Editor’s Introductory Note: The following is a guest article authored by John McAdams, the founder of The Big Game Hunting Blog and hosts The Big Game Hunting Podcast. He kindly wrote it for SurvivalBlog, at my request. I recommend bookmarking both his blog and his podcast. Great stuff.
—
With the continued popularity of the 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge, it’s only natural that some people are considering equipping themselves with a rifle chambered in the cartridge for use in a When The Schumer Hits The Fan (WTSHTF) situation. Countless hunters and shooters have embraced the 6.5 Creedmoor in recent years, but many others are understandably skeptical about making the switch over to the relatively new cartridge.
The 6.5 Creedmoor is a well-designed cartridge that does indeed offer certain advantages to the user when compared to some of the other more popular and more well-established centerfire rifle cartridges. That said, it’s not perfect either. In this article, I’m going to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the 6.5 Creedmoor so you can make a well informed decision on whether or not you should be using it in a survival situation.
First, we’ll start off with a short history of the 6.5 Creedmoor as well as what it was originally designed for.
The venerable .308 Winchester was an incredibly popular choice among competitive shooters for many years. More recently, Dave Emary and Dennis DeMille of Hornady Manufacturing and Creedmoor Sports set about developing a new cartridge that would outperform the .308 Winchester in that application. Their goal was a mass-produced and extremely accurate cartridge that had less recoil, a flatter trajectory, more resistance to wind drift than the .308 Winchester.
Formally released in 2007, the new 6.5 Creedmoor used a .30 Thompson Center case necked down to 6.5mm (.264”). The new cartridge was specifically designed with a long neck and with a relatively large powder capacity that enables it to successfully use extremely aerodynamic bullets without intruding into the powder column. Additionally, even when using very long, high ballistic coefficient (BC) bullets, the cartridge also fits in a short action magazine just like the .308 Winchester.
While there are now countless loads available for the cartridge using bullets of various weights, the prototypical 6.5 Creedmoor load fires a 140 grain bullet at around 2,700 feet per second. Those are not extremely impressive ballistics on paper, but the cartridge is very efficient and has light recoil. Additionally, the cartridge is also capable of using very high BC bullets that retain energy and resist wind drift well, both of which are excellent traits for long range shooting.
Indeed, the designers of the 6.5 Creedmoor largely achieved their goal of building an ideal rifle cartridge for competitive shooting: it’s very accurate, but also has less bullet drop, less recoil, and more resistance to wind drift than the .308 Winchester at extended range.
Not surprisingly, the 6.5 Creedmoor has been well received by the competitive shooting community. At the same time, many North American hunters have also started using the cartridge as well in recent years for game like deer and elk.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Now let’s talk about the performance of the 6.5 Creedmoor and the advantages and disadvantages it offers when compared to the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester.
While the 6.5 Creedmoor offers comparable performance to other similarly sized cartridges that fire .264”/6.5mm bullets (like the 6.5×55 Swedish Mauser and the .260 Remington), it’s frequently compared to the .308 Winchester cartridge. This makes sense when you consider the fact that the 6.5 Creedmoor was specifically designed to improve upon the .308 Winchester for use in high power rifle matches.
Additionally, the .308 Winchester and the .223 Remington are two of the most popular rifle cartridges people select for use in a SHTF situation. Since a person considering using the 6.5 Creedmoor would likely be either replacing a rifle in either cartridge with one in 6.5 Creedmoor, or potentially using the Creedmoor to supplement one or both of the other two cartridges, it makes sense to compare the pros and cons of each one.
As previously stated, the 6.5 Creedmoor was originally designed for long range competitive shooting and it excels in this role. At 500 to 1,000+ yards, the 6.5 Creedmoor offers a clear advantage over the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester in terms of trajectory, retained energy, and wind drift.
The United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) recently conducted an assessment comparing the 6.5 Creedmoor to the .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO cartridge in their sniper rifles that illustrates this well. They concluded that the 6.5 Creedmoor had double the hit probability, a 33% increase in effective range, 30% more energy on target, and had 40% less wind drift at 1,000 meters when compared to the 7.62x51mm NATO.
But that’s not really the case at shorter range. At 250 yards, most loads for the three cartridges have a very similar trajectory. The 6.5 Creedmoor does have a little bit less wind drift than the .223 and .308 at 250 yards, but it’s not a gigantic difference. The Creedmoor does have quite a bit more kinetic energy than the .223 Remington at that range. At the same time, so does the .308 Winchester though and that cartridge also has a definite advantage in kinetic energy over the 6.5 Creedmoor at 250 yards.
So, while the 6.5 Creedmoor is certainly a capable choice at shorter ranges, the ballistic advantages it offers are most apparent at longer range.
Other Factors
There’s also more to determining the effectiveness of a given cartridge than just looking at trajectory, wind drift, and kinetic energy.
For instance, let’s talk about sectional density and frontal surface area. Sectional density (SD) is a measure of the ratio of the diameter of a projectile to its mass. All other things equal, a heavier projectile of a given caliber will be longer and therefore have a higher sectional density than a lighter and shorter projectile. Consequently, the higher SD projectile should also penetrate deeper than projectiles with a lower sectional density (all other things equal of course).
The majority of .223 Remington factory loads shoot bullets in the 35-90 grain range. Of these, 55 grain, 62 grain, and 77 grain bullet weights are the most common. On the other hand, the 6.5 Creedmoor typically shoots bullet weights in the 95-160 grain range, with 120, 140, and 143 grain bullets being the most common. Finally, most .308 Winchester factory loads use bullets in the 110-180 grain range. 150 grain, 165 grain, 168 grain, and 180 grain bullets are the most popular for that cartridge.
The 55 grain, 62 grain, and 77 grain .224” bullets have sectional densities of .157, .177, and .219 respectively. The .308 Winchester typically shoots bullets with a slightly higher sectional density. 150 grain, 168 grain, and 180 grain .308” bullets have sectional densities of .226, .253, and .271 respectively. Compare those figures to 120 grain, 140 grain, and 143 grain .264” bullets with sectional densities .246, .287, and .293 respectively.
As you can see, the .308 Winchester and 6.5 Creedmoor both have a pretty sizeable advantage over the .223 Remington in this area, but the 6.5 Creedmoor has a slight edge over the .308 Winchester when comparing heavy for caliber bullets for each cartridge. This is part of the reason why the 6.5 Creedmoor tends to “punch above its weight” and is more effective on larger game than you’d likely think at first just by looking at the ballistics of the cartridge on paper.
When comparing the frontal surface area (also known as cross sectional area) of the bullets used by each cartridge, the .308 Winchester comes out on top. Since it uses larger diameter bullets, it has about 36% more frontal surface area than the 6.5 Creedmoor (.0745 vs .0547 square inches) and about 90% more frontal surface area than the .223 Remington (.0745 vs .0394 square inches). The 6.5 Creedmoor has about 40% more frontal surface area than the .223 Remington.
All other things being equal, a bigger bullet will make a bigger hole, cause more tissue damage, and result in more blood loss. So, the 6.5 Creedmoor is right in the middle here between the smaller .223 and the larger .308.
Recoil
Now let’s talk about recoil. The 6.5 Creedmoor was specifically designed to produce less recoil than the .308 Winchester. For the most part, that’s the case in the field and typical 6.5 Creedmoor loads produce 20-30% less recoil than comparable .308 Winchester loads when fired from a rifle of the same weight. Even so, the 6.5 Creedmoor can’t compare to the exceptionally mild shooting .223 Remington in this area.
Most shooters should be able to handle the recoil of all three cartridges. However, it’s a pretty big step down in recoil from the .308 Winchester to the 6.5 Creedmoor and an even bigger step down in recoil from the 6.5 Creedmoor to the .223 Remington.
Don’t underestimate the impact that recoil has on the ability of a person to shoot accurately. Regardless of how well a given person handles recoil, all other things being equal, they will absolutely shoot better with a milder recoil. This is especially true in situations where a rapid follow up shot is necessary and it will be much easier and faster to get back on target for another shot with a mild recoiling cartridge.
Finally, no comparison of these three cartridges for use in a survival situation would be complete without a discussion on the logistics of using each cartridge. Availability of ammunition for each one is an essential consideration, but barrel life and ammunition weight are important as well.
The .223 Remington is physically the smallest of the three cartridges and the .308 Winchester is the largest. Exact weights vary depending on the specific loads we’re comparing for each cartridge, but an individual 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge typically weighs about 80-90% more than a .223 Remington cartridge and about 10% less than a .308 Winchester cartridge. So, 220 rounds of 6.5 Creedmoor ammo weighs about the same as 200 rounds of .308 Winchester ammo or about 405 rounds of .223 ammo.
Shorter Barrel Life
When it comes to barrel life, it’s true that the 6.5 Creedmoor tends to burn out barrels faster than the others. While the details vary depending on many factors like the quality of the barrel and the exact ammo used, typical 6.5 Creedmoor barrel life is usually around 2,000-3,000 rounds. A serious target shooter can go through that much ammo in a very short period of time, but that’s not really the case for someone using a 6.5 Creedmoor purely for hunting or self-defense.
It will take a long time for the average person to shoot 2,000 rounds through their rifle. Even then, accuracy will drop off, but the rifle won’t become unusable. For those reasons, barrel life is something to keep in mind, but it’s not a gigantic concern unless you the rifle you plan on using if things hit the fan already has a lot of rounds through it. In that case, it’s probably a good idea to get a new barrel for that rifle while you can.
As far as ammunition availability goes, all three cartridges are extremely popular in the United States and there is an abundance of ammunition available for the .223 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor, and .308 Winchester. The .223 Remington and .308 Winchester stand head and shoulders above the 6.5 Creedmoor in this area though.
In short, there’s a very good supply of 6.5 Creedmoor ammo, but it’s not nearly as common or as reasonably priced as ammo for the other two. For instance, the sporting goods store by my house is currently selling 18 different 6.5 Creedmoor hunting and target shooting loads. That’s not bad, but it pales in comparison to the 54 different loads for the .308 Winchester and 60 .223 Remington loads the same store had in stock. While those numbers represent availability at a single store, they more or less jive with availability online as well.
This is especially true if you have a rifle capable of shooting both .223 and 5.56x45mm or .308 and 7.62x51mm ammunition. The days of finding high quality military surplus West German, Portuguese, South African, or even American 7.62x51mm ammo for extremely low prices are long gone. However, but it’s still a lot easier to find good quality surplus 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition that’s substantially leas expensive than what you can find for the 6.5 Creedmoor. In that same vein, Brown Bear, Tula, and Wolf are all also options for inexpensive .223 Remington or .308 Winchester ammo, but 6.5 Creedmoor ammo is not available as part of those lines.
All things considered, the least expensive 6.5 Creedmoor ammo is significantly more expensive than many options for the .308 Winchester or (especially) the .223 Remington. High end hunting and match ammo for the 6.5 and the .308 are similarly priced though and both are quite a bit more expensive than high end ammo for the .223 Remington.
It Isn’t Just a Fad
The 6.5 Creedmoor has been around for 12 years at this point and it seems to still be growing in popularity. So, while it may never be as popular or as reasonably priced as cartridges like the .223, .308. or .30-06, it’s probably safe to say at this point that the cartridge not a fad either and it likely won’t be going away anytime soon. Even so, it’s still going to be much harder to find 6.5 Creedmoor ammo than the others if normal supply chains are interrupted.
The importance of each of these factors really depends on the individual user and the circumstances.
If you foresee being in a situation where long range shooting (over 500 yards) is likely, then it could very well make sense to use a rifle chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor. In that situation, you’ll be able to really take advantage of the benefits the 6.5 Creedmoor offers. Make sure you have plenty of ammunition on hand because it will probably be tough to find more.
Aside from those circumstances, the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester are probably better choices than the 6.5 Creedmoor for use in a survival situation. The 6.5 Creedmoor still very capable and effective for both hunting and defense at shorter range, but it doesn’t offer a gigantic advantage over the other two cartridges at short to moderate range. Additionally, 6.5 Creedmoor ammunition is both more expensive and not as common as the others.
There’s nothing wrong with using the 6.5 Creedmoor and it’s an excellent all-around rifle cartridge. It excels in certain situations. And, if your particular circumstances allow, the 6.5 Creedmoor can be an excellent supplement to rifles chambered in .223, 7.62×39, or .308. However, as much as some people love it these days, be sure you keep the disadvantages of using the cartridge in mind and conduct a sober analysis of what you’ll be using it for before you decide to roll with just one rifle chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor if things hit the fan.
I want to say this was a great article but I need to disagree slightly on one thing. Ammo prices between the 308 and the 6.5, when it comes to 308 the surplus market is spotty for bolt guns, a majority of modern bolt guns have trouble dealing with the hardened primer cups on milsurp ammo so that generally removes the $0.50 a round surplus from the equation. So then you look at the Winchester white box and similar commercial cheap 308 in the $11-13 a box range as the bottom price, seller and Bellot makes a 140gr 6.5 ammo that is brass cased and reload able that sells in the $12-13 a box range, but it isn’t FMJ like the 308 it’s either a soft point or they have a BTHP match ammo for that price range. So comparing apples to apples the 6.5 can be equal or cheaper then 308 when comparing like bullet types
Go read Boston’s Gun Bible written 15 years ago. He points out that the 6.5 Creedmore is what the .308 should have been from the beggining. Hard to argue with the same weight bullet in a higher ballistic coefficient. The 6.5 Grendel with lighter bullets would have been a better cartridge than the .223. So at this point in time we have what we have accumulated. I have been to numerous long range schools and competitions where if 10 shooters of equal skill were on the line, and 1 man showed up with a .308 and everyone else had a 6.5 Creedmore, the best the .308 shooter could hope for was usually around 8th place. 8th place would be due to luck. So yes the 6.5 is ballistically superior to the .308. If I knew I was facing long range on a critical target, I wouldn’t bring either cartridge. I would go with a magnum cartridge. At least a 7mm Rem mag, but more likely the .300 win mag or even the .338 lapua. More energy on target and better ballistics than the .308 or 6.5 Creedmore. In time we will probably see tula and wolf making 6.5 Creedmore. I will still never get rid of my .223 and .308.
My answer would be why not stock all three? If money is an issue then stick with a .223. I don’t see much difference in the 6.5 from a .270 or 6.5 x 55 and good quality bolt guns in that caliber can be had for $400 or so and ammo is common.
Semi-auto .308 in M1A is my go to gun and I’m too old to change now for a slight gain in ballistics. Most people will not shoot anything past 300 yards unless they practice A LOT so good luck.
Cactus
I agree on the .308 and the rifle type. My M1A Socom would be my run out the door bug out rifle if I had to just grab one long gun. I once shot a ( probably couldn’t do it again ) 3 shot group ( from the bench ) of slightly over an inch using Silver Bear zinc plated .308 147 gr ammo. I had witnesses. Not bragging but only noting the rifle is very accurate if built on a Wednesday, ha.
One of my customers told me how effective his 6.5 is on white tails deer. He is very impressed by several one shot kills. I agree it’s a very nice cartridge but how many different calibers can you have and stock? I already have to many. Maybe if I lived out west I’d get one. Longer shots there than back here in WI.
I worked at an indoor range with an indoor 100yd rifle range for a long time, and the one thing I did notice was that while .223 and .308 rifles were particular about what ammo they would shoot well, every 6.5 Creedmoor rifle I shot was very accurate with everything you put in it. It also didn’t matter what brand of rifle it was or how expensive it was. That was what impressed me most about that cartridge.
Cactus Jack, they make an M1A in 6.5 Creedmoor!
Pinecone One……. The shortcomings in price and availability are well understood by those of us who have had extensive experience with the Creedmore. That said, the advantages at long range are significant when examining the cartridge purely within the sniper role. A few hundred rounds of carefully selected and tested factory or precision reloads could last a very long time for the survivalist sniper. A well built rifle in 6.5, can not only be shot well by most, it’s incredible accuracy and precision make it fully capable of touching those who would bring you harm at ridiculously LONGGGGGGG RANGES…….. Sorry for yelling.
My uncle was a police sniper and an old friend of mine placed 5th in the Military Nationals at 600 yards. Both excellent long range shooters and both emphatically stated the 6.5 caliber was the best long range caliber at least until you get into something extreme. My uncle had a custom made 6.5-06 that was a very good 1000 yard gun. He spent his last days in Wyoming and shot a lot of prairie dogs with it at extreme range. It was the most accurate gun I have ever shot by far. He loved that rifle.
That said, I have nothing in 6.5. Maybe some day.
Nothing against what you’ve written, but comparison to the 6.5×55 might have been more on point.
Comparison with 7mm-08?
While I can certainly imagine a situation in a world gone feral that I might need to take a thousand yard shot, I consider it to be very unlikely. I am sure that few deer hunters in the US will be switching to the 6.5 Creedmoor.
Of course, this isn’t a gun forum, as such, but firearms discussions are appropriate as they obviously touch on their applications for survival uses. Even in a survival situation, however, explaining the need to use deadly force at 1000 yards could be problematic when order is restored. Just sayin’.
Were I 30 years younger and if I didn’t have as much invested in .300 Winchester Magnum, .308, and 5.56 ammo, I just might give the 6.5 Creedmoor a try. Given the terrain in which I live and the likelihood that I would even need to use the .300 Winchester Magnum, I will stick to what I have.
I believe that the Army placed an order for a 6.8 mm firearm in the past year. I don’t know anything about its ballistics. I’m wondering how that will work out and whether the 6.8 mm will be serious competition for the 6.5 Creedmoor. If it does, will the 6.5 Creedmoor be the new .41 Magnum or 10 mm? They were the shiny new toy until they weren’t anymore.
1000 yard shots may be hard to justify as defensive, but the feedback I get from veterans from the Middle East is that out in the countryside, if both groups are armed only with carbine calibers, there is a very quick filtering of engagement range to somewhere in excess of 300 yards, and most typically around 500.
In that case, having a Designated Marksman with a rifle capable of reliably making 1 minute shots out to 600 yards or so is decisive, even for defense of a static position. Which incidentally is exactly what our military has gone to with the M110.
By coincidence, my son was a cav scout in Iraq and was a designated marksman for his unit in the 101st Airborne. He carried both an M4 and an M14. (That doesn’t add anything to my credentials, of course.)
I have a friend who lives in Utah. It is possible for him to see 1000 yards, and more, in almost every direction from his home. I get this. Most readers don’t live in such circumstances, however.
All I am saying is that, with the prevailing laws in this country, after a person with bad intent has removed himself as a threat, law enforcement will come down hard on the shooter who uses deadly force. A storekeeper, for example, can’t track down a robber three blocks away and kill him and expect the DA not to prosecute.
During the period the world has turned feral, one might apply the “3 S Solution.” “Shoot, shovel, and shut up.” Afterward, questions might be asked.
You shoot 1,000 yards for fun. When Schumer hits I’ll take my 100 to 400 yard 7.62 by 39 and 51 any day. They make nice big holes with shock and anything hit by them practically anywhere are out of the game. I can find the rounds virtually anywhere with large selection.
In the army training it was drilled into our heads KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Not that I think anyone is stupid mind you 🙂
thanks for sharing great infomation. i would also be interested in an article on the .300 Remington ultra mag
6,5 cred has become my go to ,it replaced the 264 win when it needed it’s second barrel ,have setup 6.5 cred uppers on the AR 10s , for my saddle rifle it’s a ruger American 6.5 cred with a 1to 4 30mm scope , replacing a win 94 in 25 35 I look at a rifle as a tool ,wants the best tool for the job ? The cred will shoot across a canyon and still knock down a coyote ,or a bear that’s killing calfs ,
Ammo is every were now ten years ago I hand loaded now I don’t pick up the brass when I’m out
The same suppresser off the 308 works ,that’s nice when shooting off horse back ,or playing and shooting out the kitchen door ,have 25,,100,,200 yd gongs ,set up for 800 yds but to much work to chase targets
Have tryed different bullet wt like 140s the open tip match will just about tear a coyote in half if hit right ,,, not sure that would be a good match on game you were going to try to eat ,
Like hornady ammo best but have yet to have any truly bad ammo from any brand
Since I switched to 6.5 haven’t looked at a rack full of others except to play ,
Just experience from one that’s doing it
Tea and chocolate
I, like many here, will not be switching out of 7.62 NATO. There are no loads out there in military ball- particularly steel-jacketed machine gun ball, in 6.5 Creed. Why is that important to me? Because I have a thousand trees all over my place, and having the ability to shoot THROUGH trees is valuable.
What we we have here is an “It’ll gun”. “It’ll do this”, It’ll do that”, but when it hits the Westinghouse, little of this will matter. We haven’t seen any armor piercing ammo in 6.5, and likely never will. If the government develops one, it won’t be released to the public for general sale.
Waiting for someone to compare any (every) 6.5 load to 7.62 NATO on live trees. I’ll bet on the NATO round every time.
Barrel life on the 7.62/.308 is at least ten times what it is on 6.5. The Army Marksmanship Training Unit at Benning doesn’t re-barrel their practice M14s until around 80,000. But they clean their barrels (or at least leave them wet with Hoppes #9 overnight, every day.
Leaving copper fouling in a bore is a major cause of accuracy problems over the life of the barrel, assuming you’re not using a bore burner like 6.5 Creed, .264 Win Mag, 7mm Rem Mag, and the other over-bore cartridges. Screaming performance has a price. Hope you have an armorer and a supply of spare barrels. Or, you can just use proven, widely available, established calibers that have “gotten it done” all over the globe for 65 years.
The 6.5 is great for shooters who love to tinker and punch holes in cardboard at a range.
IMHO .308 Winchester is way more versatile all round. Like the 30-06, it gets the job done, which is what matters. Spend your extra dollars on other things–like food and toilet paper.
I have 7,500 rounds of 7.62X51 for $3,000. Call me when 6.5 Creedmoor comes anywhere near this price.
One important thing that I thought was not discussed is suitability for different types of actions.
6.5 Creedmoor was designed from the ground up as the most efficient platform for 6.5mm 120-142gr bullets. As such, it has a steep shoulder angle and less wall taper than the .308 Win. In my mind, this makes the Creed really only suitable for bolt actions, whereas the .308 was designed to be suitable for fully automatic firearms.
So: I have a purpose built .308 AR10 DMR rifle with an 18″ barrel and 3-15x scope. It’s effective range is 800 yards but it’s not terribly hampered in urban style operations (I find it interesting that the US military is currently reworking the M110 platform in this direction.) My “Ma Bell” rifle is a .338 Lapua Mag that I’m working up to shooting at one mile, but it’s ridiculously easy to shoot at 1000 yards with it. For me, this seems to leave a very narrow niche for a 6.5 Creed, at least from a tactical standpoint.
Don’t get me wrong, my next project is to rebarrel an old .308 tactical style bolt rifle to 6.5 Creed, but it will mainly be for PRS matches to keep developing skills.
If someone owned nothing but AR15 platform rifles and wanted to add one single bolt gun for precision work out to 1k, I think 6.5 Creed fits that bill perfectly.
308, 5.56 , when shtf how those two will be easier to find or trade for than a what??? Now if you think shtf will never happen, then by all means go for it.
For more of a midway point between 5.55 and 7.62 x 51, it seems that the .243 is a well-established, very common caliber. If upgraded to 1:9 twist, and loaded with a 120-grain projectile, it has quite a ballistic coefficient, low recoil, lower cartridge weight. But the 100-grain version that is on all the store shelves is pretty effective anywhere in the rifleman’s quarter mile. And if you want, you can lighten the cartridge up all the way to 55 grain projectiles. However, it is a civilian cartridge, with no supply of surplus linked ammo, tracers, or AP.
Looks like memory got confused there between .243 and .257, for weight and twist. .243 seems to top out at about 107 grains with accelerated twist, with 95 being near ideal for maximum aerodynamics in the common twist rate of barrels.
I believe that the 6.8mm should have been added to the article. More and more organizations have been adopting this round.
When I was hunting in Newfoundland we went into the local super center which was about 600 sq. ft. in area and had one gas pump out front. I checked out the ammo they had on the shelf and it consisted of one box of 30-06 and one box of 45-70. When I think of having a gun in a SHTF scenario I think of having something in a caliber that is real common. I don’t think it would be 6.5 creedmore. I’ll stick with my 308 or 30/30. Lots of that ammo around.