Thread: Creedmore and .270

Originally Posted by rossi.45

i think its just you . . . if you do a search on TM which has about 400 rifles onsale at the moment a search pulled up 4 private sales in 6.5 Creedmore

if your talking about on this site there are some guys here that change cartridges like others change their undies, sometimes without even fouling them

its a pretty good bet the 270 or 708, the 308 & 243 are also going to come up most often as well

@Rossi, I like your analogy - the best so far this year. But being a 270 owner I would like to point out that it is very rare indeed for me to 'Foul my undies'. I would go so far as to say that 270 owners have solid reliable sphincters are not undie fouler's - just incase someone has read your post and thinks there is a correlation.

I tend to look at the Creedmore as the soy latte of the rifle world.

For all intents and purposes what can a Swede do that It can't? Yet the swede has been around far longer.

Quality doesn't go out of fashion in my books at least plus why try re invent the wheel?

I have been around far longer than either of my sons. Yet they can do all sorts of things that I can’t. Try killing them in combat on the PS4 Pro!

I think (and no offence intended here at all), @Rock river arms hunter, that your view is a simple parroting of hundreds of thousands of similar comments by shooters who maybe haven’t looked at the history of the Creedmoor’s development. It was created for a very specific purpose, and it succeeded in every sense. That it has been picked up by rifle and ammunition manufacturers is a testimony to the fact that, compared to a modern Swede for example, it is a highly effective 6.5mm cartridge, in a short action in rifles that have a fast twist, that are chambered to accept long for calibre, high BC bullets, using less powder and producing less recoil for a similar muzzle velocity. It also has a cool name. That helps a lot.

Whatever internal ballistics advantages it has over the Swede are a mystery to me, but the other stuff I think is pretty self explanatory. However, in a hunting scenario, within typical hunting ranges, trying to differentiate how a deer feels about being shot in the right place between a modern Swede, a 260 Rem and a Creedmoor is a pointless exercise. If you try, you’re a dick.

I love my Creedmoor, and so has everyone else who has shot something with it. The rifle has claimed “furthest kill” honours for three of my mates who have been amazed at the effortless accuracy. That’s of course largely down to the bullet and the fact that a lot of effort has gone into working out the downrange ballistics. Still, people equate success with a name.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

I have been around far longer than either of my sons. Yet they can do all sorts of things that I can’t. Try killing them in combat on the PS4 Pro!

I think (and no offence intended here at all), @Rock river arms hunter, that your view is a simple parroting of hundreds of thousands of similar comments by shooters who maybe haven’t looked at the history of the Creedmoor’s development. It was created for a very specific purpose, and it succeeded in every sense. That it has been picked up by rifle and ammunition manufacturers is a testimony to the fact that, compared to a modern Swede for example, it is a highly effective 6.5mm cartridge, in a short action in rifles that have a fast twist, that are chambered to accept long for calibre, high BC bullets, using less powder and producing less recoil for a similar muzzle velocity. It also has a cool name. That helps a lot.

Whatever internal ballistics advantages it has over the Swede are a mystery to me, but the other stuff I think is pretty self explanatory. However, in a hunting scenario, within typical hunting ranges, trying to differentiate how a deer feels about being shot in the right place between a modern Swede, a 260 Rem and a Creedmoor is a pointless exercise. If you try, you’re a dick.

I love my Creedmoor, and so has everyone else who has shot something with it. The rifle has claimed “furthest kill” honours for three of my mates who have been amazed at the effortless accuracy. That’s of course largely down to the bullet and the fact that a lot of effort has gone into working out the downrange ballistics. Still, people equate success with a name.

I can see the merits but I do like your real world comment in there- couldn't have said it better myself.

Maybe I just like lobbing 308s hahahaha

the military arr adopting the cm... ammo price may lower with more bulk brands around for the average joe..

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...t-wrong-again/

Ha ha @Tahr, my Creedmoor goes as fast as the .260 in the study (just about), and @Wingman’s goes even faster!

Originally Posted by Flyblown

Ha ha @Tahr, my Creedmoor goes as fast as the .260 in the study (just about), and @Wingman’s goes even faster!

Oh well, I expect that the 260 can go faster than in the study too so maybe the relative differences would remain the same.

Ive got no skin in the issue, I just thought it looked like a different perspective.

Now I want a norma mag

Originally Posted by Tahr

Oh well, I expect that the 260 can go faster than in the study too so maybe the relative differences would remain the same.

True. With logic applied, bigger case capacity = more fps. To a point of diminishing returns in the case of overbore.

funny I thought a fella called Newton found out a wee while back that if you have two rifles of exact same weight that throw exact same projectile at exact same speed from same length barrel the recoil will be SIMILAR......or was it exactly the same....

S’all good @Tahr. It is an interesting article you posted, but in my just as flawed as all the others that try and pick a “winner”, in that it uses a static set of numers - one size fits all - and doesn’t take into account the options available to the handloader.

Sorry for another long winded post but I’m bored and everyone is sleeping in, and I am still very much on light duties...

When it comes to Creedmoor vs 260, which isn’t why we’re here in this thread but oh well, my take on one of the reasons Creedmoor took off and 260 didn’t is that it started winning competitions very early in its history, with a big name in the US using it and then other shooters saying hmmm, and picking it up too. It was created precisely for that reason and it succeeded!

Hornady of course were the development team, which was a first for an ammo manufacturer as cartridges had up to that point been designed by the rifle manufacturers. Hornady worked with Krieger and Bartlein and together they did a bloody good job of designing chamber dimensions that allow for far more flexibility on seating depth than the 260 typically allows. So combined with the differences in case length, neck length and shoulder angle, when seating long for calibre heavy 6.5 bullets like the 147gr ELM-M for example, the Creedmoor is way more flexible. Whereas a lot of the 260s, you’ll be jamming the long bullets hard up against the lands if you try to seat them out as far as you can with the Creedmoor. And hence the powder capacity penalty the Creedmoor has at SAAMI c.o.a.l. is to a large extent negated. If you want to, as has been proven here recently, hand loading Creedmoor with a 143gr ELD-X to 2800fps is pretty straightforward, as the subsequent development of stronger small primer brass and more powerful powders has seriously increased the velocity potential of the Creedmoor.

What a lot of interweb cynics don’t realise is that the bloke who kicked off the whole Creedmoor thing in the first place - the match shooter and NRA National High Power Rifle champion Dennis DeMille - refused to allow the cartridge to be tied up by a long term exclusivity contract with Hornady. They only ever had a one year exclusivity agreement as DeMille bargained that by allowing everyone access to the cartridge it would stand more of a chance of taking off commercially, and he wanted other shooters to be able to access the design without being restricted tone one manufacturer. And he was right. So one of the primary reasons its taken off so quick is that ammunition comes in all manner of brands and rifles. Whereas the 260 Rem was tied down by Remington at a time in its history when it wasn’t exactly the favourite flavour.

So the primary benefit of the Creedmoor over the .260 Rem it would appear is the potential to tune the cartridge for match accuracy. To me that is largely irrelevant as long as I can get it to shoot 0.5MOA at 100m in perfect conditions, and then behave itself downrange, I’m happy, and I could just as easily have achieved that with .260 Remington. For my application - mid range goats and medium deer - either would do. But I must be able to shoot the long for calibre high BC bullets, and there are some 260 Rem shooters who have struggled with those due to their chamber constraints and have been stuck with bullets in the 130-140gr range.

What I would say is that my Creedmoor has been by far the easiest cartridge and rifle combination to reload for, its been silly accurate from the very first rounds I put down the tube to break the barrel it. At 2600fps its a genuine one hole shooter so if thats what you’re interested in, who needs to wring put maximum velocity and who cares about downrange energy?

The conclusion of the article that the 300 Norma is the best “single rifle” cartridge for the US Army is a bit daft... the average grunt in the infantry struggles to shoot to save his own let alone his mates’, read a couple of the books by recruiting and training officers in the lead up to the War on Terror - frightening! There are way too many complete palookas coming off the street into the army, they can’t even deal with a 5.56 gas gun, let alone a full bore magnum! Imagine the YouTube fails videos we’d be able to amuse ourselves with...

Originally Posted by Flyblown

Ha ha @Tahr, my Creedmoor goes as fast as the .260 in the study (just about), and @Wingman’s goes even faster!

And my 260 goes faster...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Flyblown

The conclusion of the article that the 300 Norma is the best “single rifle” cartridge for the US Army is a bit daft.

The US Military has a habit of making " one size fits all " decisions, and then having to modify or back track on them. The M14, M16, Sherman tank, the F111, the F35. where this la-la land optimism comes from, beats me.

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

Pretty simple physics, all guns kick relative to the power of the round and weight of the firearm (yes including the 270) and yes all guns make noise.

https://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

I don't think I'd be shooting that .600 Nitro Express prone.......