Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 260 vs 270

Ballistic gack notwithstanding, the cool, slick, capable, classic 6.5X55 makes the .260 redundant, unnecessary... contemporary gauche. The .270, well, everybody knows the .270 is gay.

I am continually impressed with how well my .260 shoots. I run 142 SMKs (when I can actually find them) and the thing is stupidly accurate.

Not much of a pic:




If this Lilja tubed 700 starts shooting groups bigger than .3s (for 3 shot groups) from the prone, I know I need to get more stable or focus on my fundamentals harder.

Maybe the chambering of the SPS in 260 will resurrect the cartridge.
I too never understood why it wasn't more popular than what it is.

ahh a fellow shooter who relies on tupper ware and zip lock bags to organize his ammo! I'm in good company...

nice looking rifle, by the way...

260 or 270, both are good long range deer slayers...
so what does it matter... one is as good as the other..

I just prefer the 260, strictly because it is the less popular...

I tend to be the NOT follow the crowds kind of guy...

This^. Probably the reason I hunted with a 9.3x57 some this year. Nobody wanted to bum ammo..

Nice rifle Mac

any caliber is an improvement over the 270

;-)

Bob...

If I want a 130 @ 3k.... I'll do it with a 6.5....

If I want a 150 @ 3k (+).... I'll do it with a 7mm...

Seems pretty simple to me...

I love how the .270 guys get one bullet, the 150 LRAB, and all of a sudden they're ghetto fabulous. There's a pile of options in the .550-.650 BC class in both 6.5 and 7mm.... When the dust settles, my money still says that the .277/150 will come in with a tested BC of about .550-.580... which still ain't bad. But, the .260 can clock a 130 at 2900-3k, with a BC of .550, and do it with 10 grains less powder... and a 25% increase in RPM over the .277 (1-8" vs. 1-10" at equal velocity) which you're convinced helps penetration.

I love how 6.5 guys claim a .50 point jump in BC makes a difference in the real world.

Bob, compare big game bullets. The difference is even more in favor of the 270. When one compares nothing but match bullets and Bergers, the 6.5 has a really slight advantage, unfortunately that advantage doesn't occur until the game is out of range.

Splitting hairs...get one of each! You'll enjoy both...that's what shooting is all about. Me, I'll keep my 270 and my 7mm08. In the hunting world the 7-08 has more going for it than the 260 IMO, and it isn't that much different from a 270 for all practical purposes. There isn�t all that much different between any of the three and any will do what I need. Prairie goat summed it up well. The 260 doesn't really shine until it's way out there at match ranges. For hunting ranges (IMO 500 yards or less) they'll do just fine.

I do lean toward the 7-08 recently as it isn�t as powder hungry as the 270, which is a good thing in this crazy, hard to find reloading components world.
If I was buying a new rifle it�d be a 7-08 because of the ease of reloading for it. If I can�t get 7-08 brass, I can resize 308 without issue most of the time. It's pretty easy to find once fired 308 for cheap. Haven�t see 260 brass around here for some time.

If that's the argument.... then none of it matters. Go even Steven on the BCs.... I'll still take the recoil reduction provided by 8-10 grains less powder.

Scoop of chocolate.... scoop of vanilla ....

If we're talking 300 and in, then there's about 789 different calibers that'll fit the bill nicely.

Or for that matter, like we need yet another 7mm iteration.

Exactly. It's why none of this ballistic gack matters. Just grab a rifle and go hunting.

Well....geeeeezzzz!

This is kinda where I come out and lose no sleep over it.

I was just pointing out that a few new bullets will pretty much even the playing field to the point we can't tell the differences.

Over here I have a couple of 7mm's...some 270's, (one of which is twisted 9")......and within a couple of days expect to help wring out a spanky new 6.5x55 belonging to a friend, to see if I want one myself.....

Same thing people say on the "over-thinking the elk rifle" thread, but that one's gone on what, 20-30 pages?

It's winter. We have to find something to talk about!

I was never able to get the velocities some claim from the 260s I dinked with. 2950 with 120s, 2850 with 130s, and 2750 with 140s is where I topped out in a couple 22" barrels. I don't have vast experience, but put probably 400 rounds through them, and messed with a 6.5 Creedmoor briefly.

While some may take the reduced powder consumption of the 260 (never a bad thing), I'll take the increased velocity and flatter trajectory, as well as the available factory ammo option of the 270. The suitable velocity with heavy bullets option is there with the 270 as well, without having to push things too hard.That is, if we are talking a general use hunting rifle. For a play rifle that will get shot a bunch and will see mostly moderate sized game hunting, a 260 is an absolutely superb choice.

Hey Bob -

Since when did facts make any difference????

They always do that, from historically to date.

CARTRIDGES!!! Not calibers.