Would you change a .243 for a 6.5x55?

[JAYB]

Thar. I do believe enough has been said about this without starting to repeat ourselves I would just like to clear up one or two things that have been said that appear to misrepresent me and my attitude towards loading for the 6.5

JAYB wrote:
What I am saying is that modern 6.5's built with stronger actions can take a stronger load and still be safe.

this round and not any other cartridge as you are inferring.


This has been very neatly edited out and taken completely out of context, if you read it in its entirety then it is patently obvious that I am not suggesting that anybody should load their rifle to what could be dangerous levels irrespective of the warnings in manuals. I said in certain circumstances, which included your experience and your rifle and I included the caveat regarding the disparities between different rifles, the 6.5 could be loaded hotter than advertised.

You say if I want my rifle to perform like a 270, buy one. I don’t want my rifle to perform like a 270 I want it to perform like a 6.5.

Right from the start I have stuck to the question concerning 243 and 6.5, you introduced the 270 into the mix. You make it sound as if comparing a 270 (64mm case) with the 6.5 (55mm) and then finding the 270 has more oomph is news. It has a bigger engine, more power, but to my way of thinking so what? It does not diminish the attributes of the 6.5 at all. What rounds do you actually load and what speeds are you getting from them?

I have seen those Blaser blow up photo’s before some time ago, but I cannot remember the details. You say that he achieved this by loading his rounds too hot, the heady speed of 2700 fps, well the Lee reloading manual second edition gives seven loads for a 140 gr bullet with seven different powders for 2700 and better. Now I realise that the industry standard 24” barrel would have been used for these loads and your Blaser man was using a 22” barrel, but come on there has to be a fair bit of human error involved here. As you are, I take it, an experienced loader would you not agree that he may have overlooked one or two things on his way to his accident. As jingzy said what was he doing prior to the accident?

I still hold fast to my original answer would I change a 243 for a 6.5, yes I would. The ability to load from 70 gr to 160 gr would be enough on its to sway me.

John

 

[buck52]

My criticism of the Swede is that it is an old fashioned design. It is intended to work in long barreled military rifles. It has a very long throat - for 160gr bullets, it burns slow powder, preformance is compromised with a short barrel, and low operating pressures..

Mmmmm, not true these days, you are right, it was originaly designed around a 160 grn fMJ and used as standard issue by the Swiss Army for killing humans.

Today the story is different, my mate has one that has a border barrel and it is designed to stabalise a 129 grain most efficiently. It is very accurate as well.

Another mate has one (Sauer) and he has just started reloading his with 100 grn bullets, it poleaxes Red on the spot and there is no significant damage to Roe either.

Would I change a .243 for a 6.5x55, yep I sure would & did.

This is a good healthy thread, dont let it go downhill.

Regards

 

[Thar]

if you read it in its entirety then it is patently obvious that I am not suggesting that anybody should load their rifle to what could be dangerous levels irrespective of the warnings in manuals.

so do not load above the manual max'.

I said in certain circumstances, which included your experience and your rifle and I included the caveat regarding the disparities between different rifles, the 6.5 could be loaded hotter than advertised.
.

So do load above the manual max'.

Which is it?

Right from the start I have stuck to the question concerning 243 and 6.5, you introduced the 270 into the mix.

And totally ignored the second part of the question regarding should I get one instead of a 30cal, and what about African plain game?

The 6.5 is a far superior round to the 243 and will make a fool of the .270 .

My shooting ranges are of the normal type eg 50 mtr to 200 and at these distances the 6.5 will match and exceed the .270 that Thar uses

This hopefully will tell you why the 6.5 is very popular it is hitting animals harder with a heavier projectile than the 270 and is alot flatter.

John it became a 270 v Swede debate because of the following misinformed post by “6.5X55” even you must admit that it contains errors.

You make it sound as if comparing a 270 (64mm case) with the 6.5 (55mm) and then finding the 270 has more oomph is news. It has a bigger engine, more power, but to my way of thinking so what
.

Yes that was my point, a 55mm case cartridge Will not be able to perform as well as any calibre based on a 64mm (30-06) cartridge. you have seen the light.

I am using 4831short cut at the minute, 56gn with Norma cases CCI primers and Hornady 130gn SST bullets this is giving me 2975fps with a 22 barrel and .75” accuracy, before that I was using RL-19 59gn these was giving me 2983fps. I have used Hornady factory loaded LMs in it and these were doing 3100fps which is in line with a top line reload from a 22” barrel. All checked over my chrony.

I have some Magnum primers which I want to give a try as I have read that high pressure cartridges with large powder capacities these can work well with magnum primers. What do you think?

I have seen those Blaser blow up photo’s before some time ago, but I cannot remember the details. You say that he achieved this by loading his rounds too hot, the heady speed of 2700 fps,
.

John the photo’s are totally unconnected with guy in the USA loading his Remmington 700 6.5X55 to 2700fps, there is a clue in there Blaser/Remmington.

I believe that he say the rifle failed because it was faulty, Blaser say it was because he used a over pressure home load. Posted just as a reminder of what can happen in extreme circumstances.

I still hold fast to my original answer would I change a 243 for a 6.5, yes I would. The ability to load from 70 gr to 160 gr would be enough on its to sway me.
John

The fact that bullets are available in 70 to 160gn bullet does not mean that your rifle will shoot all these accurately because of the twist rate in your barrel will only suit some of these bullet weights, I should not have to remind you of this.

So second part of the question; 6.5mm or 30cal with African plains game in mind?

PS I don’t hate the 6.5x55 but do acknowledge its limitations; I hope my posts have high lighted these to the less well informed. To some, of cause, the owners “Love is Blind”.

Best rgds

Tahr

 

[Highlander]

Heym SR20

I wonder if you feel you have had your original question answered adequately, particularly having had 5 pages of responses??!!

 

[JAYB]

Thar,

You amaze me, you pick little bits of posts in isolation and then comment on them, your not a journalist are you? I didn't ignore the second part of the question, but I have no experience of shooting plains game, I only know what I have read about it, so as I do not know I could not comment. I have read of people shooting plains game with a 6.5 but cannot comment with certainty.

I cannot understand why you will not accept that the loads listed for the Swede are, in the interest of safety, because of the older less reliable actions. You keep on about 29" barrels but what powder manufacturers use a 29" barrel for their load development, I don't know any. You maintain that the advertised loads should be reduced by 50 fps per inch because they are intended for longer barrels. Surely the opposite is true if we adopt your criteria. The loads are tested for a 24" barrel therefore we should add an extra 250 fps to compensate for the extra five inches of barrel, no?


You persistently try to put words in my mouth with regard to strong loads for the Swede, why? I have explained my thinking on it and yet you keep on.

No one is denying that the 270 is a bigger hitter, but that does not mean that the 6.5 is not up to the job. You continually make reference to loads developed for older less capable actions, you seem to me to be blinkered on this. Modern technology has improved the round by improving the actions. The Remington 260 is proof of this. I have not seen the light regarding case size, it never was an issue, the issue was you saying that it would not be legal for Deer in Scotland with a 160 gr bullet.

I can't comment about 6.5's post, you had better take that up with him. As for your Remington/Blaser comments and photo's the relevance of those is wasted on me I'm afraid. Why mock a round that is doing 2700 fps, not fast enough for you? and showing photo's of someone who has pushed his rifle to breaking point why, we know what happens when you get it wrong.

I didn't say my rifle would fire all of the rounds in the range quoted I said the 6.5 had the ability to to have them loaded.

I am fully aware of my rifles limitations, for each rifle I own, and I only entered the debate in the interest of others less enlightened, as you so rightly pointed out, when you started on about all the bull talked about this round. Well, that is your opinion mine happens to be that it is a proven game rifle, has plenty of knockdown power and gets the job done better than a 243 and nothing you have said has made me think differently.

John

 

[Davie]

I will post my reply with regards my posts the stats were taken out of a stalking book written by Ritchard prior a well know deerstalker and if anyone else has the book Roe Deer management and stalking. PAGE 175 IF IT IS A MISS PRINT THEN HEY WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES EVEN THE GREAT MAN HIM SELF.

 

[Little Terry]

I once shot a running bull moose with my 6.5x55 Blaser r93.

130-150 yds 156 grain Norma Oryx. He went about 15 yds and dropped like a stone.

I use this bullet for everything from Beavers through Muntjac, roe and fallow up to the aforementioned Moose and Wildboar.

The Moose incident was only a one-off for me, but I have never wanted to swap mine for anything else. The only time I have had problems has been completely down to crap shooting.

To answer the original question:
As far as swapping from a .243 to a 6.5x55 goes, only do it if you are not happy with the .243 I would say. I hear lots of good reports on the .243 and it sounds pretty versatile. I would only swap if it was inadequate for what i wanted to shoot or if i had some money burning a hole. Then I would probably go for something a bit further removed in terms of capabilities, like a 9.3x62 or .375 H&H.

Have a look at these other threads for more 6.5 info:
http://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1254&highlight=
http://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=744&highlight=

Good luck with the decision - you'll need it judging by all the comments above!

 

[Thar]

6.5X55
Thank you for your last post, and I respect you for it, yes I have the book. As my old boss used to say “the man you never made a mistake never made fecking anything”

Terry
Good advice.

John
I will keep this first post short and address your other issues after we close this question.
If I am a journalist you are a slippery at avoiding a direct question as any politician. So in my best Jeremy Paxman style.

Do you advocate not sticking to the maximum recommended powder levels posted in respectable reloading manual for the 6.5X55 if you have a modern rifle?

Just a straight YES or NO.


Latter

Tahr

 

[Claret_Dabbler]

My criticism of the Swede is that it is an old fashioned design. It is intended to work in long barreled military rifles. It has a very long throat - for 160gr bullets, it burns slow powder, preformance is compromised with a short barrel, and low operating pressures..

Mmmmm, not true these days, you are right, it was originaly designed around a 160 grn fMJ and used as standard issue by the Swiss Army for killing humans.

Today the story is different, my mate has one that has a border barrel and it is designed to stabalise a 129 grain most efficiently. It is very accurate as well.

Another mate has one (Sauer) and he has just started reloading his with 100 grn bullets, it poleaxes Red on the spot and there is no significant damage to Roe either.

Would I change a .243 for a 6.5x55, yep I sure would & did.

This is a good healthy thread, dont let it go downhill.

Regards

Buck, no doubt a 6.5x55 can easily be made to outperform the loading books - with a short chambered custom barrel and handloads - you pal has a Border barrel.

You can also reasonably safely handload a modern factory barrel to out pace factory ammo.

But if a guy is shooting factory ammo in a factory rifle - ballistics are limited.

 

[jingzy]

It is I am sure a .243 and 6.5 debate is it not!

I have just sold my .243. Why? Because the 6.5 is in my opinion more versatile. It is a good solid performer and with 120gr sierras, I can flatten anything n this country.

J

 

[charadam]

Nothing I have read here thus far has made me regret my choice of the 6.5x55.

Don't mean this to be provocative, but I shot, read and studied a great deal before deciding - but I can still respect another viewpoint that can validate claims made.

My rifle is modern and the manufacturer has proofed the action to modern pressures, well above those tolerable by an 1896 original.

I have an enlightened approach to reloading - I just want the bullet to hit , consistently, where I intend, with sufficient energy to - a) kill humanely and b) kill legally - in Britain.

Therefore, I approach pressure maximums with caution - and I have a chronograph.

Energy is not all. Velocity is not all. I also shoot MH and Snider - now there are terminal ballistics! 500 grains of soft lead at 1240 fps stings a bit!

At the other end of the calibre spectrum, my .17 HMR with its tiny bullet and its middling velocity does what I want it to do to its reasonable quarry.

So, a calibre I am happy and confident with and that tends to support accurate shot placement due to middling felt recoil, a bullet whose SD and terminal ballistics I am happy with, all I need now is something to shoot at!

I think what I am really saying , is .................

Goodnight.

 

[Tikka 260]

Hmmmm , well I might as well add my tuppence worth. I rebarreled a Tikka 595 in .243 to .260... ( modern 6.5x55) , and I have a 6.5x55 custom rifle. Both use homeloads , nowhere near advertised maximums. They use different weight bullets for different purposes and exceed expectations at their alloted task. I think that answers the question in the thread.

I've used a .270 and a 30-06 and wouldn't give either house room , all that flash bang wallop to no discernible advantage for my particular type of shooting. However , if thats your choice then go for it.

Hence my signature .

T260

 

[Muir]

Were anyone to think it worth the effort, there could be new data for the 6.5x55 that would exceed the original data. This is nothing new.

The 45-70 is an excellent example. All US ammo makers and almost all reloading manuals list loads that do not exceed black powder pressures for the Trapdoor Springfield rifles. With time and stronger rifles, new data came about for the Marlin Lever Actions, the Ruger Single Shot, and the raft of custom bolt guns built on Mausers. Reloaders now had loads fit for the design of their rifles.

The venerable and excellent 257 Roberts cartridges were sold in "standard" and "+P" loadings. (Extra power) This because of the variety of rifle designs chambered for it.

The old 32 WCF (32-20) was sold in one configuration for rifle, and then another less-powerful version for handguns.

The 38 Special pistol cartridge is offered in standard and +P loadings, as is loading data for the round in deference to the different guns available for it.

An owner of a Winchester Model 1895 in 30-06, or a Remington Rollingblock Rifle in 7x57 had better recognize that he (or she) had best not load to modern SAAMI specs unless they want their gun to come apart.
Conversely, a person with a Siamese Mauser 45-70 can certainly exceed listed data for the Trapdoor Springfield if they have the knowledge and expertise needed to do the job scientifically and safely.

I shoot a Smith and Wesson 1926 2nd Hand Ejector in 44 Special with strict adherence to the loading manual data. I have no problem however, loading those same cartridges to maximum and shooting them in my Ruger Redhawk .44 Magnum because the gun is considerably more robust.

All this being said, reloaders must remember that the cartridge case is the weak link in the reloading chain. They almost always give a nano-second before the weapon does. Still, to take a modern made case -one whose capacity exceeds the 260 Remington - and saddle it with 44 CUP pressures is shame. I'd like to see new, rifle specific data for the 6.5x55.

Lastly. Debating the virtues of a 6.5x55 V/S a 270 is silly. It's oranges and apples. A good man with a 6.5 will kill what he shoots at. I own eight 6.5x55's and don't dote on any of them but, when I reach for one, it will be because I know it will kill the game I am shooting at and at the distance I choose to squeeze the trigger from. In that regard, it has not failed me yet.~Muir

 

[300wsm]

From what I have seen with the 6.5x55 on large deer even with well placed shots the deer run too far for my liking and the fact you want to shoot plains game you would be better off with a .30cal than 6.5x55

 

[Davie]

How fars to far 300WSM i have seen loads shot with the 6.5 x 55 and i have shot many large stags my self. The keeper i go to up north uses a 6.5 x 55 sako for all his work and swears buy it. For me it is a real stopper leaving most or all its energy in the beast not out the back side .
With regards plains game that up to the lads that do it i don't have the cash or the inclination to travel to Africa to shoot large animals i cant eat.

 

[JAYB]

Thar,
I don't know what your problem is, or what corner you are trying to push me into, but I will do my best to answer your question again. I cannot answer this yes or no, it is not a black or white area it is grey. As I said before, and you as a reloader must understand this, each and every rifle is different what is safe in one is not safe in another.

You, apparently, will not accept that the reloading data supplied in manuals relates to the early less reliable actions, they have to otherwise loading an older rifle to modern specs could lead to an accident, and that in turn to litigation.

Therefore your question could be answered both ways, no I would not suggest that a novice reloader strays from the information contained in the manual, on the other hand an experienced reloader COULD make up loads hotter than those advertised. It is not unusual to read on reloading websites where reloaders have loads that are above maximum, but always with the warning that it is only safe in their rifle. As an aside I never load above the recommended loads, I have no need to the round works fine for me as it is.

I don't know how else to answer you. In my opinion it is not a closed question and cannot be answered yes or no.

John

 

[willie_gunn]

Having followed this (and a couple of other threads) over the last couple of days, and not in any way wanting to stifle healthy discussion, I thought this article might be worth a look:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/caliber_worship.htm

To summarise - all calibers do just about the same thing, it's all about how you use them.

willie_gunn

 

[Heym SR20]

Well I didn't expect the debate to run on six pages - I have been away a few days and just reading through all the posts there is clearly a lively debate. Didn't somebody ask recently why we have so many different calibres - we have now found out the answer - it is to give rifle shooters a topic of conversation!!

Thanks for everybody's input.

I think the consensus is:


1) Because I am happy with my .243 stick with it - accuarate, flat shooting and powerful enough

2) 6.5 x 55 is a very good calibre - shoots bigger and longer bullets than the .243 and is thus a bit more flexible for the bigger stuff, but is still a bit on the light side for African bigger game. It is an old calibre and thus most factory ammo is loaded to lower pressures for old rifles (as is the 7x57 etc). But using Norma and or careful handloading it can be made to shoot quite fast.

Good ballistic coefficients mean that it does not shed velocity, thus is pretty flat shooting even if it only starts off with 2,600 fps - also has excellent penetration.

3) All legal calibres shoot plenty flat enough to pretty much guarantee that provided you zero between 1 and 2inchs high at 100 yds, you don't have to worry about distance and thus bullet drop out to 200 yds - centre cross hair on boiler room of deer, squeeze trigger and deer will recieve bullet in boiler room and is on its way to the larder.

But with a flat shooting 243 - it is easier to hit smaller targets such as foxes.

4) Killing Power - I think we are all agreed that a high velocity expanding bullet through the heart / lungs of a deer of whatever species has a terminal effect - and that terminal effect is a matter of seconds rather than minutes.

The difference seems to be whether the beast is knocked off its feet at the shot or runs a few / 10s of yards at the shot - and this is more critical in the woods than on the hill - even a beast running 10 yards in the woods can be difficult to find.

I don't think it is a matter of muzzle energy per se, nor of velocity - it is more how that is translated at the animal.

Bigger and slower bullets seem to hit with more of a thump and thus knock a beast down where it will kick and bleed out for a few seconds. Slower bullets tend not to expand as much, nor cause as big damage and exit wound.

Smaller and faster bullets seem to penetrate without necessarily knocking the beast over, but then expnad and cause a much bigger wound channel.

It is probably the same effect as recoil - compare a fast snappy calibre - say lightweight 20 with heavy cartridges to an 10 bore - the former is painful and uncomfortable, but the latter just gives you a big push backwards.

But there does seem to be a view that in the .243, 80 gn bullets seem to act quicker than 100 gn bullets - is this something to do with the 80gn expending all their energy in the beast, rather than 100gn punching through with still quite a bit of energy to expend elsewhere?? And the same is seen across all calibres - big heavy for clibre bullets penetrate well, light bullets expand and stop rapidly.

But at the end of the day any animal hit in the right place will be dead very quickly, whereas even a large calibre hitting in the wrong place will mean a wounded beast.

Consider that we are arguing between 2,000 ft, lbs and 3,000 ft lbs of muzzle energy - probably 1,000 to 1,500 ftlbs by the time it hits a 100 kg beast - whereas African hunters only have a mx of 5,000 ftlbs to flatten a 1,000kg buffalo which has a pretty ugly temperamnet to match.

My Decision:

I think I am going to stick with the .243 and ultimately pair it up with a .30 calibre, large 7mm (7x64 or RM) or possibly even bigger when funds allow.

But if I was building my amoury again from scratch I would probably start off with a 6.5 x55 as opposed to the .243.

But obviously every body's own rifle and calibre is the best you can possibly have and if there were dinosours still running around would be more than adequate for shooting these at ranges of several miles.

Thanks again for every body's input

Heym SR20

 

[300wsm]

Heym

6 pages of lively debate very well summarised into 1 post.

 

[Little Terry]

Heym

6 pages of lively debate very well summarised into 1 post.

Agreed. Well done.