75 000 PSI is pushing hard.
6.5 Remington Magnum
- Thread starter Buckmastr
- Start date
75 000 PSI is pushing hard.
75K on which load? 60.0 RL-22? If so, I already stated the primer pockets opened up and the load was backed off. But I did not start high on that load, I worked up to it with a shorted chamber, ordered a PTG reamer and cleaned up the chamber and then discovered that the pressure spiked with the previous load in the new chamber... backed down to 56.0 and worked back up to 58.0 grains with no pressure signs... but have since backed to 57.5 due to improved accuracy at that level. There are many factors affecting pressure, it cannot be calculated absolutely on a calculator... which is why we have to work up with each individual rifle.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
From what I’ve gathered the 6.5 PRC (68.9grs water, 65,000psi) is just a 6.5 Rem Mag (68grs water, 63,100psi) without a belt. If those capacities are right the two are utterly the exact same cartridge, and ideal backpack hunting mountain rounds which Hoyt demonstrated handily out here. I can respect the “did the PRC over half a century before the PRC” of the 6.5 Rem Mag. It was a game changer that never took, hamstrung by the same ridiculous bean counter logic that doomed the .284 Win; the right cartridge in the wrong rifle. The 6.5 came out in 1966 in an 18.5” barreled Rem 600, would be a little like Ford trying to launch the Boss 302 in a Pinto. Gotta admire a cartridge recipe that nailed a niche discovered by the rest of the industry a half century late.
Well said, and agree... it has proven to be an excellent cartridge. I am not "anti-belt" in any way so that is not a stigma hurdle that I need to get over. I do know that every time I squeeze the trigger on this one, I smile.
I had a friend who many years ago had a 700 action bolted up to a new barrel in 6.5REM mag and it truly was a game changer for it!
he still shoots long 6.5 bullets in it!
Buckmaster What is your M700 SA mag box lenght ? What COAL are you loading too ? RJ
OK ! Thxs RJ
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Why do the .280, or 6.5 Creedmoor exist?
All we’d have is five cartridges to chose from realistically if it was all about logic. If anything the argument is why the PRC was developed when the 6.5RM already had it covered, if sticking to that path of reasoning. Fortunately we have choices.Why do the .280, or 6.5 Creedmoor exist?
So why the constant vitriol for newer choices?
There's nothing new; the 224 Valkyrie and 22 Creedmore have been around since the 1940's at least and compare the 240 Weatherby to the 240 Apex.
Guys were playing with fast twist 6.5mm's on the 7x61 case and 200 grain bullets in the 1950's.
Guys were playing with fast twist 6.5mm's on the 7x61 case and 200 grain bullets in the 1950's.
Why do the .280, or 6.5 Creedmoor exist?
It is great to have choices, and maybe the newly developed cartridges will get more people squeezing triggers which is great for all of us... just funny how when the new ones show up, there are some who claim those older and equally good cartridges are redundant... or even "kicked in tavern wenches."
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
My personal pet peeve in cartridges lies in marketing. I’m a new cartridge addict, I usually make a new wildcat about once every hunting season or two. Where I guffaw is meeting 6.5 Creedmoor or .375 Ruger owners who genuinely believe there’s something revolutionary happening in their chamber filled with the same brass, and nitrocellulose.
Fortunately, chuckles are good for the soul.I can only see Chuck's posts when quoted, ironic that he speaks of "vitriol..." as a constant author of such matter. Critics do serve a purpose... but you know what they say about critics... no original thoughts eminating, just sitting back and attempting to punch holes in the original ideas of others... but Chuck gets an A+ for consistency.
Perhaps we should start a "New vs Old" thread and hash it out there... it might clean up many of these cartridge specific threads. We could do the .260 vs 6.5 Creedmoor, .375 H&H vs .375 Ruger, 6.5 RM vs 6.5 PRC etc... etc... etc...
Personally, never met a cartridge I didn't like... just many I don't need or have interest in.
Perhaps we should start a "New vs Old" thread and hash it out there... it might clean up many of these cartridge specific threads. We could do the .260 vs 6.5 Creedmoor, .375 H&H vs .375 Ruger, 6.5 RM vs 6.5 PRC etc... etc... etc...
Personally, never met a cartridge I didn't like... just many I don't need or have interest in.
Such a thread would only contain ballistic gack, questions about how and why belts "work", dancing bananas, reposted manufacturers advertisements, and opinions stated as facts.
New cartridge development is really solely based on marketing...the technology certainly hasn't changed. And when something new, like the 277 Sig round does happen, it gets slammed here??? The only thing really hampering new cartridge development, is the cartridge material itself. Actions can, and have been made much stronger. So, until something that is cheap, stronger, and widely accepted as brass is created and made functional, we'll just have to deal with two types of folks. Those that buy marketing, and those that don't.
R.
Here is where me and marketing become fast friends. It is also where the conversation seems to switch to insults on intelligence, screaming about velocity as the great divide, and how a cartridge designed 100 years ago will kill something just as dead. It’s irrelevant. These two FL bushing dies are dies that belong to the two cartridges I hunted with this year. The one on the right is an off the shelf bushing die. It took a week to get to my door, and cost less than $100. The one on the left took months to arrive, was custom built around brass fired in my chamber and was significantly more expensive. The point was to produce dies that are not working the ever living life out of brass. The factory die on the right achieves the same result. Why? Because it is a popular, extremely well marketed round, that started from scratch, can achieve extreme consistency between chambers, brass, and dies. This is quantifiable and measurable. It’s not a guess.
Now this may not matter to you. That is fine. But it certainly matters to me (and apparently SOCUM). Mostly because the bullets shot at game pale significantly in volume to the rounds shot otherwise. If this is vitriol, I’m sorry.
Now this may not matter to you. That is fine. But it certainly matters to me (and apparently SOCUM). Mostly because the bullets shot at game pale significantly in volume to the rounds shot otherwise. If this is vitriol, I’m sorry.
