Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 260 vs 7MM08

260 with a 120g Barnes
7mm-08 with 140g Ballistic Tip/ go anywhere, shot anything! I like both.
But, I really do like the 260 Rem., I'm pretty sure nothing survives a 130g Barnes with proper shot placement. Dead on the scale from 1-10?? Dead is Dead!!

either one, ya won't need much more for big game hunting in North America unless you are talking grizzlies or AK Brown Bears...

but I tend to enjoy the 260 or 6.5 mm bore a little more...
for no other reason of its a little cooler than the 7 mm bore..

Glad I was between sips of coffee when this scrolled up.

No, it's 4 more drops, John. Read it on the internet.

So if I hunt the prairie does that mean that I can use a 25 cal. since I don't need the drops of blood. I was thinking of a 25 Souper/ 257 Roberts.

Isn't that the same difference between the 270 Winchester and the .30-06?

Take it from a guy who has never killed anything with either caliber; the .260 is better for shots at the right side, the 7-08 better for shots at the left. So you have to carry both or pass up half your opportunities.

Or just get a .270!

If we are talking elk, the 7mm08 has some intrinsic advantage in that the bullets are bigger. If the question was posed between the .243 and .358, both based on the same case most everyone would agree that the .358 is the better elk round. Why, because the bullets are bigger. Why is a .375 legal for dangerous game in countries where the .340 Wby isn't? Because the bullets are bigger. Not because it has less energy and a loopier trajectory.

The 7mm bullets are .020" (about 8%) bigger in diameter and 12% bigger in area. They have that same advantage that the 358 has over the 243 just not nearly as much.

I'll better there are 100 TIMES more elk killed with a 7mm magnum of some type than there are are with a 6.5mm magnum of any type.

Has anyone said how absolutely worthless they both are compared to the 6.5x55 and the 7x57?

Probably so, but no use confusing anyone on how many 6.5 magnums are in existence vs. 7mm, with how either kills.

Ballistics matter, but animals do not read them, so they only know then their CNS is out of commission, loss of blood pressure/O2 to brain, and/or other vitals being taken out.

I think what might show more relevance in ballistics is a head to head comparison of like BC/SD bullets of same construction/type, at respective velocities, shot thru a ballistic media/gel. Compare wound cavity and penetration. That would be of interest. Again, Field Outcomes are the best measure of the true merit of a given bullet, regardless of headstamp.

Suffice to say, both calibers have proven field worthy for over a century.

a "100 TIMES more Elk with a 7mm magnum"

True.... and accurate, But that's a useless factoid because all it does is describe the established popularity of the 7mm magnum with hunters

The discussion is about the 260 Remington versus the 7mm-08. If it's decided by sales numbers of guns and ammo, then the 7mm-08 wins the contest hands down

Agreed but my point is that there is an actual advantage however small it may seem.

That's true but it seems to me that the 6.5's maybe gaining in the popularity contest. I've seen some nice animals taken with both calibers on these web pages.

.260 with a 125 gr Partition
.7mm-08 with a 140 Partition

no advantage in ballistics but the .260 recoils slightly less and seems a hair more accurate in my experience but maybe that's just me. Both are perfect deer cartridges that work well on elk.

The 260 was a solution to a problem the didn't exist.
It served it's main purpose though, by selling more rifles and bullets



Put a 120 gr Ballistic tip in the 7/08 if you want an equal comparison

Wrong, the 260rem provided a modern short action version of one of the best killing cartridges ever invented, the 6.5x55 Swede. Just like the 7-08 is a modern short action version of the 7x57.

Both are useful and effective, but I prefer the SD/BC values of the 6.5 bullets. Even at modest speeds, they have been working well for over 100 yrs.

The middle weight 7mm pills offer pretty good SD/BC numbers as well.

yawn...

I guess I will be the odd guy in that I would unquestionably say the .243 win with VLDs is a better elk round than anything from the .358 win. I will admit a lack of experience with the .358 Win on elk but based on my .243 Win /105gr VLD experience it is hard to see how the .358 Win can be "better".

Pretty sure I would be hesitant to wade into a 600yd elk with the the .358 Win but the .243 Win/105gr VLD is pretty proven at that shot. I have done that and have been there.

I have also killed bulls at 100yds with the .243 Win /105gr VLD and can say there is little room for improvement.

and you engage in that activity willingly? Are you sure those are elk your shooting, and not mule deer?

To even suggest the 243 with the fragile VLD bullet is a better deer elk cartridge than the 358 is irresponcible at best. Unlike your 243, the 358 shoots bullets meant for elk hunting and will break any bone encountered. Try putting that VLD though a leg/shoulder bone as the elk quarters to you.