Curious, what is your bullet of choice and the MV it makes?

No, it just shoots the same weight bullet faster,and with the right ammo is flatter,and carries more energy to 500 yards than the 6.5. Which IMO equals better for hunting. That is just the facts, if you don't believe me take a peak at the hornady ballistic chart. I won't be hunting any further than 500,and probably not that far, so flatter and more power seems like a win win for me. And 270 still wins in ammo availability, even though i reload. So for me the 6.5 has nothing to offer, may be different for others and that's cool too
[/quote]

Curious, what is your bullet of choice and the MV it makes? [/quote]

As i said in a later post i have neither of these cartridges at this time, but have had a couple of 270s in the past, just going off of hornadys ballistics chart. On their chart both rounds were shot from 24 inch barrels, and figured on a 200 yard zero. I will also go out on a limb and figure that it would be in hornady's interest to show the 6.5 in the best light since they designed it, so i feel I can trust their chart if it shows the 270 is better in any regard. And it shows the 270 to be better in both trajectory and energy at 500 when comparing the flattest or best retained energy rounds for each round. The best retained energy listed for the cm uses a target bullet, if you only compare hunting bullets the 270s margins increase even more. Like i said, i am only looking at this from a hunting perspective and others may have different perspectives, and that is cool too.

Just get em both man

Curious, what is your bullet of choice and the MV it makes? [/quote]

As i said in a later post i have neither of these cartridges at this time, but have had a couple of 270s in the past, just going off of hornadys ballistics chart. On their chart both rounds were shot from 24 inch barrels, and figured on a 200 yard zero. I will also go out on a limb and figure that it would be in hornady's interest to show the 6.5 in the best light since they designed it, so i feel I can trust their chart if it shows the 270 is better in any regard. And it shows the 270 to be better in both trajectory and energy at 500 when comparing the flattest or best retained energy rounds for each round. The best retained energy listed for the cm uses a target bullet, if you only compare hunting bullets the 270s margins increase even more. Like i said, i am only looking at this from a hunting perspective and others may have different perspectives, and that is cool too.
[/quote]

You said you hand loaded, so I thought you could provide hand loaded data.

Hornady also sells .270 ammo, and their marketing department also wants that ammo to sell. Their marketing department also knows of the hundreds of thousands of hunters that say "it's old, and it's the way we've always done it, so it has to be right". So .270 ammo has to sell too.

And, if all you are using is published data, then your argument has many holes in it. Hornady probably publishes a 6.5mm , 140 gr ar 2700 fps or LESS. I wanted to see what hand loaded .270 can do from your ammo, because hand loaded 6.5 Creedmoor can make a 140 gr safely come out at 2800 fps MV. But, you have failed to provide that .270 hand loaded data, yet felt no pause in touting the superiority of one over the other.

Load your own, test them on the rifle range, before you start preaching like it is the gospel.

As i said in a later post i have neither of these cartridges at this time, but have had a couple of 270s in the past, just going off of hornadys ballistics chart. On their chart both rounds were shot from 24 inch barrels, and figured on a 200 yard zero. I will also go out on a limb and figure that it would be in hornady's interest to show the 6.5 in the best light since they designed it, so i feel I can trust their chart if it shows the 270 is better in any regard. And it shows the 270 to be better in both trajectory and energy at 500 when comparing the flattest or best retained energy rounds for each round. The best retained energy listed for the cm uses a target bullet, if you only compare hunting bullets the 270s margins increase even more. Like i said, i am only looking at this from a hunting perspective and others may have different perspectives, and that is cool too.
[/quote]

You said you hand loaded, so I thought you could provide hand loaded data.

Hornady also sells .270 ammo, and their marketing department also wants that ammo to sell. Their marketing department also knows of the hundreds of thousands of hunters that say "it's old, and it's the way we've always done it, so it has to be right". So .270 ammo has to sell too.

And, if all you are using is published data, then your argument has many holes in it. Hornady probably publishes a 6.5mm , 140 gr ar 2700 fps or LESS. I wanted to see what hand loaded .270 can do from your ammo, because hand loaded 6.5 Creedmoor can make a 140 gr safely come out at 2800 fps MV. But, you have failed to provide that .270 hand loaded data, yet felt no pause in touting the superiority of one over the other.

Load your own, test them on the rifle range, before you start preaching like it is the gospel.[/quote]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, the OP asked for opinions and i gave mine without running it by you first, what was i thinking......


Even figuring 2800 for the CM, the 270 will be flatter according to math and such. But if you are adamant the at the 270 is not as flat or powerful at 500, I must assume that you have fully rung out all bullet and powder combos available for the 270 and proven out that the 270 is in fact not as flat or powerful as the 6.5CM at 500, otherwise your argument would have a lot of holes in it and you should test it on the range before you start preaching it like the gospel.........

This thread is meant to cause arguments.

If you don't acknowledge the superiority of the Creedmoor, this is what happens

Interesting look at comparisons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKphL5VxViQ

I wanted to see what hand loaded ammo could do, and compare handloaded to handloaded. I still see no numbers mentioned. And we are right back to the reason I brought up long versus short action, it is not an equal comparison. .30-06 and .308 are quite different, save bullet diameters.

I've yet to load for .270, but I have no doubt it will happen. Of course it will be faster, it is a long action.

And it must be a Tikka of course.

I know it is not a fair comparison, but it is the comparison the OP asked for, so that is how i responded. I have not loaded for the 270 either, when i mentioned that i reloaded in one of the post above I was mentioning it in the vein of ammo availability, and even though though 270 was more widely available, it didn't really matter for me, because i would end up reloading anyway. So with the info I have at hand (ballistic charts), the experiences i have from the rounds I have loaded, the use I personally would put the gun to, I picked the 270 between the two rounds asked about. I wasn't trying to convince anyone to pick what i pick (I really don't care what someone else shoots), i went out of my way to say if someone didn't like it that was fine too

Have a good one

10-4

Just curious for those that have both, as I have neither of the calibers in question. Which would you have more confidence in taking a 500 yard shot with? The .270 or the 6.5 Kreedmire?

I ran the numbers using factory Hornady ammunition. The 270 with the 145 ELD-x and the 6.5 with the 143 eld-x. It is apparent that the 270, even with his lower B.C. bullet has less drop all the way out to 1k. The only difference in favor of the 6.5 is the wind drift factor which seems semi-significant.

6.5CM was an easy decision for me. Until recently, I only had two bolt action rifles, a .223 and .308 Ruger GSR. 6.5CM just seemed to fit as the perfect "in-between" cartridge.