Category: The Gun Thing

Longtime Friend & Reader John C. sent me this email over the past weekend:

Kim,
I found this article (“6.5 Creedmoor vs. .308 Winchester”) and thought you might find it interesting. I have .308 dies, a .308 Savage bolt gun, and if I get the urge to build another AR I’d do it in .308 because I have the dies. Not enough difference for me to collect another caliber, I’m slowing down.
A buddy was asking about it, though, and I said if he has no .308 and is getting a new gun he should consider the 6.5 Creedmoor (CM). If he has a .308 I said stick with it. He’ll likely not ever shoot beyond 500 yards. Your thoughts?
I thought it was a pretty good article, but unless I think I’ll take up F-Class (unlikely), like the author I’m not gonna think about it for me any more.
Cheers,
John

This was my response:

John,
I enjoyed the article.  My additional thoughts are as follows.

For 95% of all shooting, anything more than 400 yards is unlikely. (Targets and long-distance disciplines excepted, and the other 5% if you’re hunting antelope in eastern Montana, for example.)

In my opinion, therefore, the only difference between the .30x and the .25x (6.5mm, .270 Win etc) is that the latter doesn’t recoil as hard. As someone once said, they’re all good enough that the deer won’t know the difference. It’s the reason I prefer the 6.5x55mm Swede over just about any other: plenty of range (further than I can confidently shoot at), lots of penetration (high sectional density/SD), flat trajectory and so on.

If you’re a devotee of the .308, it’s fine. It may be the best all-purpose medium cartridge ever made, taken across every kind of use (military, hunting or target). I just prefer not to beat my shoulder up if I can avoid it. It’s the same reason I prefer 7x57mm over the 8mm: more or less the same effectiveness, smaller bruise.

Now that said, I love shooting. I love shooting, a lot. Which means that I pull the trigger more, in a single range session, than 75% of other shooters, and under those circumstances, recoil is a big thing.

Postscript:

It’s one of those things where you really don’t have to get all worked up over finding the “perfect” cartridge — trying all sorts of different calibers, loads etc. — and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good (or in this case, good enough).

Frankly, I think that riflemen need to find the cartridge/chambering which suits their personal criteria (mine, as above: maximum effectiveness with the lowest possible recoil), then find the cartridge (bullet weight, manufacturer, muzzle velocity whatever) which works the best in your rifle, and lay in a boatload of ammo of those specs (or reload accordingly, if you’re that way inclined).

Then shoot it lots, and become a master rifleman.

…or, as the above linked article puts it:

Saith some guy in a magazine:

Fudd [\’f∂d\] (noun): A term that was originally a derogatory word for gun owners who hunted but were dismissive of modern semi-auto “tactical” type firearms. It has evolved to refer to a shooter who is mired in the past and scornful of any technological innovation that occurred much after they learned how to shoot.

When confronted with any development newer than that, they retreat behind a stream of cliches such as “I don’t want my life to depend on batteries” or “It’ll give away your position,” like a squid behind a cloud of ink.

Hey, at least I’m not as bad as a couple of my Olde Tyme Readers, for whom this brass cartridge business is just a passing fad.

And I’m not mired in the past — although if given a choice between then and now, then gets it by a day’s march.  Hell, it only took me a few years to get used to using a scope (forced into the things, it should be said, by deteriorating eyesight), and it was only a question of time before I came round to that semi-auto business (in a rifle, that is).

The reason that I’m taking a while to get used to batteries in my scope is that if long experience has taught me anything, it’s that anything that can go wrong will, and at a time and circumstance which will always have dire consequences as a result thereof.  (For those interested in such things, I never tolerated batteries in my guitars, forget that shit.)

Not being a cop or soldier, and therefore unlikely to need to “clear” a house of bad people, I couldn’t care less about affixing a trillion-candlepower flashlight to my handgun or rifle.  I have such beasts scattered around me, but they’re purely for the purpose of blinding anyone I want to do that to, and then mostly to buy me time to draw my gun.

I do rather like these little red-dot laser thingies for revolvers, though:

…and at some point I’ll bother investigating the gadget for my bedside gun and my 1911.  Or not.

My needs are quite simple, gun-wise.  Crappy eyesight almost mandates that if I want to actually hit anything, I must use a red-dot sight (if not a laser), so at some point (again) I may pop one on my plinking guns:

(not that I actually own one of these cute little Buckmarks, but when I do get one, it’ll be thus accessorized).  Ditto on the 1911:

…although breaking up the classic John Moses Browning design with that carbuncle just gives me the shivers, it does.  Not to mention that I’ll need to get a couple replacement holsters that will accommodate such horrors.

In fact… (from Kenny)

…fukkit, I’ll just stick to what I’ve got.  #Fudd

Longtime shooter and hunter Ross Seyfried is a gunnie after my own heart, especially when he writes stuff like this:

There is a lot of overlap, duplication and redundancy in rifle cartridge performance. As an aging curmudgeon, I constantly question the need for new cartridges. But I do it in good humor, because I’m not yet irascible enough to bite the hands that feed me, and it’s in my best interests to write about new numbers. The last few years, I’ve written about a bunch of them: ARCs, Buckhammers, Bushmasters, Creedmoors, Legends, Westerns, Noslers and PRCs.

They’re all good stuff, but actual performance in terms of velocity and energy can’t be new because these levels were established long ago by the expansion rate of nitrocellulose.

There are modern nuances like the ability to cram more performance into specific action types and lengths, or better downrange performance thanks to modern aerodynamic bullets and faster rifling twists. Or you can purposely step down in performance to meet straight-wall cartridge criteria required by some whitetail states—and thereby avoid having to use shotgun slugs.

All do what they’re supposed to do, but I also have a penchant for older cartridges. Dig deep into cartridge history, and you’ll find there isn’t much new under the sun. The 6.5 Creedmoor is today’s most popular 6.5mm, and it is ballistically identical to 1894’s 6.5×55 Swedish Mauser. The Creedmoor’s main advantage is that it fits into a short action, while the 6.5 Swede does not.

I love the 1892 7×57 Mauser so much that I have three. The 7mm-08 Rem. introduced in 1980 is a ballistic twin, with much the same comparison as the Creedmoor and the Swede: 7mm-08 fits into a short action; the 7×57 does not. The 7×57 has greater case capacity, but 7mm-08 is loaded to higher pressure. So in factory loads, the 7mm-08 has a velocity edge, but no deer will know the difference.

For nostalgia and tradition—and perhaps just to be different—I stick with the 7×57. There’s nothing wrong with being contrarian, but you still must feed the rifle. Thankfully, 6.5×55 and 7×57 ammo aren’t rare, but they’re not nearly as available as Creedmoor and 7mm-08—which is why my wife and daughters shoot a 7mm-08 and not a 7×57.

By now, my love for the 6.5x55mm Swede is a matter of folklore;  slightly less known is my fondness for the 7x57mm Mauser.  Here they both are, by comparison to more popular cartrdges:

One thing the Swede and Mauser have in common is a lo-o-o-ong bullet, which has excellent sectional density and therefore provides astounding penetration.

The other nice thing about these two old guys is that gun manufacturers often make rifles that are somewhat more traditional in appearance, in keeping with the cartridges’ heritage.  Here’s one I used to own back in the day, a CZ 550 FS in 6.5x55mm Swede:

…and another one I owned back in Seffrica, an Oviedo (Spanish) Mauser 1893 in 7x57mm:

With the latter, I once took down an eland with a single shot — the bullet went in at the front leg (it was a quartering shot) and ended up lodged in the skin behind the hind leg, having caused all sorts of havoc en route.  (I should point out that my guide did not want me to take the shot because the cartridge was not really sufficient for the job, but at 70-odd yards I wasn’t going to pass it up.  Yeah, my Jung & Foolisch engine was working overtime.)

Anyway, enough memory lane stuff.

I just love those old cartridges.  Here’s my dream 7×57 rifle:

Damn lottery odds are the only thing standing in my way.