Will a 6.5 Creedmore change your life

[Old Stumpy]

The 6.5 creedmoor may be the shiny new toy that other calibers can mostly duplicate in some way or another but you're just gonna have to face the fact that it's what people want. You're not gonna change things no matter how much you rant and rave

Thanks for agreeing with me that the Creedmoor is duplicated by other calibers like the century+ old Swede.
That was my whole point. The Creedmoor ballistics are nothing special or new.
And, If people want to shoot the Creedmoor I could care less.
But, as long as they keep trying to blow smoke up our arses claiming that it is something more than it is, we will refute that.
Your petulant attempts to characterize any criticism of the Creedmoor as "ranting and raving" is pure propaganda.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Along with other various disadvantages the Swede is not a short-action cartridge so doesn't compare, and the 6.5 CM had a better factory twist rate and seating depths for long bullets than the .260 did. Combine that with a great rise in the popularity of long-range shooting and Hornady's far better support the Creedmoor was in the right time and position to win.

The century+ old 6.5 Swede ballistics are identical to the Creedmoor so it most certainly does compare. Whether it is a short action cartridge or not is irrelevant since practically all of the rifles chambering the Creedmoor are either heavy target rifles or full-length hunting rifles.
Any modern rifle chambered for 6.5 Swede and fitted with the same barrel as a Creedmoor will perform the same as the Creedmoor.
Any 6.5 bullet that the Creedmoor can use, the Swede can also use.
The popularity and support of the Creedmoor doesn't change these facts.

 

[Newtosavage]

Thanks for agreeing with me that the Creedmoor is duplicated by other calibers like the century+ old Swede.
That was my whole point. The Creedmoor ballistics are nothing special or new.
And, If people want to shoot the Creedmoor I could care less.
But, as long as they keep trying to blow smoke up our arses claiming that it is something more than it is, we will refute that.
Your petulant attempts to characterize any criticism of the Creedmoor as "ranting and raving" is pure propaganda.

What do you have against the resurgence of a great caliber? I don't get it. So it's a modern-day Swede. Isn't that a good thing?

And I think you mean you "couldn't" care less.

 

[Matthew Clark]

Thanks for agreeing with me that the Creedmoor is duplicated by other calibers like the century+ old Swede.
That was my whole point. The Creedmoor ballistics are nothing special or new.
And, If people want to shoot the Creedmoor I could care less.
But, as long as they keep trying to blow smoke up our arses claiming that it is something more than it is, we will refute that.
Your petulant attempts to characterize any criticism of the Creedmoor as "ranting and raving" is pure propaganda.

As is your attempts to sway people that the round doesn't live up to its advertising sir!
You sure do spend a lot of time spouting critizisims about something for someone who doesn't care!
We get it, you don't like it. That's fine and your right to feel that way. But who is really trying to spread the ",Hype" and "propaganda" here?
I think I'll leave that mess to the politicians. Rant and rave on if you must, I just find it pointless as does the OP most likely.
Happy shooting their partner !

 

[Varminterror]

That was my whole point. The Creedmoor ballistics are nothing special or new.

So why wasn’t the 6.5x55 Swede the highest selling rifle chambering for Remington, Savage, Ruger, Howa, Tikka, and Winchester in 2006?

Because a few short years later, the 6.5 Creedmoor WAS.

 

[Old Stumpy]

1) Doesn’t matter if it’s ballistic capabilities aren’t new. The ballistic capabilities meet the need of the applications for which they’re being bought and used.

2) Doesn’t matter if it’s an external-ballistic clone of the 6.5 Swede.

3) Non-sequitur - ballistics aren’t the only measure of a cartridge’s success.

4) Again, doesn’t matter if it’s ballistic capabilities aren’t new.

5) Again, non-sequitur. If it’s selling high and satisfying the itch it’s owners have, it’s doing what it’s supposed to do.

6) Completely non-sequitur. The 6.5 creed is chambered in rifles from those “costing thousands of dollars” down to the $350 “Everyman’s rifle,” readily available and accessible to every. So - “who cares?” Well, the millions of Americans who are buying 6.5 Creedmoors to sate their rifle desires for their applications, that’s who.

Your claims that my conclusions are not logical is an unfounded and unsubstantiated claim.

1) By your own admission the 6.5 Creedmoor simply a ballistic clone of the century+ year old 6.5 Swede. That was my point.

2) If the ballistics of a cartridge are not a measure of the success of a cartridge, then what should be? And if so, then what is the point of the
Creedmoor in the first place?

3) If, as you claim, that all that matters is that it sells well, even though you agree that it's ballistics are a century+ old and nothing special,
then you agree with me that it is popular simply because it is popular, and that is all that matters. That is a bizarre justification for claiming why the 6.5 Creedmoor is a superior choice.

4) My statement was: "Who cares about the fact that the Creedmoor uses a few less grains of powder." That's all.

 

[Old Stumpy]

So why wasn’t the 6.5x55 Swede the highest selling rifle chambering for Remington, Savage, Ruger, Howa, Tikka, and Winchester in 2006?

Because a few short years later, the 6.5 Creedmoor WAS.

Because the rifle makers chose to go with the shiny new toy mentality. That decision has nothing to do with the superiority of the cartridge over the 6.5 Swede. You have already admitted that the 6.5 Creedmoor has no advantage over the 6.5 Swede.
Since the Swede would have been perceived as old-fashioned, it was simply ignored.

Instead, the whizz-bang, new and improved, high-tech 6.5 Creedmoor became popular, even though it was simply a repackaged version of the 6.5 Swede. Americans love the idea of "new and improved" even if it is hogwash.

I find it very odd that you are somehow trying to justify the superiority of he 6.5 Creedmoor over the 6.5 Swede even though you admit that it is simply a ballistic clone of the Swede. And you base this all on sales and popularity.

Like I said before, if sales and popularity is the only measure of greatness, then Justin Boober is the greatest singer of all time.

 

[Newtosavage]

Old Stumpy, I think you're missing the point. It's more to do with the platform than the ballistics. They took advantage of the great ballistics of the Swede, and put it in a modern platform. That's pretty smart marketing if you ask me.

BTW, do you know what a h8r is?

 

[Old Stumpy]

As is your attempts to sway people that the round doesn't live up to its advertising sir!
You sure do spend a lot of time spouting critizisims about something for someone who doesn't care!
We get it, you don't like it. That's fine and your right to feel that way. But who is really trying to spread the ",Hype" and "propaganda" here?
I think I'll leave that mess to the politicians. Rant and rave on if you must, I just find it pointless as does the OP most likely.

We will have to agree to disagree about who is spouting propaganda and hype, and who is ranting and raving.
However, since everything that I have said is demonstrably factual, I have no misgivings.
Usually, when people realize that have lost an argument they simply begin to accuse their opponent of being unreasonable and irrational.
It's an old political game and it won't wash.

 

[Matthew Clark]

Usually, when people realize that have lost an argument they simply begin to accuse their opponent of being unreasonable and irrational.
It's an old political game and it won't wash.

You started that with your propaganda accusations there buddy.
Doesn't wash with me either

 

[Old Stumpy]

Old Stumpy, I think you're missing the point. It's more to do with the platform than the ballistics. They took advantage of the great ballistics of the Swede, and put it in a modern platform. That's pretty smart marketing if you ask me.

BTW, do you know what a h8r is?

I would agree that repackaging the old Swede into a new cartridge might be clever marketing, but that's all that it is.

And, Just because I disagree with the Creedmoor fan base doesn't make me a hater. That is simply your opinion.

 

[Newtosavage]

I would agree that repackaging the old Swede into a new cartridge might be clever marketing, but that's all that it is.

And, Just because I disagree with the Creedmoor fan base doesn't make me a hater. That is simply your opinion.

No, continually posting tired and boring criticisms of a caliber that is being embraced by a whole new generation of shooters, is what makes you a hater.

 

[Old Stumpy]

No, continually posting tired and boring criticisms of a caliber that is being embraced by a whole new generation of shooters, is what makes you a hater.

You are entitled to your opinion, unfounded though it is.

 

[Newtosavage]

You are entitled to your opinion, unfounded though it is.

Of course. LOL

 

[Goosey]

The century+ old 6.5 Swede ballistics are identical to the Creedmoor so it most certainly does compare. Whether it is a short action cartridge or not is irrelevant since practically all of the rifles chambering the Creedmoor are either heavy target rifles or full-length hunting rifles.
Any modern rifle chambered for 6.5 Swede and fitted with the same barrel as a Creedmoor will perform the same as the Creedmoor.
Any 6.5 bullet that the Creedmoor can use, the Swede can also use.
The popularity and support of the Creedmoor doesn't change these facts.

Actually the real "century-old ballistics" were quite different, if you check the military loads you'll see the following:

M/94 = 156 gr @ 2379 fps from 29-inch barrel = 1960 ft lb
M/41 = 140 gr @ 2625 fps from 29-inch barrel = 2142 ft lb

Now lose 5 inches and chronograph those... modern powders, rifles etc, it can outrun the Creedmoor. But if you really don't care about short actions and "efficiency" at all might as well go with a 6.5-300 Weatherby and beat them all... a lot of people want a short action for obvious reasons. For some reason I didn't hear all the complaining when the .260 was announced... what about the 7-08? I must have missed all the 7-08 bashing threads... I guess every action has a reaction, and the Creedmoor sees a lot of action these days.

 

[cdb1]

I believe the 6.5x55 has one advantage over the 6.5 Creedmoor - shooting really heavy for caliber bullets on the order of 156 and 160 grains. But only if one reloads.

 

[Newtosavage]

what about the 7-08? I must have missed all the 7-08 bashing threads...

Never gained enough popularity for people to feel threatened by it I suppose.

 

[Varminterror]

Your claims that my conclusions are not logical is an unfounded and unsubstantiated claim.

1) By your own admission the 6.5 Creedmoor simply a ballistic clone of the century+ year old 6.5 Swede. That was my point.

2) If the ballistics of a cartridge are not a measure of the success of a cartridge, then what should be? And if so, then what is the point of the
Creedmoor in the first place?

3) If, as you claim, that all that matters is that it sells well, even though you agree that it's ballistics are a century+ old and nothing special,
then you agree with me that it is popular simply because it is popular, and that is all that matters. That is a bizarre justification for claiming why the 6.5 Creedmoor is a superior choice.

4) My statement was: "Who cares about the fact that the Creedmoor uses a few less grains of powder." That's all.

And you’re clearly missing the point...

When I said, multiple times, your point “doesn’t matter,” I meant that from the very deepest part of my soul. You can say the same thing over and over, BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER.

Nobody cares that it’s ballistically similar, or even slightly inferior to an older cartridge, no matter how much you clench your fists and stomp your feet.

The 223 Remington didn’t do anything the 222rem wasn’t doing before it, the 308win didn’t do anything the 30-06 didn’t do before it (or even the 30-03 before that).

Nobody bitches - and that’s what you’re doing - about the 6SLR, or the 6.5x47L, 6XC, or 6 Dasher... these cartridges came about long after similar or superior cartridges were already on the scene.

There’s no value in your own life, or anyone else’s to stand in the corner and continue to pout about the fact the 6.5 creed is ballistically similar to a relatively obscure cartridge nobody was buying before the 6.5 Creed came out. American gun buyers have known full well about the 6.5x55 Swede for a hundred years, and it’s not winning any popularity contests. Even after American manufacturers have dipped their toe into chambering rifles for it, only to see those offerings fail to build a head of steam, the 6.5x55 Swede isn’t a popular rifle chambering.

It makes my heart sad to see so many folks put so much energy into A) spreading negativity to no value, and B) whine like little toddlers because they feel insecure about their old toy, just because someone has a newer toy.

 

[mavracer]

Whether it is a short action cartridge or not is irrelevant since practically all of the rifles chambering the Creedmoor are either heavy target rifles or full-length hunting rifles.

This overlooks the one irrefutable fact that you seem totally obtuse to, that there are a metric buttload of gun designs and magazines in the world that support a OAL of 2.820.

 

[Newtosavage]

"practically all of the rifles chambering the Creedmoor are either heavy target rifles or full-length hunting rifles."

What exactly is a "full-length hunting rifle" anyway? LOL

I threw a 6.5 CM barrel on a Savage action, chopped it to 20", dropped it in a lightweight stock and all I got out of it was a sweet shooting 7 lb. 40" hunting rig with outstanding ballistics for deer and very polite manners for such a light rifle. And then the very first load I tried out of it, shot 1/2 MOA. I'm struggling to find the problem here.

Savage and Ruger have probably sold more lightweight hunting rifles chambered in 6.5 CM than all their other chamberings combined over the past several years. Why? Because it makes for one of the most practical and versatile deer rifles ever created.

I just don't see the point in knocking such a useful round.

 

[Mr_Flintstone]

This thread has become an argument over "favorites". We've established that there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between 6.5x55, 6.5x47 L, 260 Rem, and 6.5 Creedmoor. You can get either in the barrel length and twist rate you like. After that, it becomes a matter of which one you like best. Why doesn't matter. It's like going to a car lot with a particular car in mind, and they have it in red, black, silver, and blue. The color doesn't matter with regard to function, because under the hood, they're all the same. You just choose the one you like.

 

[Newtosavage]

Meh, it's more than just color. There are functional differences between them, which is why the 6.5 CM was developed, and also one reason it gained popularity so quickly. I wasn't in the market for a new 6.5 and didn't really pay close attention to the CM the past 4-5 years (other than hearing about it and casually reading a thing or two) but even I could see the logic. A 140-grain 6.5mm bullet is LONG. Why shove all that into the powder space if you don't have to?

 

[<*(((><]

I like short-actions, this fact alone doesn't make me right and long-action folks wrong; its just a simple fact as to why the Creedmoor (which I've never even shot) is popular. It took an established long-action cartridge and made it into a more efficient short-action with negligible differences in ballistics. Seems like a step in the right direction for the countless short-action, efficiency minded shooters out there.

I think what sticks in some seasoned firearm enthusiasts craw is the fact that it used a marketing name "Creedmoor" to market it; this is a definite turn of events by today's firearm manufacturers they are providing names to new calibers; which I think rubs people the wrong way. It doesn't bother me (smart for sales on their part); as I skip right past the name down to the ballistics for comparison.

Equal rights for all firearms!

 

[Mr_Flintstone]

I'm just gonna start hunting with this.

20 mm Vulcan beats 6.5 any day.

 

[Varminterror]

@<*(((>< I fully agree - I shot in Creedmoor jackets for many years, and Creedmoor position for IMHSA, there isn’t anything particularly “Creedmoor” about the 6.5 Creedmoor’s origin.

But I also would say, I don’t think most folks have the first clue about any history of the name “creedmoor” in shooting sports anyway, so putting a relatively obscure name that “had something to do with target competition” on the cartridge wasn’t really a “let’s stick a popular buzzword on it and people will buy it.

It would have been different if they’d used a sell out popular name, like 6.5 Kardashian, or 6mm Bieber, or if they’d have came up with some moniker more recently popular in the shooting/tactical community like the .350 Legend...