Which one and why?

I got popcorn ready lol.

Geez get a 7-08!

Depends on your goals. If you’re never going to shoot long distance and do not mind the additional recoil the .270 is an excellent hunting round. If you’re going to spend a lot of time at the bench it’s not near as shoulder friendly. Everyone here will quickly tell you that you must shoot the 6.5 because of its high BC bullets, accuracy, and in fact it may be second coming. What it is is a well engineered, well supported round that absolutely gets the job done. It does not have the energy of the .270 in short to medium range though. At distance it outclasses it easily.

Search this forum.

Give the timespan as many years as possible.

270 of course - because I'm not into designer jeans, man buns, or vaping.

I so resemble this remark.

I used a 270 for 30ish years and switched to a 260 (same ballistics as the CM) about 5 years ago. For long distance target shooting, go with the 6.5 CM. If you are just hunting, either will work just fine. For general paper punching, I prefer the 260, mostly due to lower recoil. Again, with hunting in mind, the 270 is just a bigger helping of energy than the 6.5 CM.

6.5 CM will push a 120 gr Ballistic Tip (what I shoot) at 2900 to a max of 3000 FPS.
270 will push a 130 gr Ballistic Tip (what I shoot) at 3000 to maybe 3200 FPS max.

Somebody is bound to push the joys of the higher ballistic coefficient bullets available for the 6.5 CM as a reason to suggest it over the 270, but inside normal hunting distances BC doesn’t matter much, if at all. It matters big, however, to the long range guys.

In my experiences in shooting both calibers, and despite having been a huge fan of the 270 for decades, I have come to the conclusion that the 260/6.5 CM is all you need. Plenty of killing power and not much recoil. Even in a real light rifle, it won’t punish your shoulder. I enjoy punching paper with it, more so than with the 270. And every deer season I say that I’m going to use the 270 this year, but I don’t.

I am thinking about putting together another 7-08, already have two good shooting 270's and am not going to grow a man bun.

Damn Kyle, he just called you straight the F out

Lol touché, but at least my jeans don’t have Rhinestones on the back.

Mine don't either bish. It is the stitching they are obsessed about

My first deer rifle was a .270 Win. Over the next 30 years, I killed a truckload of deer with that round. Two years ago, I bought a 6.5 CM for my boys to use when they come down to hunt with me. Did a lot of research, focusing on lighter recoil, accuracy, and ballistics. After shooting the rifle for a while and watching the oldest two take some game with it, I bought myself a left-hand model in 6.5 CM. The .270 stays in the safe these days. Never considered myself a band wagon kinda guy, but I certainly jumped on this one. Would do it again.

Starting a 270 vs creed thread on THF is akin to cheering for Texas from Oklahoma sidelines, or vice versa.

Also, by now, I bet anyone that creates a .270 vs creed thread already knows which and why.

The very first centerfire rifle I purchased was a beautiful Ruger M77 MKII in 270 from a store named Oshmans sporting goods in Mesquite TX. It had beautiful figured walnut and a deeply glossed finish on the bluing. At the time of purchase I also added a Leupold base and rings as well as a 3x9 Vari-X II which they mounted and boresighted for me while I waited. I also threw in a Norinco SKS for good measure for $89. I bought one box of every 270 ammunition they had in stock, which if I remember correctly was about 6 different types. I essentially spent my whole tax return in one stop, but my mind was made up, so IIRC i was $1500 all in.

I immediately drove right to Targetmaster indoor range in Garland to shoot my new prized possession that I lusted after just like that kid in the movie Christmas Story did with the red ryder.

Long story longer, I placed my target at 50 yards and when all said and done, I had a minor bout of scope eye, a bruised shoulder, 10 rds of ammo left in each box, and the best target of the day at around 2 inches........at 50 freaking yards.

I drove right back to Oshmans and took the rifle right back to the gun counter and told them that the rifle was broken. The "gunsmith" looked it over and suggested it was the Leupold that I had selected. He offered me a straight swap to the Nikon equivalent (which I cannot remember what it was called). I agreed and he mounted and boresighted the new Nikon.

I drove right back to Targetmaster, bruised eyebrow and shoulder and my 6 half boxes of ammo and ran another target to 50. I left there pissed the F off at that rifle and called it quits for the day and drove home. I took it to the Big Town gun show that weekend and traded it for a nice L1A1 (FAL) that proved more accurate with its rudimentary iron sights than the fancy, beautiful, no shooting Ruger in 270. I wasn't interested in inaccurate rifles even at that age, and I immediately blamed it on the caliber in my immature brain.

Fast forward more than 2 decades and i ran across a killer deal on a custom 270 in my local pawn shop. Another Ruger, this time an American with a custom stock and barrel and brake. It included a scope that was worth more than their asking price, so I made the buy just for that reason.

Begrudgingly, i headed to Academy and purchased 2 boxes of ammunition of different types. A good friend of mine ended up giving me 7 or 8 boxes he had left over from a 270 that he sold, so I had a really good variety.

While this rifle shot hands down better than the previous rifle I had, it was, at-best an inch and a half rifle at 100 yards. Good enough for most, but it didnt show me enough to put in the effort of buying dies and trying to get it under MOA, so I pulled the scope and sold the rifle for what I originally bought it for.

After all this, I told myself I would not mess with 270 again, although I still think the round has its merits. Just about every 308, 6.5, 6mm, 7mm that I have shot has been more accurate than the small sample size of 2 270s that I possessed. I feel like thats a sign, at least for me. Fool me once, fool me twice, etc.

My main hunting rifle used to be a savage in .270. Easily sub moa, and I loved it. The economy of divorce forced the sale of that rifle, and I hunted with a 30/30 for 2 years. As my situation improved, bought another savage, but this time in 6.5 as my main hunting rifle. After 2 years with that one, I had a BAR in .270 that I traded for, and that one is squeezing out the 6.5 as my main hunting rifle. I still use the 6.5, and both will do what you want it to do out to 300 yards. Past that, the 6.5 gets the nod. What you are comparing is apples to oranges. At normal hunting distances, I almost like the .270 better. Maybe I need to try 120 gr. In the 6.5. It looks like they are ballisically similar comparing those two weights. I guess the short version would be that I like them both.

30-06 cause 2 world wars.

I still don't get why the two get compared. Long action versus short action.

.270 vs .284 Win vs 280 vs 280 A.I. vs .30-06 vs 6.5-284 <<That would make sense.

I’ve killed more with the 270 by far......it’s a great round and shooting 130s isn’t bad on the shoulder at all and I have killed with it out to 350 yards with confidence. If I was choosing between the 2 and my goal for a rifle was hunting 300 yards or less for hunting only I would choose the 270 if I could get a better deal on it........

Josh is the only dude I know that bedazzles his jeans.

You Grayson County boys are weird.

I have two .270's (Remington Model 700 and Weatherby Vanguard) and they are both consistent shooters with every brand/load of ammo I've ever shot through them. I also own two Savage rifles, one being a Model 110 bolt-action chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor. The Creedmoor is without question the pickiest rifle I've ever owned for getting consistent performance with different brands/loads of ammo. It groups just about every brand very well, but the individual groups are all over the target.

Based on what I've seen with my Creedmoor and knowing its development history, I believe the bullet was built around a specific load to achieve it's long range accuracy. Once you veer off from that load, it's hit or miss when looking for some other, less expensive brand/load that performs equally well. This leads me to believe that while many people enjoy bragging about their Creedmoor, it's more because they feel they have something everyone wants rather than it's true wide-range performance. It could be just another example of where a lot of marketing hype got a lot of buyers to bite. They go out and buy one and then use the same load (Hornady 143 grain ELD-X) that everyone recommends and it shoots great. But God help them if they should try anything else.

My Remington Model 700 .270 continues to hold it's place as my "go to" rifle.

I found a pic of Kyle's jeans from the last match.

LOL I can't with y'all.

Between those .270

For a hunting rifle not a boatload of difference between the two of them. Pick which one you prefer and get on down the road. Likely neither you or the deer/hogs/elk/bear etc. will be able to tell much difference.

Why do they get compared? They are both middle of the road popular hunting cartridges in todays day and age. I doubt anyone but a select few really care that one is short and one is long action.

You might want to recheck the history - it was around for a decade before the 143 was introduced. And I know a lot of people that shoot 120s and 130s in their Creedmoor. I'm sorry yours is picky, maybe you got a Monday or Friday rifle? I haven't shot lighter rounds in mine, but it has shot the 143 ELDX (both factory and handloads), as well as the 140 AMAX and 140 ELDM well under 1" at 100 yds, 5 shot groups.

I'll bet the OP wants to hunt deer and hogs with the rifle. Don't get me wrong, 30-06 is a great round but WWIII would be next and 30-06 is not likely to be the rifle to make any difference.

I’ve only loaded for one 260 and one 6.5 CM, so the sample size is too small to matter, but the Tikka 260 and the Bergara 6.5 CM both were easy to handload for. Using just the 120 gr Ballistic Tip in both rifles, I got small, smaller, and tiny groups. Everyone talks about using H4350 in the CM, and I now wholeheartedly agree with that.

It was similarly easy to get my Sako 270 to shoot well. H4831, and Jack O’Conner was right.

I never thought the 270 kicked much, but after much shooting with the 260, the 270 recoil has gotten way more noticeable. I got older too, so maybe that’s a factor.

Anyway, if the OP likes to punch paper when he’s not hunting, the 6.5CM will be more pleasant.

Wasn't O'Conner's load a 130 grain with 60 grains of 4831? That is a heavy stout load and above what most load data calls a max these days. No small wonder a 120 our of a 260 or creedmor recoils less.

I stopped at 59 grains. No pressure signs, so maybe I could have gone to 60 grains. You think O’Conner would have called me a wuss?

In the 6.5 Creedmoor you are burning 10 or more grains of powder per load with about the same weight bullets. That will be exhibited in less recoil if the guns weigh the same weight. Like others have said game will not really know they were shot with one or the other, especially dear sized critters. '

I own neither but have killed deer with the 270 and watched others fall to them and they dang sure work, I also do not own a creedmoor but have shot deer and hogs with loads with the same type 6.5 bullets at the same velocities and they work well,

Agree with those that say id just hunting flip a coin, either will work well. If planning to shoot often I would go Creedmoor with less recoil it will be more fun to shoot more.

Yes, I found that Hornady Black BTHP 140 grain loads, which also fall within my $20/box price point, provide groups within the same 3-inch circle at 100 yards as their ELD-X loads. But I'm still leaning towards the 125-grain Winchester XP's as being my "go to" ammo because of my preference for a lighter bullet.

Here's another point worth making.

I'm sure most guys have a "go to" brand of ammo they always start with after any new rifle purchase. For me, that would be either Remington CorLokt and Federal Fusion. After all, when you find two brands and loads shoot well in your 30-30, .243, 25-06, and .270, you naturally believe they're going to shoot well in your newest rifle. The first load I tried and zeroed my scope with my Creedmoor was the widely recommended Hornady 143-grain ELD-X. The rifle grouped extremely well with them. Naturally, my next move was to try my "go to" loads since they have always shot well in every other rifle I own. I honestly thought I had an issue with the bases and rings when they produced groups nowhere close to the Hornady ammo. In fact, I even went so far as to change to see if the performance between the three brands of ammo would fall closer to one another. All this did was confirm the same differences in performance as before.

Maybe the lesson learned here is that whenever you buy a new rifle, ignore what others are saying and start off shooting and zeroing your scope to the load you have found shoots great in all your other rifles. Just because someone recommends some other load, that doesn't mean it will perform just like your old "go to" ammo. In other words, if I had never tried the Hornady ammo, I would likely have never seen a need to do so.

I've heard several people praise the XP loads in several calibers.

When I see some dude without a man bun who is not vaping and not wearing NASCAR pants toting a creedmoor, I know he is just a wannabe and prolly has a 270 in the closet.

Good pic, nice deer.

I decided to answer this troll thread haha. For me, the270. Because I feel it is a little more capable hunting round and it doesn't look like i will ever get into LR shooting.

It must kill them deader than the Creedmor.

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

My comment was tongue & cheek. I know the 270 Wins on the ballistic chart at hunting ranges. It should, it burns a lot more powder and it's a long action cartridge. I'm not trying to get you to grow a man bun and buy a Creedmoor. I don't have one and don't see me every buying one. I usually shoot a 308 and it's plenty for the distance I hunt.

Care to elaborate?

You never know some people get all heated over their caliber of choice haha, i have had a couple of 270s in the past but own neither of these rounds at this point

If you are a hand loader there are powders and bullets available for the 270 that were not around years ago. Reloder 26 powder and 145 gr ELD-X have breathed new life in the 270 Winchester. The problem with Reloder 26 is temp sensitivity, in hunting conditions it will not be noticeable unless your hunting in high humidity and temps over 95 degrees. However the horse power that RL26 brings to the table is good and I would hope there will be temp stable version soon.

Nothing wrong with the 6.5 CM, Hornady has played that market well and it does well within its parameters. The ballistics of a 6.5 PRC and the 270 are more interesting to me than the 6.5CM but one will not see a 270 at the firing line of a PRS match, it is a hunting cartridge with several more pounds of recoil. The long action vs short action argument will always be around, if you need a few milliseconds for a follow up shot maybe look at a semi auto of some sort

I am glad that long range matches and long range hunting is popular now, its a good time to be a hand loader.

I was referring more to powder capacity than length. Many actions like Tikka are one size so length doesn't matter. The non magnum short action cartridges are usually very efficient with a little less recoil but still very effective on game. There is a point where slightly better performance cost a lot in powder and recoil.

I own both. I enjoy them equally and both kill deer and pigs. If you torn between the two just get both of them. Good lord this is the USA you can’t have too many rifles.

Normal hunting distances the .270 carries more energy and can literally be found in any store that sells ammo including the small town mom and pops or small grocery stores that sell ammo. I have both but unless someone is target shooting or recoil sensitive I pick .270 if having to choose

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.