If you had to choose between
- Thread starter triton
- Start date
shortaction
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoulin Island, Ontario
In the right hands, both will do all the killing you need.
I would have to choose the 280, though. It is the upper end of my comfort level in recoil and some off my hunting gives opportunity for some long shots and I think the 280 has the edge there.
The 6.5 would certainly be preferred for a day at the bench though.
I would have to choose the 280, though. It is the upper end of my comfort level in recoil and some off my hunting gives opportunity for some long shots and I think the 280 has the edge there.
The 6.5 would certainly be preferred for a day at the bench though.
Sorry but I don't see any "mystique" to the 6.5x55? It's just an old military round that's been replaced yrs ago by better calibers
The 280 is superior in every way for every purpose with a wider choice of bullets!
Can you tell I love my 280
- Location
- Eastern Edge of the Foothills
I've owned, hunted with, and killed game with both. In fact, I've killed deer with each caliber within a week.
And, quite frankly, I notice a difference in performance between the two. The difference in ballistics is what I notice more than anything. Definately more hold-over with the 6.5x55.
That's why I'd choose the .280 over the 6.5x55 for an all-around one gun battery. The .280 has a flatter trajectory, and that makes it easier for me. And I love it's effectiveness on game.
And, quite frankly, I notice a difference in performance between the two. The difference in ballistics is what I notice more than anything. Definately more hold-over with the 6.5x55.
That's why I'd choose the .280 over the 6.5x55 for an all-around one gun battery. The .280 has a flatter trajectory, and that makes it easier for me. And I love it's effectiveness on game.
257Roberts
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Peterborough ON
I would have to agree with the 6.5X55.
I have never used either, but if it were me and where I live it would have to be the smaller caliber.
257Roberts
I have never used either, but if it were me and where I live it would have to be the smaller caliber.
257Roberts
07blackwater
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Port Coquitlam, BC
I own the swede so I'll pick that one.
shortaction
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoulin Island, Ontario
160 - 162gr in the 280 runs the same sectional density as the 6.5. Not sure on the B.C. for the 6.5 in the 140-142's as I have nerver owned one but the 162gr SST from hornady has a B.C. of .550
The 142 gr SMK in .264 has a claimed SD of .291 and a BC of .595 when pushed at 2,850 fps or better. BC is still .550 when pushed mildly at 2,050 fps. Can't speak for a 162 gr Sierra bullet for the .280 but the 160 gr has an SD of .283 and the BC is less than .475.
shortaction
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoulin Island, Ontario
What kind of results (penetration, wound channel, weight retention, etc) are you getting with the SMK's?
I don't use the 142 gr SMK for hunting. But it and the 140 gr Berger VLD (with BC .612) shine at the bench.
For hunting, I use a 140 gr Barnes XLC pushed at 2,818 fps. My hunting buddy used this combo to shoot a bull moose in the chest frontal. Recovered the bullet under the hind quarter. 100 percent weight retention.
- Location
- Eastern Edge of the Foothills
The .264 bullets do have excellent ballistic coefficients. True.
But the velocity is the big difference. I would load up the 6.5x55 with a 130 grain accubond and it would go 2780 fps. The BC is 0.488. With a 200 yard zero it would be at -24" at 400 yards.
But the 140 gr bullet is most often used in this chambering. I couldn't get those to go much more than 2700 fps. in my loads. The Accubond doesn't come in 140 .264, but the Hornady SST is similar. 0.520 BC. And the drop at 400 yards with a 200 yard zero is still -24"
With my .280 I load up a 140 gr accubond and it goes 3025 fps. BC is 0.485. With a 200 yard zero it's at -19.7"
These are just numbers crunched by a computer. I found that I wouldn't have to hold over as much with my .280 as I would with my 6.5x55
I do like the 6.5x55. It is a good chambering and I would [and have] been happy to hunt with it. If I have to pick between the two, then I'd rather have a .280.
I hear ya. I can push a 140 gr Barnes XLC over 2,800 fps in my Remington 700 Classic 6.5x55, but most of my 140 gr loads (with other bullets) are in the 2,500 to 2,600 fps range. Either way the accuracy and terminal performance has always been more than sufficient for my purposes. It would be rare to have to take a shot at over 400 yd around here.
That said, there is a reason why the 6.5 and 7mm wrestle in long range competition.
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
I like the 6.5 but for an all around do everything rifle I would get the 280
