Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Is the .260 Rem dead?

I'll take that to mean you completely misunderstood what I said. You indeed are pardoned. Go and read accurately in the future...

It's all good... and ya... but 260 is still a bad sumbitch, that I'll gladly slum...

No worries Jud. It's just cartridges, not real life we're talking about.

Thank you!

PS Jeff, meant to say I believe "you're irrational on this point" not "you're irrational" (which isn't a very nice thing to say, and clearly not true).

My apology in advance.

Typing on an i-pad sucks, and I tend to rush my thoughts using one.

Thanks, Dwayne.

You Canukes seem to be some of the most courteous, polite poster on the Fire. I realize, that bar can be pretty low at times...

But, my hat's off to you guys. I enjoy and appreciate your input.

BTW, it's hot down here, humidity is terrible, just about too hot and humid to go to the range, and that's not good. Thank God for A/C.

I hadn't thought about the ranks of recreational target shooters growing faster than hunters. Hunting is getting more expensive, good hunting places harder to find. So, I guess that trend for people who like to shoot in inevitable.

Best regards to you, sir.

DF

That's also what my friends in the firearms, optics and component business say. The number of target shooters is not only increasing, while hunter numbers remain the same or drop, but target shooters are far more willing to spend considerable money on rifles, scopes and bullets. This is why there are far more "tactical" type rifles and scopes appearing all the time, many of them pretty pricey, not to mention scope reticles that often aren't all that practical for a lot of big game hunting. It's also why more and more bullet companies have gotten into the match-bullet business, when many of them started and made their name in hunting bullets. Target shooters use a LOT more bullets, whether competitive shooters, or simply guys who want to ring steel at longer ranges.

I wonder if many of those "target" shooters are a bit hesitant to admit that they get a kick out of "wasting" time and components on pursuits that are not hunting, and because of that, go to extraordinary lengths to utilize their "target" rigs for hunting, thereby justifying (in their own eyes as well as in the eyes of their "peers") the existence of same.

Yep, a box of Core-Lokts will last some hunters several seasons...

DF

Brad,

I never take that which is posted here personally unless it is a rude, therefore uncalled for, comment and/or a vile personal attack, such as someone posting that they wished that I would die or have another stroke. I just put those people on ignore and go about my business. I think that it is best to shun people who are rude. If you don't acknowledge them then they don't exist in your universe and all is good. Civil disagreement is healthy, as it keeps everyone thinking. OTOH, rude disagreement, including name calling, is just rude behavior and the people engaged in it are unworthy of respect even if their arguments are worthy of discussion.

Perhaps it is irrational for me to set such a high bar, but there isn't any "standard" threshold for "mainstream", so my use of Wal-Mart as my standard is probably as good as anyone's, right?

If the 6.5 Creedmoor becomes a mainstream cartridge, it would be the first commercial 6.5mm bore cartridge to do so in the U.S. in all of recorded history. The 256 Newton was, I believe, the first commercial 6.5mm bore cartridge introduced to the U.S. market and neither it, nor those 6.5mm bore cartridges that have been introduced since have gained much market share. The only 6.5mm bore cartridge that has gained much market share in my lifetime is the 6.5x55 and the initial vehicle responsible for contributing to its success were the tens of thousands of inexpensive Swedish Mauser military rifles that were imported into the U.S. post-WW2. Even with its success, I still wouldn't call the 6.5x55 mainstream, because all of the major firearms manufacturers don't catalog it as a regular offering. Or so it seems to me.

Most of the younger target shooters that I see at the range are pretend snipers, Chris Kyle wannabes playing "tactical" games. They probably do spend a lot of money on gear and ammo, too bad they can't buy skill over the counter too.

No, they can't buy skill over the counter; but if they stick with it, they can develop skill at the range. It may one day dawn on them that they aren't as good as they think they are and they may do something about it. Something like going to a long range shooting school.

Besides the round designed for SA guns, part of the secret of the CM is accurate attractively priced rifles and accurate competitively priced ammo off the shelf

Lots of performance without a lot of effort or cost. Millennial generation "snipers" can look pretty good, first trip from their favorite LGS to the range...

More and more of these new rifles have the tacticool look...

An inherently accurate round doesn't hurt. What's not to like.

The market does drive the product.

DF

I suspect two other reasons the .260 didn't sell like Remington hoped were the .25-06 and 7mm-08, which had already been around for a while. Hunters who wanted more power than the .243 could buy a .25-06 if they wanted more zap with lighter-weight bullets, and hunters who wanted more bullet weight could buy a 7-08. As a result the .260 seemed to many a round that was going over already plowed ground.

Of course, that was back before so many hunters had problems running long-action bolts, or were aware of the incredibly enormous advantages of 6.5mm bullets.

I actually rebarreled a T3 .243 with a Lilja tube to 6mm Rem.


It is a smoking accurate little gun.

Talk about an under rated cartridge. Not that I care about popularity.

My daughter took her first deer with it at exactly 198 yards and I have never seen a mule deer bang-flop that hard.

85 grain Sierra Hollow Point Boat Tail Game Kings at 3430 FPS flat out hammer every thing they hit.

I really love that gun.

Yes, but aren't most, if not all, of the cartridges introduced in the past 50 years, since 1967, redundantly covering already plowed ground?

Not all newly introduced cartridges achieve the degrees of success that their designers surely hoped that they would, for examples of such I'd cite, among others, the 17HM2, the SAUMs, the WSSMs, and the 338 FED.

Do you know the number of cartridges introduced since 1967 and, of that group, which have been successful enough to be considered mainstream?

PS - this isn't intended to be argumentative, just curious and not motivated enough to mine my own data.

I may be off base..... let me restate that, let's assume I'm off base, but I think that there is a simple reason wy the 6.5 Creedmoore is as successful as it is, and that is it's lower level of recoil. Perhaps especially recoil velocity.

Hornady presented the cartridge as accurate and long range, which is essentially what the magnums promised starting with Weatherby: long range shooting. In the real world, though, even super macho, tough as nails, uber-studs don't like 300 Magnum level recoil. Or 7mm Rem Magnum level recoil. Or, really, even 308 level recoil. We started shooting AR's and realized we liked shooting, just not the big boomers.

I never minded the recoil of my 358 or my Whelen. The 358 Norma and the 7mm Rem I found both about equally obnoxious, and I think that's because of recoil velocity of the rifles in those rounds.

The 6.5 CM gives people that fancy "long range" shooting an excuse to get away from the big boomers and shoot something they don't hate pulling the trigger. The 260 never gave them the cover of "long range accuracy" and "latest greatest" like the 6.5 CM does.

You nailed it. The AR craze precipitated low-recoil, fun-shooting, go to the range and have a good time. The Creedmoor is capitalizing upon it for bolt actions at longer range.

Dutch,

Light recoil is indeed one of the reasons for the success of the 6.5 Creedmoor. I mentioned this in yet another 6.5 Creedmoor thread elsewhere on the Campfire a month or two ago, pointing out that here in Montana it has started to replace the .243 as the "woman's rifle" that almost every guy buys for his girlfriend, wife or daughter. This is partly because the Creedmoor is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as more elk-suitable than the .243, due to heavier bullets, and here are a LOT more elk here than there were even 15-20 years ago. It's also partly because the buzz on the 6.5 Creedmoor has even reached many "average" hunters, who become inttrigued enough to buy one for their GF/wife/daughter so they can also try it out. When they do, they discover not only how well it shoots with factory ammo, but then they hear or see how it works in the field, and start to realize the 7mm Remington or .300 Ultra Magnum they've been using isn't really needed for most big game hunting. (I mention the .300 UM specifically because earlier this year I helped a younger friend sight-in the Creedmoor he'd bought for his wife. He was amazed at the accuracy and lack of recoil recoil, especially after being pounded by his .300 UM for a couple of years now.)

So how did the Creedmoor get all this credit, when the .260 (and similar 6.5's) were essentially cult items for decades? Well, maybe Hornady just did a good job oN publicity, and the accurate, affordable factory Creedmoor rifles and ammo sure didn't hurt. But I suspect some of the buzz carried over from the growing target-shooting sector. Ground-buzz for new cartridges didn't work that way until recently, which is why so many older shooters grumble that their 6.5x55 or .260 or whatever does the same things as the Creedmoor. Well, yes and no. If you're talking about handloads, yeah, especially in custom or semi-custom rifles. But factory 6.5x55 and .260 rifles have never been as affordable or accurate as 6.5 Creedmoor rifles. I know this through owning a bunch of both over the years, including customs built when I wasn't satisfied with factory rifle accuracy in either the 6.5x55 or .260. And just try to buy decent factory ammo in either 6.5x55 or .260. It's there, somewhere, but not in nearly as many stores, in nearly as many varieties as 6.5 Creedmoor. But the very first 6.5 Creedmoor I bought, a Ruger Hawkeye, put 5 rounds (not 3) of factory ammo into 5/8" for its very first group at 100 yards, right out of the box. My present Ruger American shoots even better, also out of the box, and cost a lot less.

Then there's the simple reality that hunting bullets have changed enough over the past 15 years that many can't fit in a short magazine and be seated to the lands. This isn't just target-type bullets, but some more mainstream ones. I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread that even Nosler AccuBonds couldn't be seated to the lands in my Tikka T3 .260, and still have rounds fit in the magazine. That Tikka has the standard SAAMI throat length, and the magazines are the standard SAAMI 2.84" long, but a popular hunting bullet like the Accubond couldn't be seated out to the lands (where it shoots best) and still fit in the standard short magazine.

The basic fact is the 6.5 Creedmoor is a 6.5x55 or .260 designed for the reality of today's factory rifles. Apparently that offends some rifle loonies, who apparently have their ego all wound up in their cartridge choices. Is the 6.5 Creedmoor the BEST? I don't know, because it's hard to say what's BEST, but it certainly works both mechanically and in the marketplace.

Personally, I like a bunch of 6.5 cartridges (as well as a bunch of other cartridges). Right now, aside from two 6.5 Creedmoors I have rifles chambered for the 6.5x54mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x57R Mauser, 6.5x55 (a custom FN Mauser),.260 Remington and 26 Nosler, and in the past have played around with several other .260's and 6.5x55's, as well as a 6.5-06 and two .264 Winchester Magnums, and have probably forgotten some other 6.5's. The only one of my present batch I might sell is my Weatherby Vanguard 6.5 Creedmoor, not because there's anything wrong with it, but because like many Campfire members it could fund something other rifle-loony infatuation.

But to deny that the 6.5 Creedmoor isn't becoming a standard cartridge (for good reasons) and to insist that the .260 or 6.5x55 or whatever SHOULD be the 6.5 of choice is to deny sporting-rifle reality. It's like the loonies who still insist that if the .280 Remington had been introduced before the .270 Winchester, the .270 never would have appeared. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant, because it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Yeah, but you'd be KOOLER w/o the 260

I have a 6.5X55 (Swede) in a proper length 70, WHY do I need another short 6.5 ?

OTOH - I'd be interested in a 6.5-06.


S As don't mean squat to me.

Jerry

ps: I forgot to mention: I've been occupied the last few days and haven't been here Seafire. I see there were a lot of comments made the last couple of days.