The Firearm thread: Engineering artistry of wood, polymer and steel.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

precisely. Unless your a 800-1200 yd. target shooter with reloading mania as I am with the .45-70 in Shiloh Sharps carbine or original 1876 Trapdoor Springfield (infantry), stick with the .308. It has a greater variety of projectile weights(as yet) and is rated at 5000 rounds to the gun barrel's life expectancy whereas the 6.5 mm is half as many rounds for the barrel life: 2500...on a costly $2,000+ Creedmore rifle?? Costs are an issue for any shooter and buying new guns for an already ample arsenal at my age is not worth it. The 6.5 is only slightly more accurate with slightly less shoulder recoil. Both rounds will get the job done for hunting anything in North America at more typical ranges under 500 yards. The Field and Stream side-by-side comparison article I read B4 posting this blog had an Hornady advertising tone in favor of the 6.5mm over the tried and true .308; hence my skepticism.

Yeah, that is right, costs are a consideration. So, under 500 yds, not a lot of difference? I have never shot anything that far away, I would need a lot of practice, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by August

Yeah especially handy in those flat Texas prairies where long shots are pretty much the order of the day.

Down here the wild pigs spend half their time in or near wooded areas. Thanks for the F&S article, so the Creedmore is really better at LR accuracy? And from the ballistics, carries more energy over 600 yds.




However, I honestly don't know about hitting anything over 300yds except at a range with a rest. I've never even tried to shoot something that far away! My range is set up for 150yds, I guess I need to mark off a 400yd spot and start practicing.