I am about to start a load development on my Custom 6.5 Creedmore. 591 Surgeon and a 30 inch Shilen Select Match #7 barrel. I googled loads off Hornady and Nosler websites, but shows a min and max window but was wondering if I can go over max with a 30 inch barrel and what velocity will I expect. I was wondering how hard and how fast you guys ( 28 to 30 inch barrels ) are pushing the 130 and 140 grain Bergers. I was thinking to start with H4350 and what charge are you guys using?

Max pressure happens in the first 2 to 3 inches of bullet travel after that pressure starts dropping off so barrel length of 16 or 30 inches max pressure is max pressure.

Rule of thumb for reloading is start low and workup applies with all loads and barrels. Start on the low end of loads and workup in your gun sometimes max pressure for your gun can be a little above or below the published data. All barrels/guns are unique to themselves.

Increased velocities from longer barrels comes from the bullet being under pressure longer since it will be in the barrel longer, there is also less muzzle blast since pressure drop off after max pressure has been reached as long as the bullet is in the barrel.

For the Berger 130 Hybrids, I have one rifle that likes 44.2 H4350 yielding 2862 fps out of a 21" barrel and another rifle that likes 43.4 H4350 yielding 2880 out of 24" barrel.

Hornady 140 ELDm is 42.3 H4350 in my 21"

I'm pushing 143 ELDX and 142 ABLR's at around 2800-2850 with 46-46.5 grains of Superformance with a 23" barrel. I'm still dialing in my loads to see which bullet, seating depth, etc my rifle likes best. I would imagine you could do a bit better with another 7" of barrel.

Don't even try CFE-223. Way over pressure with anything bigger than 100 grains, but it throws those out at 3300+ fps in my rifle.

The first powder I tried in the Creedmoor was CFE223 and it worked OK and certainly was not way over pressure with the bullets I tried 123-140gr. Actually got good speeds but 4350 and AR Comp along with IMR4007ssc were more accurate so I went that direction. I have also used Superformance and N150 with good results.

After reading your data on your hand loads, I assume I may not have to go to max because of the length of my barrel. I have loaded a ladder test on the 130 and 140 Berger VLD that I found on my shelf from 8 years ago.
H4350 : 41 - 43 gr. on the 130's and 39 to 41 gr. on the 140. Both are in .4 increments of 4 rounds. Hopefully see it shoot once weather permits. Will be trying 200 yards on ladder test. I also have 130 and 140 Hydrids I just bought the other day to try later. But I want to try a few other powders with the VLD's before I give up on it to switch to Hybrids. I normally like to use powders that fill the case. Will keep you posted.

The loads posted on Hodgdon are really mild. Most shooters are in the 42 range of h4350 and 140 grain bullets. With a 24" barrel, 140's should run about 2760 fps. With another 6" of barrel, you should be running 120-150 fps faster (20-25 fps per inch). So, take advantage of the longer barrel, and push the speeds where you should be. You should be running about 2900 fps with a 140 grain bullet in the CM. I wouldn't run a 130 since you can get really good speeds with a 140.

Chad, I was aware, just now, that the 142 gr. bullets decrease after 24 inches of barrel compared to the lighter bullets. Please check this link and tell me your opinions. Suspense is killing me without going to the range to try this bad boy out. I did assume that the longer barrels give more velocity.

http://rifleshooter.com/2016/02/6-5-cree...up-a-creedmoor/
http://www.6mmbr.com/barrelfaq.html#24645

Longer barrels can also be more picky about tuning. Long barrel means a more pronounced sine wave, with means the sweet spot for the powder charge can narrow from the shorter barrel. 25" is plenty for a 6.5 Creedmoor in my opinion.

Some of that depends on the powder used. Did not see his powder for the 142s listed, if it was a faster burning powder for the cartridge say Varget burn rate of faster then I could see that happening, in the longer barrel use a slow burning powder H4350 or H4831 and you would likely see more of an increase in fps for each when the barrel gets long.

Jason is correct about longer barrels being a bit more picky about tuning but a good quality long barrel will still shoot just sometimes takes a little more work

The author even states that the conclusions could be flawed as his was such a small sample size. I also agree with Kmon that with a different powder results could be quite different.

Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean that it's a true statement. Longer barrels equal more velocity, period. Sure, there is a point of diminishing returns, but you won't lose velocity, especially at 27". A lot has to do with the load used, powder selected, and many other factors. 26" is a great length, and adding 1" of barrel length at that length will not decrease in speed.

And, look at the SD of the ammo shot. An SD of 29 at 27" is about an 87 to 116 fps extreme spread. So that tells me the ammo used is not very consistent at all. The SD's seem suspiciously high. And how they did the shooting and barrel cut back seems very cheesy. I'd love to do it and do it right with precision loaded ammo and cutting the barrel back properly with a good crown each time.

The link gets it posted and passed around to get clicks and extra hits to their website, which increases their traffic. So, the add is doing it's job, true or false.

Hi Chad,

The ammo was very consistent. It shoots 14.1 SD in my match rifle- 41.8 grains of H4350. That test gun was built specifically for the article, as we do for any of our tests. I would suggest you reread the entire post, you'll note a couple things; 1. it was 23F when the test was conducted and I was on the front edge of an ice storm, 2. the barrel was a fairly inexpensive one and brand new (and I am not bad mouthing GMB). My suspicion was the longer bearing surface of the 142 SMK and rough surface of the barrel yielded a lower than expected velocity, as the barrel shot in, this change became less apparent. I publish the data I actually gather, period. I don't make anything up. These are the comments I made in the post you obviously didn't fully read:

What do you think of the velocity decrease observed for the 142 SMK in barrel lengths greater than 24"?

I think this part of the data raises more questions than it answers. I would like to see this experiment repeated with a premium barrel and larger sample size. I’ve conducted this experiment with a 223 Remington, 243 Winchester, 308 Winchester, 7mm Remington Magnum, 300 Winchester Magnum and 7.62x39mm Russian. Only with the 7.62x39mm Russian, which has a much smaller case capacity, did I notice a decrease in velocity at the longer barrel lengths. The decrease may be related to the barrel length, however, it may also be related to the fact the barrel was new and may have needed more fouling prior to the test. The 142 SMK has a much longer bearing surface than the 120 A-MAX, which may help explain why this was observed in the 142 SMK but not the 120 A-MAX.

"And how they did the shooting and barrel cut back seems very cheesy. I'd love to do it and do it right with precision loaded ammo and cutting the barrel back properly with a good crown each time."

Again- reread some of my posts regard methodology. What is less cheesy about crowning a barrel, we've shot sub MOA groups with Sawzall cut crowns, there is a lot of imperical data that suggests crowns don't effect accuracy as much as people think they do, go search accurateshooter/6mmbr

I'm going to suggest my reloading practices are most likely better than yours. I have access to a level of expertise and support most shooters/reloaders/shooting professionals can only dream of.

When you do your experiment and have the barrel crowned after each shot, how do you plan on controlling for air temperature? Which, I think we would agree matters. Well designed experiments have one variable, I controlled for air temp, barrel, ammunition, etc....

"The link gets it posted and passed around to get clicks and extra hits to their website, which increases their traffic. So, the add is doing it's job, true or false"

Yes- it does. Not a lot of imperial data on barrel length. It is popular because people want to know. I did so I started cutting up a bunch of rifles. It gives an indicator of observed values, rather than modeled values. They are popular and appreciated by thousands of shooters around the world.

Print "media" is dead and dying with good reason, they all sold out to manufacturers. There are only a few sites on the web that have great information and didn't sell out to manufactures. I believe I am the biggest of the guys "keeping it real". Read all of the posts on there and find you can find some objection too, I doubt you will. We publish all our groups and load development with guns as well as our recorded data.

Ironically, the first gun we hacked apart with a sawzall was a 300 Win Mag, we did it because a print "magazine" actually stated on a few occasions that the 190 Fed GM didn't increase in velocity after 20". So

Shoot me and email when you conduct your experiment. I'll help make it famous.

First, and my main issue with the entire article, is the article "implies" that anything over 24" in barrel length for a 6.5 CM will not yield any gain in velocity. That is 100% incorrect in the real world application. People don't take the time to read the disclaimers and the long explanations you provided. They see a chart, and see that after 24" of barrel length, velocity decreases and now post it up in forums stating so. Point in case HERE. .

Second, if a brand new barrel was used for this test, you will naturally start with it long and cut it down 1" at a time. A new barrel always starts out slow, and will pick up speed as you break the barrel in and the barrel gets seasoned in. So, the first shots starting at 30" would easily be the slowest of the barrel, which would yield slower speeds than after the barrel is broken in around 100-150 rounds. This is where the main flaw is. This data collected early on would not be realistic. Sure, you are reporting the results you got. But how the results were obtained are enormously flawed.



How do you know this? You don't even know my reloading practices. But I would like to know how you get a 25.7 and 29.0 SD on only 5 rounds shot, if your reloading practices are that good. Generally, an extreme spread is about 3x to 4x SD. On your 5 rounds, we are talking about 75 to 100 fps extreme spread on a 25 SD, and about an 87 to 116 fps extreme spread on a 29 SD. Why are these SD and ES numbers so high, if the ammo is so consistent? If it's not the ammo, what caused this high variation?




Do the experiment in the Spring, summer or Fall.

On the bearing surface, I think the 142 smk is in line with other similar bullets, so it's a good choice.
Bearing surface-
142 smk= .472”
140 vld= .500”
140 hybrid= .398”

I'm not dogging your site or you personally at all. And I do applaud your efforts and what you bring to the table. My main point is:

1- the testing methods of how a new barrel was used and not broken in prior to the testing caused the low fps early on in the testing
2- Then the results are posted where people only see the charts and then it is "assumed" that after 24" of barrel length there is no gain in velocity. In reality, that is not the case. Since you have done these tests before, I know you would agree with me on that.

The article doesn't imply that. Try reading it. Or, better yet, read the table...



Just because someone glanced at something and drew the wrong conclusion, and you seconded it, doesn't make it the correct one to draw.

I run SDs for 20 shot groups for my match rifles. Only for the bbl length testing and initial load development do we run 5 shot groups. I have a strong background in statistics, my first Masters dealt with stochastic modelling, so I understand the importance of sample size and the conclusions we draw from data.

I understand new barrels are speed up, however, the data we gathered for the 142, again, for one reason or the other, slowed down while the 120 didn't. I doubt that would have happened with a good barrel, but it was observed and recorded. That is called being intellectually honest. You publish the data you gather. The main reason we started using new barrels is because we can get them as long as we want.

As far as my SDs in that barrel, I blame the barrel. I have a few other premium barrels with the same chamber and they all have significantly lower SDs. Again, I didn't make up numbers, or results, which is what many writers, and many industry people trying to sell something would do.

As far as the OP trying to drive the 140s fast from the Creed, I'd always recommend looking at a 260 or 260 AI as alternatives. What I've noticed about some of these cartridges, is while you can get the velocity with a given load, it may not give you the accuracy you are looking for.

Went to the range to do the ladder test, but ran out of VLD 140's, so there are 3 tests for the 140 VLD and 5 tests for the 130 VLD, all full sized and new brass. The 140 VLD did one nice 3 in 1 hole but the 4th was a flyer, not sure why. I see some promise with two loads of 130 VLD's with 4 in one hole and another with 3 in one hole and one just above it but has high ES. Speed was around 2930 fps on last test of 130 VLD and 2750 fps with 140 VLD. None of the loads showed any high pressure. Opinions and what shall I look for next?

I'm reading it and the article specifically implies this and the posted results show this.

It looks promising, Stan. Keep going up, you have a lot more room to get speeds up.

I will, I'll be more careful from here on, so far no flat primers or sticky bolt yet. Still got to test the Hybrid 130 and 140 too.

So Why TF don't you just but a magnum if your want to make a 140gr 6.5 bullet go 3000 FPS Why do folks buy a gun and try to make it do what it was not designed to do??

I GUESS its like climbing a mountain:

"why do you want your 6.5 Creedmoor shoot a 140gr bullet 3000fps"?

"cause I can"

sorry never did see the need for this thinking ....but I'm an old, sour, thread trolling fart

That is the data set that was gathered. Read on...

Nice shooting. Take a look at the 136 Scenar L

You are proving my point exactly. Most shooters won't "read on". They look at a chart and make a conclusion based on flawed data.

So, answer 1 question, and 1 question only for me, which has not been addressed. Do you believe a 142 SMK will lose speed (or not gain any more speed) in a barrel longer than 24"? It's a yes or no question.

Don't need to get to 3,000 fps, just trying to find the sweet spot.

Hey Stan, I'm enjoying this thread, I have a new Creedmoor too. Its very interesting how all are guns are so different. I had to load 42.4 H4350 to get to 2710fps.