Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters ,257 or 25 caliber bullets

Here`s a question for the rifle guru`s : why is it that bullet manufacture`s over look making good or better bullets for a 25 caliber ? 25 caliber at .257 dia. vs 6.5 at .264 is the bullet that is the closet caliber to the 6.5 bullet .264 ? i would think a 25 bullet with the right weight and or shape could compete well with a 6.5 bullet? if some bullet manufacture develop the 25 caliber and put a new koolaid name on the new type 25 cartridge maybe the 25x284 imp. might be the answer with that koolaid name ? maybe BUCK 257 or ?

Because the fastest tradition rifling twist in .25 caliber is 1-10, which ain't enough to consistently stabilize lead-core spitzers over 120 grains. This is also why the sleeker, higher-BC bullets in .25 are generally 110-115 grains.

Yeah, longer .25 bullets would stabilize in a faster rifling twist, say 1-8 like most 6.5's these days. But there are millions of .25 caliber rifles out there with 1-10 (or even slower) rifling twists. Handloaders who don't read the fine print (or don't understand it) tend to get a little upset when some new wonder bullet hits the target sideways--if it hits it at all.

Easy tell to spot.

I agree with MD, but factory twist rates didn't stop the offering of high BC 6mm bullets. ??

And one thing I find really odd, is the fact that one of the front runners in making high BC bullets is Berger, & Walt Berger is said to be a huge fan of the .257 bore &/or the 25-06. Always wondered if he had his own personal supply of .257 dia, 125 or 130 VLD's, thinking that weight would put them in with in crowd.

I've discussed this question on another forum. Evidently some people have been enamored by BS from the marketers and think the .264 diameter has some kind of magic about it over the .257 diameter. This is also true for the .270 Win. The same people that think the .257 diameter lacks something fundamental for long range shooting and hunting think the same way about the .277 diameter. Somehow God overlooked the .257 and .277 bore diameters.

Well here's what I think. The diameter doesn't have any magic to it. It's all about ballistics coefficient. If you compare a .257 bullet with a .264 bullet as long as they're both equal and true in all aspects and the rifle has a tight enough twist to stabilize the bullet then the .264 holds no magic over them (or them over the .264). It's just the fact that nobody ever thought to use a .25-06 or a .270 at Camp Perry. They were too busy killing game with them. Most people that own them bought them because with proper hunting bullets they're both fine hunting rounds at normal more traditional hunting ranges and with less recoil than some others.

And another point here, for a hunting rifle they both have some very nice performing hunting bullet weights for their diameter that you can find in any bullet diameter. I have two .25 calibers, a .250 Savage and a .257 AI and with 115 grain Ballistic Tips they are great hunting rifles for deer size game. And for larger game I would feel very confident with a 115-120 grain Nosler Partition in either rifle. I also have a .270 Winchester and with the 130 Grain SGK or Nosler Ballistic tip and the 150 grain Partition there's nothing else I would ever need for anything from prong horns to elk. I've never been elk hunting but I've been deer hunting since 1959 or there abouts and have a fairly good understanding of ballistics and bullet performance and if i did have the opportunity and, for me anyway all I had was my .270, I'd stoke it with 150 Grain Partitions and go hunt. I really don't think you can improve on such a combination.

The recent attention to all the long range shooting and hunting hype revealed a lacking in both the .257 and .277 offerings in bullets. Nobody made a real high BC long range accuracy OR hunting bullet for either one. We never had a calling for it before. It was actually taught that shooting at game at really long range was unethical. A .257 bore with a 115-117-120 grain or .277 bore with a 130-150 grain whatever worked great in them. They killed a lot of game and still do. They just weren't prepared for the long range game. But the .264 for lunch bunch ate up long range shooting and hunting only because it had been made with Hi BC bullets and tight twist barrels for years. Now add in the market hype and all of a sudden the .264s-6.5s have some kind of magical powers.

If you give me a .270 (or a comparable 7mm) with a low drag design 170 grain or heavier bullet in a rifle with a barrel twist of 1:9 or tighter, the .270 (or the 7mm) will shoot right with the .264 at longer ranges. (In fact, most likely better. Actually the 7mms have been doing this forever because there have been high BC bullets made for them for years. But they have been overshadowed by the .264s because of media hype.) Same goes for the .257s. .257s and .277s both have suffered from a neglect of use in certain shooting disciplines that required really high BC bullets. You give them equal bullets and twist rates and you will see there's nothing special about any diameter except for the fact the longer the bullet the heavier, which increases recoil. But for most adults the difference between a comparable 6.5 and a .270-7mm is negligable, it is for me anyway.

OPPS! I think I just wrote a novel. But I needed to get this out of my system. Sorry, ok I'll just go back to my room now.....

Funny, I do believe that a guy named Richard Graves was selling 125, 130, 142 and 150 grain 257 bullets a few years back. Changed names to Wildcat Bullets but even they seem to be gone. 1 in 8 was recommended for 130 and up, supposedly the 125 would stabilize in some 1 in 10’s.
Guess it didn’t work out too well. Wrong koolaid maybe.

Check out "Blackjack Bullets". A 131 grn. .257 with a .330 G7

They say; 257 Cal - the sweet spot.

Filaman,

Like many, you really don't get it.

No, there isn't any magic in 6.5mm--except for that fact that just about every 6.5mm barrel going back to the beginning of smokeless rifle powders has had a rifling twist that will stabilize boattailed spitzers in the 140+ grain class. Meanwhile, many .25's had even slower twists than the 1-10 of the .270, such as the 1-14 of the .250 Savage and even the 1-12 of the early .257 Weatherbys. And even after .25's pretty standardized on 1-10, it wasn't enough for really high BC spitzers.

So you want everybody to try to prop up .25 and .270 by producing fast-twist barrels Good luck. Even the True Believers who've made really high-BC .25 and .270 bullets either go broke, or sell very few--as a sideline to 6.5's, 7mm's, .30's etc.

Please provide one GOOD reason anybody should try to turn .25's and .270's into long-range target cartridges when the 6.5's have been there for well over a century. You get angry when somebody suggests there's something magic in 6.5--but seem to feel there's something magic in .25 and .27.

gunzo,

Quite a few factory 6mm rifles had 1-9 twists long before the present faster-twist trend. Remington put them in their 6mm's after the 1-12 fiasco of the .244--and to save time and money also used the same twist in their .243 Winchesters. I know this because of purchasing a new 700 BDL in 1974, and it had a 1-9 twist. It wasn't a big step from there to 1-8, but even the 1-9 would stabilize quite a few longer 6mm bullets.

Of course Blackjack bullets would claim .25 is the sweet spot. Does that prove it is?

MD said it right.

Unless something like a .25 CM shows up next year, along with cheap guns there is little use to mass produce heavy high BC/SC .257 bullet, like we see with the 6.5's.

Pete...if you`re interested in the .25`s look up Operation Quarter Lord. A very good write up on the 25 CM, using the 131 gn. Blackjack bullets.
I`m thinking hard about trying that combo...have the action..need a barrel. Going to get a "try" pack of the 131`s, make up a dummy cartridge or two.

Yes John, I'm fully aware of the 9 1/8 twist Remingtons , thinking I have 3. But the Hi BC stuff still needs a faster twist at my altitude, about 980'. If I want to shoot the long ones, 9 isn't generally fast enough, a custom barrel will still be required, so no edge over a 25. Again, back to bullet selection for the edge.

"Of course BJ Bullets would claim.25 is the sweet spot. Does it prove it is?"
Just quoting them, thought it kinda cute, I don't need proof.

But... looking at several types of long range shooting competitions, sniper matches etc. there seems to be a pretty even split in the competitors using 6's & 6.5's. There might be a sweet spot.

Nope, just ciphered it, .257 wont cut it, we need a .253.

Just ciphered it 0.257″ to mm = 6.5278 millimeters 😳

With fast twist 6.5 CM and fast twist 6 CM, I doubt a fast twist .25 cal would have that much traction. Too many 6mm and 6.5mm top quality, high B.C. bullets already out there, .257 offerings lagging those two. Need a market to make it work.

Is there one...??? Not sure, skeptical. Won't hold my breath...

Time will tell.

DF

i kinda wonder about future market ? these rifle manufacture`s might be looking for a new dream cartridge ? the new koolaid again ? 5-10 years ? reason to sell the public new rifles,ammo ,reloading supplies and probably more. i never thought about what was posted but 6 mm has won as much if not more on the bench as a any 6.5 so that thought about a .257-25 caliber bullet being in the middle of those 2 calibers could be correct thought someday ? JB is right too rifle twist for the 25 caliber has always been wrong for bigger bullets ,but some barrel maker could change that ? same as a bullet selection too ? its too bad old Walt Berger didn`t use a 25 caliber rifle with the right twist barrel and bullets when he won all those titles, Walt probably decided he would sell more bullets of other calibers easier and that was where the money was or is ? i have been thinking about another new cartridge for fun too maybe a 25x284 or 25-08, Bunx barrel 1-8 twist ? will have to look up some of these 25 bullets on these posts. not sure if many of you guys knew Carl Gustason but here in Minnesota he developed a 25-08 and called it his 25X cartridge and it did shoot just a hole at 100 yards .Carl also used to do well at the National Benchrest Events in the old days too ,maybe old Carl was on too something ? Myself i have always liked the 25 calibers sure has been a killer for deer,bear,antelope and elk for many of us and when i have my 257 Weatherby Mag. or my 257 Roberts this caliber bullet has always got the job done well. great info from everyone ,thank you Pete53

25.08 = 25 souper these days. Didn’t really offer anything over a 243.

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/.25-08+.25+Souper.html

The .25-08 wildcat first appeared in the mid to late 1950's. Its creation was inspired by the efficient .308 Winchester cartridge and its commercial sibling, the .243. Vernon Speer, founder of Speer Bullets, suggested that a Mr. P.F Lambert of Washington D.C was the first to neck down the .308 to .257” and that for unknown reasons, dubbed the wildcat, the .25 Souper. The name .25 Souper is still used to this day although it is just as common to hear the cartridge described as the .25-08.

The .25-08 enjoyed a brief period of popularity that lasted through to the late 60's. Since then, the .25-08 has seen very limited use. This cartridge has a very small, but ardent fan base. Every year, a small number of .25-08 custom rifles are built for keen reloaders, the cartridge being favored for its versatile performance on varmints through to medium game.

Mr MD I believe it was because the European gun makes had started with the fast twist that the 6.5 ended up with that twist if it had been American gun makers that had started the 6.5 it would have probably ended up with a slower twist. Just my take on things. Cheers NC YTMV

No! I'm not trying to get anybody to throw their 6.5s off the cliff. And I'm not putting the .25s-.270s-7mms over them, other than a heavier bullet is better for really long range. If you really want to shoot a mile go get you a .338 Lapua or something. I'm trying to dispell the thought of some people thinking that one caliber bullet has some magical power over another because they were hypmotized bv media hype. That's all. In fact, I have nothing against .264 bores. And if you read my post above I acknowledged the fact that 6.5s had been made forever with tighter twists. If it makes you happy I will rephrase this whole post. OK, what I'm getting at is that there's a reason the 6.5s dominate the long game. There have been higher BC bullets and tighter twist barrels available for it since the beginning of time. The .257s and .270s have never been about long range or long long range. They can however work real well out to 500-600 yards with the right bullets.

Also, I know all about the 1:12 fIasco. I had a Rem. 700 BDL in 6mm Rem. I bought back in 1981. Loved that rifle. And it was very accurate. I killed a lot of deer with it. It baffles me why Remington didn't figure that a .244 diameter 100 grain bullet at 3000 FPS couldn't be strong deer medicine with less recoil. Why the 1:12 blunder? were they that asleep at the wheel? Winchester had that figured out.

Anyway, I don't intend to shoot a thousand yards. I'm satisfied with my 1:9 twist .250 Savage and my 1:10 .257 AI and my 1:10 twist .270. And nobody on this forum has displayed the ignorance of pronouncing anything as magical about anything. I was merely relaying what I had run across else where. there are some out there.

I do get it totally, and I feel most everyone here gets it. I was mainly ranting. There are some airheads out there and I've run into them. What's funny is when somebody comes on saying the 6.5 cm is magical and can jump through burnlng hoops and is all things to all people and you ask them from where does it gain this magic. And they him haw around with their mouth wide open because they haven't a clue why or about what they're talking about. But to them, that .6.5 bore is just somehow smoke and mirrors magical.

I also get it about the Creedmoor and why in the shorter actions it's superior to the longer .260 Remington. In fact I had thought about rebarreling one of my Yugo's to a .260 Remington to fully utilize the longer case.

Anyway, I'm with you guys.

The 6.5 ended up with the faster twist because so many early smokeless military rounds (including the 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer and 6.5x55 Norwegian/Swedish, as well as the 6.5x50 Arisaka ) were 6.5's loaded with 155-162 grain roundnose bullets. The faster twist was necessary to stabilize those long bullets--and also happened to work very well later on when some (not all) armies switched to lighter spitzers, in the instance of the 6.5mm's around 140 grains.

European 6.5mm hunting cartridges started to appear a little after the initial spate of military 6.5 rounds, and some of them were designed for lighter bullets so had slower twists. One example was the 6.5x54mm Mauser "Kurz," for short-action 98's. It was designed around bullets of about 120 grains, and used a twist of about 1-10. (I know this from owning one for a while, which would not stabilize even flat-based 140 spitzers.)

The 6.5x68 Schuler, essentially a beltless magnum, was also designed to shoot lighter bullets at high velocities, so had a twist of about 1-10. The heaviest in the factory loads weighed around 125 grains.

The 6.5 round that really started the 1-8/140-grain 6.5 trend among both target shooters and hunters was the 6.5x55, but it took a long time for Americans to catch on.

just read about 25 caliber Black Jack bullets 131gr. B.C. -G7 is .330 . Black Jack Bullets feel 1-8 or even 1-7.5 might be best . these guy`s say the 25 Creedmoor will out perform a 6.5 Creedmoor at long range . but its all custom stuff too,was very interesting videos and reads. now my question is should i dive right in and build a 25 Creedmoor ? i do plan on buying bullets first.