Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

Get or give advice on equipment, reloading and other technical issues.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
John Weigel
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:51 am

Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#1 Postby John Weigel » Wed Dec 21, 2022 8:00 pm

Unless I'm misinterpreting the Berger ballistic table, a 6.5 PRC with 153.5 Berger hybrids at 2900 fps nips 7mm 180 hybrids at 2900 fps for bucking wind. A lot of people, at least in the US are getting very excited about the 6.5 PRC necked up to 7mm for 1,000 yd standard LR F-Class. But at 500-800 here, at least, I can't help but ask if anyone has tried the straight 6.5. Some much better shooters than I'll ever be seem to pull off shooting 6 Dasher with much poorer ballistics. And Lapua makes 6.5 PRC brass . You get the advantages of magnum width, squat build, and long neck. Am I missing something?

macguru
Posts: 1544
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:49 am

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#2 Postby macguru » Thu Dec 22, 2022 6:04 am

There are a couple of people in our club giving the 6.5 prc a try, but with 140/144 gr projectiles at the moment. if you already have a saum, not sure its worth switching, but at least you can get Lapua brass although its expensive.

AlanF
Posts: 7450
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#3 Postby AlanF » Thu Dec 22, 2022 8:45 am

John Weigel wrote:Unless I'm misinterpreting the Berger ballistic table, a 6.5 PRC with 153.5 Berger hybrids at 2900 fps nips 7mm 180 hybrids at 2900 fps for bucking wind. A lot of people, at least in the US are getting very excited about the 6.5 PRC necked up to 7mm for 1,000 yd standard LR F-Class. But at 500-800 here, at least, I can't help but ask if anyone has tried the straight 6.5. Some much better shooters than I'll ever be seem to pull off shooting 6 Dasher with much poorer ballistics. And Lapua makes 6.5 PRC brass . You get the advantages of magnum width, squat build, and long neck. Am I missing something?

Barrel life will be the killer. In F-Open the 6.5-284 went out of favour because of that and its significantly less overbore than the 6.5 PRC. Currently 7mm calibre is the optimum performer when barrel life, energy limits and available bullets are taken into account. 7mm PRC would be good, although the neck could be a bit longer.

Shobby
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:26 pm

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#4 Postby Shobby » Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:26 am

Hi John. Give me a ring on 0427630168 re running a 6.5prc.

PeteFox
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:20 pm
Location: 7321 Tas.

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#5 Postby PeteFox » Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:24 pm

John
the gains from running a 153.5 gn berger against a 180 hybrid both with a 2900fps muzzle velocity are marginal at best.
In a 10mph crosswind at 1000 yds , the corrections are 5.1moa and 5.2moa respectively, or a gain of 1" approx for the 153.5.

IMO it makes a lot more sense to stay with the 7mm because of the barrel life and use 190 Berger hybrids. If you can drive these at a mv of 2900fps you will need a 4.6moa correction which is 5" better than the 153.5 and about the size of the X ring.

Pete

John Weigel
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:51 am

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#6 Postby John Weigel » Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:38 pm

Thanks Pete. Have you been able to have better luck than I have with 190’s? Maybe they need to be pushed faster than my 284and Shehane can muster.

shadow
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:46 pm

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#7 Postby shadow » Thu Dec 22, 2022 2:46 pm

Barrel life,,it does nothing that a 6.5x284 won't.
Both are barrel burners, shoot , yes
Whats wrong with a cringemoore for the mids,accurate,good barrel life
and components

PeteFox
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:20 pm
Location: 7321 Tas.

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#8 Postby PeteFox » Thu Dec 22, 2022 2:54 pm

John Weigel wrote:Thanks Pete. Have you been able to have better luck than I have with 190’s? Maybe they need to be pushed faster than my 284and Shehane can muster.


I'm only shooting a straight 284. 190's look ok around 2720 but not as good as 180s at 2800.
But I've only got 1100 180's left with no prospect of more for a long time. I bought lots of 190's when they were available and I have many 1000's of them so I'll persevere.
Pete

shadow
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:46 pm

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#9 Postby shadow » Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:42 pm

I wish I had 1100 180 7mms, im down to 400

AlanF
Posts: 7450
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#10 Postby AlanF » Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:32 pm

John Weigel wrote:Thanks Pete. Have you been able to have better luck than I have with 190’s? Maybe they need to be pushed faster than my 284and Shehane can muster.

I had my best 1000yd shoot ever a couple of years back using 190s in a 7 Shehane. Barrel was 1:8 Broughton, velocity average 2835fps, RL-23. So they do want to shoot. I reckon the new 2213SC might get them to that velocity too. https://shooting.hexsystems.com.au/shooting/339306

Shobby
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:26 pm

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#11 Postby Shobby » Mon Dec 26, 2022 10:00 am

I would like to ask the Forum Members who have commented on the performance of the 6.5prc whether they have actually shot this case over a period of time to prove that it is a barrel burner.
If they haven't shot this case this is giving misinformation to Forum members who are looking to try this case in F Open or for Hunting.
I have shot both the 6.5/ .284 (early F Open 2007 for 3 years) and over the last 2 years have been shooting the 6.5prc in 2 different barrel twists with very good results.
It is a very good case out to 1100m with a great range of high BC projectiles available.

PeteFox
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:20 pm
Location: 7321 Tas.

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#12 Postby PeteFox » Mon Dec 26, 2022 10:30 am

Shobby wrote:I would like to ask the Forum Members who have commented on the performance of the 6.5prc whether they have actually shot this case over a period of time to prove that it is a barrel burner.
If they haven't shot this case this is giving misinformation to Forum members who are looking to try this case in F Open or for Hunting.
I have shot both the 6.5/ .284 (early F Open 2007 for 3 years) and over the last 2 years have been shooting the 6.5prc in 2 different barrel twists with very good results.
It is a very good case out to 1100m with a great range of high BC projectiles available.


Yes but you haven't actually backed up your accusation of giving out misinformation with some figures on barrel life.
Misinformation of another sort?

Shobby
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:26 pm

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#13 Postby Shobby » Mon Dec 26, 2022 10:45 am

'Im still asking the question have these Forum members making comments every shot the case over a good period of time.
I have.
6.5/.284 between 800 and 1000 rounds. 6.5prc one barrel has done 1200 rounds the other 1300 both still in good condition with minimal fire cracking. I also shot .284 and 7Saum.

macguru
Posts: 1544
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:49 am

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#14 Postby macguru » Mon Dec 26, 2022 11:23 am

I am going to give one a try with 2213. At least the brass is good.

PeteFox
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:20 pm
Location: 7321 Tas.

Re: Why not 6.5 PRC for 'midrange' F-class?

#15 Postby PeteFox » Mon Dec 26, 2022 4:25 pm

What makes a barrel burner is a subjective thing.

A cartridge that's costs a $ or more per shot in barrel life is a barrel burner in my view.

A quality barrel now costs around $1300 chambered. So using that definition a 6.5-284 is a burner and the PRC is an open question.
If there's a rechamber job in there somewhere then the numbers change.
Pete
Last edited by PeteFox on Mon Dec 26, 2022 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Equipment & Technical”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests