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...

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.

Andrew

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...

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,

^^^^ 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.

6.5 Creedmoor is a very good cartridge. It has many advantages....long barrel life ( if you shoot much ) , low felt recoil (if you shoot much), very precise and accurate, available everywhere and priced reasonably (ammo), chambered in many firearms, reasonably flat shooting, provides good knock down power at reasonable ranges (deer sized game out to 500yds and elk sized game past 300yd). In North America its a very solid choice . For Moose, Elk or Brown Bear , closer range shots that are well placed will do the job but its not optimal. For deer, hogs, sheep, cats , black bear, aoudad, coyotes etc. it is superb.

I'd buy it because it's a No.1, but not because of the cartridge.

If you are going to use for precision shooting, there are better rifles. If you are going to use it for hunting, there are better cartridges.

It seems to be fine on lightly framed animals - humans, pronghorn, sheep, deer - at reasonable ranges. It seems marginal for larger game, and not ethically adequate for larger game at extended ranges. Oh, no doubt it's taken a fair share of large animals at very long ranges, but that's more animal shooting than hunting. There is no substitute for using enough gun, and taking ethical shots at reasonable ranges. If you're skilled enough to do that, the 6.5 Creedmoor is outshined by a lot of cartridges.

I certainly don't see it as adequate for bear.

I agree with this guy 100% with respect to using something like the 6.5 Creedmoor for hunting large animals at long range:

I always envision a #1 Ruger as a close range, big bore, dangerous game, fantasy rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:
I'd buy it because it's a No.1, but not because of the cartridge.

If you are going to use for precision shooting, there are better rifles. If you are going to use it for hunting, there are better cartridges.

It seems to be fine on lightly framed animals - humans, pronghorn, sheep, deer - at reasonable ranges. It seems marginal for larger game, and not ethically adequate for larger game at extended ranges. Oh, no doubt it's taken a fair share of large animals at very long ranges, but that's more animal shooting than hunting. There is no substitute for using enough gun, and taking ethical shots at reasonable ranges. If you're skilled enough to do that, the 6.5 Creedmoor is outshined by a lot of cartridges.

I certainly don't see it as adequate for bear.

I agree with this guy 100% with respect to using something like the 6.5 Creedmoor for hunting large animals at long range:

Do you know how people get good at long-range shooting? By studying the science of it, and lots of practice. Do you know which one of those is extremely difficult to do with a .300 UltraMag (or other magnums)?

Usually when someone says "long range shooting isn't hunting", it's because they suck at long-range shooting. While we will never get every hunter to agree on what's ethical, only an envious bad shooter would criticize other hunters for taking a shot, if they can make it consistently. If I can hit the vitals of a deer more consistently at 800 yards than the average Fudd can do at 200 yards, which one of us is the unethical hunter? Which deer is more likely to run off and die a very slow death, the one that was hit through both lungs at 800 yards, or the one that was gutshot at 200?

With all of that said, the 6.5 Creedmoor is a great all-around cartridge, and if I could only own one rifle, it would probably be a 6.5 Creed. It's not the best for PRS. It's not the best for elk. It's overkill for yotes or chucks. It's perfect for whitetail. But it's capable of all of them, with exceptional inherent accuracy and light enough recoil to allow a lot of practice. That can't all be said for a 6mm or any of the large magnums. And there are a multitude of choices in factory ammunition, for those who don't reload. Step down .308; there's a new king.

After being diagnosed with osteoporosis my dr said I had to retire my 308’s and the 6.5 Creedmoor had already been around a few years ... it was all the reason I needed to call JPEnterprise, and mount it all on a Sharps “Jack” receiver with a Geissele trigger & Magpull PRS stock and a Leupold E-LR 8-25x50 glass & Atlas bipod.
To say I’m pleased is an understatement! I was shooting 1” groups at 300 yards on my first trip to the range with a 123 grain hand-load.


Within a couple months I called Benchmark and ordered a 22” barrel in 6.5 Creedmoor to replace the 308 barrel on my SiG SSG3000.

quote:

Originally posted by DamageInc:
Do you know how people get good at long-range shooting? ...

You know what? This is just dumb.

The people that endorse 800 yard "Creed" shots on deer seem to me to be more interested in deer shooting than deer hunting. Can it be done? Yes. Can it be done ethically? Hell no.

A 140 gr Creedmoor bullet is going to have well under 1,000 foot lbs of energy at 800 yards. Are you seriously suggesting that's sufficient energy? What 140 grain 6.5mm bullet is going to expand sufficiently at 800 feet per second? What 6.5mm bullet will reliably break the shoulders, or one shoulder, of a whitetail or mule deer at 800 yards and 800 fps?

Take a lung shot? Lung shots require trauma to be effective quickly. I've had to look for hours for deer that were shot in the lungs with rounds that were larger than the 6.5. Some never left a blood trail at all. I have no desire to inflict a hole on a deer smaller in diameter than a pencil unless it's at a reasonable range where the bullet still has enough energy to do what it needs to do. That's a recipe for a lost animal, or one that suffers unnecessarily.

Maybe people that endorse this sort of "hunting" never learned how to still hunt effectively. Maybe they lack the patience to wait for a shot that's within an ethical distance. Or maybe they lack the willpower to pass up a shot that's outside an ethical distance.

Here's my suggestion, if you want to hunt, learn to hunt. It's a skill that's far more involved that taking 800 yard shots at deer. Another suggestion: man up, learn to take the recoil, and use enough gun. For goodness sake, an adult male hunter that can't take enough .30-06 recoil to become proficient with a .30-06 maybe ought to think about taking up fishing.

I must have missed the part where the OP said he was interested in getting it for long range hunting.

I wasn't responding to the OP.

I have seen a lot of “bandwagon” effects on shooters’ gun and cartridge choices over the decades. Sometimes new developments offer distinct advantages (e.g., the 357 SIG cartridge), but often they attract attention for reasons that are really unrelated to their utility for the shooters’ primary purposes. Yes, the 6.5 Creedmoor is a better cartridge for ringing steel at 1000 yards than the 30-06 Springfield, but better or even as good as the 30-06 for an elk at 200 yards? One would have to be willfully stupid to believe that.

I’m not a hunter like Micropterus, but I do have a professional interest in what the current general fascination with the 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge will lead to among law enforcement snipers. At least one Federal agency has reportedly switched away from the 308 Winchester to the 6.5 for its tactical teams, and I can only ask “Why?” The 6.5 does offer advantages over the 308 for certain applications, and I prefer shooting it myself, but I don’t see any significant value in it over the 308 for LE purposes. In fact, there are reasonably likely situations and circumstances when the larger, heavier bullets of the latter are what the LE sniper would want. If the switch to 6.5 trend for law enforcement continues it will be interesting to see how it works out in practice rather than theory. If I live long enough, I will not be the least bit surprised to see that pendulum slow and reverse back to .30 caliber cartridge(s) at some time in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:

quote:

Originally posted by DamageInc:
Do you know how people get good at long-range shooting? ...

You know what? This is just dumb.

The people that endorse 800 yard "Creed" shots on deer seem to me to be more interested in deer shooting than deer hunting. Can it be done? Yes. Can it be done ethically? Hell no.

A 140 gr Creedmoor bullet is going to have well under 1,000 foot lbs of energy at 800 yards. Are you seriously suggesting that's sufficient energy? What 140 grain 6.5mm bullet is going to expand sufficiently at 800 feet per second? What 6.5mm bullet will reliably break the shoulders, or one shoulder, of a whitetail or mule deer at 800 yards and 800 fps?

Take a lung shot? Lung shots require trauma to be effective quickly. I've had to look for hours for deer that were shot in the lungs with rounds that were larger than the 6.5. Some never left a blood trail at all. I have no desire to inflict a hole on a deer smaller in diameter than a pencil unless it's at a reasonable range where the bullet still has enough energy to do what it needs to do. That's a recipe for a lost animal, or one that suffers unnecessarily.

Maybe people that endorse this sort of "hunting" never learned how to still hunt effectively. Maybe they lack the patience to wait for a shot that's within an ethical distance. Or maybe they lack the willpower to pass up a shot that's outside an ethical distance.

Here's my suggestion, if you want to hunt, learn to hunt. It's a skill that's far more involved that taking 800 yard shots at deer. Another suggestion: man up, learn to take the recoil, and use enough gun. For goodness sake, an adult male hunter that can't take enough .30-06 recoil to become proficient with a .30-06 maybe ought to think about taking up fishing.

You think a 6.5 Creed is down to 800 fps at 800 yards, and have the nerve to call my post "dumb"? LMAO, a 140 grain 6.5 is still moving at nearly 1700 fps at 800 yards, nearly the same velocity as a .30-30 at 200 yards. It doesn't go subsonic until past 1400 yards.

It's OK if you suck at shooting; most people do. But don't tell me that I need to "learn to hunt" because I'm capable of taking much longer shots than you. I'm both a hunter and a competitive shooter, but I've also shot deer that were less than 10 feet away, so I certainly "know how to hunt". I'll keep taking long shots whenever I please, and you can take your opinion and shove it.

Here is my suggestion: stop spreading false information on subjects you know nothing about, Elmer Fudd.

Sorry, I mean to say foot pounds. My error in responding to you idiotic assertion. Now that that is cleared up, let's move on.

The 6.5 Creedmoor is inadequate for deer at 800 yards. At that range, it lacks the energy for clean kills and proper bullet expansion. It's no more appropriate at 800 yards than the .30-30 is at 200 yards, and actually less so - because the .30-30 has more energy at 200 yards than the Creedmore does at 800, and makes a bigger hole.

I don't care how good you are at long range shooting. You can be an expert. But if you are actually proffering the notion that the 6.5 Creedmoor is an adequate deer round at 800 yards, and actually taking those shots, then...

1) I call you out as an unethical slob hunter on the same rung as a poacher.
2) When you come back here to defend your position and call someone Elmer Fudd, refer back to 1 above.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:
Sorry, I mean to say foot pounds. My error in responding to you idiotic assertion. Now that that is cleared up, let's move on.

The 6.5 Creedmoor is inadequate for deer at 800 yards. At that range, it lacks the energy for clean kills and proper bullet expansion. It's no more appropriate at 800 yards than the .30-30 is at 200 yards, and actually less so - because the .30-30 has more energy at 200 yards than the Creedmore does at 800, and makes a bigger hole.

I don't care how good you are at long range shooting. You can be an expert. But if you are actually proffering the notion that the 6.5 Creedmoor is an adequate deer round at 800 yards, and actually taking those shots, then...

1) I call you out as an unethical slob hunter on the same rung as a poacher.
2) When you come back here to defend your position and call someone Elmer Fudd, refer back to 1 above.

Now you are just flat out lying. Your words: "What 140 grain 6.5mm bullet is going to expand sufficiently at 800 feet per second?"

Foot pounds have nothing to do with bullet expansion, so obviously you really did mean feet per second, and you had no idea how fast that bullet is traveling at 800 yards. Velocity is what determines the amount of expansion (along with bullet construction), but all common hunting bullets will still expand at 1700 fps. You should have just walked away, instead of making it worse by posting more ignorant bullshit and lies.

I wouldn't recommend that most people shoot a deer at 800 yards (with any cartridge), because most people aren't good enough to make that shot consistently. I wouldn't even take that shot unless it was dead calm, and that would be the max I would attempt a deer with that cartridge. But it's certainly capable of a clean kill at that distance, and the fact that you are disputing it just exposes your ignorance again. You don't know jack shit about terminal ballistics and shooting at longer distances, Elmer.