|Jack of All Trades, |
Master of Nothing
Came across an NIB Ruger No. 1A in 6.5 Creedmore today. I've always wanted a No. 1A and if this was in .30-06 or .35 Whelen, there's be a dent in my credit card right now. No experience with the 6.5 Creedmore. Looking at it on paper it doesn't do anything for me I don't already have covered with rifles in .25-06, .270 and 7mm Rem Mag. Like I said if it was an 06 or Whelen and capable of shooting heavier weight bullets I'd be all over it.
But it is a cool rifle...
My daughter can deflate your daughter's soccer ball.
I'd be all over that.
6.5 Creedmore is great round. Originally designed/released around 2007 by Hornady. Very similar to the 260 Remmington or a larger verson of the 243 Winchester.
Bullet weights go up to 145gr and cartridges are plentiful and varied.
It is a nice flat shooting round.
It is great for medium sized North American game. And can take larger game with a very accurate shooter. I have several friends who have taken trophy elk and moose with this round.
Dig around the interweb... there is a ton of info on that cartridge.
Duty is the sublimest word in the English Language - Gen Robert E Lee.
There was an article the other week comparing the 270 to the 6.5 Creedmoor. At least in this article, the 270 came out ahead, ‘reasonable’ ranges.
I’d base it more on price, since you want that rifle. I can appreciate the Creedmoor ballistics, but with 2 6.5 Swedes, don’t need to add another cartridge.
If the price is right, I’d think you can find a use. The round has caught on well, ammo is plentiful.
I recently rebarreled my 308 Savage to 6.5 CM and I really like it! It shoots flatter,less kick and quite accurate. I recently was ringing steel at local PRS match @1274yds with 140 gr Berger Hybrid.
Less wind corrections with 65CM...
امّا شما مشخص خواهد شد كه با همه شما را ملاقات کنند
It is awfully similar to the .270. To a point. At greater distances, it begins to show its merit. I was always a .270 fan, but the 6.5 is now my favorite. Besides, the recoil is so much easier on the shoulder.
It’s long been accepted conventional wisdom among precision rifle shooters that some cartridges are “inherently” more precise* than others. Although there can be a number of reasons for a cartridge’s inherent precision other than its design, the 270 Winchester has never had the reputation (that I’m aware of) of being a particularly precise round. The 6.5 Creedmoor, however, does enjoy that perception, and that seems to be the primary reason for its spike in popularity.
Many reviewers of various rifles chambered for the 6.5 CM remark about what precise results they produce, and how more precise they are than the same rifles chambered for other cartridges.
The same is true for me. I have three Tikka “Tactical” rifles, and although I’m not sure whether the older T3 models that are chambered for 223 Remington and 308 Winchester have the same quality of barrels as my latest acquisition, a T3x in 6.5 CM, the 6.5 has thus far produced far more precise results than the other two. Part of that may be the quality of the factory ammunition I use in all three, but whatever the reason I have much more confidence that the 6.5 Creedmoor will deliver greater precision than the other two. (The difference between the 308 and 6.5 isn’t huge, but it’s obvious.)
At this point I am convinced that the 6.5 Creedmoor is indeed an inherently more precise round than many older cartridges, and I would expect that to be true in comparison with the 270 Winchester. I’m not aware of the 270’s having ever enjoyed any significant popularity among shooters who seek precision as a primary goal.
After all that, though, Ruger Number 1 rifles have never enjoyed good reputations for precision either. I attempted a quick search just now, and although I didn’t dig deeply into the question of how well the rifles perform in 6.5 CM, it doesn’t seem that the cartridge turns them (in general) into tack-drivers. More research might reveal otherwise, but nothing jumped out at me.
I absolutely love the basic idea, looks, and functioning of the Number 1s, but after owning a 200th Year in 270 Win with fabulous wood for a long time, last year I gave it to the local club as a prize for their annual fund raising raffle. Townsend Whelen famously remarked that only accurate [precise] rifles are interesting, and I agree. That Ruger would have been accurate enough for hunting, but it wasn’t all that precise for me even with the handloads that performed well in an older model 77, and therefore it did nothing but take up storage space.
In short, I like to look at Ruger Number 1 rifles and I like to shoot my 6.5 CM Tikka, but I wouldn’t choose a #1 just because it was chambered for that cartridge. If I wanted a Number 1 for hunting but preferred a larger caliber cartridge that fired heavier bullets, that’s what I would hold out for.
* We used to say “accurate,” but in recent times many precision shooters use accurate to refer to hitting a specific target, and precise to refer to the capability of producing small groups.This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,
“The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”
— Bertrand Russell
^^^^ Agree. The No. 1 can be hit or miss accuracy wise, regardless of caliber. Harmonics and forearm fit are often the culprits. I once owned a No. 3 in .223 and my buddy had a No. 1 HB Varmint model. The cheapie No.3 outshot the No.1 consistently.
I understand it takes someone very experienced with No.1s to accurize it for consistent accuracy.
End of Earth: 2 Miles
Upper Peninsula: 4 Miles
|Powered by Social Strata|