Thread: Creedmore and .270

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

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 Max Headroom

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.

When you have 1.3 million active and 0.85 million reserve troops there's a very good reason for that. Getting the wrong ammo can be just as bad as getting none. Logistics win wars, hence the attemp to standardise everything.

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

When you have 1.3 million active and 0.85 million reserve troops there's a very good reason for that. Getting the wrong ammo can be just as bad as getting none. Logistics win wars, hence the attemp to standardise everything.

I get that, and from that point of view it makes perfect sense. But they tend to take that idea too far. Guys get 5.56 ammo for their M4's when they really need a rifle+ ammo in 7.62 to slug it out at distance with somebody toting a Dragunov.

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

I get that, and from that point of view it makes perfect sense. But they tend to take that idea too far. Guys get 5.56 ammo for their M4's when they really need a rifle+ ammo in 7.62 to slug it out at distance with somebody toting a Dragunov.

Not just a distance issue, also cover. The 7.62 NATO (or x54R) don't mind a bit of red brick wall, or a 1m tree trunk.

Originally Posted by Cordite

Not just a distance issue, also cover. The 7.62 NATO (or x54R) don't mind a bit of red brick wall, or a 1m tree trunk.

I understand that and I am not a great fan of 5.56 BUT the point was standardisation, regardless of the caliber.

My take is that powders and projectiles have improved over the years. This has improved many existing cartridges. My understanding is that 6.5 CM is an attempt to make the best use of all of these in a short action rifle. Seems to have worked but only those who shoot long range out of a short action rifle are likely to notice/care. IE a military sniper or designated marksman etc For bush hunting deer you probably wont notice the difference between 6.5 x55, 260 or even 6.5-06