I'm thinking about building a new high power rifle. Not sure if its going to be a standard or a hunter. I hear the 260 rem. is a nice cal. or the 6.5X47 lapua is sweet to shoot. I would like some input on the two rounds, I'm leaning toward the 260 rem. What do you all think. I'm sure someone else have posted this question before I'm just to lazy to find the post. Thanks Danthebulldog

There is NO difference in thoes two. The Lapua brass is very expensive and takes a small mag rifle primer. I have a good friend that shoots a 260 and we both use the same bullet, powder and powder weight.

I'm sure someone is going to jump in and say one is better than the other. The only 6.5 I can think of that is different is the Sweed and it is also a fine round.

When the passing fad of the 6.5 is gone the 7-08 will again be the rifle of choice......

Merlin wrote:When the passing fad of the 6.5 is gone the 7-08 will again be the rifle of choice......

Merlin, I see the Guru has put a spell on you. 6.5's rule ;)

danthebulldog wrote:I'm thinking about building a new high power rifle. Not sure if its going to be a standard or a hunter. I hear the 260 rem. is a nice cal. or the 6.5X47 lapua is sweet to shoot. I would like some input on the two rounds, I'm leaning toward the 260 rem. What do you all think. I'm sure someone else have posted this question before I'm just to lazy to find the post. Thanks Danthebulldog

They both suck, go with the 6.5 Creedmoor. It's WAY better!

All three of these are about the same. The .260 has the most capacity, but for silhouette purposes that is unnecessary capacity since we tend to load light. The 6.5x47L is the smallest capacity of the three and the Creedmoor falls right in the middle. Both the 6.5x47 and the Creedmoor have the steep shoulder angle which helps mitigate brass growth. You'll have to trim the .260 more often than the other two. When it comes to absolute accuracy off the bench I'd give the nod to the Creedmoor and the 6.5x47 in most cases. The difference in accuracy (if there is any) amongst the three generally cannot be appreciated when shooting off of ones get-away-sticks (legs).

I lean towards the Creedmoor first, then the 6.5x47. Mainly because the case size is better suited for the velocities we are shooting at. Those two cases are going to have better "load density" than the bigger .260 case which generally speaking should equate to more consistent powder burn and consistent accuracy. Generally.

In the end, you can't go wrong with any of them.

Does the 6.5 creedmoor have the knock down power for the rams I don't know much on the this round.

I'd second what the others said about the 6.5s. The 260, 6.5x47L and the 6.5 Creedmore are basically the same with the case of the 260 being a little bigger. The Creedmore is basically a 6.5x47 with a large rifle primer. Each cartridge has great brass options though the 6.5x47 limits you to Lapua brass (which is the best, just pricey)

If I was starting today, I think I'd buy a Savage in 260 or 6.5 Creedmore, set the Accutrigger to 2 lbs, put a scope on it and roll. That said, I have a 6.5x47L custom gun and I love it. I don't like recoil and my loads are so soft that I literally do not notice any recoil. I haven't had any problems with rams either (I also have a 7mm IHMSA and it hits the rams a little harder).

If you want to "build" a custom gun the 6.5x47 is a great choice but the other two are too. My experience with the Savages that I've seen have been so positive, though, that I don't think I'd go through the process of building a rifle over buying one off the shelf.

Dustin

If you want to go 7mm ask Dooga about his 7mm soft cock. Fair dinkum it's a real wild kitten cal. with little recoil.

Daisy

I have shot 7-08, 308, 6.5x55, 260, 6mm-250, 7 IHMSA, and 6.5x47 and if I were to start over there is no doubt or hesitation on picking the 6.5x47. This is an excellent round for silhouette. Do not be confused you can make the rounds scream. It has been used at 1000 yard F-class with no problem. Or you can download for a very soft shoot.

The big question, I have for anyone wanting a new rifle is, "Silhouette only?".

If yes, then pick what you like, and IMHO the smallest case to give you the speed you need to knock down rams. What I have heard for years as a rule of thumb, a 140 class bullet doing about 2500-2600.

If no, then what else? Hunting..... then use the round you want to hunt with.

daisy wrote:If you want to go 7mm ask Dooga about his 7mm soft cock. Fair dinkum it's a real wild kitten cal. with little recoil.

Daisy

Does anyone know how many people used what caliber at any of the larger high power matches?

There is always an equipment survey at the nationals. National resuilts are posted on the NRA web site. But before you get you hopes up, they are missing for you got it Greg C's area.

I have never been a fan of 6.5 including their use in 1000 yard and 600 yard group and score matches. It seems that the 6 mm and the .284 are supplanting them in those activities anyway. But consider this ....a 1/4 ton pickup does everything a half-ton does except when we go to weights 1/4 ton or higher. With 6.5 one's limited to 142 grs and you'll burn 35+ grs of powder getting that little hummer up to 'ramming' speed. But I can use the rough equivalent of powder (35-37 grs) and chug up to 180 grs of bullet down range without appreciable recoil. I like 7-08....that said I see nothing wrong with the 260 etc....their advocates have always provided me with great entertainment especially their discussions about loads that will knock pigs down with regularity. But they are cute

Snake wrote:I have never been a fan of 6.5 including their use in 1000 yard and 600 yard group and score matches. It seems that the 6 mm and the .284 are supplanting them in those activities anyway. But consider this ....a 1/4 ton pickup does everything a half-ton does except when we go to weights 1/4 ton or higher. With 6.5 one's limited to 142 grs and you'll burn 35+ grs of powder getting that little hummer up to 'ramming' speed. But I can use the rough equivalent of powder (35-37 grs) and chug up to 180 grs of bullet down range without appreciable recoil. I like 7-08....that said I see nothing wrong with the 260 etc....their advocates have always provided me with great entertainment especially their discussions about loads that will knock pigs down with regularity. But they are cute

All that sounds great until you realize that the wind moves the 7mm bullet twice as far as the 6.5mm at the turkey distance. Last year at our state championship in Zwolle, I lost the match by 2 shots on a windy day with my 7mm. Six of my turkey shots broken on the edge of the breast drifted all the way off the tail. That same shot at the same time with a 6.5 were hitting the turkey in the center. I have both calibers and like both of the rifles, but the 6.5 is better for shooting high scores.

If you can break your shots where you need to, you will shoot better scores with the 6.5 than the 7mm. The reduced recoil and, more importantly, reduced wind drift more than make up for the occasional ram ringer that may or may not be taken down with a 7mm.

Dustin

I am skeptical of your wind drift postulates....but nevertheless...consider that the 6.5 is .264 in diameter or .020 less than a 7mm. But given the length of the 6.5 a 140 has the surface area available for interaction with the wind (but without the mass) of a 168 gr 7mm. I can't allow for misses...wind or no wind i miss and the less recoil concept is good but I never thought of a 7-08 as a 'kicker'...never noticed. 6.5's are cute and they have a following much like a bunch of birds sitting on a wire I say shoot what you like...just shoot and don't scare off the new guys with equipment races