Thread: Creedmore and .270

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

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....

Powder burned also adds to the recoil. Burnt powder IE gas also has weight and velocity. So lower efficiency cartridges that burn more powder for less projectile energy when compared to a more efficient cartridge. The extra powder burned will give you more recoil, more heat, more erosion of the barrel etc

Added to that, if you have a low BC bullet you will loose what energy you have gained down range faster.

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

true that...

I get the 6.5 Creedmore, but realistically they already had just as good an option with the 6.5x47 Lapua... the 6.5x 47 Lapua also has a small case that allows long BC bullets to chamber in a short action and feed from 2.8" COAL mags. But yanks don't like anything that they can't claim for themselves, they suffer from the illusion that they are always the best, and that the rest of the world can't produce anything just as good, or better. And frankly they were pretty much last with the 6.5mm.

In so far as the accuracy of the creedmore is concerned, I don't buy that its any better that the lapua, the 260 rem or the 6.5x55... and the 260, 260 AI and 6.5x47 Lapua all can be made to work well in short actions with simple planning of freeborn length.


If a top shooter adopted any of the above, the results would be indiscernably different..

to be a success a new cartridge has to arrive on the market at the right time . . . plenty of good cartridges have been a failure in the past because they arrived to early, got paired to the wrong rifle or any number of factors that the promoters got wrong.
the Creedmore it seems has got about everything right . . . at a time in the USA where LR, PRS, Sniper type matches are hugely popular, where rifles like the Ruger Precision come onto the market, a huge range of taticool scopes at budget prices along comes the 6.5 Creedmore with factory loaded match ammo, and thats important cos most shooters will not reload . . its a perfect wave, someone can get into these matches with a relatively inexpensive rifle/scope and be competitive.

Originally Posted by Sidney

If a top shooter adopted any of the above, the results would be indiscernably different..

I agree with this line in particular. I think the advent of "what the pro's use" graphs/data in relation to PRS does wonders for making everyone think that a particular item or brand is the best and must-have.

IMO it goes something like this -
Supplier sponsors good shooters with equipment.
Good shooter wins due to skill - not equipment. Good shooter would have won whether you gave him a 6.5x55, .243, .6.5cm, a vortex, a leupold, a bushnell, a proof barrel or a krieger barrel etc etc. (assuming item is at least of a reasonably high quality and works properly)
People see skillful shooter winning with that equipment so they buy it as well thinking it will make them a better shooter & the winner won because of his equipment and not skill.

Suddenly PRS blog shows that 30% of shooters are using "x" caliber, barrel brand, optic or whatever and now its viewed as the best due to the most shooters using it.

This is just my opinion obviously but all it needs to mix it up is a skillful shooter to be given, or buy a different product, win a couple of matches (due to skill) and the sheep will follow. The % of shooters using it goes up, and away it snowballs.

Don't get me wrong many of these products have advantages, but there is no denying the impact that such "data" has on perceptions.