I can see why the 6.5 Creedmoor continues to get compared to other traditional cartridges since it's one of the newest factory cartridges that was ostensibly developed for long range shooting. I read the OP's article and his link to the 2nd half of that article and it still leaves one with lots of questions. The article mentions 1,000 performance for the military but only gives statistics out to 400 yards. The articles makes a lot of claims for the 6.5CM but doesn't back them up or explain them. Claiming "about 30% less felt recoil" is a meaningless claim without knowing the rifles compared, bullet weights, MV, etc. While on that subject, the ballistics chart simply lists several bullets of a certain weight for both calibers without even mentioning the brand, style of bullet, SD, etc. I like to read articles like this when I learn something. I don't enjoy reading them when I am left with several questions about the very process used to compare both calibers. Not trying to offend but A- for effort but D- for content. Hopefully this helps upgrade future articles.
NoMercy, you made comments about the 308 and 6.5, claiming they were okay (I happen to agree) but there were much better calibers/rounds to use. Which ones? And why? I'm not a long range shooter and don't compete but I still like to read about it and learn. I may never compete in a PRS match but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to figure out what works best for one and see if I can incorporate it into some of my longer range shooting.
