Why 6.5x55, why not 7-08 or .270?

[shadow9]

As you all know, I've been enamored with 6.5x55 for a while now. As much as people glorify the round, I'm finding it harder and harder to see any of the magic in it. I haven't hunted with the round yet, which may change my mind, but plinking so far I don't see much of an advantage.

With that, I recently acquired a 6.5x55 CZ 550 FS, and am hesitant to use it for plinking, since from what I know 6.5x55 eats barrels from long bearing surface and use of slow burning hot powders. Also, the 20.5" bbl really tends to neuter the Swede, which likes long barrels. Lastly, I weighed the rifle, found it to be ~8lbs unscoped, which for a carbine is too heavy to be a good hunting/walkabout rifle.

On plinking - I don't like the idea of plinking with a barrel burner, and I'm hesitant to use cast boolits with it, as it's long bullets and fast twist make for a royal pain when shooting cast. Plus, the best mold to use (the Lyman 266469) is out of stock nearly everywhere, and not restocked until at least november.

Likewise, I run comparisons of ballistics (since it's "magical performance" on game is reliant on a good shot, and with a good shot the caliber is nearly irrelevant), and I really can't see anything magical about the caliber. The BC of .264's isn't really that special, as I don't see many that make it out of the .450-.510 range. .284 bullets are between .475 and .550+, on average, and good .30 bullets balance between .360 and .600+.

Also, even with the "super B.C." of a 6.5x55, a .270 Win walks all over it for long-range shooting, at least on paper in barrels of the same length. It's higher muzzle velocity means less wind drift (and drop) regardless of BC, the higher speed at impact means more energy to target, and frankly I'd think that the barrel life between the two is identical. Even better, you'll find .270 ANYWHERE, and 6.5x55 is generally a gunstore special for factory rounds.

Lastly, I'm getting really tired of having 1-2 rifles that aren't $1500+ that are chambered in 6.5x55. I'd LOVE a Tikka T3 Lite or Hunter in it - but of course, Beretta decided to stop importing that model. Instead pulling in super-ultra-magnums that have no place in an ultra-lite rifle (IMHO).
.270? I find it in Wal Mart on a Rem700 SPS. Win 70, Savage action, even Tikkas, Rugers, etc.

So, tell me, do I just need to shut up and shoot this thing, or should I sell it while it's still like NIB and go for a Tikka in .270 or 7-08?

 

[viking499]

Just shoot and enjoy. If you don't like the 6.5, then get the 7mm-08. I am not a 270 fan.

 

[adelbridge]

Why have a long action rifle when you can get a short action with equal performance? Some guys have pet calibers for no other reason other than they are interesting. I would sell it if you could get back your investment.

 

[CountGlockulla]

Same effectiveness and less recoil than the .270

 

[Andrew Leigh]

As you all know, I've been enamored with 6.5x55 for a while now. As much as people glorify the round, I'm finding it harder and harder to see any of the magic in it. I haven't hunted with the round yet, which may change my mind, but plinking so far I don't see much of an advantage.

What plinking rifle will give a buzz? Low recoil, great terminal performance, accurate as hell. The calibre in both hunting and target shoot terms punches well above its weight.

With that, I recently acquired a 6.5x55 CZ 550 FS, and am hesitant to use it for plinking, since from what I know 6.5x55 eats barrels from long bearing surface and use of slow burning hot powders.

Barrel burner? Where did you here that?

Also, the 20.5" bbl really tends to neuter the Swede, which likes long barrels.

You probably give away 100fts, not a train smash. The Swede is a round that requires handloading for best performance, do you handload?

Lastly, I weighed the rifle, found it to be ~8lbs unscoped, which for a carbine is too heavy to be a good hunting/walkabout rifle.

I walk with a normal CZ550 6.5mm which will weigh a bit more, I have no problems.

On plinking - I don't like the idea of plinking with a barrel burner, and I'm hesitant to use cast boolits with it, as it's long bullets and fast twist make for a royal pain when shooting cast. Plus, the best mold to use (the Lyman 266469) is out of stock nearly everywhere, and not restocked until at least november.

Stop it with the barrel burner stuff. Go get some Sierra's either 120 or 140gr SBT and plink to your hearts content. I get 5/8" grouping with both bullets, that at 100m which is about 0.6MOA.

Likewise, I run comparisons of ballistics (since it's "magical performance" on game is reliant on a good shot, and with a good shot the caliber is nearly irrelevant), and I really can't see anything magical about the caliber. The BC of .264's isn't really that special, as I don't see many that make it out of the .450-.510 range. .284 bullets are between .475 and .550+, on average, and good .30 bullets balance between .360 and .600+.

Man you are one tough critic. A lot of those .600 bullets have caveats. Most .264 seem to me to run in the .49+ range?

Also, even with the "super B.C." of a 6.5x55, a .270 Win walks all over it for long-range shooting, at least on paper in barrels of the same length. It's higher muzzle velocity means less wind drift (and drop) regardless of BC, the higher speed at impact means more energy to target, and frankly I'd think that the barrel life between the two is identical. Even better, you'll find .270 ANYWHERE, and 6.5x55 is generally a gunstore special for factory rounds.

Remind me of how many .270 rifles are used in long range shooting and then remind me of how many 6.5mm? The .270 is a hotter round and will burn a barrel quicker than the 6.5mm.

The B.C of a 6.5mm 140gr. SGK is 0.495 @ 2 800 dropping to 0.48 @ 2 200fps.
The B.C of a .270 140gr. SGK is 0.457 @ 2 800 dropping to 0.43 @ 2 200fps.

In my book the down range perfomance of the 6.5mm bullets is superior to the .270. You need to compare like on like, for the above performance the .270 takes 53.5 gr of powder to achieve 3000fps and the 6.5mm 44.1 to get to 2700fps. The .270 is a significantly hotter one would expect more energy downrange. The 6.5mm will allow for better penetration and less meat damage.

Lastly, I'm getting really tired of having 1-2 rifles that aren't $1500+ that are chambered in 6.5x55. I'd LOVE a Tikka T3 Lite or Hunter in it - but of course, Beretta decided to stop importing that model. Instead pulling in super-ultra-magnums that have no place in an ultra-lite rifle (IMHO).
.270? I find it in Wal Mart on a Rem700 SPS. Win 70, Savage action, even Tikkas, Rugers, etc.

So, tell me, do I just need to shut up and shoot this thing, or should I sell it while it's still like NIB and go for a Tikka in .270 or 7-08?

You have one of the finest calibres which enjoys legendary status and rightfully so. Is is perfect no, can other calibre do better, yes is certain aspects and no in others. As a hunting calibre in North America you will put meat on the table and with minimal meat loss.

You have not stated the intended purpose of the rifle so it is difficult to give you advice. You want to hunt, great rifle, you want to shoot long range, great rifle, you want to plink go get yourself a .223 or a .243.

I would not get rid of my 6.5mm for anything. My only gripe, if I had to have one, is that it is on a longer action which means longer bolt throw and more weight. That is the only place it where the .260 beats it.

Nothing wrong with the .270 but it is a different to the 6.5.

 

[Float Pilot]

6.5x55mm...... Taking top honors at target matches and on the hunting fields since 1895.

No excessive powder burn, no excessive recoil, long barrel life, superior accuracy... great sectional density for bone penetration.

 

[R.W.Dale]

6.5's are the current caliber fad of the half decade as such you read much adoo about nothing lauding accolades on meaningless differences of a few fractions of a decimal point at ranges almost nobody realistically hunts at.

The truth is there's a couple dozen similar cartridges that do the exact same thing. Pick one you like and shoot the pee out of it

 

[Slamfire]

Me thinks you worry too much.

I would not have gotten a 20” barrel as I have a nice short barrel on my 303 Jungle Carbine and the fireballs and muzzle blast have taught me that I don’t enjoy fireballs and muzzle blast.

I also don't like being at the range when the guy on the next bench is shooting one of those Ultra-Ultra Super magnums.

Just what did you expect comparing a 0.264 bullet to a 0.277 or 0.284, just what did you expect for a 20 thousandth’s difference? Gunwriters have made career’s by creating canyon’s out of a 20 thousandth of an inch difference, but you know, out to 300 yards, not that much of a difference on paper and not that much on tissue. Bullet construction and shot placement are far more important.

No one should be shooting at animals as 500, 600, 800, 1000 yards, as humane kills become problematic.

The 6.5 Swede is an excellent cartridge, if you are unhappy denting an expensive rifle, go get a cheap beater in any caliber that is behind a Walmart counter. They are all good.

Want to shoot cast bullets?: get a two groove M1903A3 and bang away till the EPA shuts you down.

 

[sage5907]

shadow9, I don't think most hunters would see much difference in a 6.5 X 55 as compared to a 270 Winchester shooting 130 grain bullets. I don't own a 6.5 X 55 but I think a 270 would be easier to hit at distances out to 300 yards because of the increased velocity. On the other hand, several long range shooters in my area do use the 6.5 X 55 and they really like them. They go to almost extended pains and expense to build their rifles and to load their ammo. One of the guys told me he as over $2500 in a Model 700 Remington long action rifle. He shortens the case neck to barely hold the bullet and loads the bullet far out to a deep throated barrel. He shoots several hundred rounds a year and changes his barrels as needed. The whole concept is not for me but some like it. The long range deer hunters don't seem to do any better at hunting, and it would make me nervous to shoot at a deer at 600 yards not knowing if another hunter was hiding 20 yards from the deer.

 

[tnelson31]

From what I have shot, 270 vs 6.5x55 are apples and oranges recoil wise.

 

[Ar180shooter]

I weighed the rifle, found it to be ~8lbs unscoped, which for a carbine is too heavy to be a good hunting/walkabout rifle.

Really? That's about what an SKS or milled AK weighs, and I highly doubt someone would hesitate talking one of those out stalking because of weight. Sure, there are lighter guns, but 8lbs is quite manageable.

 

[Kurastduuks]

True slightly lower ballistic coefficiency potential but at the trade of a good muzzle velocity. Take a look through a reloading book at the initial velocity of these .6+ bullets in 30 calibers smaller than a win mag...can be fairly abysmal. And yes with the right bullet placement terminal ballistics can become negligible but it's awful easy to get good shot placement with a caliber as excellent as a 6.5x55. My brother has shot the same 6.5 since we were just pups...saw him take a 4 point at 472 lazed last season. Plus look up it's history in Africa many moons ago...HOW COOL IS THAT?! or just get a 6.5-284

270 sucks

 

[68wj]

The truth is there's a couple dozen similar cartridges that do the exact same thing. Pick one you like and shoot the pee out of it

This.

 

[Dr T]

As noted above, there are many, many cartridges that will do the same thing. When I hear quibbling over velocities in ballistics tables (as opposed to measured in the specific, unique rifle being discussed), I begin to think that we all read too much and shoot too little. I will take a rifle that fits and points well over one with slightly better published ballistics any day if I am going hunting.

The 6.5x55 is a fine old cartridge. It has a well earned reputation on the battlefield, in the hunting fields, and on the target ranges. This is a testament to the soundness of the cartridge design, the care taken by the craftsmen that put together the rifles they were used in, and the quality of the marksmen that used them. How many U.S. hunters have to hit a running target of a moose to be qualified to hunt?

It also has a case head diameter shared by few other cartridges. Much of the ammo sold in the U.S. is loaded to fairly low pressures (because of product liability issues just in case someone decided to use in a Krag), and is not particularly easy to find.

I own something chambered in 6.5x55 because I find it interesting as a historical design and I have everything necessary to reload it.

It is not magic. When I hunt, I have several other rifles that are better suited (e,g a Ruger Frontier with a short pull and 16.5" barrel in 308 is very handy in brush).

I may just be cheap, but I have a problem with doing any real plinking (half a dozen coke cans for an hour or so) with anything more than a 22 LR. I don't worry about burning up 50 22LR shells, but at $15/box, I start balking at the 22 WRM. Those are hunting or target rounds, not shoot the can and see it jump rounds.

 

[sixgunner455]

+1. Plink with a .22lr. Shoot steel at longer ranges with your centerfire. Relax and enjoy your rifle, or sell it and get one you will shoot and enjoy that one.

Caliber doesn't matter nearly as much as people obsessing over it would make you think.

 

[Paul7]

6.5x55 fan here, every animal I've shot with it has been DRT, with factory ammo.

 

[CB900F]

Shadow9;

Back, more'n a couple of years, I bought my son his first center-fire hunting rifle for his 16th birthday. It was a Remmie 700 Classic in 6.5 Swede. Got a good deal on it from the LGS 'cause it had sat a year or so; nobody knew what it was.

I reloaded for it & he hunted it. After a couple of years experience I began to want one myself. Problem is, I shoot from the left shoulder & finding an LHB Swede is, ahem, difficult. After about 15 years of wishin' & hopin' I made the decision that I'd have to have one made. So I did. It wound up costin' a bit more than that classic did, but I don't begrudge a dime of it. I've had it for a coupla years now, and I do believe its a keeper.

Do whatcha wanta do, but there's absolutely nuthin' wrong with a Swede.

900F

 

[chaser_2332]

The bullet selection alone leaves the 270 standing in the dust. You won't see anybody shoot a 270 at long range in any competition that is trying to compete. The 6mm and 6.5's of all varietys dominate the sport.

 

[chaser_2332]

Besides if your wanting to shoot cast bullets your not looking for long range performance anyway.

 

[1stmarine]

What about the 260 rem?
If you are going for the best performing long range bullets right there you got enough powder in a strong case to move them to pretty decent speeds.
The 270 caliber department is better in lower grain hunting assortment than long range performance.
The 7mm is amazing but to get the top bullets moving ones needs magnum fuel.

 

[toiville2feathers]

The 6.5 x 55 is the rifle of choice in Finland, Norway and Sweden for hunting their Elk (which we call moose). very capable caliber. The 1000 yard shooters are using the 6.5/284. Alot of the F-Class guys are using the 6.5 grinndel and the 6.5 Creedmore. All highly accurate rifles.
As far as a barrel burner, and hot loads goes that is BS. The 6.5 runs very efficentley around 2950 FPS. Any faster and you are shooting hot loads and causing throat erosion.
THe 264 win mag came out years ago and had a reputation as a barrel burner.THat is because at that time 4831 was about the only powder t for it and they were trying to drive it 3400-3600 fps. The throats lasted about 750-900-rounds. With todays newer, better double base powders the 264 has very good barrel life at high velocity. Length of the bullet has nothing to do with it.
I have a 6.5 swede Ackley(wild cat cartridge) Its close to 30 years old and I have thousands of rounds through it. I've shot Prairie dogs with it,coyotes,antelope and deer. There is some throat wear but not enough yet to set it back
Mark my words you have a choice rifle in your hands.

 

[Liberty1776]

You'd be lucky to get to shoot enough to burn the barrel out... And I can tell you why a 6.5x55 - for the same reason some guys prefer T-bones, some filets, and some don't like steak at all...

 

[rszwieg]

6.5x55 recoils like a 243 and kills like a 270. It's not a magic cartridge but it works.

Recoil becomes over rated as one gets older.

 

[Boxhead]

In general, six of one and half dozen of another. All are easily good to 400 yards on deer and such. Nostalgia, tradition or practicality will ultimately decide.

 

[TRX]

> barrel burner

Not noticeably. And even if it were true, at around $20 per box of 20 (averaging from ammoseek.com), you'd have three or four thousand dollars down the pipe before you had to worry about it.