Quite honestly i would expect a "Pred" weight gun to shoot better for most folks simply because the balance is farther forward and its a bit heavier. Ive found that to make them easier to shoot. In mechanical accuracy i honestly doubt theres a whole lot.
If you dont need the compact or regulars lower weight and smaller size (in the case of the compact) then id get a pred weight gun..... probably a Go Wild.
I generally trend towards lighter rifles and haven't found that I shoot weight forward rifles any better off hand. From a bench or prone with a tripod I don't notice much difference. That said, one of the things that has me looking at one of these is my 2022 plan of pulling out stuff from my reloading room that I have "forgotten" about and either putting it to use or getting rid of it. It is getting cramped in there... I uncovered an older Hawke 4.5-14x42mm Sidewinder scope that needs a home, and I have been oogling an American rifle for a while, so I decided it was time to take the plunge on an American, add one one of the cartridges I had been considering (yeah, yeah, I know, I am going to spend $450 on a rifle and lord only knows how much on dies, components, comparator, etc. to put on old scope that I got in a trade to use. I am confident that I am not the only one here that sees complete logic in that lunacy).
The reason that scope ended up on the shelf is that it is heavy, around 1.7lb. If it weren't for that, I would definitely be looking to keep the rifle light, but it seems a little silly to get the lightest version of the American then strap that heavy scope to the top of it. I should probably take the scope over to the LGS and see if they will let me put it on the 7mm-08 I looked at the other day to see how it impacts the handling. But, even the 6 lb compact would be around 8 pounds with that scope, a sling, and loaded. Definitely not the sub 7 pounds earlthegoat has in his. At ~8lb for the compact, or ~8.5lb for the predator, it will really come down to balance since the lightweight ship has pretty much sailed at that point. Not that either of those cartridges are recoil heavy, but a little extra weight can't hurt take the edge off that.
Length is also consideration. I tend to like to stay closer to 40" over all length to stay comfortably inside my preferred carrying cases and because I find that a fairly important couple of inches when carrying in woods, etc. Again, not a rock solid rule, this is going to be more of an "open field" rifle. In bolt actions I have a Howa mini in 7.62x39 that is only 38" long that is my go to for eastern woods where shots are shorter. That is one handy good handling little rifle in a soft recoiling cartridge, so I do that that niche covered.
300-500 yards? That’s a decent poke. Either rifle can handle it. But you lost me at elk. I know it can be done. I know it’s been done. And 6.5 boys are gonna flame me to no end. But I don’t like the 6.5 for elk. “But the BC, and SD, and penetration, and and and”. I know. It’s still a really small hole on a pretty dang big animal. If it runs, I wouldn’t count on much blood. I’ve shot the RAM in everything from 223-450BM. They are great shooting rifles. Even the x39. The stocks are kind of flimsy but can be upgraded.
Ok, I’m ready. Flame suit on. Lemme have it.
Yeah, no flames from me. That is one of the things that had me leaning 7mm-08 for just a little more oomph. But, if I did get a chance to go after an elk, it would most likely be a cow, and I would go into it with the mindset that if I couldn't get close enough and get the perfect shot, that I would pass and be happy with the experience. Both cartridges have been used successfully, even though they are on the light end of the spectrum. My feeling is that they are both ethical, as long as you respect the limitations and don't try to make some 600 yard shot across a ravine that I have no business taking at anything more sentient than a steel plate or piece of paper. I am definitely not eyeing this as a dedicated elk rifle, but more of an "all-purpose" setup with more reach than the .223, 7.62x39, and .30-30 that I have in my safe at the moment, but less recoil than the couple of .308s that have come and gone over the years.
I have 3 Predators. A 223 that takes AR magazines, a 308 that takes AI style magazines and a 6.5CM that uses standard 4 round magazines. The 6.5 shipped with the older style rotary magazine, but Ruger is now offering a 4 round staggered mag that is supposed to be better. I have a couple of the staggered mags as spares.
My only complaint is that I've had minor issues with both mags in the 6.5. Never a single issue with the 308 or 223 mags. With the Predator version you can buy an insert for the stock and convert it to use the AI magazines. Not sure you can do that with the standard rifle. All 3 shoot exceptionally well.
I REALLY like the Predator barrel profile better. It isn't a heavy barrel, but more of a lightweight varmint barrel. The standard rifles are a touch too light in my opinion and the Predators perfect.
I paid $350 each for mine and at that price felt it was a no-brainer. Nothing else at the time could match the performance at that price. I've seen the standard rifle as low as $250, with around $300 being the norm, but that was a few years ago. IMO they are now overpriced. I'm seeing the Predators at $500-$550 now. I can't recall the last. time I saw a standard American. That is more than I'd pay when I can get a Tikka for $600. My Tikka's are ever so slightly more accurate, about the same weight, and the mags work on Tikka's.
I'd advise resisting the urge to "upgrade". While the Ruger's look cheesy, they work. Any upgrades will mostly be cosmetic and not improve performance. It's easy to end up with $800-$1000 in one of these rifles. If I'm putting that much in a rifle there are better options.
For what you want to do I'd go 6.5CM. Ammo is much more readily available and at better prices. Even if you handload brass is easier to find. The round is exceptionally accurate. I've had a chance to fire 4-5 different rifles in 6.5 CM and every single one was more accurate than any other rifle I've ever fired in any cartridge. Recoil splits the difference between 308 and 243 but is a bit closer to 243. It is a great dual-purpose cartridge for informal long-range target shooting and then you can use the same rifle for big game hunting.
I wouldn't choose an 6.5 as a dedicated elk rifle. But if that is what I had, and I had a chance to elk hunt I'd not stay home. It should be about ideal for most everything else. It will do anything a 270 will do and the 270 has been killing everything in North America since 1925. A 270 shoots the same bullet weights about 200 fps slower at the muzzle. Essentially, a 6.5 CM is the same speed at the muzzle as a 270 is at 100 yards. But as range increases the 6.5 closes the gap and by the time you're at 300 yards they are basically the same speed.
A .277" bullet is about the thickness of a sheet of paper larger in diameter than a .264" bullet. A .308" bullet is only a little larger in diameter than the thickness of a fingernail. Even a 35 caliber bullet is making a small hole relative to the size of an elk. The advantage of larger calibers is that you can use heavier bullets, not the size of the hole.
Thanks for the tip on the magazines, I will try to figure out what the ones I look at have and get the newer version if possible. Your point about upgrading and just going to a Tikka is good. I do tend to upgrade stuff, and completely agree that if you are dumping money into triggers, stocks, etc. it makes a lot of sense to start with something that isn't in the "budget" rifle class. My plan is to slap a scope on it, maybe tinker with the factory trigger to get it where I like, dial in a couple loads then have it for a decent shooting all purpose rifle that I don't have a bundle of money tied up in with a plastic stock that I don't particularly care about.
The 7mm seems to have a slight edge over the 6.5CM based on the load data and basic ballistic calcs I have been looking at. But, if I went to the compact, the 7mm ends up 2" shorter than the 6.5CM, which likely all but erases that difference. At the end of the day, for either one, it seems that they have reasonably flat trajectories with MPBR in the 300 yard range using an 8" target area, and over 1500 ft-lb of energy at that range. So, if you select a bullet that is well suited to the target, and put it where it needs to go, it is likely going to do its job.
I would generally lean towards the 7mm just to be different. As I spend time looking, reading, and thinking on these calibers, I just keep coming back to the fact that 6.5CM performs well across the board, and components seem to be easier to find than the 7mm stuff. There are other cartridges that shoot flatter, have more power, have less recoil, use cheaper off the self ammo, etc. than 6.5CM, but the 6.5 seems to hit a bit of a sweet spot of doing all those things pretty darn well.
Thanks all for the great input. From an accuracy standpoint, barrel heat aside, it sounds like there is negligible mechanical accuracy difference between the models. The search goes on, I think the next step is to put that scope on a compact to see how it balances. If it seems nice, I will probably either go compact and change out the stock to a standard if I can't get comfortable behind a 12.5" LOP, or go standard and have the barrel cut down if it bothers me (it may not). If the heavier scope throws the balance of the standard off, I will probably opt for the predator. Again, if the extra length bothers me I can have the barrel cut down. I don't care about the threading, I don't plan on a suppressor and have no need for a brake at this power level.
