.308 vs 6.5cm recoil
- Thread starter remington patriot
- Start date
I too think the 6.5 is at LEAST 30% less.
I have a brake on mine but I have shot it back to back with a braked .308 and it was noticeably less.
In the 6.5 I can watch my bullet hit the target. The .308 would jump enough that I had to get out to 600 yards or so to get it settled back down to see hits. That was also not every time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have a brake on mine but I have shot it back to back with a braked .308 and it was noticeably less.
In the 6.5 I can watch my bullet hit the target. The .308 would jump enough that I had to get out to 600 yards or so to get it settled back down to see hits. That was also not every time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It mostly depends on the weapon configuration. Nobody is really going to notice a 2-3 ft lb difference in recoil if both guns are identical.
Shoot a 155gr at 2850fps out of a 308, and then shoot a 140gr at 2850fps out of a 6.5 CM and tell me how brutal the 155gr recoil is. A lot of ppl have a 15lb 6.5 CM for PRS and want to build a "shorty" 308 and then bitch because it recoils hard. Ive shot lightweight 243's that will thump shooting 105's in a shitty stock. Again, all in the configuration.
All and all, yes the 308 does recoil more shooting 178gr, but its not enough to say..."Fuck this!". If so, the shooter is a 90lb girl.
Shoot a 155gr at 2850fps out of a 308, and then shoot a 140gr at 2850fps out of a 6.5 CM and tell me how brutal the 155gr recoil is. A lot of ppl have a 15lb 6.5 CM for PRS and want to build a "shorty" 308 and then bitch because it recoils hard. Ive shot lightweight 243's that will thump shooting 105's in a shitty stock. Again, all in the configuration.
All and all, yes the 308 does recoil more shooting 178gr, but its not enough to say..."Fuck this!". If so, the shooter is a 90lb girl.
Unbraked, there is a bigger difference between how the recoil feels.
Braked, the felt recoil isn't that different.
The weight of the rig and how well the stock fits you affects the equation.
But if you were to compared apples to apples, you'd compare 107's in 6.5 to 155's in 308, where now the gap in recoil expands even more. Or compare 200 grain 30 cal to 140 grain 6.5.
One of the softest recoiling rifles I've shot was a 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser with a reduced load of 140 hybrids going 2650 fps. Still kicked ass in the wind.
Braked, the felt recoil isn't that different.
The weight of the rig and how well the stock fits you affects the equation.
But if you were to compared apples to apples, you'd compare 107's in 6.5 to 155's in 308, where now the gap in recoil expands even more. Or compare 200 grain 30 cal to 140 grain 6.5.
One of the softest recoiling rifles I've shot was a 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser with a reduced load of 140 hybrids going 2650 fps. Still kicked ass in the wind.
Why compare such different weight bullets? Compare bullets commonly shot in both cartridges, as close in weight as possible, with same velocity. Make sense? If anybody can noticeably feel a difference in recoil between a 140 and a 155 in equal rigs, ill ask lowlight to kiss their ass. Roughly same case capacity. Close bullet weight. Traveling at the same speed. Tell me where im fucking up. Is that 15gr difference going to whop you out of the chair? Now the difference in 130/155 or 140/178 is there. But not 140/155. Not everybody shoots bullets heavier than 155 in their 308's. The 155 TMK is pretty good out of a 308.
Another example....I could load a 264 WM with a 143gr eld, and load a 7mm RM with a 150gr eld, at equal velocities, in equal rigs, and you (or anybody in this thread) could tell me which had the most recoil based on shooting it and not based on an app?
You aren't screwing up and most see your point. BTW 260 and 7-08 can be compared and the recoil vs performance will be closer like your magnums example. You know how I look at things like this by now. I'm after the least wind drift as usual. I comment so the newbs will see the difference.
Too answer, because for me doing so makes a point. In my example it'd be close on "BC's" between a 107/6.5 vs 155/30 but in the common 6.5's you can drive a 107 to 3100 fps, maybe faster. Just like the 140/6.5 and the 200/30 has like BC's with 200gr going really slow and recoiling a bit more.
Basically you get less wind drift and less recoil with the 6.5.
What I'm assuming is the OP wants the least recoil ???
Yes, I am looking to the 6.5CM over the .308 for the purpose of less "hop" and the ability to track the shot for follow ups and the performance the 6.5 has over the .308 at range.
My 6.5 Creed and .308 are set up the same. The Creed is noticeably softer shooting. The creed is noticeably softer than my 243AI. Also set up the same. 26"remington varmint contour, manners T3. I however did not notice a difference shooting 155s vs 178s in my 308.
I shoot a .260 in an XLR chassis. My friend shoots a .308 in the same chassis. I hand load for both using 140's for the .260 and 178's for the .308. I have shot them side by side and believe the 6.5 "FEELS" like almost half the recoil. Technically it may be 30% but feels like more like 50% to me.
Unless youre needing to kill something at normal hunting distances and want a little extra thump, the Creed is the obvious choice for what your trying to do.
Given the 6.5 shoots bullet weights a range below the 308 at roughly comparable speeds then on balance the 6.5 will have less recoil across the range. If you want to shoot to 'long' range then the 6.5 is a different class.
On the other hand if you want to shoot at a particular bullet weight say 140ish - 150 gr in 308 vs 140gr in 6.5 then the difference in recoil is not going to change your life
On the other hand if you want to shoot at a particular bullet weight say 140ish - 150 gr in 308 vs 140gr in 6.5 then the difference in recoil is not going to change your life
This is what worries me about picking up a .308 CTR Tikka. The rifle is pretty dang light for something that will be my main target rifle(+ hunting). Definitely gonna have to brake it, with plans for a can in the future.
