a very good question. I think the 7.62 Nato or 308 Win round is doing quite well for a cartridge developed during WW2 and whose primary purpose was that of a combat round. In that time period, 1000 yard shooting had been going on at the National Matches, some long range barrage shooting had occurred during the War, (I met at one Vet who silenced a Japanese machine gun at an extreme range) but the round had to meet a multiplicity of needs, punching paper was not a priority or even the only priority. So, is the comparison of the 6.5 Creedmore against a military round a proper comparison? Sort of a race car versus economy car comparison, gee, which one will win the race?
Maybe the 6.5 Creedmore ought to be compared against the other 6.5 mm target rounds. That would be much closer to an apples to apples comparison.
What bothers me is we talk about the capabilities of a cartridge like the 6.5 in multi-thousand dollar rifle scope combinations with custom turrets, ballistics calculators, etc and guys go out and buy it thinking they can duplicate that performance in a Ruger American. You end up with wounded game, and a bad reputation. And it reflects poorly on all of us.
I have nothing against the 6.5. But you still have to know your, and your rifles, limitations.
A military contract means that ammunition companies are going to dump a whole lot of money into R&D for application in the civilian world. Which makes that round more capable to the average shooter/hunter. Which is what most of us are. It also means gun manufacturers are going to chamber popular rifles in that caliber. Not for true competition shooters. They custom build their own. But for hunters and recreational shooters.
I have nothing against the 6.5. But you still have to know your, and your rifles, limitations.
A military contract means that ammunition companies are going to dump a whole lot of money into R&D for application in the civilian world. Which makes that round more capable to the average shooter/hunter. Which is what most of us are. It also means gun manufacturers are going to chamber popular rifles in that caliber. Not for true competition shooters. They custom build their own. But for hunters and recreational shooters.
Newtosavage
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
After looking at that article and those ballistics tables, I like the way my 7mm-08 with 162 ELD-X's stacks up. 
I think that used to be the case, but i think now the civilian shooters are more demanding in terms of performance than the Military. Compare a modern commercial .308 to anything the military is using (that im aware of, again not my area of expertise) and balistically the civi round will out perform the military one.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,947
I’ve shot against guys running Ruger Americans at every PRS Club Series match I’ve ever shot - even more guys shooting the chassis wrapped Precision Rifle version of the American. Even out to 1300yrds, they make hits on targets without issue when the shooter has good DOPE and a known zero. In precision rifle games, the difference in in a 3/4moa rifle and a 1/4moa rifle is largely moot, so the RA’s shoot plenty small enough. The difference is in the 1) shooter’s skills/knowledge, 2) time lost on forced reloads due to 5rnd mags, and 3) less stability in Positional stages because of the lighter rifle and sub-optimal stock (which is either time lost, or misses, or both).
A Ruger American won’t set any benchrest records, but if we’re honest, most custom rifles used in precision rifle games wouldn’t either.
larueminati
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2017
- Messages
- 58
Did they not mention barrel length? Am I wrong in that you need a substantially longer barrel with the 6.5 to maintain it's numbers?
mcb
Member
Another pet peeve in this whole 308 vs 6.5 debate is the use of outdated drag models. The tables in the OP's original article are erroneous. They use a G7 ballstic coefficient but the ELD bullet does not fit the G7 model very well hence the reason Hornady has published a chart on their website with three different velocity ranges for each of the ELD bullets. Over the velocity range reported in the article the BC for the 6.5 147gr ELD bullet drops by 8.5% (
(0.351 @ M2.25, 0.332 @M2.0, 0.321 @ M1.75 G7) where the 308 168gr ELD bullet only drops by 4.5% over the same velocity range (0.263 @M2.25, 0.259 @M2.0, 0.251 @M1.75 G7) . Yet the table use a constant and the highest velocity BC for the entire table even though both bullet have dropped below that BC's velocity range by the time the pass 400 yards. That is not going to make the 308 better than 6.5 but the difference reported in those table are larger than you would most likely see in the real world or had you just used the correct BC at the correct velocities.
Why the big bullet maker have not created a new G-model for this new family of VLD bullets is beyond me. They keep trying to shoe horn these new bullets into decades old drag models and its only getting worst.
(0.351 @ M2.25, 0.332 @M2.0, 0.321 @ M1.75 G7) where the 308 168gr ELD bullet only drops by 4.5% over the same velocity range (0.263 @M2.25, 0.259 @M2.0, 0.251 @M1.75 G7) . Yet the table use a constant and the highest velocity BC for the entire table even though both bullet have dropped below that BC's velocity range by the time the pass 400 yards. That is not going to make the 308 better than 6.5 but the difference reported in those table are larger than you would most likely see in the real world or had you just used the correct BC at the correct velocities.
Why the big bullet maker have not created a new G-model for this new family of VLD bullets is beyond me. They keep trying to shoe horn these new bullets into decades old drag models and its only getting worst.
Charlie98
Member
Validity. Not just the cartridge but the weapons themselves. I opine that if the Army would have adopted the Savage automatic, instead of the 1911, we would have Ed Brown and Les Baer $3000 Savage automatics instead of 1911's, etc, and look at the popularity of the Beretta M9... a mediocre pistol at best. As far as the 6.5mm, all those people who are proclaiming the 6.5 as the Second Coming would immediately crow about how their round was found to be superior.
In reality, it means the cartridge and platform get far more attention and refinement.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,947
I thought that before reading the first time. They were something like 2650fps with the 140’s in the 6.5, which suggests to me they were running a 22-24” 6.5 Creed. They were 2750ish in the 308 with the 150’s, so I’d guess the same 24”.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter much - the advantages remain the same. The Creedmoor loses less velocity in flight than the 308, and the recoil is less. In comparisons I have seen, you’re talking 25-35fps per inch for either cartridge, depending upon powder, in the 20-26” ballpark. Nobody is comparing long range performance of a 26” 6.5 creed against a 16” AR-10 carbine and thumping their chest. Guys get too caught up sometimes (myself included) by saying “it’s a smaller bore so it needs a longer barrel to be optimized.” It sure sounds good, but often isn’t really true unless your only objective is to get the same velocity with the same bullet weight - a fool’s errand most of the time.
In real world practice, I would offer the counter argument: the 308win needs more velocity - more barrel length - to make up for its poor aerodynamics if it wants to keep up with the 6.5 creed at range. With better aerodynamics, a 6.5 Creedmoor can sacrifice some velocity by running a shorter barrel to get the same trajectory, or still less drop at range than a 308win. Which is what is shown in the article - the 308win starts out 100fps faster, but then falls behind the Creedmoor pretty quickly downrange.
I experience the same thing any given match weekend. I’m shooting 105 Hybrids from a 24” 6 Creedmoor, loading to the low node (2.5grn off max), against guys shooting 140’s out of 26” 6.5 Creedmoor rifles with their foot on the gas. I have less drop on my cards than they do, even running a below max load in a shorter barrel - and less recoil.
- Status
