Newfag to obscure cartridges here Can someone explain to me 6.5

Not .300 Win. Mag. power, but trajectory.

6.5mm is arguably the best diameter projectile for a do-it-all cartridge for large game, target shooting (1000-1200 yards), and combat.

>>32208477
6.5 Creedmoor is what you'd pick if you want something in the .308Win power range but with massively improved BC, accurracy, range.

>>32208477
It's a fucking meme caliber for fudds that wanna into salt rifles without giving up "muh huntin"

>>32208493
>>32208506
Explain the difference between Creedmoor and grendel?

>>32208477
300 Win Mag's trajectory isn't anything special, though fudds seem to idolize it

LR shooting is about bullets not cartridges. Pick a good bullet, find a cartridge that offers plentiful good quality brass (or OTC loads if you don't reload) and maximizes powder capacity for its length. You'll be in the berries.

6.5 Creed is popular right now because some excellent 6.5mm bullets are available. Before than it was 6mm, and 7mm before that, then way back the 7.62s.

>>32208557
About 22 grains of water.

Grendel was designed to fit into a standard AR15 mag, the Creed a standard short action bolt rifle mag.

Has very similar kinetic energy as 308 but better ballistics for long range; not quite as good as 300 win mag though.

>>32208584
Actually its trajectory happily spanks 300 Win Mag. Even a top tier 7.62mm bullet like 155 Scenar is crushed by a 147 ELD at 2800 fps.

>>32208517
I guess wind drift is just a meme too then

>>32208557
>Explain the difference between Creedmoor and grendel?

Creedmore is .308win case sized. Grendel is 5.56nato sized. I mean extremely similar in length.

Creedmore is a barrel burner for precision shooters. It's plenty accurate for hunters for a long time.

I shoot a short barrel Grendel and it's pretty fucking sweet.

>>32208557
>Explain the difference between Creedmoor and grendel?

Creedmoor is for the AR10 while Grendel is for the AR-15. Basically, C is a full power cartridge while G is an intermediary.

>>32208477
They're meme cartridges that have like 3% higher ballistic coefficient. Tacticool elite sniper faggots will "run" their $7000 "platforms" in these calibers to satisfy their egos.

>>32208645
>3% higher ballistic coefficient
5.56 has 400 about BC

6.5G has 510 BC
how is that 3% ?

File: 558214.gif (2MB, 478x269px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 478x269px

>>32208656
>he uses G1 BC
G7 that shit up my man

>>32208493

ITT: Accuracy by decreasing minimum Power Requirement for the same Effective Range.

Much so it is like a 270WSM is just as accurate as .300WM at medium-long ranges due to better ballistic coefficient of reduced diameter drag while having more or same control-ability.

>>32208645

>7000 buckaroos

You can pick up any sporting/varmint rifle in 6.5mm caliber (.260), and shoot out to 1000-1200 yards easier than you can with the same rifles in 7mm and .30 calibers

You can do the same 1000 yards with .308, of course (1200 is harder), but the price is exactly the same.

>>32208616
Use a bigger round.

Jesus, how dense are you?

>>32208517
>I have so clue what I'm talking about, so I'll just spew bullshit: The Post

File: 6.5cm vs 300wm.png (92KB, 1673x849px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1673x849px

>>32208605
Now why would you load a 155gr bullet in 300WM?

File: precision rifle ruger.jpg (69KB, 1400x425px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1400x425px

>>32208517
Get a load of this gimp here.

>>32208645
Easy with those poorfag tears, just because you can't hope to afford a Ruger Precision Rifle doesn't mean it's $7000

>>32208639
>C is a full power cartridge while G is an intermediary

Actually They are about the same power. The only reason Creedmoor because "The Best" Hornady, otherwise the shorter case is better.
>Mememoor

File: 1480372554815.jpg (161KB, 964x1200px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 964x1200px

>>32208477
I'm in a certain mood , >>32208506 already summed it up nice

But yeah ballistics ballistics ballistics

internal external terminal

read about everything and find out about all the different cartridges that exist and why

A good example is 50BMG there's A lot of nuance that goods into long range shooting and maximizing accuracy.

Do you know what match grade ammo is ?
How it differs from "ball"
Match grade barrels and rifles , chamber design

Both a long range competition rifle and a ma deuce machine gun could be "50BMG" but they might no have ammo compatibility ( bore riders and over COAL )

>>32208719
>Or perhaps he is wondering why someone would load .300 win mag with 155 gr before throwing it down range

>>32208719

This guy gets it.

For long range shooting, you need very long, very streamlined bullets with plenty of twist.

The issue is, such a bullet in .30 caliber is going to weight over 200 grains, and the recoil impulse to launch that thing at close to 3000 fps is going to be pretty crushing, unless you REALLY make your rifle heavy.

You can get 'similar' ballistic performance in .25 caliber (6.5) with a bullet weighing around 150 grains, and thus, will lower the recoil impulse by 25 percent, making it easier to shoot.

This is just physics, guys. The human body can only tolerate so much recoil, and a .25 caliber bullet is more than able to kill most things you hit with it.


.30 is just a little too big for optimum performance.

>>32209253
>unless you REALLY make your rifle heavy
Ain't that the truth. My 17lb 338LM still has a decent bit of kick to it.

>>32208571
It's magazines fit an AR15 lower, but it most certainly does not use a standard AR15 magazine.

>>32208624
I have a 20 inch grendel, its a tack driver.

File: nonsense.png (142KB, 360x332px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 360x332px

>>32208695
>Use a bigger round
yeah, so now instead of spending 2K or so and making an alright long range rifle that outpaces the .308 by miles I have to spend 5K on a good .338 or buy a savage 110, then spend $5 a round to shoot because I can't legally into reloading rather than $1.50 a round with 6.5 FTFY

>>32210341
Why can't you legally into reloading? What kind of hellhole do you live in?

>>32208477
6.5mm cartridges are kind of at a sweet spot in terms of all-around effectiveness. They shoot flat for a given recoil level. For example, a 6.5 Grendel shoots as flat as a .308 to 1000 yards. A 6.5 Creedmoor shoots as flat as a .300 Winchester Magnum more or less. In each case you'd have to bump up in power and action length in order to match trajectory, which means more weight, recoil, powder, muzzle blast, etc.

The "sweet spot" as far as human shootability seems to be in the 6mm to 7mm range, 6mm being more appropriate for varmints and 7mm being more appropriate for big game. 6.5, being a split between both, has been well proven in hunting, target shooting, and military engagements for over 100 years. The 6.5x55 is well respected in Scandinavia for moose.

>>32210771
Protip a European moose is not even remotely close to the same thing as a North American moose

>>32210988
True europoor moose= american elk and vise versa.

>>32208477
>they can reach 300WinMag's trajectory
fixed.

File: 1480658358671.jpg (94KB, 600x604px)

94KB, 600x604px

I'd like to eventually own a nice bolt action rifle. But I have no clue what cartridge to swing for.

Everytime I see these threads I feel like I'm back in my special ed algebra class and get overwhelmed.

>>32210988
wrong. only the alaskan moose stands out in size. there are several moose subspecies in north america and most are about the size of the eurasian moose found in europe.

>>32208493
140gr Amax 260rem exceeds the kinetic energy of 190gr SMK .300wm at 1100 yards. So yes, power. As well as trajectory. With increased penetration too, due to a significantly higher sectional density.

>>32208517
Fuck off faggot.

>>32211560
Just get a .308

>>32208605
The Scenars are extremely accurate because they are extremely consistent.

They really don't have that great a BC, even when compared to other bullets in their weight class (for example, the 155 Scenar has a worse BC than the 155gr Sierra Palma or SMK and similar BC to the 125gr Sierra flat-base matchking).

But yes, the 147ELD has a higher BC (thus retains velocity/energy better than) even the 220gr VLD's.

>>32211560
Lol exact same thing here dude. I'm right there with you.

File: 1479562971707.png (479KB, 837x1203px)

479KB, 837x1203px

>>32208477
>i've seen some people shitting on them for a while
/k/ shits on anything that's new or innovative.

example: 300 blackout

>>32208761
No you nigger.

The heaviest bullet you can load in a 6.5 Grendel is 123gr (the 123gr ELD-Match). From a 24" barrel it will produce a muzzle velocity of around 2500fps.

Meanwhile the 6.5 Creedmoor is achieving 2700fps with the 142gr Accubond-LR (.718 G1 BC).

So unless you're going to argue 1700FPE of muzzle energy is "about the same power" as 2380FPE ME, or that 814FPE is "about equal" to 1710 FPE at 500 yards, you're wrong. And if you ARE going to argue that literally double the energy is "about the same" you're either retarded or trolling.

>>32208719
Because they afford the best combination of BC and speed.

You can't get those heavies you posted moving fast enough to beat a 155 Scenar inside the 1000 yard mark.

>>32210771
And then some bright guy comes along with .26 Nosler, which shares case dimensions with .338RUM.
>launching 142gr Accubond-LR's at 3600fps
Shoulder-crushing recoil in it, but if you absolutely have to have a 2000m gun and can't get a CheyTac, it'll do it.

>>32211804
is there a platform you would recommend?

>>32211814
The Scenar has lass bearing surface than both the bullets you note, thus can be driven faster from the same case.

Per Litz, it tests at a higher BC than advertised where Sierra seldom meets their claims.

>tfw if the US had adopted .276 Pedersen we probably never would've needed to make all these intermediate cartridges

>>32211814
>not getting the highest BC you can in a target bullet
http://www.alcobullets.com/product/230-gr-308-bullets/
http://buybergerbullets.3dcartstores.com/30-Cal-230-Gr-Hybrid-Target_p_152.html

>>32211814
>They really don't have that great a BC, even when compared to other bullets in their weight class (for example, the 155 Scenar has a worse BC than the 155gr Sierra Palma or SMK and similar BC to the 125gr Sierra flat-base matchking).

NOPE


>Bryan Litz, the ballistician for Berger Bullets has recently published his book on long range ballistics, Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting. This book, among other things, includes software and experimentally measured ballistic coefficients for 175 bullets. The bullets have been added to the JBM Bullet Library using the G7 drag function bullets measured by Bryan are denoted by "(Litz)" in the description. The G7 coefficients should give better calculations than the G1 coefficients over the ranges typically fired in long range shooting. When given the choice of the manufacturer's data or the measured coefficients, I would try Bryan's data.

Bryan Litz data:
155 gr Lapua Scenar 0.236 G7
155 gr Sierra Palma 0.229 G7
125 gr Sierra tipped MK 0.176 G7
168 gr Sierra MK 0.218 G7
175 gr Sierra MK 0.243 G7

source: http://www.jbmballistics.com

>>32211959
True. But the gap is SO large that the Scenar is still way inferior on BC. They're damn good bullets because of how accurate they are, but when you're talking about true long range shooting avoiding wind drift is more important than getting an extra eighth of an MOA at 100 yards out of it.

And speaking of inflated BC claims, get a load of this guy shilling Berger: >>32211970

>>32211970
still worse trajectory/drift because you're losing too much velocity.

>>32211985
>True. But the gap is SO large that the Scenar is still way inferior on BC.
NO
IT
IS
NOT
AS
DETERMINED
BY
EXPERIMENTAL
DATA
IN
CONTRAST
TO
MANUFACTURER'S
CLAIMS

>>32211973
So why does literally no 600 or 1000m competition shooter shoot Lapuas?
>because they have shit BC, G7 isn't the best metric at those ranges anyway, and they're really fucking expensive.

>>32212006
BRIAN LITZ IS A FUCKING RETARD THAT MAKES BERGER'S OWN EXTREMELY INFLATED CLAIMS TO SELL HIS COMPANY'S BULLETS, LITERALLY EVERY OTHER PERSON TO HAVE EVER TESTED THEM SAYS HE'S FULL OF SHIT.

>>32212016
>So why does literally no 600 or 1000m competition shooter shoot Lapuas?
how many comptetition shooters have you polled?

File: bryanlitz-2.jpg (119KB, 400x394px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 400x394px

>>32212016
>Bryan Litz inflated Lapua's BC because reasons
just fuck off.

>>32212016
Care to cite the hate againt Berger?

File: Precision-Rifle-Bullets.png (27KB, 635x398px)

27KB, 635x398px

>>32212016
>So why does literally no 600 or 1000m competition shooter shoot Lapuas?
hey fuckface, check out muh data:
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/12/27/best-bullets-brass-primers-powder/

>>32212023
You do realize that you can look up what rifle every F-Class, Across-the-Course, and High Power, and 1000m Benchrest shooter uses by name, which includes caliber and bullet used, right?

Also 6mmbr.com.

Also David Tubb and his extensive testing (protip: He shoots modified Sierras).

Also you hit a point of diminishing returns. For known distance shooting plain ol' .243 can drive a high-enough BC bullet enough faster than the (non-true-magnum) 6.5's that you get less wind drift out to 1000m. Beyond that, yes the 6.5 is king.

>>32212043
So why have so many hundreds of other independent testers (who coincidentally don't work directly for a bullet company) called him on his bullshit with their own data? Why has Hornady's publicly-available doppler radar show them performing worse than Litz says?

>>32212059
link sources, I'm not searching through countless posts on 6mmbr.com to prove your point.

>>32208719

what is this program and where can I get it?

>>32212054
Hey fuckface. More people have won and placed with Sierra's in the last 10 years than all other bullets combined.
>I'm sure this is at least partially because they're both cheaper and more widely available than any other bullet

>>32212078
http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi

>>32208557
one is small one is big

>>32212100

neat, thanks

>>32212097
>Hey fuckface. More people have won and placed with Sierra's in the last 10 years than all other bullets combined.
won what and placed where and why the arbitrary timeframe? provide sources for your claims.

File: 1417989991643.png (2MB, 10000x9441px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 10000x9441px

>>32212097
>Caring about what won a decade ago

>>32210457
whatever that anon is dealing with aside, "loljust use a bigger bullet" is 1700's thinking. with modern precision machining and chemistry, efficiency is not only achievable but preferable to just adding mass to push your way through an obstacle like wind.

were smarter than that now, man

>>32211930
not him but i was literally about to post with that answer, and i would recommend a tikka t3x. they can be had for cheap (600ish) but feel and shoot superbly. they are made by sako, so quality isnt really a question. there is also alot of aftermarket for them so you can spend more later if you want

>>32212129
Pendleton. Perry.
>http://www.pa1000yard.com/results/toplists.php?year=2016&cls=Light+Gun&grsc=Group&topct=100
>http://www.virginia1000.com/frame_main.htm
for starters. Look at what they're using.

>>32212146
How's this then?
>every single NRA High Power winner at Camp Perry this year was shooting Sierra bullets

>>32211926
.26 Nosler will drop a deer in its tracks at 500 yards, not so with a .308 or 6.5creed or whatever

>>32212222
It better, it's moving the same weight bullet nearly 800fps faster and burning nearly 80gr more powder to do it.

>>32208477

More expensive and heavier than 5.56
Grendel sucks because they made it fit in an AR.
Creedmoor is great, but it's based on .308, so you're carrying less rounds.
Creedmoor also is made for what would be long barrels today. 24-28" and up

That said, shot placement is king except when it comes to 5.56, where having more of a lighter, less expensive bullet that doesn't need to hit its target to suppress them is the best.

>>32208557
Grendel is the same length as 5.56x45 cartridges and fits in guns like the AR15, G36, Tavor, and other rifles with dimensions for .223
Creedmoor is the same length as 7.62x51 cartridges and fits in guns like the FAL, G3, M1A, AR10, SCAR-H, etc

>>32212205
What aftermarket? 2 piece bases from 3 companies, solid top rail from EGW, a Timney hunting trigger that only goes down to 2lbs? Does anyone even make a DBM that fits the T3x (I know 2 companies make them for the T3 but not sure if they're compatible)?

Who can do replacement barrels that don't require extensive gunsmith fitting?

Does anyone make a match trigger for them?

Does anyone make replacement stocks?

>>32212218
>http://www.pa1000yard.com/results/toplists.php?year=2016&cls=Light+Gun&grsc=Group&topct=100
don't see bullets listed

>http://www.virginia1000.com/frame_main.htm
only bullet mentioned there is a Scenar...

>>32208477

For the Human Sized Creature it has been determined and observed through practice that...

The 6.5mm rifle cartridge holds the ideal size and shape for firepower, range, controllability and ammunition capacity.

Anything smaller lacks either range or firepower even if it gives more capacity.

Anything bigger provides more effectiveness but loses controllability and capacity.

> It will literally do just about anything that a 7.62mm round can do but with less fuss

Even 6.5mm grendel has accuracy out to 800 yards, and you're only going to get better than that with .308 if you're using a specially tuned DMR (then maybe you can reach 1000).

And because the bullets are so long they're probably going to tumble after impact.

> and 6.5 grendel fits in an AR-15 for only a 15% decrease in ammunition count
> and then you use PMAG-40s.

>>32212253
>grendel sucks
Best thing that will fit in an AR for long range, it's truly 1000m capable from a 16" barrel and literally nothing else factory produced you can fit in an AR is.
>creedmoor is great, but it's based on .308, so you're carrying less rounds
It's not intended to replace 5.56 you mong. It's intended to replace or supplement 7.62x51. Which it does quite nicely since it shoots further, carries energy better, kicks less, and weighs less.
>Creedmoor also is made for what would be long barrels today
No, it was specifically designed around 20" AR10 barrels.

>>32212280
there are alot of chassis out there that fit t3's. last i looked timney made a match trigger for it, but i could be wrong. also, the magazines work for both rifles, as far as i could tell. not owning both, i cant really verify.

i perhaps overstated the aftermarket a bit, but it does exist and even stock the rifles are excellent shooters for the price.

>>32211560
>>32211804
.243WIN is pretty good too for a 6mm-category round

>>32212266
>Grendel is the same length as 5.56x45 cartridges and fits in guns like the AR15
Grendel - 6.5×39mm
5.56 NATO - 5.56×45mm

the 5.56 NATO is longer

>>32212313
I don't understand the appeal of chassis. Significantly heavier and more expensive than even something like a Manners or McMillan glass-filled-nylon stock while providing...what? 2 rail sections on the forend? What are those even used for? They're on the sides (on most) so it isn't NV. You're not fucking clearing houses with a 17lb bolt action rifle with a 24" barrel so I doubt it'd be a flashlight. Bipod goes on the bottom and you'd be a retard to use a pic mount anyway when sling stud and spigot bipods exist.

Is it the folding stock that maybe 1 in 10 chassis systems have? Is that it? Is saving 6" in length really worth nearly doubling its weight? How do you explain the other 90% of chassis systems then?

The only thing I can see is the ease of bedding. But you still have to actually bed it, and if you can bed a chassis properly you can bed a regular stock properly. If you can't, a gunsmith charges the same for either.

>>32212338
no, its shit, 6mm PPC is a great 6mm round, .243 has lame ass balistics at anything over 80gr

File: 6.5-Grendel-vs-308-with-223.jpg (19KB, 200x277px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 200x277px

>>32212342
nuh uhhh

>>32212300
If 6.5mm is ideal against humans , why did the Japanese replace it with 7.7mm?

>>32212342
>what is COAL
>why does brass length not matter

>>32212351
So why have there been so many wildcats doing their damndest to replicate its capabilities with marginally shorter brass to fit repeaters when loaded with 100+ grain bullets?
>6mm Dasher
>6 XC
>6x47 Lapua
>6mm Creedmoor

>>32212366
Cordite load and semi-rimmed case.

Also inferiority complex. Why else would a nation of 5' tall people issue 7' long rifles?

>>32212342

Guess how I know that you've never shot 6.5 Grendel.

>>32212311

Id said that 6.5 gren can reach out 800 but ill trust your 1000 estimate better. Long bullets are like javelins.

There's these really long 5.56mm bullets about 100 grain but they're so obnoxious I bet they chew the shit out of rifling and would require 1:7 twist to do any good with.

Someone else told me about creedmoor too and I understood immediately when I saw they were based on a 308, that it was intended to show the world it needed to be replaced.

Also I dont think I saw many rifles chambered for Creed that were anything other than a Bolt.

Personally I think all calibers should be stepped up.

DMRs, battle rifles, and medium machineguns should be chambered in something that hits with 200 to 300 grains mass. The ammo weighs more but its so much more effective out at 500-1000 yards, not just accuracy potential but also penetration.

>>32212366
>>32212379
This mainly

But the 6.5s they were shooting were damn lethal.

Im afraid the real reason they changed it was chest beating and morale (their enemies, the US, where shooting bigger bullets back at them and generally winning - makes soldiers feel better to be issued what they think are better weapons - though they still lost).

Also the switch from the machinegun fed by stripper clips was disastrous.

>>32208616
Yes, it is.

The proper term is wind deflection.

>>32212393
>>32212342

yeah people look at numbers like that and forget
o v e r a l l
l e n g t h

the nose of the bullet sticks out much farther comparitively

The .300 blackout I believe is technically 35mm long. But the nose of the bullet sticks way the fuck out there so it still occupies overall length similar to a 5.56mm

>>32212419
>Someone else told me about creedmoor too and I understood immediately when I saw they were based on a 308
the 6.5 creedmoor is based on the Savage 300 which is slightly shorter than the 308, youre thinking of the 260 remington

>>32212419
>Also I dont think I saw many rifles chambered for Creed that were anything other than a Bolt.
The whole point behind 6.5CM was to fit in .308-length magazines with heavy bullets. Something the .260 Remington does not do.

A secondary point was to share rim dimensions and ease of functioning in an autoloading weapon with .308, specifically the AR10, since 6.5x47 Lapua, near-twin ballistically, doesn't play nice with semi's due to weird rim dimensions and a need for firing pin bushings.

Hornady very specifically made it so their 140gr load would fit perfectly in the Magpul Pmag LR/SR and the DPMS .308 mags.

>>32212487
While the .300 Savage is the parent case, it's basically a .22-250 necked up. IIRC the .22-250 is also based on the .300 Savage though.

Either way, rim dimensions are identical to .308win.

File: Jason65s.jpg (54KB, 580x243px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 580x243px

>>32208477
6.5mm is at the mathematical intersection of:
>high ballistic coefficient
(meaning the bullet is sleek for its weight, it will fly further given a like initial velocity compared to other calibers)
>high sectional density
(meaning it packs a lot of mass into a small space)
(also meaning it will penetrate further than other bullets of the same weight)
>small side profile
(meaning it doesn't get pushed around by the wind quite as much as other calibers)

It makes it generally superior to .30 cal for long range shooting, for reasonable bullet weights. i.e. you're not going to put a 220+ grain bullet in a .308 and get enough initial velocity to shoot a thousand yards keeping the bullet supersonic. You'd have to step up to a bigger cartridge, burning more powder, causing more blast, more recoil, in a bigger, more expensive rifle, as compared to something like 6.5 Creed / .260 Rem / 6.5 Sweede

>>32212205
>>32212280
>>32212313
>>32212350

I was looking at the browning X bolt. Is that pretty good?
I'm not really looking for an ultra tactical sniperswag machine. Mainly just to dabble in hunting if I ever get the chance.

>>32210457
California, I bet.

>>32211960
The final version of .276 Pedersen tested before it was dropped was basically a full-power, .30-06esque cartridge, and even if it hadn't been, MacArthur's argument about the .30-06 M1 being cheaper to field since it could use our heaps of leftover ammo from WW1 wasn't wrong.
.280 British was probably our first realistic opportunity to adopt a proper intermediate cartridge.
>tfw no CMP 7×43mm NATO FAL

>>32212914

I live in CA and lots of people reload. I'm unaware of any restriction on doing so.

I'll simplify the thread:

.50BMG and Lapua Magnum .338 are used by military snipers and have the longest record kills in current history - so max range and effectiveness in a small arms platform. BMG is great against materials too (anti-material)

Next, big game. I mean, BIG African game. Go .375 H&H Mag (or pretty much anything "Nitro express"). Known to take down elephants, rhinos, hippopotamus, etc.

Step down to grizzlys and moose, go with .338 Win Mag or .300 Win Mag

Down from there, .30-06, 7.62x54mmR, or .308 (7.62x51mm). In this range, these are effective against small bears, elk, deer, and human sized targets. Pretty much nothing you can't hunt with these rounds.
>.243 Win
>.270 Win
>7mm Rem Mag
>6.5 creedmoor
>etc.

Down from here, you have: .556/.223, 7.62x39mm, and .300BLK. These are your "shorter" ranged, standard rifle cartridges. Good against smaller game and human sized targets.

File: 308 stronk.jpg (51KB, 750x560px)

51KB, 750x560px

>>32213121
>.556/.223, 7.62x39mm, and .300BLK. [...]Good against [...]human sized targets.
Adequate against human-sized targets - you really are much better off with a real rifle caliber if you can swing it.

>>32213158
You can't hunt with 308, thar be nuthin left!

>>32212097
It is also because Sierra sponsors more shooter than all the other companies combined.

>>32212350
a) it is the tacticool look
b) they tend to offer more adjustment than McM/Manners
c) they are actually lighter. An McM A5 adjustable runs nearly 4 LBS. An MDT LSS is just under 2.

>>32212097
sierras are easier to get shooting hyper-accurately due to their ogive than vld-type bullets

>>32212350
they are also more rigid, but not much. the appeal of chassis (for people looking for an objective improvement) is that its better than the stock they currently have.

>>32212883
browning X bolt is a pretty solid rifle, but i dont know much about them other than they are well regarded.

>>32208645

nigga grendel isn't even expensive. tula sells it for less than 5.56

>>32214151
>tula sells it for less than 5.56
how

>>32215929
It's actaully wolf, but I've seen it as low as .24 cpr for 100 grain steel case.

>>32212914
precisely... and I think prop 63 just outlawed it.

File: Dale.gif (603KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 320x240px

>>32210457
cuckifornia. pls kill me. just fucking nuke the qhole state, I'll even send you coordinates to my position and stand IN the sac state house when I call it in, just END THIS NIGHTMARE!.

>>32216027
9mmfags BTFO
>buying a PCC for low cost plinking instead of an upper in a niche long-range precision cartridge

>>32208506
the 260 rem listed in op's picture is what happens when you literally put a 6.5mm slug in a 308 though.

>>32208760
RPRs are shit
I've had 7 come back to my shop already for repairs

File: allmydollarydoos.jpg (326KB, 1925x564px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1925x564px

>>32208645
sup poorfag, your tears are delicious. pic related, my 6.5-284

>>32216057
You'd think they'd be all over the Ghost Bullet Loophole but AFAIK reloading components are, for whatever reason, totally unaffected by 63.

>>32209253
>and the recoil impulse to launch that thing at close to 3000 fps is going to be pretty crushing
What if we
Hear me out
What if we took a 30 cal bolt action
And put it in a recoiling chassis?
>Trigger group is separate from rest of chassis
>firing causes it to unlock from rest of gun until it's fully recoiled and reset
>body of 30cal bolt gun consists of the action, barrel, and inner rails it rides on

>>32217063
A .30 cal M82A1?

>>32216160

all my friends want won, what makes them shit?

>>32219052
>>32217063
Fund it.

>>32208565
>300 Win Mag's trajectory isn't anything special

>Go on Jewtube and search "300 win mag 1 mile shot"

>Literally over 9000 results

>>32221381
>thinks 9000 hits means 9000 relevant videos
>thinks 9000 hits is special one way or another

>>32219052
Actually, come to think of it, why DOESN'T Barrett make M82/M107 uppers in more calibers? Do they think there just isn't a market for, e.g., a .338 Lap Mag M82?

File: thanks google.png (47KB, 854x434px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 854x434px

>>32221381
Any cartridge that's still supersonic at that distance can be used to hit targets semi-consistently at 1600m.

>>32221062
Nothing, it's a fine choice for babby's first precision-oriented bolt gun.

>>32216080
>not having friends to help you DONOTCOMPLYDONOTCOMPLYDONOTCOMPLYDONOTCOMPLY

>>32208656
>5.56 has 400
Average Bulk Ammo /k/ Buys (read XM193/M855 @ 30-35Cents/Round) normally has a BC in the Mid to Low .2XX's. HIgher BC's only normally come in on 68/69/75/77 Gr Boolits at $.75 to $1 a per round between .35 and .42 if you want to stay in magazine Lengths. Single round loads like 80gr or 85gr are usually to long and are about 2.4 inches instead of standard length.

File: Bear Dick Punch.jpg (30KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x480px

>>32216182
>Put in in 6.5 SAUM and BTFO

Nice Chassis

>>32212222
what matters is the bullet and its impact velocity, not the headstamp of the brass. plenty of cartridges, including 6.5CM, will kill deer to 500m

>>32208571
what are you talking about

i have an AR-10 in 6.5 creed

>>32208477
>according to wikipedia they can reach 300WinMag's power with alot less recoil
No, they have the same range and trajectory. 300 winmag will have a lot more force behind it at any given distance.

File: Gevär_m-1896_-_Modellexemplar_tillverkat_1896_-_6,5x55mm_-_Armemuseum.jpg (352KB, 2050x900px)

352KB, 2050x900px

If you're going to buy anything 6.5 then start with an M96 Swedish Mauser.

These guns are the firearm of choice for military competition shooters because the 6.5 Swede is a ridiculously bull shit round. There are only a few rifles than can actually beat the M96 for accuracy, and I've only ever seen two (Ross Mk3 and P14/M1917) actually win comps over the M96.

>>32230021
>
Yeah, as a swede I'm incredibly butthurt that we changed to 7.62 and then 5.56. We should have stayed with a developed version of the 6.5x55 cartridge.

File: UnfoldedWithHandloads.jpg (1MB, 2870x1816px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2870x1816px

>>32216182
sup poorfag, your tears are delicious.
Pic related, my AA Ulfberht in 338LM.

File: Karbin_m-1894-96_för_ingenjörstrupperna_-_6,5x55mm_-_Armémuseum.jpg (452KB, 2100x1200px)

452KB, 2100x1200px

>>32230021
Is this too short for 6.5x55?

>>32212184
>I have no idea how weapon technology works, but I assume its better because we can use computers now :^)
Fudds>>32212184

>>32229935
Short action bolt gun is a .308 length magazine.

>>32230173
Meh, waiting on falkor defense to come out with the .300 Norma.