I freely admit to being a nerd, and I found this:
https://skillatarms.com/6-5-vs-308-a-data-driven-comparision/

The significant point that guy made, IMHO FMPOV is this:

There are not that many public ranges with distances exceeding 600 yds. Private clubs with rules (hoops to jump through) is the norm.  Many clubs may have conditional use permits, and so the need be a good neighbor is paramount. Next, not all rifles are capable of doing the deed in their current configuration Ruger RPR in 6.5 Creed with a chintzy 4 X scope .  The scope / mount combination does not have enough elevation?  So being asked to validate your equipment seems like simple request.  The variables when shooting longer ranges multiply.....light condition, wind conditions, range topography.

The club I belong to a has range qualification day and some pretty flexible club officers if a person can not make the class.  Then you must have 3 people shooter/spotter/someone in the target pits.

The first Palma match I shot had a similar thing where if you couldn't get on target in so many rounds at 800 you couldn't shoot the match.  I was worried because I had no experience with those type of irons particularly at that distance, and a new to me competition rifle I had very little data for.

I went to the 600 yard range and established a zero and used Strelok to predict 800 yard dope and was within 2 moa of center on my first cold bore shot at the match.  While your criteria is tighter and the range difference larger, I would do the same thing.  Establish 600 yard zero, shoot enough groups to be confident in the rifle/ammo/shooter system that it will group <2 MOA repeatably, gather chronograph data at the same time, put it all together in Strelok and just yeet for 1200.

I guess it's no longer the flavor of the month, but my 26" Bergara in an MDT chassis, chambered in 300 PRC, shooting 225gr ELD-M factory loads, had no issues on the 1000-yard range at my club.  Only about $2.50 per pull of the trigger

I am finally filling out my range guns.(guns for different ranges) I agree with you on the PRC. I love my sons but I will only use it if reaching past 1,200. I don’t want to burn that much powder and like to spot my hits. The Creedmoor at 1,000-1,200 is very doable even with basic wind reading skills. Use your dope and shoot on calm days!

Ok, so in the intervening few days (weeks) I have drank deeply of the Creedmoor koolaid,  I am now the owner of at least one new (to me) boomstick(s).    I have also invested in some of Hornady's finest precious metals in the form of Match 140 ELD-M's to supplement the Winchester 120's and S&B 140's I already have.  Eventually I will obtain the requisite parts to assemble my own precious metals, but I don't have the proper tools to make them now.  So, since they are sort of identical, (similar?) I am going ask questions that apply to both as if there was only one. Both have 24" barrels and no muzzle device (except a thread protector at the moment).  Both also have 0 MOA rails, and I put Burris scopes on them.  One has an XTR2 8-40x and the other an XTR3 5.5-30x (they are what I had, don't judge).  I have not had the opportunity to shoot either.  When I do have the opportunity to test fire/zero, I am only likely to have access to 100 yards locally and I will chrono then.  I would like to use one of these for the qualification(s) I need to perform (kinda the whole point of these), first to 600, then to 1200.  

So, I need some educated guesses from those of you that have come before.  I am pretty certain that I won't need any +MOA rail to get to the first stage of 600, both scopes should have more than enough internal adjustment for that.  What I don't know is if I will need +MOA to get to 1200 (and beyond).  If I AM going to need to add a rail, I need to get it ordered, so I can get it installed and re zeroed.  I am also going to bolt an ARCA rail to the forend so I can use my bipod etc.  Eventually I am going to want to probably go with a full chassis (the Woox Furiosa looks really cool) so I can switch to AICS mags, but I do have 2 factory 10 round mags, so I can get by for now.  Am I missing anything (other than knowledge and skill)?

Ok, I have heard that one should try to avoid being at the end of the adjustment range of a scope on general principles, so I will probably invest in a 20 moa rail which will give me another 5.8 mil to work with before I try to shoot up to 1200.  My current task is the mid-range rating out to 600 and I can do *that* with my .308 easy enough.    

I got a savage 110 that I can change the rail on and another that has a fixed rail that I will have to get a mount to add MOA.  Both are 24"

The irony is not lost on me that you can get rails in +20, +30, and even +40 MOA but I have never seen one rated in mils.

What he said.


If you really want to nerd out on it, pick your flavor of ballistic solver/software/app...and start plugging in realistic numbers.  You can compare and contrast all day from your desk.  You need the bullet to stay well on the side of supersonic.  

Generally...1200 is far.  You need something along the lines of a 338 Lapua or a specialized 300, potentially 300 Norma throated for heavies.  You can do it with other rounds, but its a niche setup.

OK so one more hurdle passed in my quest, I just took the "midrange" course at the range and learned quite a few things.  Technically I was not required to take *this* training, I could have skipped straight to midrange "qualification," but the training was cheap, I enjoy the company of fellow shooters, and like I said, I DID learn stuff.   My instructors were a Marine sniper, a Civilian Benchrest shooter, and a third guy that may have been a police sniper (I don't remember the guys background from the introductions).   I learned that military trained "snipers" have a vastly different outlook than self-taught civilian "marksmen" I mean Duh, but I had no idea the gulf was that vast.  I mean the problem of ballistics at the heart is fairly simple, launch a projectile at a certain angle and speed sufficient to result in that projectiles impact with precision.  The MIL vs MOA comparison came up, but not like on the internet, there was no purse swinging.  It was merely simplified down to MOA was better for ultimate precision at known distances, and MIL was MUCH faster at unknown distances where you might have to do the math in your head.  The Marine came up with the single best explanation I have ever heard.  If I give you 17 quarters or 17 dimes, which pile is worth more $$, and which is faster to figure out how much you have?

First and foremost, calling WIND is fucking VOODOO.  I'm totally serious.  I need ALOT more training, explanation and guidance on wind.  I mean mirage makes sense, and I can see trace with my nice spotting scope (sorry Athlon), but when the instructor started talking about how "his" gun was a 4mph and we needed to figure out what our guns were, and then split his explanations into "this only works in MOA and that only works in MIL" ... I heard the explanations, and I believe I even retained most of them, but it was fucking voodoo.  Clearly 40 minutes of discussion in a classroom is not going to be sufficient for me to actually understand.  

I also learned that I am apparently a better shot at 600 in higher winds, than I am at 200 with less winds.  I say that because when we converted my groups to MOA, my 600y target was half the MOA of my 200y target.   Full disclosure when I shot 200y the pollen was whooping my ass AND I had had a Monster Coffee shortly beforehand.  When we got to the 600y line, it had rained and knocked alot of the pollen down, AND I had no coffee in me...    I still have to make arrangements to actually Qualify for midrange (take a written test and shoot for record) but that can come later and is individually scheduled.  Then the "Long Range" course is next, followed by Long Range Qualification - and I will finally be able to shoot to 1200.  

So, I was also able to directly compare my .308 with M118LR ammo to my two new (to me) 6.5 Creedmoors with Horny 140's, AND make some discoveries about clean barrels vs unclean barrels.  The Marine and the Civilian also had drastically different views on cleaning, and its effect on accuracy.   Typically I have been in the "don't clean it until it stops working" camp, the The Marine seemed to have a foot in each puddle, with a hardon for powder fouling, but was content to leave most copper fouling in as it's "natural state."  the Civilian...well, I got the impression he probably gets a weekly delivery of patches and they have to use a box-truck and forklift.  I noticed the .308 wasn't shooting as tight as I was accustomed to, so I pulled some patches through it, and it improved (the other reason I shot better at 600 than 200 .   The first 6.5 was used when I bought it, and I only put enough rounds through to get it on paper before this, so it was an unknown.  It wasn't terribly dirty, but it did tighten up after a few patches.  The other 6.5 was literally brand-factory new, I didn't have any chance to test fire or even zero it before I got to the range.  I probably didn't fire enough rounds to properly break it in, but I did pull some patches.  The most surprising thing for me was my ES/SD after cleaning were HALF of what they were before in the .308.  The difference was even more pronounced in the Savage, the ES/SD were mathematically just over a third what they were before cleaning.  I have that new little Garmin, so there was no reason not to record every shot.  I suppose it makes sense but I was utterly Shocked nonetheless.  I guess Cleaning isn't just for nerds anymore...