6.5 PRC

ThePretzel

Private
Belligerents
Minuteman
Dec 17, 2017
636
444
69
Boulder, CO
I've read entirely through both the initial filing from RUAG and the response/counterclaim from Prime, and put together a summary of what is agreed upon and what the two disagree on. I've replaced the company name from the filings of "Citizens" with Prime in my summary for clarity's sake.

I've separated everything out into spoilers because this is a pretty long post, so buckle up for a while ride!

First off though, I'm just going to say that Prime was wordy as hell when they filed their response and counterclaim. Their counterclaim had 11 pages of them telling their story about how RUAG management conspired to run them out of business before they actually started making a legal argument. It's honestly a pretty good drama, read pages 19-29 of their response and counterclaim if you want to check it out.

The original contract was too ambiguous about payment (it started out with 2 years of Prime paying only when they sold the ammo, not when they received it), so Prime and RUAG agreed that Prime needed to pay for the remaining inventory of the first 2 years of their contract by September 31st, 2017. Prime's lawyer that let them sign this addendum was an idiot, because the original contract was ambiguous enough to potentially read in their favor. If they hadn't signed it they could have reasonably continued the pay as you sell program from the first 2 years with the remaining inventory, and simply paid for any new shipments within 30 days of delivery per the original contract.

Prime didn't pay RUAG, and claims that RUAG agreed to a second addendum that turned this debt into a 3-year loan. This is a load of horse shit because Prime didn't even bother to include the text of the supposed second addendum as evidence in their counterclaim. They're literally saying it existed and we should trust them because the CEOs shook hands and then traded emails, but they won't show us the emails that prove it. RUAG called bullshit and confiscated the remaining unpaid inventory per the termination clauses in the original contract and first contract addendum (the one that Prime's lawyer was stupid to agree to).

Prime ordered more ammo from RUAG in August, despite owing more than 3/4 of a million dollars to RUAG, and RUAG sued them in November for the money they're owed. RUAG now has the money from the new ammo order plus the new ammo, in addition to all the old ammo and is selling the old ammo. They're also supposedly selling their own 6 Creedmoor and 6.5 SAUM ammo identical to the Prime stuff, but again Prime has no proof that the recipes are the same.

Prime is suing for a whole lot of bullshit based on their conspiracy theory that RUAG is intentionally putting them out of business in some illuminati-esque plot by RUAG management. They want more than 14 million dollars from RUAG for all this.

Logical conclusion: Prime owes RUAG the money for the ammo they had in inventory per the first addendum to the original contract, less the money that RUAG can recoup by selling this ammo. RUAG needs to give the 355,000 rounds of ammo paid for by Prime to Prime so they can sell it and pay their debt to RUAG. Both companies need to pull their heads out of their asses and quit working with each other.

Prime had a contract with RUAG that allowed them to pay for ammo as they sold it for the first 2 years of their contract. The contract had vague wording that made it unclear how payment was to be made for leftover inventory after the first 2 years that hadn't yet been sold. An addendum was created in August of 2017 where Prime and RUAG agreed that Prime owed payment for all remaining inventory before October 1st, 2017.

Prime didn't pay, and claims that a second addendum was negotiated in January of 2018 that converted the debt they owed into a 3-year loan with quarterly interest payment and yearly principal payments. Prime says they made payments according to this addendum until November 2018 that totaled more than $600,000, RUAG says that Prime never paid a dime. RUAG also says that there was never any second addendum, and Prime did not include proof of the second addendum as evidence with their countersuit.

In July RUAG gave Notice of Default and Notice of Termination to Prime after receiving emails from Prime on July 5th and July 12th stating that Prime was incapable of paying the outstanding debt that was due on September 31st, 2017 from the first addendum. As a result, RUAG took possession of all remaining Prime inventory before the end of July.

In early August RUAG offered to make ammunition for Prime in exchange for advanced payment, as a means of helping Prime raise money to pay the debt owed to RUAG. Prime paid for the 6.5 SAUM and 6 Creedmoor ammo in full, and RUAG states that as of November 8th they were still producing the ammo.

On November 8, RUAG sued Prime for all of the money they were owed. They asked for the money owed plus interest and fees associated with the lawsuit, and they also asked to be allowed to hold in escrow both the ammo ordered by Prime and the money Prime paid for the ammo until they received the money Prime owed them.

Prime responded and filed a counterclaim on April 15th, claiming that RUAG management conspired to run Prime out of business so that they could buy the RUAG US ammo business from RUAG's Swiss government-owned holding company at a cheaper price and with a greater market share. Prime wants 14 million dollars or more in various damages and punitive penalties. Prime's argument is that the second addendum was real and they were abiding by its terms, but RUAG blindsided them by pretending it never existed.

The basic gist of it is that for the first 2 years of the contract RUAG would continually deliver the ammo according to a set schedule, in addition to any extra ammo that Prime requested. This ammo would not need to be paid for until after it had been sold by Prime, at which point payment for it was due within 7 business days. After the first 2 years Prime would be required to pay for products within 30 days of delivery, but would own the ammo immediately upon payment instead of RUAG owning the ammo until it was sold. The contract took effect on April 1st in 2015, with the first ammo shipment in August of 2015.

Prime wasn't able to sell all of the ammo delivered by RUAG before the end of the 2 years, but they also could not pay for the remainder they had in inventory as of August 9th, 2017. RUAG claimed that once the two year period ended, all ammunition currently in Prime's inventory would need to be paid within 30 days based on the wording of the contract. There was no specific language in the original contract concerning inventory received but not sold prior to this 2 year deadline, it simply said that after 2 years Prime will be required to follow RUAG's standard commercial 30 day payment terms.

In August of 2017, 4 months after the 2 year pay as you sell period expired, RUAG and Prime created an addendum to the original contract to specifically address this ambiguity in the original contract. This addendum specified that Prime had until September 30th to pay for all of the ammo remaining in inventory as of April 4th, 2017 - this was when payments from the pay as you sell agreement ceased and negotiations for the remaining inventory started.

Both Prime and RUAG signed the addendum, meaning that Prime was obligated to pay in full for all ammo that had been delivered. The addendum additionally stated that if Prime couldn't pay for the ammo by September 30, 2017 then RUAG would have the right to sell, transfer, or dispose of the remaining product inventory as it saw fit. It also specifically stated that Prime waives the right to claim any intellectual property, goodwill, or other infringement/violation that resulted from RUAG selling, transferring or disposing of the remaining unpaid product. This included RUAG using the Prime name and any other trademarks associated with Prime during the sale, transfer, or disposal of unpaid product.

Prime did not, or could not, pay by September 30th , and up until January 2018 Prime had continued to pay RUAG under the previous pay as you sell agreement. Prime claims the two companies created a second addendum finalized in January 2018 to handle the remaining unpaid balance. by converting it into a 3-year loan with quarterly interest payments (based on current inventory levels of unpaid ammo) and yearly payments towards the principal. RUAG says that no further agreements were reached regarding payment for the ammo they had already delivered. Prime has not shown this second addendum in evidence and says it was created with a handshake deal and finalized with emails between CEOs, so it may or may not be legally enforceable.

In 2018 Prime kept selling ammo and sending sales reports to RUAG (to prove inventory levels for interest payments) and RUAG kept sending invoices to Prime (to collect under the pay as you sell agreement from the first 2 years). No copies of these invoices are publicly available, likely for business reasons, but Prime does acknowledge receipt of these invoices from March 2018 until August 2018. Prime denies owing the amounts shown on the invoices, however, and claims that both companies agreed to and were operating under the second addendum during this time. To this end, Prime claims that up until November 7, 2018 they had paid $593,216.46 towards the principal of this loan in addition to the first of the scheduled interest payments alongside relevant excise taxes.

On July 19, 2018 RUAG sent a Notice of Default to Prime saying that Prime had failed to pay the past-due balance for delivered ammo, which was originally supposed to be paid in full prior to October 1, 2017 according to the first addendum to the original contract. In this Notice of Default RUAG claims that Prime conceded in writing on July 12 that the money from the first addendum was owed (this concession was not included in evidence with RUAG's complaint). RUAG accordingly demanded that all unsold inventory of ammo was to be immediately turned over to RUAG, with RUAG's lawyer noting, "It is our understanding that you have already agreed to this." RUAG also demanded payment in full of the balance owed within 10 days, stating that no further addenda or terms were ever fully agreed upon since execution of the first addendum in August 2017.

On July 31, 2018 RUAG sent a Notice of Termination for the original contract between Prime and RUAG. The Notice of Termination stated that Prime had failed to pay all or any portion of the overdue payment from the first addendum. It also claims that Prime sold an additional $87,737.83 of inventory while ignoring the July 30, 2018 payment date. RUAG's lawyers claimed that Prime stated, both in writing and during telephone calls, that it did not presently have the funds to pay any of the overdue amounts including emails on July 5th and July 12th. This Notice of Termination was issued based on a clause in the original contract that allowed for termination of the contract with 5 days notice if Prime "admits in writing its inability to pay its debts as they mature." Accordingly, RUAG stated that they were terminating the original contract effective August 5, 2018 and would file suit if payment for the balance owed was not made immediately made.

At this time RUAG also exercised its right, under section 3 of the first addendum to the original contract, to take possession of Prime inventory to sell, transfer, or dispose of as it saw fit. Notification of this action to Prime was included in the Notice of Termination sent on July 31, 2018.

On August 21, 2018 RUAG claims they entered into an agreement to manufacture 6.5 SAUM and 6 Creedmoor ammunition for Prime in an effort to help Prime raise capital for their outstanding debt. They accepted a purchase order for 155,000 round of 6.5 SAUM and 200,000 rounds of 6 Creedmoor in exchange for pre-payment of $399,360. Prime raised funding for this order and paid RUAG the requested sum on August 22, 2018. As of November RUAG claimed to still be in the production process for the ammunition that was pre-paid.

RUAG then sued Prime in November 2018, for debts owed alongside interest, damages, and legal fees. The total was estimated to be in excess of one million dollars, but the specific amount requested was simply, "in excess of $772,147.27 together with interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit" as well as judgement confirming RUAG's right to sell or otherwise transfer all remaining Prime inventory as it saw fit. In the lawsuit RUAG also requested a declaration from the court allowing them to hold the $399,360 pre-payment alongside the produced 6.5 SAUM and 6 Creedmoor ammunition in escrow until the lawsuit was resolved or Prime paid its debt to RUAG.

No such declaration has been made yet, nor has any delivery of ammunition to Prime been made. RUAG claims in the lawsuit that it was never paid anything after January of 2018.

Prime's response and counterclaim was filed on April 15th and alleged that RUAG management had conspired to put Prime out of business. Prime contended that the second addendum had been agreed upon and the two companies were operating under its terms.

According to Prime, RUAG's Swiss-government ownership wanted to leave the US civilian ammunition market by selling off the associated RUAG brands because they were concerned with the optics of the situation. RUAG management then supposedly conspired to put the major competitor to RUAG's US ammunition division, Prime, out of business to increase the RUAG market share. At the same time, putting Prime out of business would show lost revenue from the same RUAG business division as well as unpaid invoices. This would have the effect of lowering the value of RUAG's US ammunition division, allowing RUAG management to purchase the businesses at a lower price and with a larger market share.

Prime now claims that RUAG was paid $608,695.79 in total throughout 2018 under the supposed second addendum in seventeen separate payments, and $399,360 for the ordered 6.5 SAUM and 6 Creedmoor ammunition. Importantly Prime states that the calculated interest payment of $15,479.33 was paid according to the second addendum and accepted without question by RUAG. In addition, Prime states that RUAG confiscated all remaining Prime inventory at the end of July and still has yet to deliver the 355,000 rounds that were paid for in advance.

Prime made 14 different claims in their countersuit against RUAG, demanding judgement in its favor and against RUAG "in an amount in excess of ONE MILLION DOLLARS, together with interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit" for each count.

Now for stuff without the opinion and without the story, just facts and arguments drawn straight from the complaint, the response, and the countersuit. I've included a TLDR at the end of each section for ease of reading.

1) RUAG was under contract to manufacture ammo for Prime at a fixed price per round, starting on April 1, 2015
2) Prime regularly sold ammo from the initial supply schedule and issues payment for ammo as it was sold
3) Prime did not sell all of the ammo from the initial supply schedule within 2 years of the start of the contract
4) The agreement involving the initial supply schedule was amended on August 9, 2017
5) From March until August in 2018 Prime sent notices of it's ammunition sales to RUAG
6) RUAG issued invoices from March to August of 2018 for the ammunition that Prime reported selling
7) On July 19, 2018 RUAG served Prime with a Notice of Default and Prime received this letter
8) On July 31, 2018 RUAG served Prime with a Notice of Termination for the supply agreement and Prime received this letter
9) After this notice of termination, RUAG took possession of all Prime ammunition that Prime
10) RUAG accepted an order on August 21st for 6.5 SAUM and 6 Creedmoor ammo, on the condition that Prime pre-pay for it all
11) Prime pre-paid for the ammo on August 22, 2018 to the tune of $399,360

TLDR:
RUAG was contracted to make ammo for Prime to sell. RUAG delivered ammo according to the initial supply schedule, but in August 2017 an addendum to the original contract was made. RUAG sent invoices from March until August of 2018, and in July of 2018 RUAG sent both a Notice of Default and a Notice of Termination to Prime. After the Notice of Termination, RUAG took possession of all the ammo that Prime was holding. In August 2018 Prime and RUAG agreed to a deal for 6.5 SAUM and 6 Creedmoor ammo if Prime paid in advance for it, and Prime did indeed pay for the ammo ahead of production.

RUAG's Argument (claims denied by Prime, or responded to by just telling the court to look at the contract):
1) The contract said that for the first 2 years Prime could pay for ammo from the initial supply schedule as they sold it
2) The contract said that after the first 2 years, Prime needed to pay for all unsold ammo remaining from the initial supply schedule
3) The contract additionally said that after the first 2 years Prime would be required to pay
4) RUAG claims that all the ammo in the initial supply schedule officially belonged to them until it was sold and paid for by Prime
5) The addendum to the contract was to give Prime until September 30, 2017 to pay for all remaining ammo from the initial supply
6) The addendum to the contract said if RUAG wasn't paid in full by 9-30-17, Prime would lose all rights to the remaining ammo
7) Prime failed to meet the payment deadline, and stopped paying RUAG entirely as of January 2018 without making a new agreement
8) Between March and August in 2018 Prime continued to sell ammo (and tell RUAG about it) without paying
9) The invoices sent by RUAG from March to August in 2018 showed unpaid balances for ammunition that Prime sold
10) Prime never disputed what they owed or had problems with the ammo, but did say they could not afford the overdue balances
11) As of July 19, 2018 the Notice of Default included more than $744,000 in overdue payments
12) As of July 31, 2018 Prime still owed more than $770,000 when RUAG issued the Notice of Termination
13) RUAG said that as of November 5th, Prime owes and admits to owing $772,147.27 to RUAG
14) RUAG said that as of November 5th, 2018 they were still producing the ammo that Prime ordered according to the contract

TLDR:
RUAG says that the contract allowed Prime to pay only when the ammo was sold or given away to consumers for the first 2 years, but all ammo from the initial order had to be paid in full once 2 years passed. The addendum gave Prime an extension on payment, but Prime never paid and stopped paying anything at all for the initial supply of ammo after January of 2018. Prime now owes a lot for all that ammo, and RUAG is holding onto the remaining ammo from the initial supply because they never got paid for it. They also say that they're working to fulfill the order for the 6.5 SAUM and 6 Creedmoor ammo according to the contract.

Prime's Claimed Affirmative Defenses (arguments that, if true, would negate all liability for Prime even if they did what RUAG claims)
1) RUAG doesn't have a cause of action, or a set of facts sufficient to sue (Prime disputes many of the things RUAG claims as fact)
2) RUAG lacks standing, meaning they have not sufficiently connected any claimed actions to any claimed harm
3) RUAG is guilty of unclean hands, meaning they have acted in bad faith and are not entitled to relief in court as a result
4) RUAG has not been harmed, meaning they are not entitled to relief from the court
5) RUAG is unjustifiably withholding delivery of ammunition that has already been paid for
6) RUAG took the initial supply ammo back before a court order permitted it, and a court order should have been required for this
7) RUAG acted wrongfully, maliciously, and fraudulently meaning they are not entitled to relief from the court

TLDR:
Standard stuff here, Prime is basically saying RUAG has no case and the court should just dismiss everything. Specifically they say RUAG hasn't presented facts to support their argument, they haven't connected any proven actions of Prime to any proven harm to RUAG, and that RUAG has pulled some shady stuff which prevents the court from giving them anything in the first place.

Prime's Explanation of Actions Described in RUAG's Complaint:
1) On January 21, 2018 Prime and RUAG made a new deal, the Second Addendum, to restructure payment for all previous agreements
2) This agreement was first created as a handshake deal between CEOs, and was later memorialized in emails after SHOT show meetings
3) Prime sent an email to RUAG on February 22, 2018 to confirm that it had been operating under the Second Addendum since 1-21-18
4) The Second Addendum converted the value of the remaining ammo held by Prime into a 3-year loan, worth $2,476,692.88
5) This 3-year loan included quarterly interest payments of 2.5% of the value of current inventory
6) The loan was to be paid in 3 installments - $722,436 in 2018, $850,000 in 2019, and $904,256 in 2020
7) Sales updates from Prime to RUAG were evidence of both companies operating under the Second Addendum
8) As of November 7, 2018 Prime had paid $593,216.46 from the principal of the loan
9) Prior to 11-7-18, Prime also paid the first quarter interest ($15,479.33) and Federal Excise Tax ($44,943.14)
10) During this entire time both companies operated under the Second Addendum and RUAG never demanded payment

TLDR:
Prime says they made a new deal with RUAG to convert existing inventory that hadn't been paid for into a 3-year loan, with interest payments based on the amount of inventory remaining in Prime's possession. They say this is why they sent sales updates but did not pay invoices sent by RUAG, and they claim that both companies were openly operating under this Second Addendum agreement.

Prime's Counterclaims:
1) Breach of contract for the second addendum
2) Detrimental reliance for the second addendum
3) Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for the second addendum
4) Breach of contract for the ammunition purchase contract in August (6.5 SAUM and 6 Creedmoor)
5) Common law fraud for the ammunition purchase contract in August
6) Unjust enrichment for the ammunition purchase contract in August
7) Conversion for the ammunition purchase contract in August
8) Breach of contract for the NDA signed regarding the Prime 6.5 Creedmoor ammo
9) Misappropriation of trade secrets regarding the Prime 6.5 Creedmoor ammo (Prime recipe ammo produced under Norma label)
10) Tortious interference with prospective business relations because Prime reputation was damaged by all this
11) Tortious interference with contractual relations for confiscating inventory meant to go to Prime Club members
12) Civil conspiracy for the idea that RUAG was scheming to put Prime out of business
13) Bad faith for eliminating Prime as a competitor to RUAG's Hunting & Sport business unit
14) Punitive damages because Prime believes this was all an intentional plot against them
 
  • Like
Reactions: manki77 and JLP83

Orkboy59

Online Training Member
Online Training Access
Minuteman
Jul 31, 2018
17
12
6
Las Vegas, NV
Im looking at putting together a fairly light weight hunting rifle in 6.5 PRC with 24" barrel primarily for the 143 gr ELD-X. As far as twist rate goes, 1:7 or 1:8?

Conan
 

kabarNC

Learning..
Belligerents
Feb 11, 2017
380
285
69
State line of the Carolinas
Bartlein also recommends that twist rate. You can have success with 1:8, but a faster twist will be more stable. Anything bigger/ longer than 147s and you for sure want 1:7. Maybe someone else can chime in.
 

Ledzep

Chancellor
Belligerents
Jun 9, 2009
2,063
902
219
NE
You don't need a 1:7 for 147's. 1:7.5 is as fast as I'd ever go, especially with a PRC. Factory 147gr creedmoor ammo is running in the mid/upper 2600's and is fine in all those 1:8 twist guns. At 2900+ you'll have no problem with a 1:8. Even the new 135's and 153's were meant to work in an 8 twist.

How lighter bullets will work in a 7 twist is they'll blow up. I've run 95gr Vmaxs to 3900fps in my 6.5 SAUM 8 twist (HOT load), and they were on the edge of letting go (over 350k rpm). 123's or heavier will probably be fine in 1:7 or 1:8.
 

IHFarmer07

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 26, 2018
218
47
34
Freeburg, Missouri
Im going to run 143s, i guess ill let you know when i get it.
Thanks. I know I wasn’t specific in grain but I was more or less wandering about lighter bullets than that.

You don't need a 1:7 for 147's. 1:7.5 is as fast as I'd ever go, especially with a PRC. Factory 147gr creedmoor ammo is running in the mid/upper 2600's and is fine in all those 1:8 twist guns. At 2900+ you'll have no problem with a 1:8. Even the new 135's and 153's were meant to work in an 8 twist.

How lighter bullets will work in a 7 twist is they'll blow up. I've run 95gr Vmaxs to 3900fps in my 6.5 SAUM 8 twist (HOT load), and they were on the edge of letting go (over 350k rpm). 123's or heavier will probably be fine in 1:7 or 1:8.
Thanks @led zeppelin, this is more what I was wandering about. I bet a person could do a 1-7.5 and be a good to go, not that I’d go below 100grain on bullets as idk if it would be very good very far because the bullet would be a short fat sucker and suck for things past 500yrds other than be a lazer.
If I need a bullet that low I’d use my .243 or Valkyrie.
 

BCX

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 18, 2018
796
261
69
I'm having good luck w 5R 1-7 w 147 ELD. If anyone wants to try Sierra 150 i have 49 for sale in the reloading section!!!
 

jwknutson17

Big Game Hunter
Belligerents
Apr 29, 2017
1,843
894
119
Colorado
Called Proof today to try to get a prefit TL3 LA 6.5 PRC and was told "No go". Apparently the tenon length on the LA is a thou longer then the SA ones. And they wont spin it up as a prefit with the LA tenon length. I was trying to not go down the route of buying a blank and a having a smith chamber it. As the cost ends up $550 or more in the end. Already have the TL3 LA and was planning on running the 150 gr SMK bullets or the new A-Tips. Oh well. Anyone know of someone who can chamber up a prefit without sending my action to them with long lead times with the .188 fb.? Edit.. TS customs is taking care of me.

And I am looking for a box of 50 ADG 6.5 PRC brass if anyone has an extra they will sell me?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Who?Me? and 243AI

IHFarmer07

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 26, 2018
218
47
34
Freeburg, Missouri
I'm having good luck w 5R 1-7 w 147 ELD. If anyone wants to try Sierra 150 i have 49 for sale in the reloading section!!!
I ended up getting a barreled action ordered and ended up getting a 1-7 twist 4 groove Krieger......what is the lowest grain bullet you have tried with a 1-7?
I did some stability tests on Berger’s web site and jbms’s site and everything I tried was in the green or good but I had the lighter bullets sg value of 2.95 using a 120 Berger target bt going 3400fps and 2.89 going 3200fps.
On jbm’s site a Hornady eldm 120 going 3400fps has a sg of 3.80 and 3.73 sg going 3200. Then I do a Hornady gmx and the sg value of 2.303 at 3200fps...... it seems that as long as the sg don’t go below 1.5sg it’s fine but seems that you can go pretty high on the sg.
 

BCX

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 18, 2018
796
261
69
Im working w Warner Flatline 123 but solids don't count.
 

BCX

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 18, 2018
796
261
69
Sorry guys been working out of town away from a computer. I mapped the 123 from 3053 fps- 3469 fps. My go to load is 2.955 OAL @ 3445 FPS SD 2.5 ES 6 (5 shot during testing) from a 28 inch barrel. I bet i can push it to 3500 FPS. Most test loads under 10 SD/ES. I tried running them into the lands closer but accuracy went to shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IHFarmer07

BCX

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 18, 2018
796
261
69
1-1.25 3 shot groups at 300 yards off bipod. I played w a few loads out to 1k but the wind wasn't in my favor for good accuracy testing. I'm using .650 bc in my program and has tracked well out to 1K. Going to try more testing this weekend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IHFarmer07

acourvil

Chief
Belligerents
Feb 28, 2013
112
22
22
San Jose, CA
Thanks, that's helpful. What powder are you using and how much? One of my initial questions before starting to develop a load is whether H1000 is too slow for the flatlines and whether a faster powder is needed.
 

BCX

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 18, 2018
796
261
69
Email Dan ,

he will send you load data.

RL-26 is what i used. Always works up your loads. There has been 3 different 6.5 PRC reamers that i know of. Mine was .188 FB
 

acourvil

Chief
Belligerents
Feb 28, 2013
112
22
22
San Jose, CA
O.k., thanks. My barrel was done with a .188 reamer. RL-26 is in the same general burn rate range as H1000, so that's good info. I've previously gotten load data from Dan, but what he sent was a list generated from Quickload with tweaked characteristics of the bullet. Not as useful as data from actual load testing.

I haven't checked the measurements of 123gn flatlines against the 121gn flatlines yet, but assuming the BTO is similar, it sounds like your 2.955 OAL gives you roughly a .040 - .050 jump. That's what I usually start with with solids, I've never gotten good results with solids close to the lands.
 

BCX

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 18, 2018
796
261
69
This was my first experience w solids unless you consider Barnes TTSX/TSX solids. LOL....I tend to load hot so i hate loading close to the lands. The closer i got to the lands the worse accuracy got.
 

BCX

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 18, 2018
796
261
69
IDK i haven't watched for it. I stocked up w 700 pieces 2 years ago.
 

ormandj

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Nov 5, 2009
115
42
34
Alamo Heights, TX
Email Dan ,

he will send you load data.

RL-26 is what i used. Always works up your loads. There has been 3 different 6.5 PRC reamers that i know of. Mine was .188 FB
That's actually great news. With Accurate AICS WSM magazines, I can go with 2.950 COAL. Sounds like that's nearly what you're running with SAAMI chamber spec. Did you happen to load any at that COAL, and did they shoot well? I'd love to stay magazine fed if possible in my SA.
 

NVScout

U.O.F. FanBoy!!
Belligerents
Feb 25, 2017
544
61
34
Reno,NV
That's actually great news. With Accurate AICS WSM magazines, I can go with 2.950 COAL. Sounds like that's nearly what you're running with SAAMI chamber spec. Did you happen to load any at that COAL, and did they shoot well? I'd love to stay magazine fed if possible in my SA.
140 hybrids @ 2.950 and they were jumping .085 with my .188 FB
 

Attachments

BCX

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 18, 2018
796
261
69
That's actually great news. With Accurate AICS WSM magazines, I can go with 2.950 COAL. Sounds like that's nearly what you're running with SAAMI chamber spec. Did you happen to load any at that COAL, and did they shoot well? I'd love to stay magazine fed if possible in my SA.
Measure your accurate mag. I mag fed them at 2.955 no problem. I also have a Alpha 300 Wsm type 4 which has almost 2.980
 

ormandj

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Nov 5, 2009
115
42
34
Alamo Heights, TX
140 hybrids @ 2.950 and they were jumping .085 with my .188 FB
I'm sure ELD-Ms and Xs will do fine too, they love jump. The old Flatline 121/122s did not. That's why BCX's load was so interesting to me.

Measure your accurate mag. I mag fed them at 2.955 no problem. I also have a Alpha 300 Wsm type 4 which has almost 2.980
Copy that. Still waiting on them to come in, so was just going off the specifications. Great to hear! Thanks again.
 

DEW0341

O⚡️3
Belligerents
May 19, 2017
184
57
34
Kbay, HI
Barrel length 24” or 26” non suppressed??? Looking at a proof carbon in one of those lengths. Wondering what the data is on 143 ELD-x, 147 ELD-m and possibly 156 Berger EOL elite hunter.
 

Ledzep

Chancellor
Belligerents
Jun 9, 2009
2,063
902
219
NE
2" of barrel is ~30-60fps so figure what it's worth to you. If you're going to hunt anything bigger than whitetail I'd use the 143 ELD-X of what you've listed, but I know guys have dropped mulies with 147s. Never seen the 156 in the wild yet. If it's like Berger's other "Hunting" offerings I'd steer clear, personally. ELD-M, VLD's, etc. are essentially heavy varmint bullets. Super thin jackets and no core retention. That said, don't try to punch through bone with match bullets (ELD-M, VLD, etc.) and it usually works out if they blow up in the vitals. The 143 has a substantially thicker jacket and an interlock ring to help retain the core.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DEW0341

jwknutson17

Big Game Hunter
Belligerents
Apr 29, 2017
1,843
894
119
Colorado
Barrel length 24” or 26” non suppressed??? Looking at a proof carbon in one of those lengths. Wondering what the data is on 143 ELD-x, 147 ELD-m and possibly 156 Berger EOL elite hunter.
If running the heavies and no suppressor I don't see why you wouldn't opt for the 26. Run a slightly milder load and still get them moving. I've seen some good numbers out of 24" tubes and RL26 and H1k also. Don't think you can go wrong with either. But with no can, 26 for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DEW0341

rgrmike

Sergeant
Belligerents
Jan 17, 2008
347
10
22
Fort Collins, CO
I'm doing my research on the 6.5PRC...seem like you don't want to drop the barrel length below 22" to really get the benefit of the cartridge over the creedmoor. So if Im wanting to build a hunting rifle..western big game....barrel length 16-20" should I just go ahead and build a 308 or 6.5 creed? I was thinking of running a 20"PRC but if it's all going to be wasted performance then maybe the 308 or Creed is the better bet. I want a short, handy, accurate, 500yd Elk Slayer. I wouldn't mind running it suppressed since I already have a Titanium Can....

What do you guys think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Who?Me?

rgrmike

Sergeant
Belligerents
Jan 17, 2008
347
10
22
Fort Collins, CO
If you are willing to put up with the length and mass of a can, why not just get a longer barrel?
I think for must hunts I would just run a thread protector or a the brake....If I was hunting close to the truck maybe lug the can along... I just don't want a 24 or 26" tube and then want to suppress it and it be unwieldy. If I'm going to run that long of a barrel I think I'd stay with my 300WM to get the extra ass. I would be doing a Christensen Arms MPR so it's a side folder which helps anyway. Most of the shots I would take will be under 300yds....I'd like to be able to take confident 500yd shots. My current lightweight rifle isn't very accurate...or its hard for me to shoot...I only feel comfortable to about 300 with it. SO basically looking for a handy packable mountain rifle, accurate, not an ultralight so it's difficult to shoot but light enough where i'll actually take it on a 10K mountain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DDRH65CM

Who?Me?

I pay in blood ... but not my own
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Minuteman
Jun 2, 2019
127
38
34
Papua New Guinea
I'm doing my research on the 6.5PRC...seem like you don't want to drop the barrel length below 22" to really get the benefit of the cartridge over the creedmoor. So if Im wanting to build a hunting rifle..western big game....barrel length 16-20" should I just go ahead and build a 308 or 6.5 creed? I was thinking of running a 20"PRC but if it's all going to be wasted performance then maybe the 308 or Creed is the better bet. I want a short, handy, accurate, 500yd Elk Slayer. I wouldn't mind running it suppressed since I already have a Titanium Can....

What do you guys think?
From the hours of research I’ve done, I’d go with the 308. In fact, IMO, that is exactly where the Chris Arms MPA accels. I’ve fondled that 308 at a local dealer. And the guy behind the counter owns an MPR in 308, for feel/elk hunting as well. Tons of ammonium options, more than the 6.5CM, and much much more than the 6.5 PRC.

And for context, I have a 6.5CM in RPR, and have a 6.5 PRC on the way.
 

rgrmike

Sergeant
Belligerents
Jan 17, 2008
347
10
22
Fort Collins, CO
From the hours of research I’ve done, I’d go with the 308. In fact, IMO, that is exactly where the Chris Arms MPA accels. I’ve fondled that 308 at a local dealer. And the guy behind the counter owns an MPR in 308, for feel/elk hunting as well. Tons of ammonium options, more than the 6.5CM, and much much more than the 6.5 PRC.

And for context, I have a 6.5CM in RPR, and have a 6.5 PRC on the way.
Thanks for the reply...Thats what I was kinda thinking...build a really short handy 308...collapsable stock and all that. That will be a great rifle for everything but shooting across Canyons. For the long stuff a lot can be said for calibers like my 300WM. I currently have a SAC 260 with a 22" tube. The rifle shoots phenomenally well but as it sits, it's just to heavy for me to lug around these mountains. There's a big difference in hunting off an ATV and backpacking for a 4-5 day hunt. It all adds up. I'll keep you guys posted on what I order.