Best 6.5mm Target Chambering?

Concentricity will be what it is. An expander mandrel die will hold the brass straight when it is expanded, neck wall uniformity is unchanged except to shift the irregularity more to the outside wall( and since its uniformity is obviously a concern, like me, you would turn the necks to uniform them) and run-out will be no better or worse than its original parent case.

Would I go and shoot a 1000M match with virgin brass? I'm not sure, but I am am comfortable enough with the process to say that I would have no problem load developing with brass like this and at the end of it all, I would have fire-formed brass.

It isn't fly #### in pepper, it is a reasonable question. I am also doing a 260 this winter and I intend to form brass just this way.
 
I always prefer to work on fireformed brass. There are lots of dings and dents that get ironed out after that first firing. I use Cornmeal and light charge of Titegroup. One pop and all is well.

I have yet to see any issue with wear using this method. Might even 'lap' the bore :)

If the 243 headspaces for your 260 chamber, fireforming then opens your neck, pushes out the shoulder, changes the shoulder angle with little fuss. Otherwise, you need to form a secondary shoulder for a nice firm fit.

I always resize, trim and neck turn after forming. I would do so with Lapua as I want everything to be exactly the same.

For my 6.5 mystic, I size down 308 Win brass using a 7mm die to form the false shoulder. Use the cornmeal to form. prep and ready to load up. That first fire forming is so critical to the longevity of your brass. Stretch the web area and it will fail quicker.

I WANT to neck turn my cases and using 308 brass gives me the extra material to keep neck thickness at the desired level. Going from 243 would make for thinner necks. I might try working with 7-08 out of curiousity.

I have yet to toss a case due to splits in the web area in 4 barrels. I even use old brass to work up loads in my new barrels.

Barrel life is way too short to be using bullets to fireform. I also don't get to enough matches to just plink at one while fireforming. A bit of work at the home range goes along ways to building my confidence on the line.

Let me know if you have any more questions on forming brass.

Jerry
 
Ian and Jerry, thanks for your patience.

Jerry, you bring up a good point; I was wondering if fireforming the 243 case in the 260 chamber with a snappy yet safe Cream of Wheat load would blow the neck out to 260 dimensions. This would obviously maintain consistency. And I may be crazy, but I'd prefer to set the rifle up so I didn't have to turn necks.

And thanks for the most kind offer re more questions, but be careful what you wish for. :p
 
Last edited:
RickF, we all want the best from our rifles and setting up your case necks is a huge part of your performance.

I ALWAYS neck turn my brass, keep an eye on concentricity and watch for brass flow. Also, looking at how to anneal to maintain ductility. The back half of the case is just along for the ride but the shoulder forward determines where that bullet points and how it is released.

There is a reason some spend more money on gear to neck turn then anywhere else in the prep. IT MATTERS.....

If you are just going 243 to 260R, an expander die then running back through a Lee collet neck dies is all you need to do. Go right ahead and use it for plinking, practise.

If going from 243 to 260AI, then cornmeal fireforming will do all you want.

Jerry
 
TimC, I remember that this seemed like a great design, but why bother when the 6.5X 47 Lapua is good to go: no neck- turning or fire-forming and readily available brass. Have never seen brass for the Skan.
 
I am a firm believer in clean-turning all brass. Even the best lapua cases are uneven and it only has to be done once. It is not a big time investment over the course of the brass life, but it pays dividends for long range precision.

Going from a straight 6mm (243win ) to a 6.5mm (260Rem)is very straight forward process and does not require false shoulders. Blowing out 40 degree shoulders is a different kettle of fish altogether. you will lose case length in the process and I think - personally - in a perfect world it would be better to have a FF chamber as Dennis suggested. The 260 Rogue that Brent describes with a radiused neck/shoulder would be a cool way of "donating" brass to the blown out shoulder. I must look into that...
 
I seem to recall Skan being the Scandinavian shooting unions standardised cartridge in the 1980's/90's. I think brass etc was made for it and it was guaranteed to fit any 6.5x55 mauser chamber but was set to a very tight tolerance for target rifle use. Never heard of it since either. I wonder what happened to that then?
 
When I started shooting "F" class, I elected to use the 6.5x55 for a couple of reasons. First; I kind of liked the cartridge and considered it a classic (still do). Second; I had reamers and a barrel. I chambered the barrel (a match grade Shilen) with a .290 diameter neck since my sizer die sized the necks to .286 and I figured this would work out well. Neck turning was, of course, mandatory. Fitted to an old Winchester action and bedded into a glass stock, it shot just fine and I was mostly successful with it. The best performance was with 142 Sierras at about 2800 using 4831SC. At the same time that I was shooting this rifle, I had occasion to shoot a 6BR I had built for another shooter. I shot it at least as well as I did my 6.5 and am now pretty well convinced that cartridge choice is relatively unimportant as long as the cartridge is (a) easily tuned to provide the required accuracy and (b) will produce sufficient velocity with the bullet of choice to reach 1000 yds and stay supersonic.
In the 6.5, this requires about 2700fps at the muzzle with 140's. The 6.5x47 will do this. The 260 or the 6.5x55 will beat it easily and, of course, the 6.5/284 will do it. If I was starting again, I might be inclined to try the 6.5x47 because I think the 6.5x55 is actually bigger than necessary. I've long planned to do a 6.5/250 (I don't think there is anything wrong with body taper) but probably never will.
Now on to other things. I have been carefully turning necks on match brass since the mid seventies. I am now less inclined to do so. Even relatively crummy brass (Remington) shoots remarkably well providing the chamber allows sufficient clearance at the neck, the bullet is well aligned by the throat, and the cases are full length sized. Sorted brass will shoot so close to what a fitted neck will that it is hardly worth the trouble to turn. I've become convinced there is almost nothing less worthy of worry than chamber neck diameter. Especially as long as one can tailor the sizer die to the chamber and brass.
The idea of firing a blank load to expand necks is a good one. I think it will produce a more reliably concentric neck.
On brass. Lapua is superb brass. It is very uniform. It's dimensionally closer to minimum chamber specs than anything else. It's tough brass and will handle heavy loads. Federal brass is dimensionally good. Uniformity is good. Not quite as good as Lapua but good nonetheless. It's weakness is just that; it's soft and limits are reached early. Everything I said about federal applies to Norma as well. Good but soft. Winchester brass is hard brass and will allow higher pressures than Norma or Federal. Uniformity is decent but dimensions are often a bit on the small side. Remington is in a class by itself! It is soft, dimiensions vary, wall thickness varies and it's hard to like it. I'll tell you something though; the best score I ever shot with the 6.5x55 was shot using Remington brass! Go figure. Right now I have brass for that rifle made by Winchester, Remington, and Lapua and I can't honestly tell the difference on the target. Mind you, all of the brass for this rifle is neck turned so eccentricity is less an issue. Nonetheless, I feel better using the Lapua brass. It's just good stuff.
If I was going to make a wildcat 6.5 (I'm not), I would simply sharpen the shoulder up on the 260 by pushing the shoulder back to form a longer neck (I like longer necks). Another cartridge which might be pretty good would be a 6.5/244 Remington (essentially a 6.5x57).
Ultimately, I'm not convinced any of these will, obn average, shoot as well as a 6BR but they may well have a bit of an edge at 900. Regards, Bill
 
Kodiak99317 said:
Re Ron's 260... it is really... a 6.5x08.
Click to expand...

HAHA.....Awesome... :D

And thanks for your conjecture Bill. I appreciate any and all info on these (Alien to Me) 6.5 cartridges.

I was over talking to Mick last night and he was suggesting the 6.5x47 with the 130 grain bullets as he knew I was looking at a 6.5 cartridge. He was not as keen on the 260 or 260AI as he was on the 47.

From what I have read so far, I think the 260, either straight or AI, will do what I need it to do as long as I can do what I need to do. Which, going by my performance at the Gil Hurst Mem Match, is to learn how to read wind better. :D
 
Last edited:
Has anyone considered necking down 7.62 x 39 brass to take a 120 or 140 grain 6.5 bullet?
I see there is case capacity without a long action, any other benefits?
I surmise that it may not be a long range round but ok to 600 yards perhaps?
 
as anyone considered necking down 7.62 x 39 brass to take a 120 or 140 grain 6.5 bullet?
Click to expand...

Have a look at the 6.5 Grendel ... it is similar to what you describe

(not a whole lot that hasn't been tried these days :) )
 
The Gendel would be "neat" using Lapua 6.5 Scenars in 100, 108 and 123 grain. Great for short range(300M) and would be interesting, but the 6.5X47 Lapua is superior for the longer ranges and most would be suprised at velocity capability.
 
The Grendel was designed to feed and fire from AR platforms, other than that, it has few redeeming features that would make me want one. What is the point of using 6.5 bullets, if you can't take advantage of their superior ballistics in the heaviest bullets?

As for a 6.5X39, well, the tweaked 6mm version is great as a 6ppc, but its powder capacity would be pretty useless for anything but short range shooting.
 
6.5 x 47 Lapua

Hi Richard. I have been talking and discussing ordering another 6.5 x 47 reamer with Mick specially made for the 130 Berger bullet. We spent about an hour last weekend going over the dimensions required and he was to get a price for me from one of the best reamer makers in the states so I can order it this weekend. If you want a 6.5 x 47 you might want to wait until this reamer comes in. I am going to be building another match rifle using this new reamer and another barrel from Ian this year. Again, I consider this cartridge the best all around compromise and we know it is competitive in the matches. Is it equal to the 6mmBR, I don't know, but I do know it will clean a match if I do my part. Steve
 
Steve,

The reason I want the extra horsepower is for reaching out beyond the 6BR's "useful" range for the likes of Burns Lake (1000yd), Osoyoos (1000yd), Alberta and Saskatchewan. I know the 6BR can shoot phenominal groups at 1000yds on a calm day, but not every day is calm.

The 6.5x47 will be better for wind drift than the 6BR out to 600m, but I have a handle on the BR out to those ranges (so far). Beyond 600, when the wind kicks up, the 6BR just doesn't have the oomph to make the bumpy journey.

All the reading I have done on the 6.5x47 is that it is great out to 600m/yds. I have run the ballistics through Quickload and the 260 w/140grn bullets will hold the wind better by +3" than the 6.5x47 shooting either 130's or 140's @ 1000yds.
 
The 6.5X47 has and will match the .260 for velocity with the same bullets. Been done. My 6.5X4 Lapua rifle, 30" Gaillard, 123gr. Scenars with X amount of VV150, ...well in excess of 3000fps measured with Oehler 35P shot by Horst Loegler.

Don't try this at home! Also, 2925 fps with 37 gr. Varget. Varget develops pressure considerably faster than Varget. Initial testing of R17 are promising in USA.

Regards,

Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom