First, my opinion; I want a quick twist in a 6.5. I've always lamented the tendency of American cartridge designers to go slow. Think what a 1/7.5 would make the .243. I have always wondered about such a rifle with 135 grain bullets... Or a .25-06 with a 1/8 and 140 grain bullets. Or a .270 w/ 1/8.5 and 180 grain bullets. Nobody, not even Elmer, could spit on that combination for elk!

But reading Ness' book recently, I see why they did what they did. But I don't have to like it.

Anyway, the quick twist was one reason I selected Ruger's {1/8}. I own three of them. If I could own one rifle only for where I live, it would be one of them.

Having said that, and fearing the worst but hoping the best, I bought a CZ550 in 6.5x55 with 1/9. I got the best, as far as accuracy is concerned. But the gun is now a 9.3x62, so other issues turned the barrel into a cheater bar. But relevant to the discussion here, anyway, accuracy was superb with all long 140's and 160's, even with the slower 1/9.

At the higher velocity that the .264 generates, the 1/9 of my Ruger has worked out very well, with three shot groups going well below 1 inch at 100 meters and 1.5 MOA at 300 meters. I think the "point 5" extra at 300 is me.

Everybody's opinions on these things are valid of course, but as for stubby 6.5's, I chopped the barrel on one of my Rugers to 17 inches and everyone that picks it up and/or shoots it makes me an offer.

The original-military calibers were often made with quick twists to insure accuracy with worn bores and for long tracer and other light-core bullets. I suppose that means that oftimes there is a bit of wiggleroom. But I still like the tight twists. The Europeans with their generally tighter twists were smarter than our guys. Just might opinion...