Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Ruger 260 Hawkeye Compact

Anyone have any comments?

Preferably good/bad, not life stories of how much big game you shot with some other gun/caliber-in another lifetime/lifeform.

I have lots of different powders/bullets. Will probably put my 10 power Elite for load bldg, and then a fixed 4 or 6 pwr scope on it.

Thanks for your time, later....

Leroy,
I've owned a Thompson Center Encore single shot with a 24" barrel for 6 or so years. It's a fairly stout barrel similar to a Remington 700 in weight. Anyway that Hawkeye in a 260 should be a shooter. I prefer 125 grain Nosler Partitions for the deer here in Michigan. Super accurrate and minimal recoil. I've many other firearms but the 260 is most pleasurable to shoot.

LeRoy,
There are a few posters around the campfire that have one of the compacts in .260, I expect they will chime in when they see the post, but you can do a search and find a few of the threads, I would imagine. Most everyone who has one enjoys it, the only downside being they are a tad noisy.

...........Don`t own the 260 Remy, but do have the slightly heavier barreled M77 Mk2 Ruger Frontier 300 WSM, which has the same 16.5" barrel, 35.5" OAL and 12.5" LOP as the new compact Hawkeyes.

The 260 Remy/Ruger Hawkeye combo not only would make for an excellent hunting package, but it also makes for a great and easy carrier, an ideal truck gun, a light and fast handling pkg that you can literally take anywhere and be comfortable with, and while in the process, you`ll lose very little percentage in velocity (about 4.5%) to the longer 24" barrels. Sling the rifle on your shoulder and the muzzle end will be well below the top of your head. Carry the rifle by the pistol grip with your arms down at your side, the muzzle is well above the ground. Their smaller dimensions for hunting are to say the least, "very addictive!"

Now for the cons!....While you gain points with all of the above, the report will be louder due to the shorter tube. However, if you wear good hearing protection at the range and good protection designed for field use (which you "should" do anyway regardless of barrel length), the extra noise or blast is a non-issue. Compared to my 300 in the recoil and noise depts, the 260 is a puddy-cat.

Secondly! The new Hawkeye compacts use a lighter barrel to keep the rifle light and handy. For some, muzzle stability when shooting freehand could be an issue. Imo, that is simply a matter of some practicing to better master any muzzle in-stability when freehand shooting. In the field, shooting from a rest or pod, all the better.

My shooting and hog hunting buddy, thinking he could out do me in the max velocity dept, (not quite), bought a new 300 RCM Ruger compact earlier this year and absolutely loves it! That thing is quite a boomer too.

I load for another friend who has the stainless Target Grey Frontier in the 338 Federal with the same sentiments. A moose, a black bear, a few hogs and a bull elk so far to his credit with that 338 compact.

When the three of us go to the range???? What fun!

Thanks guys!

Got one last spring. (Actually the MK2, different finish and trigger.) At first I had to get used to the size and then I needed to find a load it liked. To summarize, I really like it now. Here is a write-up I did on mine:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...uger_MK_2_Compact_260_report#Post3120900

We've got more than one. All 260s. They all like any bullet we've tried. 120 TSX, BT, 125 and 140 partitions, they all shoot MOA or better. The 8 twist is where it's at with the 260. Velocity loss isn't as huge as you would think with the short barrel... but it is there. The barrel is only 1.5" longer than the stryker...

My wife LOVES hers. We cut down and painted a Ruger synthetic stock for it, which is a Hawkeye. My son took his first deer this year with his, and he can shoot it pretty well with 120s. My daughter has yet to shoot hers.

The 260 compact is probably the most capable and cool "little gun" I've met. Short, balanced, easy to pack, and accurate. What's not to like? And the 260 is an impressive killer. My wife will be using hers for cow elk this December.

My real world velocities out of my 21" barreled .260 show your guesstimate at the velocity loss in a 16.5" barrel to be wildly optimistic.

It's a fine cartridge, and kills very well at modest speeds, but let's be realistic here..

RL,
What kind of speeds are you seeing from your 21" barrel?

My notes are not in front of me for exact numbers, but I'm seeing around 2700 for the 130 AB and 2800 for the variouus 120's I've tried. All are around 100-120 fps off the same published loads out of 24" barrels.

I wouldn't be surprised to find as much as a 15% loss of velocity going to a 16.5" barrel depending on tube and load.

Still a nice package for a brush or truck gun.

2700-2750 ain't a guess from moly coated 120 TTSXs/BTs and three different 16.5" barrels.

Same load clocks 2900/2850 on average in two different 22" tubes, and 2680 or so in a 15" Savage Stryker, sans brake.

140s and 16.5, you'll be down in the 2550 range... and with slippery bullets it takes longer than you'd think to drop below 1800.

I've got some Federal 140 SGKs I'll run in a 22" and 16.5" for ya too, when I get time. PIcked them up locally, cause they had and OLD price on the boxes and I just couldn't help myself.

If I need warp speed I go to the 264 and it's requisite longer tube... but that's a whole other topic and thread.

Realistic about elk hunting or velocity in a short tube?

Speeds.. I have no doubt that a .260 will kill an elk just fine.

Your speeds show that you're losing about 40 fps per inch from 22 to 16.5 inch tubes. That's about what I see. Considerably more than 4.5% if coming down from a 24" tube. Still a killer used properly.

....................Wildly optimistic????.......Then here`s some proof my friend for you to ponder, that it is not only very possible "DEPENDING" on the rifles, but is highly probable.

See the following article at........."shootingtimes.com".......then click onto "Long Guns"......then scroll down and click onto pg 10........then find the article entitled...."Short Answer About Scout Styled Rifles" by Dick Metcalf. His test Frontier was a 7mm/08.

Please pay particular attention to what he writes after the sub-heading "Short Barrel; Long Reach!" You`ll see a percentage of velocity loss # there, which would apply to all Frontier chamberings.

Futhermore, using a very wide variety of identical reloads at different charge levels, my 16.5" 300 WSM, when compared with and chrony`d side by side along with 2 other 24" barreled 300 WSMs, the velocity loses averaged between 4.2% and 4.5% across the board. Or to break it down even further, a 16.4 fps to 19.5 fps loss "per inch" of shorter barrel length.

You say maybe a 15% loss going from a 24" to a 16.5"?????? Well! Assuming you`re correct, then a 24" er getting 2800 fps and the 16.5" barrel with the same loading would be getting 15% less velocity which would equal 2380 fps. A 420 fps difference divided by the 7.5" of shorter barrel length would equal a 56 fps per inch loss.

I would say Rancho, that you are too "wildly pesimistic" going in the opposite direction!! Based on averages, there is no way when using identical ammo or reloads, that the velocity differences between a 24" tubed 260 vs a 16.5" 260, will even come close to a 50 to 60 fps loss "per inch" of shorter barrel length.

Have you chronyd side by side your 21" 260 against any longer tubed 260s? Why not try that? You just may be pleasantly surprised as to what your "real world" results will be.

Sorry, I'm just going off my real live .260compared to other real live .260's... Not articles in a rag or observations of a completely different cartridge and caliber.

I'm funny like that.

....Yeah! You are quite funny!........Then please offer to us your specific detailed velocity experimentation results from your "real live" 260 compared with "other real live" 260s.

Did you happen to chrony identical reloads or identical factory ammo from your 21" 260 and then compare that to another 24" 260, or say to a 16.5" 260? Do you have some fps per inch figures?

If so, please give us your velocity findings and percentage breakdowns!

Shooting Times a rag? Suppose too that Dick Metcalf is also a rag and not credible? You can believe that if you wish. All I was, was simply the messenger. But at least I did offer an article reference to back up my credibility.

However, I do find it very interesting that Metcalf`s percentage loss findings of only 4.5% with his test short tubed 7mm/08 Frontier vs the 24", were very on par and very consistent with my 300 WSM results!! Hmmmmm! That would at the very least, show some consistency points between a 7/08 and a 300 WSM, would it not?

The 260 is a 308 necked down to a 6.5mm. The 7/08 is a 308 necked down to a 7mm. NOT a big difference there my friend; the same casing! According to Metcalf, whether you believe him or not, he chrony`d 2647 fps using the same factory ammo from his test 16.5" 7/08 Frontier, which gives 2770 fps from the 24" 7/08. That calculates to a velocity loss of 16.4 fps (per inch) of shorter barrel length or a total loss of 4.5%.

So if you want think that somehow the 260 Remy from a barrel shorter by 7.5",,would lag behind in velocity by some 15 percentage points using the same identical ammo, then you go right ahead and believe just that. And until you yourself perform side by side velocity experiments to show and prove your 15% loss hypothesis, then for now, that is all it can be coming from you,,,,,,simply a hypothesis, a guess-timation and an opinion.

Let`s see what you can bring to the table with your own side by side chrony comparisons with the longer and shorter barreled 260s. Maybe other 260 Remy owners can also join in with their chrony results.

In the meantime, the original poster who is interested in the 260 Ruger compact, can draw is own conclusions concerning our debate; as to whom offered or presented the most credible or consistent evidence concerning the 260 velocity loss percentage points from the shorter barrels.

Sorry, I'm just going off my real live .260compared to other real live .260's... Not articles in a rag or observations of a completely different cartridge and caliber.

I'm funny like that.

(chuckle..)

I've met Metcalf, bigsqueeze, he's as full of schitt as a Christmas goose. After a discussion or two with him, I got a strong impression that he's as much of a liar as Lee24, in fact, he might have invented Lee24 one fine summer evening.

I've precious little doubt that half his numbers are made up.

............MattMan...............In deciphering your above post correctly, I read that from your three 16.5" barreled 260s, you received between 2700 and 2750 fps, whereas using the same loadings, your two 22" 260s gave you between 2850 to 2900 fps. Did I read that right?

Well if so, then on the low side, that means a 100 fps difference, and on the high side it means a 200 fps difference, as the average between all the rifles you tested.

With a 5.5" barrel difference, that calculates from 18.18 fps (per inch) on the low side, up to 36.36 fps (per inch) on the high side. Based on your above #s, in calculating the actual loss percentages, I get only a 3.51% loss in velocity on the low side at a 100 fps loss, and a 6.90% loss in velocity on the high side with a 200 fps loss.

So! By averaging your #s right down the middle (2725 fps for the 16.5" ers and 2875 fps for the 22'ers), in taking the average "mean" loss of 150 fps as the average difference between your three 16.5" barreled compact 260s and your two 22" barreled 260s, I come up with a velocity loss percentage of,,,,,,,,,,drum roll please,,,,,,,,,,5.22%!!!!!!! That translates to a 27.27 fps loss (per inch) of shorter tube length. In comparison, using that same fps loss of 27.27 fps per inch as the best guide, the realistic difference between a 24" vs a 16.5 barreled 260, would be 204.52 fps or a percentage loss of 6.99%.

There ya go Rancho Loco!...... An average velocity loss of 5.22% from a 260 barrel that is 5.5" shorter and a projected 6.99% loss from a 260 barrel that is 7.5" shorter. And these #s DIDN`T even come from me sir. All I did was the simple math breakdowns. The #s came from MattMan and from his three compact 16.5" tubed 260s and from his two 22" barreled 260s.

Those #s are a long way from your hypothesis of 15% and "real life" 260s.

So ya see! DEPENDING on the rifles, the BORES, the CARTRIDGES etc and etc, a 4.5% velocity loss from barrels 7.5" shorter than the 24s, is realistic. And that includes not only from my 300 WSM, which I have done, but also from the 7mm/08 testing done by Dick Metcalf in that rag publication called,,,"Shooting Times?"

Checkmate and back to ya Rancho!!!

....Well, my #s weren`t made up. In fact, all I did was to either verify Metcalf`s consistencies in that article or dis-qualify them.

Whether he is a liar or not, is heresay and an opinion on your part. And because of such, there is no evidence that his published figures were in fact fabricated. That is strictly an assumption on your part to tie your opinion of him to his writings.