Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Petzal Reviews the 6.5/284 Cartridge, Part II

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Gun Nuts
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

March 12, 2010

Petzal Reviews the 6.5/284 Cartridge, Part II

By David E. Petzal

Let’s see, where was I? Oh yes.

What brought the 6.5/284 out of the shadows and into the bright light of factory production was target shooters, and the growing willingness of Americans to try hitherto-unpopular metric calibers. There is nothing magic about the 6.5/284. It is a highly efficient load that kicks about like a .25/06 (which is to say very little) but lets you shoot heavier bullets than the .25/06, which makes it more versatile. And as my testing over the past two weeks with two 6.5/284s indicates, it is capable of the most extreme accuracy. You hear me? I said extreme. There will be more on this later. It will not, however, do anything that a good .270 won’t do.

A word about twist. The best results with a 6.5/284 are gotten with bullets of 130 and 140 grains, and it takes a twist of 1-8 to 1-9 to stabilize them. If you are a simple life form and want to shoot 120-grain bullets in this cartridge (or in a 6.5 Swede, as I have found to my sorrow and great expense) you will need a twist of 1-10.5 or thereabouts. And that will not stabilize the heavier bullets worth a barrel of old hog s**t. Maybe you can find a way around this, but I wouldn’t count on it.

And one other fringe benefit: If, when someone asks you in hunting camp what caliber your rifle is, and you say “6.5/284,” people will have no idea what the hell you’re talking about and will think you know all about guns and shooting.

I’ve been dining off this for years.

Comments (85)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Mjenkins1 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Im not sure i could build up the courage to adopt this caliber after you said "It wont do anything a good 270 wont do". But I like the hunt camp example, so true.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jscottevans wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

If I have a .270 then I don't need this right? I don't know in what camps y'all hang out, but that would get you "run-out" of must "manly" deer camps. Kind of like having a Salsa made in New York City.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jscottevans wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

It's an old Pace picante sauce commercial reference

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jscottevans wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

But don't misunderstand, I still want a 6.5/284. It's the nature of the beast. You know?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Who wouldn't want one?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

"NEW YORK CITY?"

Git a rope...

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from MJC wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Hey, my first deer rifle was a surplus K-31 that fired 7.5x55 Swiss and nobody laughed me out of deer camp for it.

Of course, that may have been because the rifle was built like a boat oar and could clearly be used as a blunt weapon without being any worse for wear.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from MLH wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Looking forward to part III. So what was happening to the 120g bullets in high twist barrels? Try any solid copper/gilding metal 120gr bullets?

Can you enlighten us to what you are doing with OAL and freebore?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sneaky wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

I've always liked offbrand/uncommon equipment because it makes me look like I know something everyone else does not.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ray j wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

6.5...257...now yer cooking with gas..:-)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ray j wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

6.5...257...now yer cooking with gas..:-)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

DP, I must call you on something. You wrote this 6.5/284 was capable of extreme accuracy…yet will not do anything a 270 won’t do.

My experience and observation with 270’s is it doesn’t show extreme accuracy. I don’t know why, maybe it’s 270 bullets.

So Young Man, which is it?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Help me out. I am a hunter of some experience, but not a competitive target shooter, or bench rest shooter. Have used a 270 successfully for hunting, but have never heard of the 270 as a popular competitive target rifle known for extreme accuracy. I could well have missed this as this type of shooting is not my thing.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Why are rehashing a topic that has been going on for decades? Hopefully we are not depleting ourselves of interesting novel ideas to discuss. Yawn. Please don't accept the previous statements as a poor attempt to be a smart aXX.
Mark-1: Carmichael wrote an article some years ago regarding the lack of inherent accuracy historically associated with .277 bullets and the .270 Winchester case in particular complete with data from his somewhat intense study of the subject. Personally I can remember owning five different .270 Win. rifles and have fired about every bullet available in one or the other. If I noticed that they were less accurate than anything else for field work aka hunting it was minimal. My 6 and 6.5/.284 shooting of days past was also not associated with target shooting beyond sighting in and checking my loads so I suppose I am happy with all of the above.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

DP, your comment about the camp remark made me chuckle. Occasionally we get an overzealous newbie at the annual elk outing in Colorado. Invariably, this kind of newbie tells everyone about their .30-378 or whatever mambo-mag it is they have, then proceeds to ask everyone what they are shooting (with the pretense it is inferior).

When I answer "6.86mm," my friends start muffling their laughs while newbie seems confused, but nods and says something like, 'oh yeah, well that's a pretty good round.'

The rhetoric that follows can get pretty deep before the newbie will actually ask to see an example of the cartridge. Then they exclaim, "This looks like a .270!" Well, yes, the headstamp cleary says that.

Then we all have a good laugh.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from PbHead wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Hey, I'm all for the new and exotic stuff especially if it means more brass to play with. Dave, this could be your chance to neck this one up to 416 and have the 416 Petzel Popper. You could use cast bullets for practice and really big chunks of lead to amuse youself and the rest of us.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Proverbs, you could tell him a real man would shoot a 700 Nitro, then when he buys one see how he "Tries to Handle" it. Heh Heh

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

So the point is to get this 6.5/284, that won't do anything a .270 can't spending big bucks so you can pretend to know something about guns in deer camp? How about being the guy who remembers to bring something useful like salt, or batteries, or an extra roll of duct tape?

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

To pbhead: Years ago, I designed a .50 BMG necked down to .338, 35 degree shoulder, but no other changes, because I wanted something that would make a 250-grain .338 bullet go 4,000 fps. I call it the .33 Thunderf***er. No one would make dies for it, however, and that was my only stab at wildcatting.

To all: I must have had an attack of the scrofulous flux when I wrote installment II; I didn't mean to imply a connection between the unearthly accuracy of the 6.5/284 and the fact that a .270 is just as good for killing dopey animals.

I've shot I don't know how many .270s, and I can't recall a one that did not shoot well. Most of them shot extremely well, and would also put 130-, 140-, and 150-grain bullets in more or less the same group. However, the .270 has never been used for competition shooting, and therefore match-grade bullets are not made for it. Since the bullet has a huge effect on the accuracy of a rifle, it therefore follows as the day the night that if you load 6.5mm match bullets (of which there is a large supply, and boy are they good) in a 6.5/284, it is going to outshoot a .270 of equivalent quality.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Proverbs: I always wanted to build a rifle and have the barrel marked "7.62 mm x 63 mm" just to leave with no ammo around elk camp so the locals could look at it and marvel.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Go have a strong TGIF drink, DP!

....And don't shoot the windows out of my house tonight. :-)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

BTW I had to look up "scrofulous".

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jscottevans wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

I am somewhat of a minimalist, somewhat. Plus I am a strong believer in "Go with what works." So if the 6.5/284 works, great. But if I happen to go on my dream Caribou hunt and, God forbid, forget my hand-loaded 6.5/284 rounds, will local mom & pop or some other hunter in camp have 6.5/284 that I can buy? just a thought.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hengst wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

From what I have heard barrel life on the 6.5/284 is crappy. I really liked the ballistics of the round and started looking into it more, I stopped looking when the barrel life issue arose....what are your results with this? And yes, if I own a rifle I use it well more than sight in and fire a round during hunting season so barrel life is an important aspect when I research before purchase

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from damo450 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Mr. Petzal, I could not have been more excited than to see two things in the past two months:
1. The savage long range hunter in 6.5/284
2. Your article above.
As soon as the first savage hits a shelf within 100 miles of my home, it will be mine. I already have a new elite 6500 for it. This is my last gun until next year as my new son will be born in August and I made the vow to my wife to not buy a gun for his entire first year. Except for the T/C classic i put on lay-a-way for him!
Thank you for the great writing and the great advice.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

to jscottevans: The odds on your being able to get 6.5/284 ammo in the Far North are about the same as Queen Nancy Pelosi saying:

"I am in way over my head here, and I am resigning to take a job as assistant principal in a disadvantaged school district where I may be up to the challenges. Goodbye, and I am refunding out of my own pocket the taxpayer money I spent on taking Congressmen to Denmark."

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

To Hengst: My guess is that a stainless 6.5/284 would give you about the same first-class-accuracy life as a .270--around 2,500-3,000 rounds. That is a lot of shooting.

To damo450: Then I guess I will have to report on the Savage Long Range Hunter.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

6.5-284 is no dought a great cartridge, but if I was going to go through great lengths to shoot a bastard cartridge, I'd go with a 6.5-06. At least I can easily get brass and great performance and as for barrel twist, I’d go with the 1-9. But if I had my way, 264 Win Mag!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

.33 Thunderf***er?

Now that would be interesting!

Range …….FPS……..Ft.Ib……Trajectory
Muzzle….. 4000….. 8881…… -1.5
100……….. 3787….. 7960 …..+2.8
200……….. 3584….. 7130….. +4.7
300……….. 3391….. 6382….. +3.8
400……….. 3206….. 5707….. 0.0
500……….. 3030….. 5095….. -7.2
600……….. 2860….. 4541….. -18.2
700……….. 2697….. 4037….. -33.3
800……….. 2539….. 3579….. -53.3
900……….. 2387….. 3163….. -78.6
1000 ……… 2240….. 2786….. -109.9

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hengst wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Mr. Petzal 2,500 rounds is fine by me and stainless is perfect...thanks...sold

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Dave-
Would this 6.5/284 work in an AR platform?
What can I say; I likes the Black rifles!
Oh, your idea for the ".33 Thunderf***er"-Count me in for one.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Off topic but of interest: I see an ad in the local newspaper for a camper trailor dealer in this area of Wyoming which indicates that if you buy a trailor they will give you a new Ruger 10/22. Not everyone will give you a gun, especially a nice one, nowadays. Seems like a good sign to me.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

ish,
Good point, I didn't think to mention, but around here in Missouri we are getting more and more ads. from gun shops on the radio and newspaper ads.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Dave, Oh yes. IMO, if I was to get a .284 chambered rifle it would be the .280 Win. Period.
Winchester did their best and may have been the first, if you really think about it, to introduce the short column more efficient burning cartridge to us hungry illegitimate basement dwelling hoards. The .284 in it's own right is fine, and good, but necking it down, no.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Ralph the 284 is way to long for the AR platform. the 6.5 Grendel® is what your looking for!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

.33 Thunderf***er, sight it in at 400 yards and LET'R RIP CHIP!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

At last! Something of interest! Will the .33 Thunderf***er be offered in left hand models?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from focusfront wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Gosh. A round that shoots a 140 grain bullet between 2900-3000 fps? Wow. Great ballistics. Will set the world on its ear.

Oops, it already has. Called the .270 Winchester.

And this shows my ignorance, by the way. Accurate (paper punching accurate, not minute of whitetail) rifles have been made in .22, 6mm, 6.5 mm, 7mm (7mm BR, -08, etc.), .30, .338, and even .50 caliber. Nothing in .270. Is there such a thing as in inherently ALMOST ACCURATE round?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

According to my reloading info, the 6.5-284 and the 6.5-06 is a dead heat. So the question is, do I do a total retool for the 6.5-284 or a simple barrel change for a 6.5-06 with all the brass I could possibly need

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Stinker wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

33 Thunderf***er...no wonder no one would make dies for it... their spell checker insists that it is misspelled.. that means that they can't label the packages! Horror of horrors! No advertising! So if you will just rename it to something more mundane (33 Shoulder Crusher) or (33 Jacket Melter) or (Mach 3+) maybe someone would make dies for it. Anyway I'm in. I want one! Now What scope would be best for it?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hengst wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Ralph...Clay...yep no 284 in an ar15 but the 6.5 grendel is crap compared to the 260 remington or 6.5 creedmore...The 6.5 creedmore has the advantage and is close to the 6.5/284 ballistically and for either one you just need the 308 lower and you can get the barrel or go with dpms..the only problem with dpms is some of there AR's are so damn heavy...My next purchase is going to be a 6.5 creedmore or the 6.5/264 just havn't nailed it down yet..still have a few months so doing the research

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from AdamF wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Mr. Petzal, the 6.5/284 Norma is certainly an accurate cartridge, but I get the sense that you're considering this round's accuracy with match bullets. When using game bullets, though, how much more accurate would this cartridge be than, say, the good old 270 (when loaded with the same model bullet and so on)?

And, speaking of good and old, if I wanted to impress at hunting camp I'd bring a 256 Newton. I'd take an instant liking to anybody toting one—as long as its not in an original Newton rifle.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hi_tail wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

So all that being said, what's the point of me buying a 6.5/284 to replace my .270 ???

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from dickgun wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Mr. Petzal,
You are like good wine. Just keep better with age.
Clay Cooper,
I agree, .264 is great!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

hi_tail-
So you will have another firearm. Stimulates the economy.
Makes Range Monkeys ask questions that they don't comprehend the answer you give. Starts a lot of conversation. Others stand in awe that you own such an arcane caliber. I'm holding out for a .33 Thunderf***er!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from elmer f. wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

well, there can be trouble around the campfire if everyone THINKS you know all about guns and shooting, if you really do not. you have the luxury of swimming in oodles of gun knowledge, that many of us will never know. sort of like me and motorcycles. but if everyone thinks you know it all, and someone asks you to help solve a problem, you could be in for a little razzing when everyone finds out your as dumb as an old mule. i have been working on bikes for 45 years, and still do not proclaim to be a know it all. when someone asks me about a problem, i tell them straight up, that if i can ride it, i can probably figure it out, but to play the guessing game, without being able to lay my hands on the bike, i am doing exactly that, guessing. i know a little about guns and shooting, but i would rather confess to be dumb as a stone, than be looked upon as a "gun guru" and not be able to help fix an issue. if i can spot something obvious, great, other than that, i just reccomend a good gunsmith. of which i know 2.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

To Adam F: Good question. The answer is that any difference in accuracy would depend more on the rifle than the cartridge. I think the reason that some rounds are more "inherently accurate" than others is that manufacturers hold closer tolerances when making components for them. Back in the early 60s, to demonstrate this, a gunsmith named Bob Wallack took the barrel off a Marlin 336 and replaced it with a match-grade bull barrel chambered for the .30/30. He then did benchrest case prep on a bunch of .30/30 brass, loaded the shells with .308 match bullets, and proceeded to shoot benchrest-sized groups with the "inaccurate" .30/30.

To DickG: You are much too kind; I think I'm actually turning to vinegar.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from blueridge wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Dear Dave,
Thank you for acknowledging the strengths of the 6.5...the secret is coming out. My wife can shoot the 6.5MS all day, without complaining about the recoil, and the round kills all out of proportion to its size. One thing that I don't see the .270 being able to do is to handle 160 gr. bullets, which takes the 6.5 into a different category for larger mamalian game, in my book. One gentleman talked of 165gr. Grand Slams in your Part I blog, but I have failed to find that weight bullet for handloading.

The .270 has another little talked about failing, for whatever reason...a gunsmith friend and I share this aversion...the recoil rings our chimes. We can shoot .30 calibers OK, but something about the .270 is different in both our cases. We both are built like wrestlers, so you aren't talking about panty waists here...just the pleasure of shooting. My pet rifle is a 45/70...go figure about the recoil--just stating a fact as felt.

My Dad, a WWII vet, used to explain the 6.5 and 7mm long range successes as 'being nearly perfect for Planet Earth.' Dad pioneered the 7mm Magnum in a wildcat he birthed with P.O. Ackley, put the hurting on a lot of mule deer in Colorado, back in the day.

Again, thank you for having the courage to point up the 6.5 in a very opinionated gun world. We need that kind of contrariness and research.

Blue

P.S. you may have started a surge for your .50 caliber Wildcat. What an instigator you are!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

I had to look it up too!!

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj. 1. scrofulous - afflicted with scrofula
ill, sick - affected by an impairment of normal physical or mental function; "ill from the monotony of his suffering"
2. scrofulous - morally contaminated; "denounce the scrofulous wealth of the times"- J.D.Hart
immoral - deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong
3. scrofulous - having a diseased appearance resembling scrofula; "our canoe...lay with her scrofulous sides on the shore"- Farley Mowat
ugly - displeasing to the senses; "an ugly face"; "ugly furniture"

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from mikeb wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

There are so many new cartridges to experiment with.....I must however be hopeless as I enjoy a hunting arsenal of rifles/old cartridges that work very well and also bewilder many shooters. My hunting arsenal consists of 284 Win, 358, 350 Rem Mag, and I'm currently playing with a 7x64 Brennecke in a post WWII mauser with a Kahles claw mount scope. Not easy getting 7x64 brass!
The short of it is we all enjoy firearms even though they may frustrate us at times. Enjoy the old and the new......really looking forward to that .33 Thunderf***er.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

To all: The scrofulous flux is an actual name for a disease (god knows what the illness actually was) that was used in the 19th century. At that time doctors had no idea what the hell they were doing and hung all sorts of wonderful names on sicknesses.

Another one from that era is "the megrims," as in "I had the megrims for a month."

Another one: The leaping fantods. Jack O'Connor used this.

Abulia. From Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. It means a condition of being indecisive, but sounds like something loathsome.

Leprosy is always useful, but you are not supposed to use the word any more. "Hansen's Disease" is the P.C. equivalent.

Back in the 70s I was waiting in line in a bank to cash my paycheck. There were maybe a dozen people ahead of me. A co-worker fell in behind me and asked how I was.
"Not bad," I said, but the "goddamn leprosy flared up again."

I turned around and the line had vanished.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Since the 6.5-284 has the same performance of the 6.5-06, why should I chose the 6.5-284 over the 06?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hi_tail wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

crm3006-
Good reasoning, I like the way you think!
Kinda the same results you get when the .338-378 Weatherby out of the case at the range.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert C. Turpin wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

David,
Next time I am in a big line I am going to try the Leprosy line and see what happens.

Silvertip

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

I remember Carmichael writing (in one of his many articles on the .270) that when Winchester produced match ammo for the .270, it did shoot well, BUT both the rifles (Target Grade M70's I think) and ammo did not sell well, and were discontinued. it proved two things:
-the .270 in the right combo can be "match" accurate
-the .270's reputation for accuracy in target shooting is quite bad enough that even if you told people it's match .270 ammunition, they still wouldn't buy it.

also in that 1995 500-yard shoot that Carmichael did that I often write about here (especially when the Savage rifle becomes a topic, because it was the best shooter that day), a BOSS-equipped M70 in, what else, .270 came in 2nd place, shooting a 3-shot group measuring 2.77 inches (a number that is coincidentally the .270 bullet diameter if you move the decimal point to the left) at 500 yards. With 140-grain Fail Safes. The .270 is certainly a very accurate hunting cartridge, but it just hasn't had the same reputation as a target round.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Now, about the .284 case, I'm still trying to remember the name of the gunwriter who wrote in the early 2000's that he no longer sees much use for the .284 case now that the .300WSM is here. Since he wrote that, the .284 has seen a lot of activity:

-the 6.5/.284 became the new darling of long-range shooters because it kicked less than a .300 magnum while bucking wind well with its long, aerodynamic bullets

-the 6.5/.284 was legitimized by Norma

-.450 Bushmaster was created for the AR-15, based on the .284 case

-the .30 Remington AR followed, also based on the .284 case

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

OFF TOPIC: I'm reading a SMALL ARMS REVIEW mag and the original big, "military", bottleneck round that inspired the .50Browning, is featured. I'm talking about the German 13x92mm antitank round, designed to defeat the thin-skinned tanks of World War One. This German landmark design led the British, Americans, Russians and Japanese to build their own anti-tank rounds. While they all proved useless against future tanks, the one survivor, the .50 Browning, proved to be just the right medicine for aircraft, unarmored vehicles and enemy troops, and is now the longest serving round in US military history.

the German 13mm is interesting to me because it looks so similar to the .300H&H which wouldn't appear until the 1920's. I'm talking about visible body taper and a gentle shoulder. The reason of course, was to ensure reliable extraction. The 13mm also happens to be a rimmed cartridge, it was designed to be fired from a machinegun (like the later .50 Browning), so any snagging problem with the rim was moot. But with the Germans already out of funds late in the war, they could only field it in single shot bolt action rifles. The rifles had no buttpads nor muzzle brakes, and predictably the shooters were beat up after two or three rounds.

Now, an 802-grain bullet backed by 200 grains of powder reportedly exited the muzzle at 2,575 fps. Should be enough power to flatten T-Rex. Let's see, rimmed cartridge, double rifle possibilities, maybe a bolt rifle with slant magazine to cure the potential snagged rims problem. Any skilled, adventurous gunsmiths out there? Any rich oil barons to bankroll the project?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

the original 6.5x55 mauser was an excellent round and still is and in much use.. in europe.. but typically it had to be reinvented as the 260 remington to gain acceptance, detracting from the abilities the 6.5x55 had in originality since the 260 was supposed to shoot lighter bullets and fit in shorter actions u couldnt let the long bullets out enough of the neck to let them have the right powder basis.. and the twist was often off in the beginning too.. but in effect in europe we continued using the 6.5x55 mauser cos we didnt need a 260 or even a 270 win cos 98% of all we needed our rifles for the old 6.5 could still do very well. with all the benefits of little recoil and good accuracy. but this new round (actually if the 6.5x55 mauser didnt exist it would have been called 6.5x55 norma cos the shell is that long -55mm and europe embraced it first as factory loading)
so to sum it a bit up, we used the 6.5x55 mauser instead of the 270 win. now we reinvented the 6.5 as a round that can deliver the same level of speed as the 270 win but in a short action.. but as a competitive shooting round with all the inherent accuracy etc..
Im not saying its not good im saying its a little like reinventing the wheel again and again..
But i bet the general lvl of accurate rifles in each calibre is dethroning the 270 win as a hunting round easily considering that even the most craptactular rifles has a 270 win load thrown in for good measure.. I bet u cant find a 6.5/284 norma rifle that wont do less than 2moa and most well inside 1 moa out of the box..
And barrel life of both the 270 and the 6.5 is about the same.. your just gonna notice that the barrelthroath is going earlier on the 6.5 cos its shooter likes accuracy more than most 270 shooters ;)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from nc30-06 wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Jim in Mo. I don't want to nit-pik and may be wet on this one, but I think the .280 was (is) a Remington cartridge. Maybe there was a Winchester one too, and I have just not heard of it.
If I could find a .280 in left-hand, I would have to start saving. The .280 is also supposed to be a little superior to the .270 Win. from all I have read.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from platte river rat wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Dave, there was a fellow, Warren Page, from your neck of the woods. Remember him??? lolo he used to shoot a wildcat called the Page 240 Super Pooper. Maybe you can call your 33 Thunderf***er the 33 Petzal P***s and some big bullet out fit will pick up on it. Sure would sound like a mans super thingy. Look how famous Warren got. lolo

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

nc30-06,
Your very right about the .280 being a Rem cartridge. I just type faster than my brain functions now that my right hand is working well again since surgery.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from blueridge wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Dave...

You might consider calling your Wildcat a 33 Thunderfreaker. No need for asterisks.

Blue

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

To Bob Turpin: Be careful how you use the leprosy line. You may get stoned. I mean pelted with rocks, which was the traditional form of greeting for victims of Hansen's Disease.

To Platte River Rat: The correct spelling of the .240 Page is Pouper, not Pooper. Warren was insistent on that.

To Blueridge: Changing the name to Thunderfreaker is a copout of the worst sort. I would rather go on a date with Nancy Pelosi.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from platte river rat wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Sorry Dave, got the spelling out of one of Jim Carmichel's books--- the Modern Rifle--- page 205. I'm a fan of the 6.5 too, but, reload the 260 Rem. for my wife. I have a Ruger 1B in 280 Rem. that shoots Hornady 154 SST bullets into nice little clover leafs.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Zermoid wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

ingebrigtsen,
I still use my 6.5x55 for hunting here in the States, strangely the most accurate load out of it is the swede surplus military ammo, 140 gr shoots fairly well out of it, got some Lapua (I think) 155 gr SP bullets I loaded up some test loads of. Waiting for some nice weather to go test them.

All in all the $100 I paid for the old rifle was the best money I ever spent, shoots under 1 inch at 100 yds with ammo it likes. Can't ask for much more from a rifle IMO.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from nc30-06 wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Jim in Mo. Glad you have recovered. I figured it was probably something like that or maybe your brain was already on the next subject and the fingers were just trying to catch up.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Well zermoid with the original 6.5x55 u also have the possibility of using loads for the krag joergensen rifle.. those will be super gentle against even the smallest game with a roundnosed fmj.. making the old rifle a supreme meatgetter. ive used such loads for winter grouse hunting and i think there is only one now extinct calibre that does it better 7x33mm Sako.. so good on u for keeping the old calibre and finding out yourself what its good for ;)

(and there is a new powder from hornady coming soon that will give the old 6.5 a good 200fps more oomph!)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

and if those lapua`s are lapua mega bullets then u r in for a treat, theire super expensive anyway and much used for moose here.. there are also 160 grainers hornady interlock roundnosed for such usage.. and all the way down to 85 grain varminter bullets that will surprise other varminters on windy days, especially in the 22 cal down ;)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bammer wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

You rifle guys have a monopoly on over-think. As if there is a realistic differenc in the field between a bullet diameter of .257 and .264. Who cares. Purchase your 25-06, 243, 270 308 or 30-06 and be done with it (until you hunt bear in Alaska; then, get your Magnum). 12 or 20 gauge shotgun may make a difference to a bird hunter. And a 5 weight or 7 weight fly rod means something on a bass fishing trip. But all this blather on rifle cartridges should stop. I demand it!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Dave, I went back to Finn Agaards book and he stated the 156 gr 6.5 Mannlicker was a deadly round. His only complaint was that it tended to bend on elephant skulls.
Wow!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from nelsol wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Yeah Dave, I've gotten the same treatment around our southern Arkansas deer camp every time someone asks me what I'm shooting. I tell them a 7mm-08, and they think I'm a freaking firearms genius. Well, I might be. I've been shooting the 7mm-08 for 10 years. 10 shots, 10 deer.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Dave, Not sure if you are a Turkey hunter but if you are you will want to see this. Click my username and check the photos of the hand made Box Call our very own Beekeeper made for me. Ol' Bee has made me the Stradivarious (spelling?) of turkey calls. She's a beauty to look at too.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Yep, the .300 Whelen usually puzzles the Range Monkeys for a bit also.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Jim in MO: Lots of the big bullets bend on elephant's skulls also which is why the steel cased Rigby bullet was so popular in the old, golden days of elephant hunting aka poaching. This subject is mentioned onften in Taylor's books.
nelsol: I have a custom 7mm-08 which has killed lots of deer and antelope although I have never had it with me to shoot an elk. My neighbor's wife has made numerous one or two shot kills on many elk and deer with her 7mm-08. Her husband sticks with his 6.5/.284 and 7 mm Rem Mag in spite of his "better half" prefering the little seven. Same old deal put the right bullet in the right place and they will drop.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DakotaMan wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Thanks Dave, I like hearing about the 6.5x284. It is still one of the most popular on the long range benchrest shooting circuit. There are many great hunting cartridges (e.g. Chevy, Ford, etc.) but the reason the 6.5x284 is popular is:
1. Accuracy: sorry but you just won't get the level of combustion consistency in the 30-06 case. Chrono your results and compare if you don't think so. Single digit extreme velocity spreads are common with the 6.5 and not with the .270. This doesn't make a hoot of difference to an elk but can be the difference between first and last place in an accuracy match.
2. Light recoil... If you are going to shoot a couple hundred rounds at a sitting, you don't want to develop a flinch and you don't want the rifle jumping around on the rest. These negatively affect your score and that is what it is all about. The .270 and .260 Win Mag are great hunting cartridges but they just won't cut it on the bench circuit because of their excessive recoil. All that is needed in bench competition is a clean hole ALL the way through a piece of paper.
3. Long range ballistics: The 6.5mm bullet maintains its velocity better than most medium weight bullets and has proven ideal for long range target shooting. This characteristic has also given the 6.5 bullets an exceptional penetrating ability on game animals.

This is one of the most accurate long range cartridges ever developed to date and is actully outdoing the venerable .308. Rich DeSimone shot a tough to beat 1.56 inch 5 shot group at 1000 yards. It just happens to be fast enough and have enough mass to also be a great hunting cartridge. If you respect accuracy like I do, you will respect the 6.5x284.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

the 6.5/284 is the round u wanna hunt with just cos it got low recoil and deliver a capable bullet at target with enough energy to make a difference. and in addition its precise as fXXk ;)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Seriously, I'm still scratching my head is why anyone would I want to convert to this cartridge?

This is what Norma has to say about the 6.5-284

"Useful range of this number surpasses the 6.5x55 by about 100 yards for any given application."

http://www.norma.cc/content.asp?Typ=59&Lang=2&DocumentID=263&Submeny=4&R...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

2650 to 3000fps with the same bullet weight.. but usefull range for a 308 win and 300 winmag is about the same ;)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Looks like we might as well talk about tube guns since they are a great choice as a platform to shoot 6.5x.284 bullets downrange. The combination makes a tiny ragged hole using four or five bullets at 200 yards or more.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

ish,
yea exactly why I made the comment.
Pretty impressive for small diameter cartridge. Sorry to confuse.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Jim in MO: Year before last two friends of mine, using John Porter's 6.5x.284 with Berger VLDs, killed two bull elk in two days. One was shot at just over 600 yards and the other at about 35 yards. Both bulls dropped immediately. I'm certain that a 7 Rem Mag or perhaps a .270 Win. could duplicate these shots but for certain the little 6.5x.284 with a good bullet can do it. If you happen to get "Best of the West" on the Outdoor Channel watch for the "Mississippi Boys" program and you will see both shots.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wallpep wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Other than accuracy the main reason highpower shooters use it is that it does not use as much powder as longer cases (hey, we're a tight wad bunch). The AR10 can be chambered in this round.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from dtownley wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Like a boy & his dog, an ole Marine and his .33 Vehement Coitus Rex. Like his 8-track, that Marine would not give up his dream VCR ? Call Petzal what you want, I'll just say Thanks Marine!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coyotezapper wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

I don't agree with the statement that it has nothing over the .270. It has everything over the .270!!! More bullet choices, better ballistics(not even close) and more accurate. This is just a few. The .270 is overrated. The .280 Rem is superior as is the 30-06 and for that matter so is the 25-06. If it were not for Jack O Connor the .270 would be in the category of the 7x57 which is average at best.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

coyotezapper,
damn man I was right with you till you dissed the 7x57. That round has been there and done that for all the ages.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from T.W. Davidson wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Coyotezapper,

I side with Jim in Mo regarding his positive comments about the 7x57 Mauser. With respect, but have you ever spent much time handloading for the cartridge and firing it? That's what I've been doing for the last year, and I've discovered that when the 7mm Mauser is properly handloaded in a modern bolt action rifle at the same pressures as a .308 Winchester or .270 Winchester or 25-06, it will produce velocities only 100 fps short of factory .270 Win loads, but can use bullets with higher .BCs than .270 loads, thus resulting in a supremely efficient cartridge that uses little powder and gives excellent performance--just like or even better than its near-twin, the 7mm-08.

It is safe in a modern bolt action with a 24" barrel for a 7x57 Mauser to produce just over 3000 fps MV with 130-grain bullets; around 2900-2950 fps MV with 140-grain bullets, and 2850 fps MV (or slightly better) with 150-grain bullets. With this level of performance, anything in America other than the big bears is fair game with a 7x57 handload, the right bullet--such as a Barnes TTSX or Nosler Partition/Accubond or Berger VLD--and proper shot placement out to any sane range--which for 98% of the hunters in America is (or should be) 300 yards or less. I intend to take an elk sometime in the next year or two with a 7x57 Mauser or 7x57 Ackley Improved--and it won't matter which one, because either will do the job perfectly fine.

What more could one ask for?

T.W. Davidson

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MojoHand wrote 4 years 3 weeks ago

D.P.,
Thanks for the article on the delicious 6.5-.284. While one can point to numerous cartridges that equal or supercede the 6.5-.284 with less 'hassle' that has never really been the point. While looking to rebarrel my Rem 700 .270 Win to something more, ah, 'exotic', I was leaning toward the .338-.284. While on a forum, I saw someone was selling Redding S series comp. dies for 6.5-.284 and took it as a 'sign from the Lord' that I needed a 6.5mm, a caliber I have long been fascinated with (will one day hopefully find a nice M38). While detractors will claim I have gained no real performance advantage over the old .270, what I have gained is accuracy, bullet selection, and 'coolness'! Those 140 Bergers and 160 Woodleighs look killer seated out to 3.23"! My rebuild was a 'budget' rebarrel with a Douglas XX SS 24" barrel (1-in-8 twist, #4 contour) that will keep those Bergers right at 1/2 MOA all day if I'm on. It also shoots the 85gr Sierra HP to 1/2" at 3500fps which gives the 'sage rats' much cause for fear and trembling. I don't regret rebarreling my .270 to 6.5-.284 one bit and my advice to anyone sitting on the fence is go ahead and get one--you'll love it. Mine wears a Burris 4.5-14x50mm and is a bit portly at 9lbs 5oz (at least compared to my Kimber 84M) but I don't hesitate to hunt anything here in Idaho with it and still shoot hundreds of rounds downrange for fun. I have become a 6.5mm fanatic. I'm just waiting for the rest of America to come around.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bthomasb1 wrote 4 years 3 weeks ago

I had a 270 once,but I killed all the rats on the farm so I sold it,he he

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

Dave, I'm confused. Are you saying the 6.5 Swede really isn't that good a cartridge?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve Kent Reid Sr. wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Just a bit of home grown opinion here. Take it or leave it, no offense intended to anyone. Just an old fart spraying forth "wisedom" for those interested in the read.

I am liking the "stats" of the 6.5x284 and all the hunting and bench stories enough that I ORDERED one....(don't faint!!), in a single shot handgun (bull barrel, brake, LIGHT trigger, the whole shot..oh yeah, RIFLE scope TYVM).

So to answer many, NO, I PERSONALLY don't think you "need" one to "replace" your 270 for deer hunting.
UNLESS.......you want to shoot em "out further" with a flatter trajectory. The higher, often MUCH higher, BC of the .264 bullets of the same weights just gives it a bit more "oomph" way out there and as Dave said, OMG.....the bullet choices you have!!

For "most" hunting ranges, the 270 has and will again, "get er done" with authority so "needing" to replace one is a myth.....but honestly, WHEN is it ABOUT "needing"?

If new rounds ceased to come about after 1906 and you and I were running about whacking critters of various sizes with a 30-06.......we'd still be here yakking about what we love... and few would feel any "need" for anything "superior" IMHO.

That said the 6.5x284 is a medium recoil, efficient round that HAS shown us that WAY THE H OUT THERE...isn't as far as it used to be.

Maybe not a 338 Lapua (yeah, there's a guy has one of those in a "specialty pistol" too. ( HI ERNIE!!!) but in "normal" hands, it, and the super scopes, bullets, powders, load data and guns....is being used at ranges unHEARD of only a short (to me) decade back....and regardless of some HERE possibly disagreeing, it's doing so CONSISTANTLY so please, no rants on "unethical".

Be it out of a long gun or a pistol for those of us liking the extra input needed (aka satsifaction of using)this round (6.5x284) DOES make one sit up and take notice!

All in all I "might" have been as well off with a 260 Rem or such, but I didnt buy what I "needed", I ordered one capable of MORE what is ( or isnt) "needed"......because I wanted one......period.

Me thinks a LOT of you have done the same....and will again.

I also don't NEED a 30mm tube, side focuss scope....but I'm gonna get one!!

So when someone says "you dont NEED" such and such....think back, just WHEN did we last buy something we NEEDED as far as gun / round / scope preference...and does it REALLY have ANYTHING to do with it?....only you can decide.

God Bless
Steve

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve Kent Reid Sr. wrote 4 years 1 week ago

oh fine, NOW I see there isnt an "edit" button? Sorry for not doing a "spell / content" check, all!

Steve

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coyotezapper wrote 4 years 1 week ago

To: Jim in Mo and T.W. Davidson
Sorry for the late response to your remarks. I never meant to come off as saying that the 7x57 mauser was not a decent cartridge. When I give opinions on cartridges it is meant to be in a general manner. I was commenting how average the .270 Win is, not how bad the 7x57 is. The comparison was meant to show that neither one is inherently accurate but I do agree that both can be tuned to shoot decently. But compared to the 6.5x284 there is no comparison, the 6.5x284 will shoot. Any handloader can make any cartridge shoot well but some are just easier than others to work with. But not everyone handloads. The 7x57 is hamstrung with poor factory ammo. If you don't handload this cartridge offers you nothing in the way of performance. The 7mm-08 and the Improved version are alot faster and with the standard version a ton of choices in factory fodder. And the 7mm-08 case/cartridge combo is again inherently accurate. The 7mm bore is my favorite. I load for 7mm-08, 7mm-08 Improved, 280 Improved, 7mm Rem Mag, 7MM RSAUM and 7mm STW. I am slowly getting into the .264 bore now loading for 6.5x284 and the 6.5x47 Lapua. The Lapua has to be the most accurate cartridge I have ever loaded and I have been handloading for 35 years. The 6.5x47 Lapua just may be "THE" 6.5 cartridge of the near future.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

to jscottevans: The odds on your being able to get 6.5/284 ammo in the Far North are about the same as Queen Nancy Pelosi saying:

"I am in way over my head here, and I am resigning to take a job as assistant principal in a disadvantaged school district where I may be up to the challenges. Goodbye, and I am refunding out of my own pocket the taxpayer money I spent on taking Congressmen to Denmark."

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

"NEW YORK CITY?"

Git a rope...

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

To pbhead: Years ago, I designed a .50 BMG necked down to .338, 35 degree shoulder, but no other changes, because I wanted something that would make a 250-grain .338 bullet go 4,000 fps. I call it the .33 Thunderf***er. No one would make dies for it, however, and that was my only stab at wildcatting.

To all: I must have had an attack of the scrofulous flux when I wrote installment II; I didn't mean to imply a connection between the unearthly accuracy of the 6.5/284 and the fact that a .270 is just as good for killing dopey animals.

I've shot I don't know how many .270s, and I can't recall a one that did not shoot well. Most of them shot extremely well, and would also put 130-, 140-, and 150-grain bullets in more or less the same group. However, the .270 has never been used for competition shooting, and therefore match-grade bullets are not made for it. Since the bullet has a huge effect on the accuracy of a rifle, it therefore follows as the day the night that if you load 6.5mm match bullets (of which there is a large supply, and boy are they good) in a 6.5/284, it is going to outshoot a .270 of equivalent quality.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

So the point is to get this 6.5/284, that won't do anything a .270 can't spending big bucks so you can pretend to know something about guns in deer camp? How about being the guy who remembers to bring something useful like salt, or batteries, or an extra roll of duct tape?

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mjenkins1 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Im not sure i could build up the courage to adopt this caliber after you said "It wont do anything a good 270 wont do". But I like the hunt camp example, so true.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jscottevans wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

If I have a .270 then I don't need this right? I don't know in what camps y'all hang out, but that would get you "run-out" of must "manly" deer camps. Kind of like having a Salsa made in New York City.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jscottevans wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

It's an old Pace picante sauce commercial reference

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Help me out. I am a hunter of some experience, but not a competitive target shooter, or bench rest shooter. Have used a 270 successfully for hunting, but have never heard of the 270 as a popular competitive target rifle known for extreme accuracy. I could well have missed this as this type of shooting is not my thing.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

To Bob Turpin: Be careful how you use the leprosy line. You may get stoned. I mean pelted with rocks, which was the traditional form of greeting for victims of Hansen's Disease.

To Platte River Rat: The correct spelling of the .240 Page is Pouper, not Pooper. Warren was insistent on that.

To Blueridge: Changing the name to Thunderfreaker is a copout of the worst sort. I would rather go on a date with Nancy Pelosi.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from MJC wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Hey, my first deer rifle was a surplus K-31 that fired 7.5x55 Swiss and nobody laughed me out of deer camp for it.

Of course, that may have been because the rifle was built like a boat oar and could clearly be used as a blunt weapon without being any worse for wear.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

DP, I must call you on something. You wrote this 6.5/284 was capable of extreme accuracy…yet will not do anything a 270 won’t do.

My experience and observation with 270’s is it doesn’t show extreme accuracy. I don’t know why, maybe it’s 270 bullets.

So Young Man, which is it?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

To Hengst: My guess is that a stainless 6.5/284 would give you about the same first-class-accuracy life as a .270--around 2,500-3,000 rounds. That is a lot of shooting.

To damo450: Then I guess I will have to report on the Savage Long Range Hunter.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Off topic but of interest: I see an ad in the local newspaper for a camper trailor dealer in this area of Wyoming which indicates that if you buy a trailor they will give you a new Ruger 10/22. Not everyone will give you a gun, especially a nice one, nowadays. Seems like a good sign to me.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

At last! Something of interest! Will the .33 Thunderf***er be offered in left hand models?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from hi_tail wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

So all that being said, what's the point of me buying a 6.5/284 to replace my .270 ???

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from hi_tail wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

crm3006-
Good reasoning, I like the way you think!
Kinda the same results you get when the .338-378 Weatherby out of the case at the range.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from jscottevans wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

But don't misunderstand, I still want a 6.5/284. It's the nature of the beast. You know?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Why are rehashing a topic that has been going on for decades? Hopefully we are not depleting ourselves of interesting novel ideas to discuss. Yawn. Please don't accept the previous statements as a poor attempt to be a smart aXX.
Mark-1: Carmichael wrote an article some years ago regarding the lack of inherent accuracy historically associated with .277 bullets and the .270 Winchester case in particular complete with data from his somewhat intense study of the subject. Personally I can remember owning five different .270 Win. rifles and have fired about every bullet available in one or the other. If I noticed that they were less accurate than anything else for field work aka hunting it was minimal. My 6 and 6.5/.284 shooting of days past was also not associated with target shooting beyond sighting in and checking my loads so I suppose I am happy with all of the above.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

DP, your comment about the camp remark made me chuckle. Occasionally we get an overzealous newbie at the annual elk outing in Colorado. Invariably, this kind of newbie tells everyone about their .30-378 or whatever mambo-mag it is they have, then proceeds to ask everyone what they are shooting (with the pretense it is inferior).

When I answer "6.86mm," my friends start muffling their laughs while newbie seems confused, but nods and says something like, 'oh yeah, well that's a pretty good round.'

The rhetoric that follows can get pretty deep before the newbie will actually ask to see an example of the cartridge. Then they exclaim, "This looks like a .270!" Well, yes, the headstamp cleary says that.

Then we all have a good laugh.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Proverbs: I always wanted to build a rifle and have the barrel marked "7.62 mm x 63 mm" just to leave with no ammo around elk camp so the locals could look at it and marvel.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jscottevans wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

I am somewhat of a minimalist, somewhat. Plus I am a strong believer in "Go with what works." So if the 6.5/284 works, great. But if I happen to go on my dream Caribou hunt and, God forbid, forget my hand-loaded 6.5/284 rounds, will local mom & pop or some other hunter in camp have 6.5/284 that I can buy? just a thought.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

ish,
Good point, I didn't think to mention, but around here in Missouri we are getting more and more ads. from gun shops on the radio and newspaper ads.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Dave, Oh yes. IMO, if I was to get a .284 chambered rifle it would be the .280 Win. Period.
Winchester did their best and may have been the first, if you really think about it, to introduce the short column more efficient burning cartridge to us hungry illegitimate basement dwelling hoards. The .284 in it's own right is fine, and good, but necking it down, no.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Ralph the 284 is way to long for the AR platform. the 6.5 Grendel® is what your looking for!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

.33 Thunderf***er, sight it in at 400 yards and LET'R RIP CHIP!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

According to my reloading info, the 6.5-284 and the 6.5-06 is a dead heat. So the question is, do I do a total retool for the 6.5-284 or a simple barrel change for a 6.5-06 with all the brass I could possibly need

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

hi_tail-
So you will have another firearm. Stimulates the economy.
Makes Range Monkeys ask questions that they don't comprehend the answer you give. Starts a lot of conversation. Others stand in awe that you own such an arcane caliber. I'm holding out for a .33 Thunderf***er!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from elmer f. wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

well, there can be trouble around the campfire if everyone THINKS you know all about guns and shooting, if you really do not. you have the luxury of swimming in oodles of gun knowledge, that many of us will never know. sort of like me and motorcycles. but if everyone thinks you know it all, and someone asks you to help solve a problem, you could be in for a little razzing when everyone finds out your as dumb as an old mule. i have been working on bikes for 45 years, and still do not proclaim to be a know it all. when someone asks me about a problem, i tell them straight up, that if i can ride it, i can probably figure it out, but to play the guessing game, without being able to lay my hands on the bike, i am doing exactly that, guessing. i know a little about guns and shooting, but i would rather confess to be dumb as a stone, than be looked upon as a "gun guru" and not be able to help fix an issue. if i can spot something obvious, great, other than that, i just reccomend a good gunsmith. of which i know 2.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

To Adam F: Good question. The answer is that any difference in accuracy would depend more on the rifle than the cartridge. I think the reason that some rounds are more "inherently accurate" than others is that manufacturers hold closer tolerances when making components for them. Back in the early 60s, to demonstrate this, a gunsmith named Bob Wallack took the barrel off a Marlin 336 and replaced it with a match-grade bull barrel chambered for the .30/30. He then did benchrest case prep on a bunch of .30/30 brass, loaded the shells with .308 match bullets, and proceeded to shoot benchrest-sized groups with the "inaccurate" .30/30.

To DickG: You are much too kind; I think I'm actually turning to vinegar.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

the original 6.5x55 mauser was an excellent round and still is and in much use.. in europe.. but typically it had to be reinvented as the 260 remington to gain acceptance, detracting from the abilities the 6.5x55 had in originality since the 260 was supposed to shoot lighter bullets and fit in shorter actions u couldnt let the long bullets out enough of the neck to let them have the right powder basis.. and the twist was often off in the beginning too.. but in effect in europe we continued using the 6.5x55 mauser cos we didnt need a 260 or even a 270 win cos 98% of all we needed our rifles for the old 6.5 could still do very well. with all the benefits of little recoil and good accuracy. but this new round (actually if the 6.5x55 mauser didnt exist it would have been called 6.5x55 norma cos the shell is that long -55mm and europe embraced it first as factory loading)
so to sum it a bit up, we used the 6.5x55 mauser instead of the 270 win. now we reinvented the 6.5 as a round that can deliver the same level of speed as the 270 win but in a short action.. but as a competitive shooting round with all the inherent accuracy etc..
Im not saying its not good im saying its a little like reinventing the wheel again and again..
But i bet the general lvl of accurate rifles in each calibre is dethroning the 270 win as a hunting round easily considering that even the most craptactular rifles has a 270 win load thrown in for good measure.. I bet u cant find a 6.5/284 norma rifle that wont do less than 2moa and most well inside 1 moa out of the box..
And barrel life of both the 270 and the 6.5 is about the same.. your just gonna notice that the barrelthroath is going earlier on the 6.5 cos its shooter likes accuracy more than most 270 shooters ;)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Zermoid wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

ingebrigtsen,
I still use my 6.5x55 for hunting here in the States, strangely the most accurate load out of it is the swede surplus military ammo, 140 gr shoots fairly well out of it, got some Lapua (I think) 155 gr SP bullets I loaded up some test loads of. Waiting for some nice weather to go test them.

All in all the $100 I paid for the old rifle was the best money I ever spent, shoots under 1 inch at 100 yds with ammo it likes. Can't ask for much more from a rifle IMO.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from nc30-06 wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Jim in Mo. Glad you have recovered. I figured it was probably something like that or maybe your brain was already on the next subject and the fingers were just trying to catch up.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Dave, I went back to Finn Agaards book and he stated the 156 gr 6.5 Mannlicker was a deadly round. His only complaint was that it tended to bend on elephant skulls.
Wow!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Who wouldn't want one?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MLH wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Looking forward to part III. So what was happening to the 120g bullets in high twist barrels? Try any solid copper/gilding metal 120gr bullets?

Can you enlighten us to what you are doing with OAL and freebore?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sneaky wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

I've always liked offbrand/uncommon equipment because it makes me look like I know something everyone else does not.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ray j wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

6.5...257...now yer cooking with gas..:-)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Proverbs, you could tell him a real man would shoot a 700 Nitro, then when he buys one see how he "Tries to Handle" it. Heh Heh

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Go have a strong TGIF drink, DP!

....And don't shoot the windows out of my house tonight. :-)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

BTW I had to look up "scrofulous".

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from damo450 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Mr. Petzal, I could not have been more excited than to see two things in the past two months:
1. The savage long range hunter in 6.5/284
2. Your article above.
As soon as the first savage hits a shelf within 100 miles of my home, it will be mine. I already have a new elite 6500 for it. This is my last gun until next year as my new son will be born in August and I made the vow to my wife to not buy a gun for his entire first year. Except for the T/C classic i put on lay-a-way for him!
Thank you for the great writing and the great advice.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

6.5-284 is no dought a great cartridge, but if I was going to go through great lengths to shoot a bastard cartridge, I'd go with a 6.5-06. At least I can easily get brass and great performance and as for barrel twist, I’d go with the 1-9. But if I had my way, 264 Win Mag!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

.33 Thunderf***er?

Now that would be interesting!

Range …….FPS……..Ft.Ib……Trajectory
Muzzle….. 4000….. 8881…… -1.5
100……….. 3787….. 7960 …..+2.8
200……….. 3584….. 7130….. +4.7
300……….. 3391….. 6382….. +3.8
400……….. 3206….. 5707….. 0.0
500……….. 3030….. 5095….. -7.2
600……….. 2860….. 4541….. -18.2
700……….. 2697….. 4037….. -33.3
800……….. 2539….. 3579….. -53.3
900……….. 2387….. 3163….. -78.6
1000 ……… 2240….. 2786….. -109.9

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hengst wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Mr. Petzal 2,500 rounds is fine by me and stainless is perfect...thanks...sold

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Dave-
Would this 6.5/284 work in an AR platform?
What can I say; I likes the Black rifles!
Oh, your idea for the ".33 Thunderf***er"-Count me in for one.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from focusfront wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Gosh. A round that shoots a 140 grain bullet between 2900-3000 fps? Wow. Great ballistics. Will set the world on its ear.

Oops, it already has. Called the .270 Winchester.

And this shows my ignorance, by the way. Accurate (paper punching accurate, not minute of whitetail) rifles have been made in .22, 6mm, 6.5 mm, 7mm (7mm BR, -08, etc.), .30, .338, and even .50 caliber. Nothing in .270. Is there such a thing as in inherently ALMOST ACCURATE round?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Stinker wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

33 Thunderf***er...no wonder no one would make dies for it... their spell checker insists that it is misspelled.. that means that they can't label the packages! Horror of horrors! No advertising! So if you will just rename it to something more mundane (33 Shoulder Crusher) or (33 Jacket Melter) or (Mach 3+) maybe someone would make dies for it. Anyway I'm in. I want one! Now What scope would be best for it?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hengst wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Ralph...Clay...yep no 284 in an ar15 but the 6.5 grendel is crap compared to the 260 remington or 6.5 creedmore...The 6.5 creedmore has the advantage and is close to the 6.5/284 ballistically and for either one you just need the 308 lower and you can get the barrel or go with dpms..the only problem with dpms is some of there AR's are so damn heavy...My next purchase is going to be a 6.5 creedmore or the 6.5/264 just havn't nailed it down yet..still have a few months so doing the research

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from AdamF wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Mr. Petzal, the 6.5/284 Norma is certainly an accurate cartridge, but I get the sense that you're considering this round's accuracy with match bullets. When using game bullets, though, how much more accurate would this cartridge be than, say, the good old 270 (when loaded with the same model bullet and so on)?

And, speaking of good and old, if I wanted to impress at hunting camp I'd bring a 256 Newton. I'd take an instant liking to anybody toting one—as long as its not in an original Newton rifle.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dickgun wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Mr. Petzal,
You are like good wine. Just keep better with age.
Clay Cooper,
I agree, .264 is great!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from blueridge wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Dear Dave,
Thank you for acknowledging the strengths of the 6.5...the secret is coming out. My wife can shoot the 6.5MS all day, without complaining about the recoil, and the round kills all out of proportion to its size. One thing that I don't see the .270 being able to do is to handle 160 gr. bullets, which takes the 6.5 into a different category for larger mamalian game, in my book. One gentleman talked of 165gr. Grand Slams in your Part I blog, but I have failed to find that weight bullet for handloading.

The .270 has another little talked about failing, for whatever reason...a gunsmith friend and I share this aversion...the recoil rings our chimes. We can shoot .30 calibers OK, but something about the .270 is different in both our cases. We both are built like wrestlers, so you aren't talking about panty waists here...just the pleasure of shooting. My pet rifle is a 45/70...go figure about the recoil--just stating a fact as felt.

My Dad, a WWII vet, used to explain the 6.5 and 7mm long range successes as 'being nearly perfect for Planet Earth.' Dad pioneered the 7mm Magnum in a wildcat he birthed with P.O. Ackley, put the hurting on a lot of mule deer in Colorado, back in the day.

Again, thank you for having the courage to point up the 6.5 in a very opinionated gun world. We need that kind of contrariness and research.

Blue

P.S. you may have started a surge for your .50 caliber Wildcat. What an instigator you are!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from mikeb wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

There are so many new cartridges to experiment with.....I must however be hopeless as I enjoy a hunting arsenal of rifles/old cartridges that work very well and also bewilder many shooters. My hunting arsenal consists of 284 Win, 358, 350 Rem Mag, and I'm currently playing with a 7x64 Brennecke in a post WWII mauser with a Kahles claw mount scope. Not easy getting 7x64 brass!
The short of it is we all enjoy firearms even though they may frustrate us at times. Enjoy the old and the new......really looking forward to that .33 Thunderf***er.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

To all: The scrofulous flux is an actual name for a disease (god knows what the illness actually was) that was used in the 19th century. At that time doctors had no idea what the hell they were doing and hung all sorts of wonderful names on sicknesses.

Another one from that era is "the megrims," as in "I had the megrims for a month."

Another one: The leaping fantods. Jack O'Connor used this.

Abulia. From Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. It means a condition of being indecisive, but sounds like something loathsome.

Leprosy is always useful, but you are not supposed to use the word any more. "Hansen's Disease" is the P.C. equivalent.

Back in the 70s I was waiting in line in a bank to cash my paycheck. There were maybe a dozen people ahead of me. A co-worker fell in behind me and asked how I was.
"Not bad," I said, but the "goddamn leprosy flared up again."

I turned around and the line had vanished.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Since the 6.5-284 has the same performance of the 6.5-06, why should I chose the 6.5-284 over the 06?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert C. Turpin wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

David,
Next time I am in a big line I am going to try the Leprosy line and see what happens.

Silvertip

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

I remember Carmichael writing (in one of his many articles on the .270) that when Winchester produced match ammo for the .270, it did shoot well, BUT both the rifles (Target Grade M70's I think) and ammo did not sell well, and were discontinued. it proved two things:
-the .270 in the right combo can be "match" accurate
-the .270's reputation for accuracy in target shooting is quite bad enough that even if you told people it's match .270 ammunition, they still wouldn't buy it.

also in that 1995 500-yard shoot that Carmichael did that I often write about here (especially when the Savage rifle becomes a topic, because it was the best shooter that day), a BOSS-equipped M70 in, what else, .270 came in 2nd place, shooting a 3-shot group measuring 2.77 inches (a number that is coincidentally the .270 bullet diameter if you move the decimal point to the left) at 500 yards. With 140-grain Fail Safes. The .270 is certainly a very accurate hunting cartridge, but it just hasn't had the same reputation as a target round.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Now, about the .284 case, I'm still trying to remember the name of the gunwriter who wrote in the early 2000's that he no longer sees much use for the .284 case now that the .300WSM is here. Since he wrote that, the .284 has seen a lot of activity:

-the 6.5/.284 became the new darling of long-range shooters because it kicked less than a .300 magnum while bucking wind well with its long, aerodynamic bullets

-the 6.5/.284 was legitimized by Norma

-.450 Bushmaster was created for the AR-15, based on the .284 case

-the .30 Remington AR followed, also based on the .284 case

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

OFF TOPIC: I'm reading a SMALL ARMS REVIEW mag and the original big, "military", bottleneck round that inspired the .50Browning, is featured. I'm talking about the German 13x92mm antitank round, designed to defeat the thin-skinned tanks of World War One. This German landmark design led the British, Americans, Russians and Japanese to build their own anti-tank rounds. While they all proved useless against future tanks, the one survivor, the .50 Browning, proved to be just the right medicine for aircraft, unarmored vehicles and enemy troops, and is now the longest serving round in US military history.

the German 13mm is interesting to me because it looks so similar to the .300H&H which wouldn't appear until the 1920's. I'm talking about visible body taper and a gentle shoulder. The reason of course, was to ensure reliable extraction. The 13mm also happens to be a rimmed cartridge, it was designed to be fired from a machinegun (like the later .50 Browning), so any snagging problem with the rim was moot. But with the Germans already out of funds late in the war, they could only field it in single shot bolt action rifles. The rifles had no buttpads nor muzzle brakes, and predictably the shooters were beat up after two or three rounds.

Now, an 802-grain bullet backed by 200 grains of powder reportedly exited the muzzle at 2,575 fps. Should be enough power to flatten T-Rex. Let's see, rimmed cartridge, double rifle possibilities, maybe a bolt rifle with slant magazine to cure the potential snagged rims problem. Any skilled, adventurous gunsmiths out there? Any rich oil barons to bankroll the project?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from nc30-06 wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Jim in Mo. I don't want to nit-pik and may be wet on this one, but I think the .280 was (is) a Remington cartridge. Maybe there was a Winchester one too, and I have just not heard of it.
If I could find a .280 in left-hand, I would have to start saving. The .280 is also supposed to be a little superior to the .270 Win. from all I have read.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from platte river rat wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Dave, there was a fellow, Warren Page, from your neck of the woods. Remember him??? lolo he used to shoot a wildcat called the Page 240 Super Pooper. Maybe you can call your 33 Thunderf***er the 33 Petzal P***s and some big bullet out fit will pick up on it. Sure would sound like a mans super thingy. Look how famous Warren got. lolo

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

nc30-06,
Your very right about the .280 being a Rem cartridge. I just type faster than my brain functions now that my right hand is working well again since surgery.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from blueridge wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Dave...

You might consider calling your Wildcat a 33 Thunderfreaker. No need for asterisks.

Blue

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from platte river rat wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Sorry Dave, got the spelling out of one of Jim Carmichel's books--- the Modern Rifle--- page 205. I'm a fan of the 6.5 too, but, reload the 260 Rem. for my wife. I have a Ruger 1B in 280 Rem. that shoots Hornady 154 SST bullets into nice little clover leafs.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Well zermoid with the original 6.5x55 u also have the possibility of using loads for the krag joergensen rifle.. those will be super gentle against even the smallest game with a roundnosed fmj.. making the old rifle a supreme meatgetter. ive used such loads for winter grouse hunting and i think there is only one now extinct calibre that does it better 7x33mm Sako.. so good on u for keeping the old calibre and finding out yourself what its good for ;)

(and there is a new powder from hornady coming soon that will give the old 6.5 a good 200fps more oomph!)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

and if those lapua`s are lapua mega bullets then u r in for a treat, theire super expensive anyway and much used for moose here.. there are also 160 grainers hornady interlock roundnosed for such usage.. and all the way down to 85 grain varminter bullets that will surprise other varminters on windy days, especially in the 22 cal down ;)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from DakotaMan wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Thanks Dave, I like hearing about the 6.5x284. It is still one of the most popular on the long range benchrest shooting circuit. There are many great hunting cartridges (e.g. Chevy, Ford, etc.) but the reason the 6.5x284 is popular is:
1. Accuracy: sorry but you just won't get the level of combustion consistency in the 30-06 case. Chrono your results and compare if you don't think so. Single digit extreme velocity spreads are common with the 6.5 and not with the .270. This doesn't make a hoot of difference to an elk but can be the difference between first and last place in an accuracy match.
2. Light recoil... If you are going to shoot a couple hundred rounds at a sitting, you don't want to develop a flinch and you don't want the rifle jumping around on the rest. These negatively affect your score and that is what it is all about. The .270 and .260 Win Mag are great hunting cartridges but they just won't cut it on the bench circuit because of their excessive recoil. All that is needed in bench competition is a clean hole ALL the way through a piece of paper.
3. Long range ballistics: The 6.5mm bullet maintains its velocity better than most medium weight bullets and has proven ideal for long range target shooting. This characteristic has also given the 6.5 bullets an exceptional penetrating ability on game animals.

This is one of the most accurate long range cartridges ever developed to date and is actully outdoing the venerable .308. Rich DeSimone shot a tough to beat 1.56 inch 5 shot group at 1000 yards. It just happens to be fast enough and have enough mass to also be a great hunting cartridge. If you respect accuracy like I do, you will respect the 6.5x284.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

the 6.5/284 is the round u wanna hunt with just cos it got low recoil and deliver a capable bullet at target with enough energy to make a difference. and in addition its precise as fXXk ;)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Seriously, I'm still scratching my head is why anyone would I want to convert to this cartridge?

This is what Norma has to say about the 6.5-284

"Useful range of this number surpasses the 6.5x55 by about 100 yards for any given application."

http://www.norma.cc/content.asp?Typ=59&Lang=2&DocumentID=263&Submeny=4&R...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

2650 to 3000fps with the same bullet weight.. but usefull range for a 308 win and 300 winmag is about the same ;)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from coyotezapper wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

I don't agree with the statement that it has nothing over the .270. It has everything over the .270!!! More bullet choices, better ballistics(not even close) and more accurate. This is just a few. The .270 is overrated. The .280 Rem is superior as is the 30-06 and for that matter so is the 25-06. If it were not for Jack O Connor the .270 would be in the category of the 7x57 which is average at best.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from T.W. Davidson wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Coyotezapper,

I side with Jim in Mo regarding his positive comments about the 7x57 Mauser. With respect, but have you ever spent much time handloading for the cartridge and firing it? That's what I've been doing for the last year, and I've discovered that when the 7mm Mauser is properly handloaded in a modern bolt action rifle at the same pressures as a .308 Winchester or .270 Winchester or 25-06, it will produce velocities only 100 fps short of factory .270 Win loads, but can use bullets with higher .BCs than .270 loads, thus resulting in a supremely efficient cartridge that uses little powder and gives excellent performance--just like or even better than its near-twin, the 7mm-08.

It is safe in a modern bolt action with a 24" barrel for a 7x57 Mauser to produce just over 3000 fps MV with 130-grain bullets; around 2900-2950 fps MV with 140-grain bullets, and 2850 fps MV (or slightly better) with 150-grain bullets. With this level of performance, anything in America other than the big bears is fair game with a 7x57 handload, the right bullet--such as a Barnes TTSX or Nosler Partition/Accubond or Berger VLD--and proper shot placement out to any sane range--which for 98% of the hunters in America is (or should be) 300 yards or less. I intend to take an elk sometime in the next year or two with a 7x57 Mauser or 7x57 Ackley Improved--and it won't matter which one, because either will do the job perfectly fine.

What more could one ask for?

T.W. Davidson

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bthomasb1 wrote 4 years 3 weeks ago

I had a 270 once,but I killed all the rats on the farm so I sold it,he he

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve Kent Reid Sr. wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Just a bit of home grown opinion here. Take it or leave it, no offense intended to anyone. Just an old fart spraying forth "wisedom" for those interested in the read.

I am liking the "stats" of the 6.5x284 and all the hunting and bench stories enough that I ORDERED one....(don't faint!!), in a single shot handgun (bull barrel, brake, LIGHT trigger, the whole shot..oh yeah, RIFLE scope TYVM).

So to answer many, NO, I PERSONALLY don't think you "need" one to "replace" your 270 for deer hunting.
UNLESS.......you want to shoot em "out further" with a flatter trajectory. The higher, often MUCH higher, BC of the .264 bullets of the same weights just gives it a bit more "oomph" way out there and as Dave said, OMG.....the bullet choices you have!!

For "most" hunting ranges, the 270 has and will again, "get er done" with authority so "needing" to replace one is a myth.....but honestly, WHEN is it ABOUT "needing"?

If new rounds ceased to come about after 1906 and you and I were running about whacking critters of various sizes with a 30-06.......we'd still be here yakking about what we love... and few would feel any "need" for anything "superior" IMHO.

That said the 6.5x284 is a medium recoil, efficient round that HAS shown us that WAY THE H OUT THERE...isn't as far as it used to be.

Maybe not a 338 Lapua (yeah, there's a guy has one of those in a "specialty pistol" too. ( HI ERNIE!!!) but in "normal" hands, it, and the super scopes, bullets, powders, load data and guns....is being used at ranges unHEARD of only a short (to me) decade back....and regardless of some HERE possibly disagreeing, it's doing so CONSISTANTLY so please, no rants on "unethical".

Be it out of a long gun or a pistol for those of us liking the extra input needed (aka satsifaction of using)this round (6.5x284) DOES make one sit up and take notice!

All in all I "might" have been as well off with a 260 Rem or such, but I didnt buy what I "needed", I ordered one capable of MORE what is ( or isnt) "needed"......because I wanted one......period.

Me thinks a LOT of you have done the same....and will again.

I also don't NEED a 30mm tube, side focuss scope....but I'm gonna get one!!

So when someone says "you dont NEED" such and such....think back, just WHEN did we last buy something we NEEDED as far as gun / round / scope preference...and does it REALLY have ANYTHING to do with it?....only you can decide.

God Bless
Steve

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ray j wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

6.5...257...now yer cooking with gas..:-)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from PbHead wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Hey, I'm all for the new and exotic stuff especially if it means more brass to play with. Dave, this could be your chance to neck this one up to 416 and have the 416 Petzel Popper. You could use cast bullets for practice and really big chunks of lead to amuse youself and the rest of us.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from hengst wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

From what I have heard barrel life on the 6.5/284 is crappy. I really liked the ballistics of the round and started looking into it more, I stopped looking when the barrel life issue arose....what are your results with this? And yes, if I own a rifle I use it well more than sight in and fire a round during hunting season so barrel life is an important aspect when I research before purchase

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

I had to look it up too!!

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj. 1. scrofulous - afflicted with scrofula
ill, sick - affected by an impairment of normal physical or mental function; "ill from the monotony of his suffering"
2. scrofulous - morally contaminated; "denounce the scrofulous wealth of the times"- J.D.Hart
immoral - deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong
3. scrofulous - having a diseased appearance resembling scrofula; "our canoe...lay with her scrofulous sides on the shore"- Farley Mowat
ugly - displeasing to the senses; "an ugly face"; "ugly furniture"

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bammer wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

You rifle guys have a monopoly on over-think. As if there is a realistic differenc in the field between a bullet diameter of .257 and .264. Who cares. Purchase your 25-06, 243, 270 308 or 30-06 and be done with it (until you hunt bear in Alaska; then, get your Magnum). 12 or 20 gauge shotgun may make a difference to a bird hunter. And a 5 weight or 7 weight fly rod means something on a bass fishing trip. But all this blather on rifle cartridges should stop. I demand it!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from nelsol wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Yeah Dave, I've gotten the same treatment around our southern Arkansas deer camp every time someone asks me what I'm shooting. I tell them a 7mm-08, and they think I'm a freaking firearms genius. Well, I might be. I've been shooting the 7mm-08 for 10 years. 10 shots, 10 deer.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Dave, Not sure if you are a Turkey hunter but if you are you will want to see this. Click my username and check the photos of the hand made Box Call our very own Beekeeper made for me. Ol' Bee has made me the Stradivarious (spelling?) of turkey calls. She's a beauty to look at too.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Yep, the .300 Whelen usually puzzles the Range Monkeys for a bit also.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Jim in MO: Lots of the big bullets bend on elephant's skulls also which is why the steel cased Rigby bullet was so popular in the old, golden days of elephant hunting aka poaching. This subject is mentioned onften in Taylor's books.
nelsol: I have a custom 7mm-08 which has killed lots of deer and antelope although I have never had it with me to shoot an elk. My neighbor's wife has made numerous one or two shot kills on many elk and deer with her 7mm-08. Her husband sticks with his 6.5/.284 and 7 mm Rem Mag in spite of his "better half" prefering the little seven. Same old deal put the right bullet in the right place and they will drop.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Looks like we might as well talk about tube guns since they are a great choice as a platform to shoot 6.5x.284 bullets downrange. The combination makes a tiny ragged hole using four or five bullets at 200 yards or more.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

ish,
yea exactly why I made the comment.
Pretty impressive for small diameter cartridge. Sorry to confuse.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Jim in MO: Year before last two friends of mine, using John Porter's 6.5x.284 with Berger VLDs, killed two bull elk in two days. One was shot at just over 600 yards and the other at about 35 yards. Both bulls dropped immediately. I'm certain that a 7 Rem Mag or perhaps a .270 Win. could duplicate these shots but for certain the little 6.5x.284 with a good bullet can do it. If you happen to get "Best of the West" on the Outdoor Channel watch for the "Mississippi Boys" program and you will see both shots.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wallpep wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Other than accuracy the main reason highpower shooters use it is that it does not use as much powder as longer cases (hey, we're a tight wad bunch). The AR10 can be chambered in this round.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from dtownley wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

Like a boy & his dog, an ole Marine and his .33 Vehement Coitus Rex. Like his 8-track, that Marine would not give up his dream VCR ? Call Petzal what you want, I'll just say Thanks Marine!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

coyotezapper,
damn man I was right with you till you dissed the 7x57. That round has been there and done that for all the ages.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MojoHand wrote 4 years 3 weeks ago

D.P.,
Thanks for the article on the delicious 6.5-.284. While one can point to numerous cartridges that equal or supercede the 6.5-.284 with less 'hassle' that has never really been the point. While looking to rebarrel my Rem 700 .270 Win to something more, ah, 'exotic', I was leaning toward the .338-.284. While on a forum, I saw someone was selling Redding S series comp. dies for 6.5-.284 and took it as a 'sign from the Lord' that I needed a 6.5mm, a caliber I have long been fascinated with (will one day hopefully find a nice M38). While detractors will claim I have gained no real performance advantage over the old .270, what I have gained is accuracy, bullet selection, and 'coolness'! Those 140 Bergers and 160 Woodleighs look killer seated out to 3.23"! My rebuild was a 'budget' rebarrel with a Douglas XX SS 24" barrel (1-in-8 twist, #4 contour) that will keep those Bergers right at 1/2 MOA all day if I'm on. It also shoots the 85gr Sierra HP to 1/2" at 3500fps which gives the 'sage rats' much cause for fear and trembling. I don't regret rebarreling my .270 to 6.5-.284 one bit and my advice to anyone sitting on the fence is go ahead and get one--you'll love it. Mine wears a Burris 4.5-14x50mm and is a bit portly at 9lbs 5oz (at least compared to my Kimber 84M) but I don't hesitate to hunt anything here in Idaho with it and still shoot hundreds of rounds downrange for fun. I have become a 6.5mm fanatic. I'm just waiting for the rest of America to come around.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

Dave, I'm confused. Are you saying the 6.5 Swede really isn't that good a cartridge?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve Kent Reid Sr. wrote 4 years 1 week ago

oh fine, NOW I see there isnt an "edit" button? Sorry for not doing a "spell / content" check, all!

Steve

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coyotezapper wrote 4 years 1 week ago

To: Jim in Mo and T.W. Davidson
Sorry for the late response to your remarks. I never meant to come off as saying that the 7x57 mauser was not a decent cartridge. When I give opinions on cartridges it is meant to be in a general manner. I was commenting how average the .270 Win is, not how bad the 7x57 is. The comparison was meant to show that neither one is inherently accurate but I do agree that both can be tuned to shoot decently. But compared to the 6.5x284 there is no comparison, the 6.5x284 will shoot. Any handloader can make any cartridge shoot well but some are just easier than others to work with. But not everyone handloads. The 7x57 is hamstrung with poor factory ammo. If you don't handload this cartridge offers you nothing in the way of performance. The 7mm-08 and the Improved version are alot faster and with the standard version a ton of choices in factory fodder. And the 7mm-08 case/cartridge combo is again inherently accurate. The 7mm bore is my favorite. I load for 7mm-08, 7mm-08 Improved, 280 Improved, 7mm Rem Mag, 7MM RSAUM and 7mm STW. I am slowly getting into the .264 bore now loading for 6.5x284 and the 6.5x47 Lapua. The Lapua has to be the most accurate cartridge I have ever loaded and I have been handloading for 35 years. The 6.5x47 Lapua just may be "THE" 6.5 cartridge of the near future.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment