Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 260 vs 6.5x55

I'll have to side with Bob on this one.

So much of the gun business seems driven by target shooters, hunters often following in their wake. Not so much boutique, LR hunting rounds like 26 and 28 Nosler, etc., but mid powered rounds for short actions.

And Hornady, offering such great factory ammo for their 6.5 CM is a big plus, IMO.

Of course, I'm prejudiced, having recently built a Creed, not a .260. I could have built either one.

DF

The 6.5 Swede shoots the light bullets and the heavy bullets. If a fella ever wanted to retire there arsenal and hunt there older years uncomplicated with only one rifle the 6.5X55 Swede would be the cartridge to do just that.






Shod

Being the inveterate tinkerer that I am... If you already have a .260, I'd vote for the 6.5x55 just to try something different...

I have owned both calibers. The 260 was a stainless Model 7 with 20" barrel (sold it), and the 6.5x55 is a Tikka T-3 with walnut stock. Both shot very well. For an all-around rifle, light bullets to heavy, go with the 260. For a big game rifle with mild recoil and killing power way beyond its weight class, go with the Swede. As I have said here before, my Tikka will put 10 Speer 140 grain flatbase spitzers into just over an inch. That's using old Remington cases I had left over from another Swede I sold and ancient Speer bullets someone gave me. With Hornady 140 grain match bullets it shoots even better. I've been hoarding my Lapua brass, but will break down and use it some day. I like the slightly greater case capacity of the Swede. You are using very slow powders with 140 grain bullets, and need all the boiler room you can get. A buddy shoots 160 grain Sierras in his and loves them. That is the reason for the 6.5s being popular in the first place. Long, deep penetrating bullets at a reasonable speed. I like the Creedmore, too. Don't have one.

I prefer 6.5 Creed, but out of your options, I'd take the .260 and not look back. I had a 700 Classic in 6.5 Swede, and really wasn't able to get any better velocities with it than I can my Creedmoor without seeing pressure. I also had a hard time finding reliable full pressure load data for modern rifles and had some CIP spec cases that didn't always fit my case holders. Altogether, I would just have a hard time finding a reason to buy another modern rifle in 6.5 Swede when .260 and 6.5 Creed are both widely available and for most purposes identical or superior.

Here's my 6.5 CM, a 24" #2 Shilen on a 700 donor in a Mtn. Rifle McWoody, Timney 510, glassed and freefloated. I picked up the stock on the Classifieds.

It's a shooter, just haven't shot it yet in the new stock.

DF

Swede has been around since 1890s, not going anywhere. In the short action 6.5 Non-magnum race, we see the Creedmoor continuing to build momentum. The 260 will not be obsolete, but it's fad seems to be waning, IMHO in large part to a lack of industry support, and it starts and ends with Remington failing to product more offerings in rifles, and in better quality ammo. Lapua brass brought the 260 out of life support IMHO.....before the Creedmoor. It and the 47 are fine SA rounds, but the 260 at equal pressure can best them IMO...slightly, and perhaps irrelevant shy of 1,000 yds competition.

Hornady thinks LONG TERM, and got it right. If the ammo remains high quality, and the price is held, it will continue it's popularity, but remember, it's a niche round as the 7/08, which has had 35 years to grow.

I think of all the 6.5 rounds used here in America, the Creedmoor appears to be the most successful in commercialization. That said, I like my 47 and will continue as I handload, but like them all, as I have had several Swedes, 260s, a 6.5-308 pre-260 days, a Creedmoor....and now the 47.

The latter has worked on elk just shy of 1,000 yds with a 127 gr IIRC, a sub-130. SO just remember, about anything you need to chase with a 6.5 is likely going to be well within the capabilities of a 120-130gr of proper construction.

The Swede has two things I am not content 100%, the tapered case, and the varying head sizes of different brand brass. The only thing I can say about the Creedmoor, in the past, the Hornady only brass offering was questioned as it's life.

It's all splitting hairs. I could be happy with any of them in a handy accurate rifle. Never had a 264 WM, a nice round, just never needed it's added speed.

I still feel a 6.5 on the '06 case COULD sell in America, but would it ever be more fruitful to the industry than a 25-06, an oddity, I would question. One thing is for certain, the 6.5 is FINALLY gaining some traction in America, by all the above rounds, notably the shorter ones, and yes even the lowly Grendel

Latest Swede photos.

This McWoody has nicer grain than the Creed. And it's an Edge, the Creed is std. fill.

DF

My vote would be for the Swede. 4-shot group.

The Creedmoor just capitalizes on an inherent design flaw in the way most .260s are built, namely a 2.8 inch magazine. With a 3-inch magazine that goes away. It's curious to me that more rifle builders don't make short actions with 3-inch mags.

Well I shoot a 6.5 x 55 since the mid 1980's my one and only now is a Sako that I have had for some 28 years now! I got 2000 Bulk Winchester cases, and another 5000 120 gr Remington Bulk bullets and a good 20 lbs of RL-22 and Federal 210 primers! It shoots well and the deer stay dead with every single one I shoot! With this one I got enough to shoot the rest of my life! Its all a toss up, there is not a whole lot of difference between them!

My new Tikka T3X in .260 Remington arrived last night so I was cleaning it, mounting a scope and checking length to lands of the three different 6.5 bullets on hand. Most of them when loaded to touch the lands had an OAL just a smidge too long for the strict 2.8" Tikka magazine - 2.815 up to 2.890" - just over the limit.

But then I noted that this SA has a bolt throw that travels some .3" past the spacer at the back of the magazine. Since all you need is another tenth or so in the magazine I thought, "hmmm".

Now there are several articles on the net about using a long action mag and lengthening the bolt stop to convert one's .260 into a long action. But I was thinking, and will verify this asap, that just using a long action magazine might provide a solution without modifying the rifle. What if one could load rounds to those 2.8 something lengths and then just position them at the front of a LA magazine so that their bases would still be picked up by the bolt?

Not the most elegant solution, granted, and possibly it only applies to the Tikka, but if not touching lands causes loss of sleep at night this could be a way to get'r'done quickly and easily.

Now that said, being a Tikka I'll go out on a limb and guess that it probably shoots pretty good even with bullets seated to meet magazine constrictions - I'll verify or disprove that statement this weekend most likely.


Just more first world problems...

Jim in Idaho,

My 6.5X55 Tikka touches the lands with a 130 accubond at 3.120 with a magazine that is 3.340. It also works perfectly with a 142 lr accubond and the 143 Eld-X hornady. Bullets are seated to the base of the neck with ample room to chase lands. The 6.5X55 Swede in the Tikka is a perfect setup IMO.




Shod

Factory Creeds won't touch the lands with VLD style bullets and still feed from a 2.8" box either... just saying.

The OLNY advantage the Creed has is excellent factory ammo.... which is significant. But, if the schitt ever hits the fan, or if there's another kink in reloading supplies.... it'll be much easier to make .260 brass out of the veritable cornucopia of .243/7-08/.308 brass in current circulation... than to make Creed or x47 brass.

My 6.5x55 Tikka was excellent, but only outran my Tikka .260 by about 75 fps.... and that was with 2" more barrel.

I'm pretty sure a guy could run any of the four "mid-6.5s" (swede, x47, Creed, .260)... and never really see any difference between them in the field. They all kick a little more than a .243.... and hit big game about like a .270.... seems like a pretty good place to be.

I think that's it in a nutshell. Well said.

Also agree on the 260 and 308 Brass. Heck, I've got 1,000 pieces of Lake City laying around.

Comes down to picking one that "speaks" to you. I'm a sucker for the Creedmoor as I like its shape and OAL. I had a 260 that was wicked accurate with 120's and 125's, but wouldn't shoot 130's or 140's. Go figure.

Nice rounds, all.

So what you're saying is Sweden and Finland are pretty friendly to each other?

I'm not sure even that is significant; Creed brass is easily formed from mil-spec 7.62 brass, if you're willing to give up a small amount of capacity, and from commerial .308 brass with one more step. I make my Creed brass from TW and LC, just a single pass through a standard Hornady 6.5 Creedmoor sizing die, no different than forming .260. With commercial brass though another step is needed; a shortened 7mm-08 die does the trick to bump the shoulder back without wrinkling.

Hi All,

Newbie here (as a member). My first post. I never recommend brands but will report what works for me.

I have a Sako 85 Varmint Laminated Stainless in .260 Rem. The barrel is 600mm (23 5/8") with a 1:8" twist. I run 140gr Berger 6.5 VLD Hunting in Lapua brass using ADI AR2209 powder (sold in the US as Hodgdon H3450).

Was at the range last Saturday to confirm the drop data from the Shooter app. The first three cold bore shots from 100m (109 yards) grouped nicely at 6mm (0.263") = 0.21 MOA.

Moved out to 200m (218 yards). Shooter gave holdover at 200m as 7 clicks (my scope is graduated in 0.1 mRad clicks). Don't know what happened with the first shot! Next two "grouped" at 9mm (0.354"). They hit 1 click above the POA. Adjusted the holdover to 6 clicks but didn't get the chance to verify this as it started raining.

I use my .260 for culling kangaroos on my rural property. Head shots are mandatory here.

Gotta love the .260. Gotta love the Sako Varmint.

Cheers

Don't know why the image won't display. The link shows the UBBCode provided by Imgur. Can anyone help me here?

Cheers

The software doesn't recognize ".jpg?1" as a valid file type. Remove the "?1" from the link so it ends with just .jpg.