Picking the right Creedmoor cartridge.

leveractionjunkie said:
I think this line of thinking is flawed and misses the point and advances made by the CM family and similar cartridges.

It’s the the chamber throat and twist that makes the CM family step up and outshine earlier rounds. The short action and low recoil are nice benefits as well but they are secondary.
Click to expand...
this
the new cartridges are about equipment package sales, what better way to sell merchandise and equipment.
Also needed to fulfill a demand in a newer shooting sport like PRS.

Re newed interest in the .25 was created when it was found it could be sold as filling a niche in the PRS lineup due to a couple pretty basic benefits
right between .24 and .26 which get 90+ % of the way, but... just... not... quite... there

For most, the spill-over into hunting is just a bonus vehicle.
 
Last edited:
MRP said:
I got a hankering fo a .22 but definitely want a 1 in 8 or 7.5 twist. A custom 22-250 would do but beyond my budget. Of the rack .22 CM would work, if some ones would make it in within a old mans means.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, Tikka now makes an 8" twist 22-250. That should tick the boxes for you if you can find one.
 
ShrtRnd said:
Ok, I’ll bite… ‘Cause I wanna make people think, not just spill out the typical rhetoric on/about the CM (or PRC/BC/Western for that matter) series of Cals.



So the question is…. “why did they stop at just the 6.5CM?”

To date all of the CM stuff is of 6.5mm down to smaller 22 Cals. Do those gains so richly flaunted, quoted and marketed as such get negated once over 6.5mm? Or has the PRC/BC and Westerns taken on those realms above 6.5mm with the CM now being left behind?

We really don’t know cause it hasn’t been done by Hornady to this point. It would seem that they have decided to focus on the smaller stuff thus far for some reason.

And really why? You already have the aforementioned PRC/BC/Westerns taking that on and probably nothing an added CM’d variant of the same couldn’t newly offer… ie; 27CM Vs 27NOS Vs 270WSM Vs 270Wby. Add in a slew AI variants avail for other various Cals and we really start to have an array of choices that start to overlap don’t we?

Again to my orig post.. you can only reinvent the wheel so many times, the fact remains its still round..

Look, I’m usually all for some new stuff, but with advances in Powder, Projectiles, Reloading Data, Annealing etc etc etc over the last decade or so, reality is, some of the old standby’s still get the job done and done effectively. Far beyond what was expected of them when first introduced. They maybe a hair slower, but still done none-the-less. It kinda makes you sit back and think “Is it all worth that smidgen extra and is it worth jumping on this bandwagon?”

For those that do dabble in the following below (tongue in cheek here ie; sarcasm folks). Have at ‘er, i don’t begrudge someone for their Cal of choice.

- Needmore (CM)
- Wasting some Money (WSM)
- Wasting Substantial Sums of Money (WSSM)
- Wasting BIG Money (WbyMag)
- Nothing otherworldly Substantial (NOS)
- Pretty Redundant Cals (PRC)

Hey, I’m just as guilty for going down the WSM and WbyMag roads myself tbh, but as someone mentioned a few posts above mine. Nothing really new.

Ya, you gain some FPS, lose some trajectory as well from a new design/platform but basically you are just splitting hairs over some of the already proven and potent existing Cals that have long track records behind them.

Like I said, I’m just trying to get people to think about all these choices we now have avail rather then be quick to spill out the usual rhetoric some marketing dweeb threw out there about speed/flatness and that some have taken as now divine gospel….

Sorry to the OP for the derail 😁
Click to expand...
I think Bartell’s answer explains it better than I can put into words. Specially around why they stopped at the 6.5 CM and didn’t run it all the way out to .338, .358 etc.

Again I go back to the point about twist rate being the defining feature and reason for the success. Allowing for the heavy for caliber highly aero dynamic and higher SD bullets to be sent on their way with less recoil and powder consumption making them more pleasant to shoot and allowing a smaller round to be more effective. Whether that’s at distance or on larger game than previously used commonly.

It doesn’t mean that these “new” rounds make older ones obsolete. Or that the originals are less effective than they used to be, or that we need to rush out and buy new ones. My main rifle is still a plain jane 280 Rem. Talk about a cartridge that wasn’t properly thought out.

These new rounds just make more efficient use of their physical constraints than the older rounds did. There’s an article in the latest Handloader magazine on the 6.8Western and they go through this discussion. Comparing it to the 270WSM and how that round has 9grains more capacity than the 6.8 and so it should have an advantage except for the WSM using a 1:10 twist rate, essentially capping its useable weight bullets at 150grains. Whereas the Western is right at home pushing 175gr ICBM’s across the wilderness into far off unsuspecting critters.

To me the most logical of the new rounds remain the smaller of them. The ARC’s the Grendel’s, 22CM, 6mm CM and 6.5CM etc because they are mild mannered yet effective at ranges most game is killed. They allow people to shoot more effectively as they aren’t concerned about recoil and muzzle blast so they shoot more and in theory can become better shots.

I don’t see why the CM rounds generate as much “hate” as they do. To me they’re just one of those developments that make me think “imagine if they would’ve thought of that (increasing twist rate and designing a case around long for caliber projectiles) back then. Imagine how things would’ve progressed differently.” Can you imagine if they put a 1:7.5” barrel standard on the 7mm RUM or similar on the 300 RUM and modified the case to accept long bullets inside the mag box. 🤔
 
Northern Shooter said:
I've been scouring the forums for a thread that compares all 4 of the Creedmoor cartridges and didn't come across one.

I'm looking for a lightweight, smallbore caliber for my next hunting rig and think I may actually jump on the Creedmoor train.

I'm familiar with the 6.5 but have been reading into the 22, 25 and 6mm lately as comparison.

Looking for a short action, small bore hunting cartridge with minimal recoil set up for medium sized game. Something that will be good for goat, sheep, deer, pronghorn etc out to say 500m. Ideally suited for a shorter ~20" barrel.

For those that jumped on one of the other 3, how do they stack up against the 6.5? The 6.5 Creedmoor is likely the easy button here as rifle and ammo availability is the greatest, however I am interested to hear the argument for the other 3. What do they offer over the 6.5?

The 25 seems to match the 6.5's ballistics with less recoil, however ammo availability seems to be limited. I'm not seeing many rifles chambered for this cartridge.

22 Creedmoor ammo and rifles also seem limited. Is this more of a varmint round vs a deer cartridge? It's velocity leads me to believe coyote round.

Is the 6mm the sweet spot in terms of ballistics, cost and recoil? I've seen videos of this taking elk and moose. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Why Creedmoor? Why short action? Other than the 6.5 there are a lot of good choices in all calibers that are more available and better performers. IMO, Hornaday did a great job marketing, starting with the .22 HMR and the 6.5; the 6.5 displaced two great cartridges, the 260 Remington and the 6.5 x 55. 6mm; think 243; .22, think .22-250, .25? 9 thousands bigger than .243, 13 thousands less than 6.5.

If you must have a Creed, then 6.5 is the most commonly available both as loaded ammo and as components; light bullets for varmints (Sierra 85-90 gr flat base hollow points out perform hornady bullets for me in the 6.5 x 55; more moos have been taken in Europe with this same caliber loaded with 158-160 gr RNSP. .260 out performs the creed with light bullets; 6..5 x 55 out performs the creed with heavy bullets. I reload everything and components are not an issue.
 
leveractionjunkie said:
<Snip>

I don’t see why the CM rounds generate as much “hate” as they do. To me they’re just one of those developments that make me think “imagine if they would’ve thought of that (increasing twist rate and designing a case around long for caliber projectiles) back then. Imagine how things would’ve progressed differently.” Can you imagine if they put a 1:7.5” barrel standard on the 7mm RUM or similar on the 300 RUM and modified the case to accept long bullets inside the mag box. 🤔
Click to expand...
I don't see why the CM rounds generate such a frenzy of enthusiasm:rolleyes::unsure:
 
Dorian Gray said:
From what I understand, Tikka now makes an 8" twist 22-250. That should tick the boxes for you if you can find one.
Click to expand...
have seen a couple others also, maybe Sako? idk
yet the same makers seem to jump to 6.5 CR and ignore any 6mm offerings, thinking its due to some Euro restrictions maybe, again idk
 
Meroh said:
I don't see why the CM rounds generate such a frenzy of enthusiasm:rolleyes::unsure:
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
leveractionjunkie said:
See this is the response to a cartridge that doesn’t make any sense to me. And I don’t ever remember any other cartridge or group of cartridges bringing about this type of response.

Hopefully the OP can find the right round and rifle for their needs
Click to expand...
Most cartridges make logical sense.
 
Dorian Gray said:
From what I understand, Tikka now makes an 8" twist 22-250. That should tick the boxes for you if you can find one.
Click to expand...
I have looked for one in Canada to no avail. Stoeger said they don’t have them and the Sako global website doesn’t list any 1:8” .22-250 Tikkas except the Super Varmint (IIRC).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom