6.5 C and 260 Rem speeds...

[mshootnit]

Here is an average of 21 published Maximum velocities for 6.5 Creedmoor and 260 Remington. Nosler data and Hodgdon data. Most of these published loads for 260 were 24" barrels with 1-9 twist while 6.5 twist was listed at 1-8.

6.5 Creedmoor 130-135 gr bullets: 2819 fps.

260 Remington 129-130 gr. 2815 fps.

What I was curious about were how these two compared and evidently it is a toss up as far as muzzle speed.

Interesting to note: the 6.5 speeds from Hodgdon listed for 130 gr. are strangely low, even lower than their 135 gr. listings which are more comparable to normal 130 gr. speeds. Except for 6.5 Sta-ball which was faster.
Dropping from 24" to common 22" barrels will probably reduce these speeds around 60 fps on average.
If you have any real world muzzle speeds to share for either or both of these rounds please share along with your barrel length.

 

[LoonWulf]

So i can give you "generalized" speeds of 2950ish for a 120, and 2800ish for a 140, from a 22" barrel (ive had 4)
Id have to chrono my guns again, cause i dont remember, but with superformance, rl-17, or rl-16, those are the speeds I expect to reach with those bullet weights.
I do need to chrono my 24" so ill check again.

The 6.5CM actually only has a bout a grain less capacity than the .260 so they should be pretty bloody similar.

 

[Goosey]

260 has a couple grains more capacity, so it has potential to outrun the Creedmoor by an inconsequential amount, with bullet seated to standard COLs that advantage drops. Think 20 fps perhaps.

 

[C-grunt]

My 6.5 Creedmoor handload of 41.5 grains of H4350 under a Hornady 140 ELD-M averages 2760 out of my 22 inch barrel.

That's not a hot load and I can top 2800 easily. But that weight has been a very accurate load and has made multiple hits out at a mile, so I keep it there.

 

[jmr40]

The 260 was designed with 120-130 gr hunting bullets in mind. With those bullet weights it will be a bit faster than 6.5 CM. The 6.5 CM was developed because the long range target shooters were having trouble making the long high BC 140-150 gr target bullets work with 260. Within the same weight the more aerodynamic target bullets will be longer than hunting bullets.

Those longer target bullets, seated so they would fit in a 260 magazine and chamber took up so much room inside the case that powder capacity and velocity was reduced. In order to make 260 work with those bullets required out of spec handloads with the bullets seated much farther out. Then they needed to build custom rifles to work with those cartridges. The barrels needed to be twisted faster to use those bullets too.

The 6.5 CM was designed to offer the same performance with off the shelf rifles and ammo. If you're shooting hunting bullets, or any bullet under about 140 gr the 260 has a marginal edge. With heavier target bullets the 6.5 CM has the edge.

My 6.5 Creedmoor handload of 41.5 grains of H4350 under a Hornady 140 ELD-M averages 2760 out of my 22 inch barrel.

I use the same powder charge with 139 gr Lapua Scenar's for about the same speed. I've never tried anything lighter than 139 gr. Shot a lot of 143-147 gr Hornady ELD's.

 

[Gtscotty]

260 has a couple grains more capacity, so it has potential to outrun the Creedmoor by an inconsequential amount, with bullet seated to standard COLs that advantage drops. Think 20 fps perhaps.

It depends on how long you're loading them, but with both loaded to 2.8" with a bullet on the heavier side like the 142gr Sierra hpbt, the 6.5 actually has a bit more net capacity than the .260, Quickload predicts ~2gr. With lighter bullets the .260 may have a small advantage.

If you have any real world muzzle speeds to share for either or both of these rounds please share along with your barrel length.

Here are my main loads for my hunting 6.5 (20") and my steel/LR 6.5 (24").

20" 6.5 CM:
127gr LRX @2,850 fps
140gr BT @ 2,700 fps
142gr ABLR @ 2,730 fps

24" 6.5 CM
140gr RDF @ 2,760 fps

I have an 18" 6.5 barrel that I'm swapping into my Sig Cross, I'm looking forward to getting it out and seeing how it chronos/shoots with the loads I made for my 20". I expect it will be more than adequate for deer/antelope at any range I'll shoot them.

 

[mavracer]

Sorry I know its the .243 versions and not the .264 but this illustrates the differenc Much like the .243 vs 6 Creed comparison the .260 has a smidge more capacity then the Creed less so with heavy bullets. The Creeds are a little easier to get the long high BC bullets to shoot "right".
Unfortunately the 260 doesnt have the 50 year head start that the 243 had, the fact that you have to work a little to make the 243 and 260 work for long range and the Creeds do both easy I see the 260 is past it's peak for popularly.

 

[MachIVshooter]

They are ballistic twins, and very nearly actual twins in term of the cartridges themselves. It's the rifles that make the difference, 6.5 Creed barrels having a faster twist and longer throat to accommodate longer, heavier bullets.

It's not unlike the situation with the .244 Remington and .243 Winchester. In that case, the larger .244 actually did have a velocity advantage, but it lost out to the .243 because .243 rifles with their faster twist could stabilize heavier bullets.

If you find a good deal on a nice .260, go for it, especially if you handload. Otherwise, 6.5 Creed makes a lot more sense today.

 

[Goosey]

It depends on how long you're loading them, but with both loaded to 2.8" with a bullet on the heavier side like the 142gr Sierra hpbt, the 6.5 actually has a bit more net capacity than the .260, Quickload predicts ~2gr. With lighter bullets the .260 may have a small advantage.

Quickload defaults are 52.5 and 53.5, a lot of 260 brass has a grain or two more than that compared to the 6.5 though, a long bullet like a 142 displaces about 2 gr more water in the 260 than it does in the Creedmoor loaded to SAAMI max (.025" longer for Creedmoor), so you need about 2 gr more capacity to be equal. In other words really close enough not to matter.

 

[eastbank]

my rem sps 700 has a 24" barrel with a 1-8 twist.

 

[mavracer]

Interesting to note: the 6.5 speeds from Hodgdon listed for 130 gr. are strangely low, even lower than their 135 gr. listings which are more comparable to normal 130 gr. speeds.

Most of the time stuff like that has to do with individual bullet design, I did notice they loaded the 135 out a bit more.

 

[mshootnit]

Nosler 130 gr. Ave Max 6.5 Creed: 2868.1
Nosler 130 gr. Ave Max 260 Rem: 2853.7

Hodgdon 130 gr. Ave Max 6.5: 2654.6
Hodgdon 130 gr. Ave Max 260 2777.6
Hodgdon 135 gr. Ave Max. 6.5 2770

 

[Laphroaig]

The 6.5-08 wildcat was a step in the evolution of the 6.5 creed. Remington, as usual, adopted the .260 but didn't do anything to improve on it. Hornady listened to a knowledgeable rifle competitor and made some tweaks that improved the cartridge. Give a .260 a longer throat and magazine and a faster twist barrel and you'd essentially have the same thing.

 

[Garandimal]

And then there's the 24"/1:8 twist 6.5x55mm Creedmoor's Grandpa...






GR

 

[MachIVshooter]

And then there's the 24"/1:8 twist 6.5x55mm Creedmoor's Grandpa...






GR

I prefer the 6.5x55 specifically because it's not the Creedmoor. Nothing wrong the the Creed, and the Swede can't outperform it by any meaningful amount, I just generally prefer stuff that isn't trendy when the option exists.

I have numerous 6.5mm rifles, none of them Creedmoor

 

[eastbank]

in my CZ 550 in 6.5x55 with 24" barrel and 1-8 twist with N-560 and a magizine box that will take a full lenth loaded 3006, it will out preform the 6.5 cM and the .260 rem.. i have been pushing 140 gr bullets at over 2800+ fps and 120 gr bullets at 3000+fps with no sings of presser at all. i may go higher, but for now i have no need.

 

[Gtscotty]

I prefer the 6.5x55 specifically because it's not the Creedmoor. Nothing wrong the the Creed, and the Swede can't outperform it by any meaningful amount, I just generally prefer stuff that isn't trendy when the option exists.

I have numerous 6.5mm rifles, none of them Creedmoor

To each their own, I'm kind of the opposite and sold off my 6.5x55 when I realized that it wouldn't do anything the 6.5 CM or .260 couldn't do. Couldn't figure out why I should put up with the long action and under pressure published load data when the newer options did the exact same thing from a short action with plentiful up to date full pressure load data and way more rifle options. I'm ok with either being in the crowd or not, as long as what I'm doing best fits my purposes.

 

[MachIVshooter]

To each their own, I'm kind of the opposite and sold off my 6.5x55 when I realized that it wouldn't do anything the 6.5 CM or .260 couldn't do. Couldn't figure out why I should put up with the long action and under pressure published load data when the newer options did the exact same thing from a short action with plentiful up to date full pressure load data and way more rifle options. I'm ok with either being in the crowd or not, as long as what I'm doing best fits my purposes.

I never said my cartridge preferences are pragmatic What I like personally and what I recommend practically are seldom the same. I'm a big fan of my 8mm mag, but for most people, .300 or .338 win mag would be much more sensible. Slightly less potent, but not by an amount that really matters in the field, and they won't have to handload using brass that is expensive and rarely available, probably needing formed from 7 STW or .375 H&H.

 

[LoonWulf]

I never said my cartridge preferences are pragmatic What I like personally and what I recommend practically are seldom the same. I'm a big fan of my 8mm mag, but for most people, .300 or .338 win mag would be much more sensible. Slightly less potent, but not by an amount that really matters in the field, and they won't have to handload using brass that is expensive and rarely available, probably needing formed from 7 STW or .375 H&H.

I handload so i can be nonsensical......

Course I shoot a couple CMs because im too lazy to reload all rhe time

 

[Crosshair]

Couldn't figure out why I should put up with the long action

It's hilarious how people talk about long actions as if they're a flintlock musket. Then in the same breath complain about the limitations of short actions. Creating ever shorter and fatter cases so they can walk shots onto a steel plate at 1,000 yards.

It reminds me of the people who upgrade their cell phone every 6 months or who pay scalper prices to get the latest GPU so they can max their video games settings, pretending that they can actually see the difference while they're playing. Then wonder why people like me, who are still using the same 6 year old phone with no problems, look at them like they're crazy.

 

[eastbank]

i don,t thing their is 6 oz difference between a short and a long remington action.

 

[mavracer]

It's hilarious how people talk about long actions as if they're a flintlock musket. Then in the same breath complain about the limitations of short actions. Creating ever shorter and fatter cases so they can walk shots onto a steel plate at 1,000 yards.

While you were living in the past we started using AR15 length mini actions cartridges for 1000 .

 

[Gtscotty]

It's hilarious how people talk about long actions as if they're a flintlock musket. Then in the same breath complain about the limitations of short actions. Creating ever shorter and fatter cases so they can walk shots onto a steel plate at 1,000 yards.

It reminds me of the people who upgrade their cell phone every 6 months or who pay scalper prices to get the latest GPU so they can max their video games settings, pretending that they can actually see the difference while they're playing. Then wonder why people like me, who are still using the same 6 year old phone with no problems, look at them like they're crazy.

Wow, look at that straw man go! Lol.

I've had many long actions, but for the most part they provided a level of performance that I couldn't get in a normal short action, the 6.5x55 did not.

Sorry to trigger you, but unlike many of the reactionary chanters of the "New Bad, Old Good" mantra, I've tried both the x55 and CM and have a preference.

 

[Gtscotty]

Quickload defaults are 52.5 and 53.5, a lot of 260 brass has a grain or two more than that compared to the 6.5 though, a long bullet like a 142 displaces about 2 gr more water in the 260 than it does in the Creedmoor loaded to SAAMI max (.025" longer for Creedmoor), so you need about 2 gr more capacity to be equal. In other words really close enough not to matter.

I'm pretty sure my older QL version used to default to 53.5gr for the CM, not sure why, but since the October update it defaults to 51.5gr. My actual measured capacity for H brass out of my Kimber is right around 53.5, so they kind of messed up a good default, at least for that brass/rifle. I use Starline in my RPR, and I think it has a tiny bit less capacity, but my measurement logs are still packed up. I actually have Peterson brass coming for the Cross (ordered in stock at Graf's on Dec 5th and still not shipped), so it will be interesting to see where they fall in the range.

 

[Garandimal]

I prefer the 6.5x55 specifically because it's not the Creedmoor. Nothing wrong the the Creed, and the Swede can't outperform it by any meaningful amount, I just generally prefer stuff that isn't trendy when the option exists.

I have numerous 6.5mm rifles, none of them Creedmoor

Upstart.






GR