300 PRC,

[JohnMOhio]

Inquiring if any of you out there have had any experience with this newer cartridge from Hornady. What has been your experience and what advantages you have observed with this cartridge over the 6.5 Creedmoor. I am considering getting into the long range shooting game and trying to decide which cartridge to go with. Then I suppose the next decision is which firearm manufacturer to purchase. Any comments for either decision is appreciated. Thanks in advance to all that reply

Sincerely,

John

[Sunray]

Stuff like that is about the Hornady MBA's fear of losing market share due to not introducing "New" stuff regularly. Very little of it ever does anything existing stuff does not. A 'magnum' it ain't either.
If you buy any cartridge that is new you should buy as much brass as you can afford at the same time. And a shell holder if it's something really odd. Those MBA's think nothing of discontinuing cartridges with no consideration for their existing customers. Having a pile of brass, even if you're not reloading already means you won't end up with a firearm for which you can't get ammo.
I personally think calling it "PRC" is a bad idea. Given current relations with the Chinese and that most of the stuff the Chinese make has something wrong with it. I also find nobody cares what I think. snicker.

[lyman]

I have no experience with it and do not know of anyone thinking about it,

one friend went thru the investigative process over the 224 Valkyrie, I thought he was going to stroke out over the info (or lack of it) before he moved away from it,


I had thought about a bolt gun to compete with in 260 rem, (Match Rifle after shooting Service Rifle) but gave up my thoughts on that after I switched employers, (no more time to shoot) and when I started looking at the various variations of 6mm and 6.5 out there,,

[JohnMOhio]

Sunray and Lyman, thanks for you comments. I had not given it a thought in the area's you mentioned. Based on what I have been reading, I think the 6.5 Creedmoor will be here to stay for shooting long range. I know there is a good number of fellows out there pushing the envelope with the .223/5.56 even out to 1,000 yards hitting a steel plate. Again, thanks for your sound advise and insight. I don't think anyone out there can refute your point of view presented here.

[lyman]

I think you are correct on the 6.5,

folks seem to love it , and more and more ammo is becoming available,

not implying it is a bad round, quite the contrary,

if it gets more people thinking about and then shooting , esp long range, then so be it, that's a good thing,

[nf1e]

I'm sticking with the 6.5 Creedmoor. Love the cartridge and it's performance thus far. Capable of long range if needed, but mine only get run out to 500 and most of the time just 100. Getting too old and fat to hike out to the longer ranges for target change.

[JohnMOhio]

Nfle, a used golf cart would help getting out to that 500 yard line. In the winter, for your area, put on some chains.

Is that your 6.5 Creedmoor shown above?

[fguffey]

It is not a magnum because it does not have a belt but the bolt face is magnum size meaning the case diameter is larger in diameter than the 300 Win Mag, 308 Norma mag.

PRC, Precision Rifle Cartridge. I have never found a reloader that thought the diameter and length of the powder column made a difference, they claim it is volume only.

Go to Guns and Ammo read Everything you need to know.

F. Guffey

[fguffey]

300PRC, Precision Rifle Cartridge: On the other hand the 300 PRC could become the rage and parent case for wildcats, of course most of us should know/understand the wildcat chamber will be shorter, I am beginning to believe it is a pattern.

F. Guffey

[JohnMOhio]

That seems to be the trend, short and fat case. We have seen it already in cartridges like the WSM's and those like it. As for me, I am leaning heavily towards the 6.5 Creedmoor.

Volume does make a difference however it does not always mean effeciency. To large a volume and not all the powder is burned and does not add any advantage in velocity nor guarantee accuracy.

[fguffey]

Volume does make a difference however it does not always mean efficiency.

I am the fan of all the bullet hold I can get, at the same time I want to reduce the time it takes for everything to get serious. I do not want a lot of air between the case body and chamber. And then there is clearance, I want to reduce the time it takes for the shoulder of the case to form to the shoulder of the chamber.

And then there is case capacity; my favorite cases in the old days were Winchester, WW, WCC and WRA after 1929. The Olin case was always good for at least an extra 2 grains over maximum.

Efficient: I have always believed the 308W was more efficient than the 30/06 because of the short/fat powder column. I have R-P 30/06 cases with a case head thickness of .260", means nothing to most but 'almost' all of my 30/06 cases outside of the Remington cases have a case head thickness of .200" when measured from the bottom of the cup above the web to the case head. I know; that means nothing to no one.

F. Guffey

[JohnMOhio]

Guffey, I think if you examine these new calibers, the case will show not only short and fat bodies but the necks are a somewhat longer. When that happens, a longer bullet can be seated better, in the neck and still not find itself intruding into the case below the neck shoulder junction or into the powder. Most of the longer bullets have a higher BC. Also more of the bullet contacts the lands, causing the bullet to need more force to be propelled down and out the barrel. In many cases, less powder is used to obtain the same velocity when compared to another bullet of the same weight but a different profile in contact with the lands. Does that make sense to you. I may not be writing it correctly to get my point across.

If I understand your explanation above, it means a difference in case volume of .060 assuming the outside dimensions of the case are the same and the wall thickness is the same. It would also mean a difference in strength of the case in that area. Did you ever take the measurements on a new case and then check for any difference after firing it?

[fguffey]

I think if you examine these new calibers, the case will show not only short and fat bodies but the necks are a somewhat longer. When that happens, a longer bullet can be seated better, in the neck and still not find itself intruding into the case below the neck shoulder junction or into the powder. Most of the longer bullets have a higher BC. Also more of the bullet contacts the lands, causing the bullet to need more force to be propelled down and out the barrel. In many cases, less powder is used to obtain the same velocity when compared to another bullet of the same weight but a different profile in contact with the lands. Does that make sense to you. I may not be writing it correctly to get my point across.

Yes, I purchased a barrel that came from a custom shop, it was an 'as-is-barrel', I made the mistake of getting on the Internet with the dimensions obtained from measuring the chamber with inside type micrometers. I received one response, he said based on my measurements the chamber was close to being a 30 Gibbs. I did not believe the 30 Gibbs was a good choice because of the of the neck, the neck length case neck for the 30 Gibbs is .217"; meaning, if the 300 Win Mag case neck is considered short at .280" +/- a few the .217" neck on the 30 Gibbs was too short.

Does that make sense to you.

Back to the statement "I am the fan of all of "all the bullet hold I can get" and all the rest of the reloaders on the Internet being fans of neck tension; I form cases, I can increase the length of the case neck on chambers that have short necks. One of the 'good ones' was I increasing the length of the neck on 300 Winchester Mags, the longer the neck, move the bullet out and then add more powder.

Same with the 30 Gibbs, the length of the chamber did not agree with the length of the 30 Gibbs meaning the chamber started out as being a 30/06 chamber and then chambered to 30/ Gibbs, part of the 'old' chamber was still there and not being used so I formed cases with longer necks, I gained over .050" case neck length, as we should know 'more case neck length the more bullet hold'. Years later R-P made cases available to reloader that knew what they were doing, the started making straight wall cases that were 2.650 long from the mouth of the case to the case head; the case heads were stamped 35 Whelen. As wee all should know when necking a 30/06 case up to 35 Whelen the case shortens at least .038", the same applies to the 338/06.

But is the firing pin drives the case shoulder to the chamber shoulder?

No one wonders how the case for the 30 Gibbs neck got that short, cases fired in my chamber increased in length from the shoulder to the case head but shorten from the shoulder/case neck juncture to the end of the neck. What does that mean? It means there are things that go on when a case if fired that can not be discussed on the Internet.

At the time I had 4 Mauser rifles I purchased that came with a warning; the seller advertised the rifles as suspect; meaning I had to test fire them. I used the one barrel to test fire 3 of the receivers. I was accused of being involved in some risky stuff but all three receivers survived and the cases looked great but were too short in my opinion. When formed and then fired the cases shortened .045".

[fguffey]

If I understand your explanation above, it means a difference in case volume of .060 assuming the outside dimensions of the case are the same and the wall thickness is the same.

An automatics response; military cases are heavier because the military case is thicker, and then I asked about my R-P 30/06 cases, I said I have R-P 30/06 cases with a case head thickness of .260" when compared to my thick military brass with a case head thickness of .200" from the cup above the web to the case head. So if there is any truth to the automatics response it can only be a half truth. BECAUSE? My Remington R-P 30/06 cases have case heads that are thicker than my military 30/06 case heads.

No one lost sight of the fact my Remington R-P 30/06 cases were/are lighter that the military 30/06 cases. And then there is deductive reasoning: If the case head on the R-P 30/06 cases have a case head thickness that is thicker than the military cases with thinner cases head the R-P 30/06 case has to have a thinner case body or put another way the case body on the military case has a thicker case body because the case head is thicker.

And I do not think I used the words 'tension' or 'head space', bump or cam over.

F. Guffey

[fguffey]

And then there are reloaders that say nothing; one of their heroes claimed he shot 308 W cases 43 times with maximum loads with no serious after effect. I wanted to know how much the case weighed when he started and when he finished. If I could have been booed out of town that would have been their choice.

Minding my own business: I was at the Dallas Market Hall gun show sitting at a table, there were 3 smiths on my left and one on my right. And then an unhappy customer walked up to the smith on the far left and accused him of building selling him a custom rifle with a head space problem. He pulled out a fired case and declared it was proof. The unhappy customer was instructed to bring the rifle to his shop tp be checked.

The unhappy customer finished with his complaint and managed to get past past 2 smiths before he got to me. I asked the unhappy customer if I would be allowed to see the case, he should have kept walking but he was proud of that case so he handed it to me.

I asked him if that was the only case he had for his rifle, I asked him if he was reloading it and then firing it over and over and over and over etc. etc.. And then I offered to form 200 cases for his rifle for free. It was about that time the builder of the very fine rifle came down to rescue the unhappy customer. It was about that time he decided he should examine the case. I told the unhappy customer there was no way he could lower the ram without ripping the case apart nor was there any way he could stand the case up straight.

The builder of the rifle asked the unhappy customer to take the case to a third part; it was suggested the third part not know what I said nor was he to know who built the rifle, it was agreed. When he returned he was even more unhappy, it seems the third part smith tore the case apart and measured the thickness of the case body. the case body measure .002". The old smith of few words asked him if that was the only case he had to fire and load, he then asked him if he loaded and fired that one case over and over and over etc. He then informed the unhappy customer .002" is a good thickness for paper but not for bottle neck cases.

He did not get back with me with my offer to form the 200 cases and he never showed up at the shop. The smith that build the rifle died early last year.

F. Guffey