Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 260 Remington

When will we see a feature article on the 260 Remington? The 6.5x55 seems to cycle by on a frequent basis, and the 264 winmag has gotten some press lately, but I haven't seen a write-up on the .260 since an article by Boddington a few years back...

Dogger,

What goes for the 6.5 goes for the .260. Just feel free to extrapolate some ...

GE

Remington's marketing team is so bad that they could screw up selling photographs of pretty, naked, women (ala Playboy) to teenaged boys on testosterone overload! I don't know who the VP of Marketing is for Remington, but his/her picture must appear under "Inept" in somebody's dictionary.

IMO, what the 260 needs, if it is ever to be successful, are the following:

1. A big name gun writer to take it under his wing in the way that Layne Simpson took the languishing 7mm-08 under his wing. Without Layne Simpson constantly touting the 7mm-08's virtue, it would probably never have achieved its current level of popularity.

2. Remington needs to make the 260 available in all grades and styles of the 700, plus they need to chamber it in the 750, 770, 7400, and 7600.

3. Remington needs to make the 260 available in an entry-level firearm that is commonly sold at high volume retailers, like the 700 ADL or SPS. Even if they had to pay Savage a royalty for each Stevens 200 in 260 sold, it would be $$ well spent just to make it an option.

4. Remington needs to make the 260 ammunition available at high volume retailers, plus they need to offer a varmint load to help make the 260 a true varmint-deer cartridge for the non-reloader and casual hunter/shooter. Trust me on this, the 95-grain VMax is murder on varmints and small deer, but the non-reloader doesn't have it as an option.

I'm sure there are more reasons why Remington has failed to help the 260 be more successful, but their inept marketing takes front and center. Actually, Remington's inept marketing would make a great case study for the B-Schools boys and girls to publish in the HBR.

Jeff

Remington's PR arm (which is actually pretty good) was a deinite second place for a long time to other "strategies" such as a NASCAR car that reportedly lost several million a year.

There is a big-name gun writer who took the .260 "under his wing." Actually, Jim Carmichel was pretty much the impetus behind Remington making it a factory round. Unfortunately, Jim only writes 12 columns a year for OUTDOOR LIFE, and only so many could be about the .260.

The truth is that new factory cartridges are alot like new TV shows. If they don;'t show signs of floating high pretty quickly, then the publicity machine (and indeed the corporation) moves on, looking for another hit.

You complaint about a lack of rifle models and ammo is typical of people who don't realy understand the business--which includes some gun writers. If the .260 had shown the slightest tendency to sell reasonably well, more models and ammo would have appeared. But more rifles and ammo would not make people buy something they didn't really understand.

Look at the .270 Wnchester. For years the only factory load was the 130, and the .270 eventually did OK.

Not many people buy big game/varmint rifles anymore. If they do, they still buy 243's, or even .22-250's.

I think the .260 had several problems facing it. One, it was a 6.5. These have just never sold very well in America. Two, the 7mm-08 had appeared and already taken over much of the market for a short deer cartridge with 140-grain bullets--and hunters who wanted to shoot lighter bullets already had the .25-06 and .257 Bob. Three, surplus 6.5x55 Mausers were starting to come onto the market, some "sporterized," providing direct competition.

It's too bad. It is a fine cartridge, the one that I generally advise for young hunters whose father handloads, as they can start with bullets in the 100-grain range, duplicating the
.250 Savage or .243, then graduate to heavier bullets later.

But when I do that, many people say, "A what?"

JB

John,

I will respectfully disagree with you. I understand marketing pretty well, or at least I understood it well enough to get an A-from Mike Porter in 06/85, and I can tell you for a fact that Remington's inept marketing screwed up any chance that the 260 might have had. I sincerely believe that if Mike P. had been consulted on the 260, he would have suggested a significantly different marketing strategy or he would have told Remington that their failure to make a commitment to the 260 would doom it from the start, so why bother introducing it at all? Actually, I can't think of any particularly good marketing decisions coming out of Remington lately, certainly not the 673 or the decision to market eastern European Mausers, the 798 and 799, the former EAA line of Russian built junk, or the decision to drop the stainless 7s.

Remington never cataloged the 260 in either the entry level 700 ADL or the "flagship" 700 BDL, so that had to hurt it, alot. The only rifles initially offered in the 260 were the short, light, 7 and the, long, heavy, 700 BDL SS DM with its 24" magnum contour barrel. Since then the only other cataloged 260s have been the XP-100, 700 VL, 700 LSS MR, the 700 DM MR, and the 700 Ti. All of those are "niche" styles. Also, Remington only offered 1 "standard grade" load, the 140 grain PCL. The other Remington loads were "premium grade", the 120 grain BT and the 125 grain Partition. From what I have observed, most casual hunters/shooters don't buy "premium grade" ammo, they buy whatever is cheap and available a Wal-Mart.

Edit: I hardly ever shoot the herd of 260s anymore, as I'm finding the 25 WSSM and 75 grain VMax combination more fun.

Jeff

I watched a single Ruger Mk II boat paddle in 260 sit on the rack at a local Bi-mart for a couple of years.......until I finally bought it. After having that rifle in inventory for so long, that store certainly was not interested in putting another on the rack.

When did they discontinue the boat paddle stock? 02?

I decided to get another 260 for my son last Christmas. I went back to the same Bi-mart. They found another MK II boat paddle still sitting on the rack in Woodburn OR. I bought it for the 02 price.

Nobody makes much money on merchandise which languishes on the shelf for five years. One can hardly blame the merchants for not ordering a slew of 260's. Or the manufacturers for not making a great number of rifles in a caliber which nobody but us rifle loonies will give two cents for.

The manufacturers have to build what is going to move off of the dealers shelves or go out of business. Unfortunately, right now, that means WSM's, as well as the ubiquitous 270's and 06's.

I really am attracted to the 260 Remington. It offers all the advantages of the 6.5 x 55 Swede (and then some), but in a smaller package (short actions).

Every time I get ready to buy one, something comes up (like a pre-64 Model 70 or Savage 99) that I buy instead. I have been looking at the Remington Model seven for several years now, but they do not now offer the 260 in this rifle, a real shame. With the 260's light recoil, a lightweight Model Seven is most attractive to me.

Now, I'm saving up to buy a Remington 700 Mountain Rifle in 260 - I just wish Remington offered the Mountain Rifle with a Kevlar stock. Maybe I'll buy a Kimber Montana instead.

I cannot say enough good things about my .260....

IMO it's a Rodney Dangerfield type of cartridge.

(FWIW, it may have been a misprint on the part of the seller, but several weeks ago I came across a 7600 in .260 on GunsAmerica. I thougt it odd, as I'd never seen one. I went back and searched for it and couldn't find it.)

Jeff,

I suspect we are talking about two different things. There is a difference between the product development department, and the marketing/public relations department. As in many big corporations, there isn't a lot of communication between the two,.

The product development department does indeed often have its head where the moon don't shine. Your list is a good one, but then there was the fabled Etronx electronic-ignition rifle (the ammo is a collectors item now, less than a decade after it was born), and their late, unlamented over-under 12 gauge.

I got to go along on a Remington hunt when the 12 was unveiled. It was a good shotgun, nicely finished. It balanced all right, and went bang every time. I killed a bunch of birds with it with very few misses, as I am about the size of the mythical Everyman they design shotguns for, and it fit me.

But the question I finally asked: So what do we need with another 8-pound over/under 12-gauge? What distinguishes it from the vast majority of other 8-pound O/U 12's? Why eight pounds when most people are looking for lighter shotguns for field use these days?

They could not answer it, and the "they" was the guy who was mostly in charge of developing it, and the head PR person, who had just been presented with yet another impossible task.

Which is why they are now importing Italian-made O/U's that are considerably lighter.

So I think it is more a disconnect between development and marketing than anything else. The development guys are given a job, and instead of asking marketing for some hints about present-day consumer preferences, they just go ahead and make it, as if operating in a vacuum.

I guess some people did like the 673, but not many. I never could figure out why they brought it out with the features most people hated about the 600--and at two pounds heavier.

JB

As a career Public Relations and Marketing guy, I learned a long time ago that 90% of good PR is going the right things well; and 10% is helping the public catch you at it.

It's tough to sell a product people don't want; it's harder to screw up selling a good product enough customers do want -- but it is frequently done, in many industries.

I'm generally amazed at the firearms industry's capability of getting really close, but not getting it right enough to make the sales breakthrough they're looking for. Putting fiber optic sights on the S&W 317 .22LR is one good example - the rib and blade on the Rem 673 is an utter classic. The whole WSSM debacle comes to mind as another -- when a 257 WSM would likely have sold like whiskey at an Irish pancake breakfast.

But I really like the .338 Federal ...I think it's a marketing idea whose time has come -- if Federal will do the right things to make it popular and available. Brass for handloading would be handy; though not an insurmountable obstacle. Though that's another example of head-up-your-butt marketing -- I asked the Federal guys at one of the trade shows when they were coming out with properly headstamped unprimed brass. To which the Federal product development guy replied: "We don't supply any brass to the handloading market." When I got home I ordered a couple hundred .308 brass to bump up to .338 -- you guessed it -- Federal .308 brass was on special at Midway!

It's a mystery to me at times.

DN

I agree. My friends and I used to sit in awe of the team at Colt and how they managed to completely miss every opportunity for gaining market share. It was as if they intentionally did the opposite of the smart thing.

Interesting perceptions as to why the "failure to launch". Perhaps if Remington were to "re-launch" the cartridge, with the proper backing it deserves, they could pull in more market share. They could advertise it, as Muledeer says, as a great beginners cartridge that is/does most everything the 243 is/does, but better. AND offer the varmint load, too. Might be a sales coup.

Kaiser Norton

Just so they don't rename it the "6.5 Express" ...

Another classic marketing screw-up occurred when Colt bought Ultra Light Arms a few years back, and brought out the Colt Light Rifle. The head guy at Colt at the time (he did not last long) came over from the washing-machine industry, and was abolsutely clueless as to what they had. I went to the press conference that announced it, and it was absolutely pitiful. In fact, one BIG-name gun writer went up and reamed the Colt guy out afterwards. About the nicest thing he called him was incompetent.

JB

Many years ago the business savants developed the theory that "a good manager could manage any business or industry, because the principles were the same." A guy I knew asked one of the Savants teaching the theory if he thought Bear Bryant could manage Coca-Cola. "Well of course he could. Coach Bryant is a great manager!" was the reply. Well then, my acquaintance asked, "Do you think the CEO of Coca-Cola could coach Alabama's football team to a national championship?"

He said it was hard to decipher the sputtering that followed...

I will throw my two cents in here as well. I had a model 7 SS with the 20 inch barrel, and with factory loaded 140 gr bullets, it was not alot of fun to shoot. I heard the 260 praised as being great for kids and women. I think the model 7 with 140gr bullets would have turned alot of people off. Remington finally came out with some 120 gr stuff.
I hand load 100 gr Nosler BT and it is fun to shoot. Remington is missing the boat (nothing new). The 100 gr bullets leave the barrel in excess of 3100 FPS in a 20" and in excess of 3200 FPS in a 22" barrel. The recoil is mild and this is truely something that just about anyone could shoot. This combo is bad news on deer to say the least.
The 100-115 grain bullet is the accepted bullet for the 25 cal on deer size game, in the 6.5 cal, the 120 is the bullet, in 270 the 130 gr is the ticket, and in 7mm the 140 grain is what most use. WHY WOULD REMINGTON BRING OUT THE 260 WITH 140 GR AMMO?????

I like the 260 and it has done just fine by me.....after I reloaded with the right bullet.

The "sad" part of the firearms industry is that most manufacturers want a quick return on R&D and marketing investment. If the new cartridge does not show a sales return with-in 6 to 12 months after introduction the new cartridge ends up on the "close-out" sheet along with the rifles chambered for it.

Remington efforts to "revive" the 280 rem in the 80's has proved some what successful in that the cartridge is still chambered.

The 260 rem deserves another "marketing" push by Remington but doubt that will happen.

Doc

I'm with Pullit, bringing out the .260 Remington with the 140-grain bullet was a total brainfart. I was at the Grand Announcement of the .260 at the Shot Show and the mumblings within my hearing were "What the F---???" And I have to agree, totally.

Billy-Bob wants 3,000 fps and Remington should have geared the .260 Remington around a well-constructed bullet, probably a 110-grain, that would give that muzzle velocity. Marketing the ,260 Remington as they did, as a "Quiet little whitetail woods cartridge" is stupid.

Give the cartrige a muzzle velocity of 3,000 fps and a wide veriety of available rifles, and the cartridge WILL SELL. But cut it's nuts off by pushing the 140-grain offering is guaranteed to kill this fine round.

Steve

I think that you could have a .260 Rem on a variety of Remington rifles by shopping the take off parts, and retro-fitting whatever rifle you want. There are lots of Remington "take offs" for sale out there on the Internet. You probably would have to buy a new barrel, but that is great fun for a rifle looney anyway.

The whole Remington .260 story is goofy anyway. A-Square decided to standardize the .263 Express wildcat that Jim Carmichael and other target shooters were shooting to great effect. A-Square called their cartridge the 6.5-08 when they submitted it to SAAMI. Remington submitted their cartridge now named the .260 Remington some months later; the outcome was A-Square was ignored and Remington got the new cartridge. While both companies were members of SAAMI, the outcome showed some members are more equal than others.

I have been shooting my 6.5-'06 with 140 gr and 120 gr bullets, and the 120s work well on deer sized game.

jim