Different 6.5 question

[Brithunter]

Ahhh stag1933,

Sounds like you are having fun. Congratulations on the new toy

Oh don't be too hide bound about having bullet touching or nearly so the rifling. I have found that despite the 120 grain Speer bullet not being able to get anywhere near the leade due to the military barrel being throated for 160 grain bullets it's shoots just fine thank you however the modern 6.5x55 I sold a few weeks ago preferred the 140 grain bullets Oh well.

I wonder if the scope mount "problems" is why it came on the market?

I sure you will have fun with you new acquisition

 

[Jager SA]

Not sure if this might belong in the ballistics but here you go.

Q: Why is the 6.5x55 considered a slow ish round? Theres a fair bit of powder in there and the heads arent that heavy

Is there scope to wind the velocity up a bit with reloads?

Its a curiosity thing more than anything else.

I bought one a while ago and though it was a pleasure to shoot, it turned out a lemon so went back to the dealer.

Now thinking about getting rid of my .243 Sauer for a 6.5x55 again as a pure deer rifle as i have a .22-250 for foxes etc

This isnt a 'is 6.5x55 better than .243/anything else' thread please

Dan

I will add this...

A mate and me said years ago if there was one rifle cal we could have what would it be? Both of us agreed the 6.5x55 swede!

The calibre will do all you need in this country.

If you take the average velocity to which the cartidge operates, the muzzle energy is near (If my calcs are right) 2400ftlbs. Now is there is any more energy required for UK Deer species? I dont think so, ok its going to lose some energy down range...BUT thats when the 6.5 kicks into play in the form (As I said already) of penatrative ability. Even if it hits bone, it matters not.

Go for the 6.5x55 its a great calibre.

 

[Thar]

Wow. That was meant to be a generic; didn't realise it was you I was talking about. I would have avoided the reference like the plague had I known because it would surely draw you in and, invariably, cause you bring up other "better" cartridges; Which you couldn't resist doing, could you?

I just wanted to comment on how nice it was that a thread on the 6.5 x55 was evolving with serious discussion about ballistic capabilities instead of the usual "My mate has one and it's great!" comments. (Or "sucks!" as the case may be)
:

Muir

I too would like to keep this post as constructive, I believe that it is of use to users of Swede, so I will not be draw by your first comments on this subject, I had no intention pushing any other caliber, this is a thread about bettering the performance of the 6.5X55 I am happy to keep it there. Take the chip off your shoulder buddy.

With a case capacity greater than the 260 Remington, the 6.5x55 in a modern rifle is most likely safe when a reloader starts with minimum 260 Remington loads and works up -as they would using standard 6.5x55 loads, common sense must prevail.
:

You will not find me disagreeing with you too much on this, at least the less experienced would have guide lines to work with in. although as the old saying goes common sense at times is not all that common.

It doesn't matter a speck to me about velocity as I hunt in the US where there is no restriction as to velocity. It does seem to be an issue in the UK and this discussion would have bearing on those reloaders who are riding the edge of that velocity limit unnecessarily.~Muir
:

As you not doubt have gathered, velocity can be a issue with marginal deer legal calibers in the UK, this is in part of course because most of us either choose to use or have to use a moderator, while these are great for vastly reducing felt recoil and almost eliminating muzzle flash, they do tend to make the rifle unduly long and cumbersome, the next obvious thing for owners to do is shorten the barrel and this can lead to problems with the cartridge remaining deer legal. This is especially so for those of us that stalk in Scotland.

PS: Hey! I did not contradict myself! I merely stated two points on which I agreed. I never said that increasing the velocity was advisable or necessary.

Please correct me if I am wrong, then, your stance is the 6.5X55 performance is fine as it is. But if you find it lacking then there is scope to increase its performance marginally.

Up until this morning I thought we had between us we had reached some sense when this cartridge was discussed, I remember when I first came on the site the utter BS spoken about this caliber real showed a lack of under standing about ballistics and even the actual size of the bullets compared to other calibers. Although I see we have slipped back a bit with some of the newbie’s.

I don’t want to get into the ballistics all over again, but I leave the 6.5X55 fans with one thought.

A 100gn 243 ballistic coefficient is very similar to a 129gn Swede bullet and of course better than any other lighter 6.5 bullet.

Opps I am bringing other calibers into this.

ATB

Tahr

PS Jager me and you are going to have to talk.

 

[Muir]

Thar: I am fine with the 6.5 as it is. To me, the velocity increase is academic unless you are a person who needs to boost it for legality purposes. I think it is good to discuss issues like this because there is room in the 6.5x55 for improvement and the rationale behind it is good education for "the newbies". It goes hand in hand with velocity/pressure changes changing with seating depth, and other internal ballistics issues.

I'm not one for advocating any attempt to make a 6.5x55 perform like a 6.5x284. You are right, if a person needs the ballistics of a 6.5x284 they should just be resigned to getting one. In the same light, I don't advocate trying to make a 30-06 into a 300 Win Mag-like performer; an issue I had come up at my kitchen table this afternoon. In either case, the attempt would be foolish and unobtainable from a safety aspect.

Cartridges like the 6.5x55, 257 Roberts, and 45-70 however, can be safely brought up to a higher performance level when the weapon is modern and in good shape. It's not that one is trying to make the cartridge something it is not, it's just a matter of optimizing potential. It is ridiculous to take a cartridge like the 257 Roberts and hold the pressures ot 48K when the modern rifle and the brass will take 55K in stride.Likewise the 6.5x55 and the 45-70. What a pity it would be if everyone with a Ruger #1 singleshot kept there loads to 16K because that was the original loading pressure of the Trapdoor Springfield service rifle. If I loaded 8x57 JS to the SAAMI pressures allowed in the US it would be a pitiful round, barely better than a 30-30, but I know why it is loaded as such, what rifles must be loaded to this spec, and what rifles are safe to load to levels found by makers on your side of the pond.

So, as long as load development is done in that light, safely optimizing potential of cartridge in a modern rifle, then I see no harm in it. I'm sure you don't either.~Muir

 

[Dan Newcombe]

The original point of the thread (probably badly put!) was more of an enquiry into WHY the 6.5 was a slower cartridge than i might have expected from the amount of powder you put in and if as a result, with modern powders and actions you could push it up a bit.

Im probably going to go for a 6.5 in place of my .243 and wont be winding the velocity up because its fine as it is and i realise that the mild shooting is in part due to lowish velocity but still curious if it could be done

More curious because no matter what you haver there will always be something bigger or faster.

Dan

 

[Claret_Dabbler]

Dan, apologies if it was me who took this thread off in the wrong direction.

Unfortunately, on this site, any discussion involving the 6.5 tends to drift off into a **** fest....

 

[Orion]

Dan, apologies if it was me who took this thread off in the wrong direction.

Claret, I don't think you were guilty of that. The info relating solely to the 6.5x55 posted within these two pages so far, I have found very informative and I have filed some of it away for future experimentation.

Unfortunately, on this site, any discussion involving the 6.5 tends to drift off into a **** fest....

Shame about that. It seemed to be developing into quite an interesting thread for me as well because I was only looking for info on this particular cartridge - not whatever might be presumed to be a 'better' round.

 

[Thar]

Hi Muir

I am pretty much in agreement with most of your last post.

I think this has been touch on before but what we in the UK could do with is some reloading data which shows which powder works for short barreled rifles. I was discussing this while stalking with one of the people contributing to this very post, although it was with regards to another caliber never the less it should be just as valid for the Swede.

I have some thoughts:-

Would a change to magnum primers cause a quicker burn rate of the powder column in the first instance, therefore making better use of the short barrel?

Using a faster burning powder, but this could mean that your case would be less full than ideal for best accuracy.

New powders, I have been hearing good results with velocity gains of 200fps over usual powders with reloader 17, this might suit the 6.5X55 with lighter bullets?

I know in the USA the use of handguns chambered in rifle cartridges has a following, I can find no data for the 6.5X55 but good info’ for other calibers, but surely somebody must have used this caliber in a pistol. This info’ could be read across with a appropriate increase in velocity for the 18/20” UK rifle and the 12/15” barrel used on a hand cannon.

What powders are Hornady using in there 30 RCM cartridges etc? They appear to be getting good velocities from small cases and shorter barrels that other comparable cartridges. Will they ever spill the beans with what powder they use?

Mods/Dan if you think this post is drifting away from the original posting please move it to another section.

ATB

Tahr

 

[Muir]

Thar: I can see your concerns about short barrels. I think that case load density is a little overrated and one author did an article on the use of faster powders in larger cases -and the results- and if I can find it i'l post some info. There are a few companies that are making handguns in large rifle calibers. I think SSK Corp is making 14" single shots in 260 and i will chase down someone who has one, or has SSK data.

I also have been looking at RL17 but have yet to stumble upon a pound of it. When I do i'll work some loads with my 17" 6.5x55 and my 20" 30-06 FN. I can chronograph the loads and let you know how it fared.

I am still mildly surprised at how many fellows in the UK skip the basic Chrony Chronograph. It's invaluable to me... ~Muir

ADDENDUM:

I took a look at SSK Industries web site and they have several propietary cartridges that are achieving 6.5x55 speeds from a 14" barrel. ONe is a 6.5-220 swift with 60 degree shoulders that w throws 120's at 2800fps and 140's at 2700. The other is a 280 Remington with same shoulders that moves a bullets out a "near .280 rifle speeds" from a 14" barrel. Obviously, it is possible to get HV from a short barrel. I will see who I can find who is shooting these and see what the data is. ~M

 

[Dan Newcombe]

Seems pretty much on track to em and Muirs second from last post seems to sum up my thoughts pretty well.

Just seemed quite a lot of powder for a modest velocity!

All i need now is to find a SS synthetic 6.5x55

Dan

 

[scotspine]

I also have been looking at RL17 but have yet to stumble upon a pound of it. When I do i'll work some loads with my 17" 6.5x55 and my 20" 30-06 FN. I can chronograph the loads and let you know how it fared

.

Muir
The chrono makes a huge difference. As I've stated before I had used a batch of ammo (6.5x55, 140g) for a good while and popped a number of Reds with them before I chronographed them. They were pitifully slow and below the legal limit! I should have realised as the recoil was so low that even flipping the Butler Creek covers on the scope produced more kick!!

Incidentally, the ammo was absolutely fine on the deer. I choose it because it was very accurate and consistent in all weather conditions.

I would love to try RL17 but I need to wade through a hundredweight of RL19 first!

regards

 

[Thar]

Thar:
I also have been looking at RL17 but have yet to stumble upon a pound of it. When I do i'll work some loads with my 17" 6.5x55 and my 20" 30-06 FN. I can chronograph the loads and let you know how it fared.

I am still mildly surprised at how many fellows in the

UK skip the basic Chrony Chronograph. It's invaluable to me... ~Muir

Hi Muir

If you are having trouble finding RL17 it must be even harder to find this side of the pond. Like Scotspine I brought up a good supply of reloading components before your new president got into office, Still, I would like to try a tub of RL17.

I think a Chrony is almost a must, not only for knowing the velocity, but when you are working up loads you can see when you are reaching the point of diminishing returns.

Your 6.5X55 with its 17” barrel would be ideal to get some idea of what is possible, is it a modern action?

ATB

Tahr

 

[Muir]

Hi Muir

If you are having trouble finding RL17 it must be even harder to find this side of the pond. Like Scotspine I brought up a good supply of reloading components before your new president got into office, Still, I would like to try a tub of RL17.

I think a Chrony is almost a must, not only for knowing the velocity, but when you are working up loads you can see when you are reaching the point of diminishing returns.

Your 6.5X55 with its 17” barrel would be ideal to get some idea of what is possible, is it a modern action?

ATB

Tahr

Thar,
Not exactly modern but far stronger than the 94/96 Swede. It's a small ring 98 Mauser. These have the same thread pitch as the Swede and I have an assortment of Swede barrels; both new and used. I will fit one up to one of the 98's and see what happens.

Two thumbs up on the diminishing returns factor! People lose sight of that Chrony usage. It's a valuable tool.~Muir

 

[hunter gatherer]

Hi
Have been following this post for some time and it has prompted me to join, I'm new to posting so please excuse any bloopers.

I thought my info may be of some interest.

I have shot he 6.5x55 for many years and tried most bullet powder combinations. I am also a bit of an accuracy nut so expect a good result.

The best load I have found is Nosler 120 loaded with RL22 at 50g. RL19 at 48g gives simular result but not quite as good a group.
Lapua brass and CCI primers. Lapua 108g and 123g senners are also very good but are not deer friendly.

Do not believe published velosities they are mostly done in test barrels and not achievable. I have consistantly cronoe'd at 2850fps ) and you will have to go hot to exceed this and then case necks will fail in factory rifles. (quoted speed by Nosler is 3002fps!)

This load is very effective on all deer.

It is well worth experimenting with your AOL it makes a lot of difference. You cann't load near the lands with factory 6.5x55's.
Stated AOL is 3.15in max and most recommended at 3.00 for 120g Nosler. For my rifle (Sako 85) I have found 3.10 to be best but do experiment.

The lighter 100g bullets do not achieve the same accuracy and some Sierra 85g were a disaster, the 6.5x55 seems happiest with 120 to 140g bullets.

If you want an alternative 6.5 caliber try 6.5 x 47 very impressive for accuracy and smooooth to shoot similar velocities to 55 though.

Al

 

[mallettn]

You have me wondering about OAL for the 6.5

Welcome and thanks for starting to contribute to the threads; your first post was very interesting to me.

This is because I am new to reloading and have recently been starting to develop loads for my Sako 85 - I got off to a good start (thanks to advice from Muir) and have a load that is very accurate using 120g Nosler, CCI primers, Nosler brass and 45.0g of IMR4350. in other words similar to yours in some respects. I have shot several 3/8ths and 1/2 inch groups at 100yds, but have not had a chance to chrono the loads so I don't know how fast they are.

I have been struggling to decide what OAL to go with as there is no way to get a 120g bullet near the lands on a factory 6.5 as you have mentioned. I have gone to 3.031" and stopped as I was concerned about how much bullet was left in the neck - by my reckoning this measurement leaves approx 7.0mm (excluding length of boat-tail section) or .2756". I have been told that a rule of thumb is to seat to at least the calibre size i.e. 6.5mm or .264" so I was being conservative - is there any need to be concerned with going to 3.1 OAL given this (by my calculations) leaves approx 5.2mm or .2047" for seating?

I was thinking of trying the 100g Noslers so would be interested to know how much your groups expanded with them?

Thanks
Neal

 

[Harry mac]

Dan, have you had negative experiences with the 243 that make you want to switch to 6.5? I only ask because after 15 years of shooting deer almost exclusively with a 308 I've just acquired a 243 and SO FAR it's been great. I will admit, however, to only having shot 6 deer with it up to now.

 

[Muir]

Welcome and thanks for starting to contribute to the threads; your first post was very interesting to me.

This is because I am new to reloading and have recently been starting to develop loads for my Sako 85 - I got off to a good start (thanks to advice from Muir) and have a load that is very accurate using 120g Nosler, CCI primers, Nosler brass and 45.0g of IMR4350. in other words similar to yours in some respects. I have shot several 3/8ths and 1/2 inch groups at 100yds, but have not had a chance to chrono the loads so I don't know how fast they are.

I have been struggling to decide what OAL to go with as there is no way to get a 120g bullet near the lands on a factory 6.5 as you have mentioned. I have gone to 3.031" and stopped as I was concerned about how much bullet was left in the neck - by my reckoning this measurement leaves approx 7.0mm (excluding length of boat-tail section) or .2756". I have been told that a rule of thumb is to seat to at least the calibre size i.e. 6.5mm or .264" so I was being conservative - is there any need to be concerned with going to 3.1 OAL given this (by my calculations) leaves approx 5.2mm or .2047" for seating?

I was thinking of trying the 100g Noslers so would be interested to know how much your groups expanded with them?

Thanks
Neal

Neal. Stop and take a breath. Breathe in and out slowly. Relax. Relaaaax.........

Now: You're shooting 3/8" and half inch groups. Why on earth would you want to change anything? (Deep breath in, exhale smoothly...) Unless the rounds are too long for your magazine you have nothing to do anymore. (relax) You can go practice some off-hand shooting maybe. But ( Breathe, Relax) You're done with load development. Go get some sleep now and dream of tiny groups and big deer.....

When you wake up you can try the Noslers because no one of us can tell you if they are going to shoot well or poorly in your rifle, right?~Muir

 

[mallettn]

Muir,
You are, of course, absolutely right. I guess having landed instantly on an accurate load I never got to try any of the variables like OAL and different powders that so many people say can make a big difference. But actually there are better things to worry given I already have an accurate load which appears to do the job in the field (albeit relatively limited experience here).

From a point of learning and interest I would like to know if there are any guidelines as to the minimum depth a bullet should be seated other than the rule of thumb I was given to seat to a depth of at least the calibre size.
Neal

 

[flytie]

Muir,
You are, of course, absolutely right. I guess having landed instantly on an accurate load I never got to try any of the variables like OAL and different powders that so many people say can make a big difference. But actually there are better things to worry given I already have an accurate load which appears to do the job in the field (albeit relatively limited experience here).

From a point of learning and interest I would like to know if there are any guidelines as to the minimum depth a bullet should be seated other than the rule of thumb I was given to seat to a depth of at least the calibre size.
Neal

Neal, this interests me as I am working up loads for my 6.5 at the moment. Using a dummy case and 129gn SST, this combination measures 2.9335 to the lands (engineers blue used to confirm). Now the Lee manual gives two lengths for 129gn bullets, 3.025 and 2.935. Whereas Hornady give an OAL of 2.905.

I started 5 thou off the lands and worked upwards from there. The results were not impressive, to say the least. I have now gone to the Hornady stated OAL and am getting 1" groups, this is nearly as good as I was getting from factory Federal Powershoks.

Never mind i will keep trying and adjust slowly, hopefully somewhere near here, I will find a sweet spot and get down to 3/4" or better.

ft

 

[mallettn]

Flytie,
I am not the best person to reply as I lack experience in this area. A couple of observations / questions though... The Lee manual OALs are minimums (based on different powders) and most reloaders seem to strive to get closer to the lands in the search for more more accuracy (i.e. longer OAL). Hence I can't understand your measurement of 2.9335 to the lands - the official minimum length for factory chambered 6.5 x 55 rifles is 3.150 (see Lee manual again) so unless you have a custom chambered rifle I would be concerned that your chamber measurement is right?