Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

6.5-06----6.5-300WSM

Hawkshaw
Does anyone out there have any hands on experience with either of these cartridges? Loading data, chrono results, handloading problems. I'm considering building a beltless 6.5, that will preform between the 6.5 Rem Mag, and the 264 win mag, (both of which I have). If I do this it will be as light-weight as is possible. Suggestions??? THX HAWKSHAW
0

Comments

5 comments

Date Votes
  • tsr1965
    The one you want to specifically e-mail would be Nononsense. He is the GRAND MASTER at wildcatting, and loves that bore diameter. But he will build, develop and shoot just about anything. Let us know how you make out.

    Best
    0
  • nononsense
    Hawkshaw,

    A little collateral information:

    6.5x47 Lapua = 47 gr.

    6.5 Creedmoor = 53 gr.

    .260 Rem. = 53 gr.

    6.5 x 55 Swede = 55 gr.

    6.5 x 57 RWS = 59 gr.

    6.5-06 = 66 gr.

    6.5/284 = 66 gr.

    6.5 Rem. Mag. = 68 gr.

    6.5 WSM = 79 gr.

    .264 Win. Mag. = 82 gr.

    6.5 x 68 = 86 gr.

    6.5 x 300 Weatherby = 98 gr.

    As you can see by the list, the 6.5-06 is not between the two cartridges in the title and the 6.5-300 WSM has the same capacity as the .264 Win. Mag.

    Between would be the 6.5-300 RSAUM @ 72 gr. or the 6.5 x 61 Super @ 75 gr.

    Of all of these on this list, the first 7 cartridges have been used commonly, with most competition shooters claiming that the 6.5x284 is 'over bore' and burns barrels out much too quickly. If this is the case, then any additional capacity will not net you any better results unless you use significantly longer barrels. I use this cartridge in hunting rifles and have no problem whatsoever.

    I have used the 6.5 x 68 (modified) and the 6.5 - 300 WBY in experimental long range testing but balance between bullets that are too light and the abundance of powder is difficult to say the least.

    The best balance is the 6.5x55 AI with a 28" barrel.

    I could quote you all sorts of numbers but they will be meaningless until you decide which direction you want to go.

    Best.
    0
  • Hawkshaw
    NONONSENSE
    THX for that info. Two questions. Where is that info available, for all cartridges? How do you feel about the difference in accuracy between a belted, vs non-belted, everything else being equal? THX HAWKSHAW
    0
  • nononsense
    Hawkshaw,

    "Where is that info available, for all cartridges?"

    I've been gathering cartridge data and ballistic data for quite a while but there are some reloading programs which contain a large number of the cartridges along with the dimensional data. Some of these such as 'Load From a Disk' will perform several calculations besides offering a cartridge data base. Demos can be found on the Steve's Pages website:

    http://stevespages.com/page8b.htm

    This is a large database for hundreds of cartridges. Note that some of the dimensions are arguable depending on versions:

    http://members.shaw.ca/cstein0/heads.htm

    Case capacity numbers for the standard cartridges can be found online but wildcats are a little harder to find because of the large number of variations that occur.

    Most of the information I have has been assembled over the years by chambering, shooting and reloading. Some has come through data swapping with other shooters and reloaders. I also have gathered a large library of reference materials which I am constantly updating.

    "How do you feel about the difference in accuracy between a belted, vs non-belted, everything else being equal?"

    I don't see much difference if any between the two case style. But that stems from making all of the cases I shoot, as consistent as possible. Most brass nowadays is very inconsistent and poor quality when compared to cases manufactured 20 years ago. There are exceptions of course and Lapua or Norma can be those exceptions in many instances. The cost of those brands though, have a tendency to put folks off, forcing them to buy cheap and therefore lower quality. I would rather buy 100 excellent cases than to have 1,000 cheap cases.

    The key to accuracy is the relationship between the chamber, case and the concentricity of the chamber and bore. The crown is the final piece to that puzzle and most shooters understand that these days. There are many more variables but I don't have the time to teach that course here.

    I happen to like belted cases when it comes to forming wildcats because of the simplicity it brings to the process. I also happen to like several belted case for competition. But I'm not trying to sell magazines either. Most of the anti-belt diatribes are generated by the folks who write for a living and need to generate readership through controversy. The internet then takes over with the 'anti-this and that' crowd spreading the low level thinking at the speed of a wildfire. Before you know it, belts are a bad thing...

    Accuracy is the entire system driven by a knowledgeable, experienced shooter not whether you use a non-belted case.

    Best.
    0
  • nononsense
    Hawkshaw,

    I guess I'm burning up another post...

    "I'm considering building a beltless 6.5, that will preform between the 6.5 Rem Mag, and the 264 win mag, (both of which I have). If I do this it will be as light-weight as is possible."

    If you still want to stay within the parameters as outlined originally, I think you should take a look at the .300 RCM cartridge case from Hornady.

    300rcmcase.jpg

    I've necked this down to 7mm to make an intermediate cartridge with performance similar to the other 7mm Short Mags but using this case which is the standard 0.532" diameter on the rim as well as the head of the case. In other words, it's not a rebated case as are the RSAUM and WSM cases. This way the cartridge doesn't need those silly triangular cut out magazine boxes or special boxes from an aftermarket manufacturer.

    The phrase 'lightweight as possible' has all sorts of bug-a-boos attached to it. When sticking to standard components, lighter weight means the average weight of 7-1/2 lbs. to 8 lbs. without scope and mounts. These also carry standard price tags with any choices.

    When we investigate the true 'lightweight' category of component parts, the price necessarily goes up because of the limited market and more exotic materials occasionally. Almost every aftermarket stock maker has a lightweight stock which plays along with your thinking. Most carry some silly label such as 'Alaskan' or 'Mountain' or other some such name to indicate light weight.

    The trick is to find the one with the most rigidity when assembled. Many makes sacrifice rigidity for weight and wind up with a seriously compromised performance from the lighter stock. I have solved part of this neglected aspect by using a layer of carbon fiber in the action/barrel channel. It ain't easy and it certainly isn't cheap but it solves the problem without adding a bunch of weight.

    If you're really serious about weight, the Remington Titanium action is the choice of some folks. These are manufactured with better attention to the details of making receivers. They are straight and mostly true, requiring little work, fortunately. The price is astronomical because you have to buy the rifle and tear it apart for the receiver if you want to build something other than factory offerings.

    The other significant compromise is barrel length. This certainly comes into play when discussing larger capacity cartridges since they require more length in many cases. There are some balancing acts you can perform by handloading but it takes work. I use a .300 Weatherby which weighs 6-1/4 lbs. with scope and 3-cartridges. The barrel is 22" and is efficient with the loads I developed for this rifle. The workout is a little tough from the bench unless you design a proper shooting position and rifle rest. It can beat you up pretty bad by the end of the day. Fortunately, the first shot on game is all it takes.

    Best.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity