Hi Gents and Gentesses,
Is it just me or does every other rifle for sale at the moment seem to be either a creedmore or a ..270 with a liberal sprinkling of 7mm08 as well?
Anyone know why?
Cheers
Dave
Printable View
Hi Gents and Gentesses,
Is it just me or does every other rifle for sale at the moment seem to be either a creedmore or a ..270 with a liberal sprinkling of 7mm08 as well?
Anyone know why?
Cheers
Dave
Calibers come and go out of fashion, Creedmoor seems to be a popular choice at the moment. Good short to medium range with a good selection of factory ammo. Guess it comes down to selling what many people want.
They're cheap to feed and are chambered in affordable rifles. Just about every shop has that ammunition in stock and they perform well on game.
People buy 270s and get a rude awakening from the noise and kick and that they may as well have got a proper big gun not a pretend big gun. With the creedmore I think people expect more than what they actually get as they are over hyped despite being a good cal.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by superdiver
It all comes down to military fashions, which spills over into hunting fashions. The Brits settled on their .303 in the 1880s and did not take note when the ideal caliber was worked out in the 1890s, from 7mm Mauser to 6.5mmx55 Scandinavian and 6.5x51 Japanese and the 6.5 Carcano. The pendulum then swung up to 8mm Mauser and a larger caliber 30/06 and WW2 stopped Britain from their plans to ditch the .303 in favour of a thinner bullet. Post WW2 the pendulum swung sideways from the .30/06 to the basically equivalent but shorter cased .308 Winchester / 7.62x51 NATO, then steeply (and maybe too far down) to the 5.56x45 NATO --- the last two choices products of the USA going it alone in their "cooperation" with their allies. We're now seeing sense prevail and the original 6.5mm / 7mm 1890s Goldilocks again prevails, being "just about right". Meanwhile deer successfully continue to fall victims to all the above rifle cartridges at normal hunting ranges.Quote:
Originally Posted by davhope
"All will be explained" in an article on the 1950s .280 (7x43mm) British, itself vaguely similar to the less known WW1 .256 British (AKA 6.5x51SR Arisaka). Link..
the creedmore was/is marketed as the death star ray gun one stop shop for all game at all ranges.....yea nah it is what it is a newer slightly more accurate 6.5x55mm in new fancy wrapping.....people buy and try then realise its no better than what they already have (.270---.308----.30/06----7mm/08----.243) and flick it onwards...there also seems to be lots of folk setting up rifle expensively then working out they dont need it and can do job just as well with the old smoke stick so sell it to fund something else...as for people selling .270s???? there always has been temporary insanity and some folk never take the time to sort out a load that SUITS what they want it to do.
Biggest myth going 270 kicks, and all guns make noiseQuote:
Originally Posted by superdiver
Creedmore is new and being sold as a magic caliber. New and uniformed may be buying as a "first rifle". Unless you want to shoot long range i.e. beyond 300 m you will probably not notice any advantage and suffer the cost of ammo.Quote:
Originally Posted by davhope
270 and 7-08 are also common "first rifle" calibers so likely purchased by new hunters and then sold after they realise that deer don't just present themselves and say "shoot me please" and sometimes you get cold, wet etc
Pretty simple physics, all guns kick relative to the power of the round and weight of the firearm (yes including the 270) and yes all guns make noise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taff
https://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm
It’s that time of the year when everything is for sale. 6.5cm is everywhere at the moment as the new thing.. 270 is an age old favourite. If there’s a lot of them around then by percentages there will be more of them for sale.
I think the myth started when the 270 started to gain popularity (Just after WW2 ) and if you compared it to what others were shooting at the time (mostly surplus 303) then it would have been louder and more kick because it was more powerful than what they had been used to. Now that most modern cartridges have lifted in their performance and are more readily available the 270 has not lost its kick or noise, but rather the other firearms are now doing the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taff
If you compare a 270 or most modern cartridges to a 303 then they will likely all kick a bit more and make a bit more noise, but probably more accurate to say the 303 does not kick quite as much......
Thats my understanding on it,
If we suddenly had dinosaurs running around here and the 375 H&H magnum suddenly gained popularity and become the next common calibre hat everyone shoots, it would gain the reputation of more recoil and more noise, but as more calibres in that same power level become more available and common again it would be that the level of recoil is "Normal"and the older calibres (308, 270, 6.5 CM 30/06) would feel a bit soft and gentle....)
i think its just you . . . if you do a search on TM which has about 400 rifles onsale at the moment a search pulled up 4 private sales in 6.5 CreedmoreQuote:
Originally Posted by davhope
if your talking about on this site there are some guys here that change cartridges like others change their undies, sometimes without even fouling them
its a pretty good bet the 270 or 708, the 308 & 243 are also going to come up most often as well
I asked a reputable source recently what their best selling cartridge list is.
.308, 7mm-08, .270, .223, 7mm mag
Creedmoor not at the same level as the top 5 yet. 6.5x55 Swede nowhere.
Creedmoor deserves to be growing, its a damn good cartridge. Some tend to forget that every few years there’s a new cartridge, some make it, some don’t. My Grandpa used to tell me how .243 Winchester got lambasted in the late 50s by 7mm, 303 and 8mm shooters. He ignored them all. Now look.
This doesn’t represent all rifle sales obviously, but will be a pretty good proxy for the overall picture I’d say.
That should go in the Favourite quotes thread! :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by rossi.45
@Rossi, I like your analogy - the best so far this year. But being a 270 owner I would like to point out that it is very rare indeed for me to 'Foul my undies'. I would go so far as to say that 270 owners have solid reliable sphincters are not undie fouler's - just incase someone has read your post and thinks there is a correlation.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossi.45
I tend to look at the Creedmore as the soy latte of the rifle world.
For all intents and purposes what can a Swede do that It can't? Yet the swede has been around far longer.
Quality doesn't go out of fashion in my books at least plus why try re invent the wheel?
I have been around far longer than either of my sons. Yet they can do all sorts of things that I can’t. Try killing them in combat on the PS4 Pro!
I think (and no offence intended here at all), @Rock river arms hunter, that your view is a simple parroting of hundreds of thousands of similar comments by shooters who maybe haven’t looked at the history of the Creedmoor’s development. It was created for a very specific purpose, and it succeeded in every sense. That it has been picked up by rifle and ammunition manufacturers is a testimony to the fact that, compared to a modern Swede for example, it is a highly effective 6.5mm cartridge, in a short action in rifles that have a fast twist, that are chambered to accept long for calibre, high BC bullets, using less powder and producing less recoil for a similar muzzle velocity. It also has a cool name. That helps a lot.
Whatever internal ballistics advantages it has over the Swede are a mystery to me, but the other stuff I think is pretty self explanatory. However, in a hunting scenario, within typical hunting ranges, trying to differentiate how a deer feels about being shot in the right place between a modern Swede, a 260 Rem and a Creedmoor is a pointless exercise. If you try, you’re a dick.
I love my Creedmoor, and so has everyone else who has shot something with it. The rifle has claimed “furthest kill” honours for three of my mates who have been amazed at the effortless accuracy. That’s of course largely down to the bullet and the fact that a lot of effort has gone into working out the downrange ballistics. Still, people equate success with a name.
I can see the merits but I do like your real world comment in there- couldn't have said it better myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyblown
Maybe I just like lobbing 308s hahahaha
the military arr adopting the cm... ammo price may lower with more bulk brands around for the average joe..
Oh well, I expect that the 260 can go faster than in the study too so maybe the relative differences would remain the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyblown
Ive got no skin in the issue, I just thought it looked like a different perspective.
Now I want a norma mag
True. With logic applied, bigger case capacity = more fps. To a point of diminishing returns in the case of overbore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
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....
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...
And my 260 goes faster...Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyblown
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyblown
I don't think I'd be shooting that .600 Nitro Express prone....... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by 300CALMAN
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 etcQuote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
Added to that, if you have a low BC bullet you will loose what energy you have gained down range faster.
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 300CALMAN
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Headroom
I understand that and I am not a great fan of 5.56 BUT the point was standardisation, regardless of the caliber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordite
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
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.