Being In Canada I can get the t3 lite in 260 rem or 6.5x55. Hey are both 1-8 twist. I would use lapua brass for both and want to shoot 140 vlds. It is my understanding that the actions are the same length but different size mags are used and that the 6.5 is throated very long. I also realize that the tikkas are generally smoother and more accurate than rugers. I want to shoot 140 vld at 2700+ for northern deer. Which of the 3 rifles will do this in the best manner (accuracy, ease of load dev, brass longevity etc.).

I will mention that 6.5CM brass is rather difficult to get here in Canada (not sure even where yet) but if if can be made from some high quality brass I don't mind fiddling around to make some provided it isn't an unreasonable amount of work.

Thanks

If the action length is the same for the 6.5x55 and 260rem, I'd get the 260. You can load it with higher pressures and make brass from 243 or 7-08 cases if need be.

I own both and love both, but the 260 wins out because of the benefit of multiple brass sources.

I forgot to mention that same length mean they are "long actions". Tikka uses the same size for 243/30-06 etc. Just different mag length is my understanding.

Go with the Ruger.

It's simply a better rifle than the T3.

Haha, I own Rugers and the T3, I would go T3. Lighter, better machining, more accurate. Flip a coin on cartridge, but my Tikka in 6.5x55 is the most accurate gun I own.

Well,we're at a standoff.. my Ruger 6.5 Creedmoor is the most accurate gun I got....
Making brass for it is not a problem,use .22-250...
I do like the 6.5-55 a bunch...most anything that starts with .25 or 6.5 works for me when deer are in the scope.

Lotsa people love their T3's.

I wouldn't take another one if it were given to me.

I've liked my Rugers.

I've got a T3 in 300 WSM and a Hawkeye in .243 win. Between the two I'd go Ruger. Both are accurate (both just under MOA) but the Ruger just feels better in my hands. Comes down to personal preference.

Would you elaborate on how to make brass from .22-250? Do you use lapua brass? Is there a write up or anything with pictures as a guide?

Thanks

My son has a T3 lite in 6.5x55 pushing out 125g partitions and 90?g Hornadys, a very nice rifle; accurate, smooth, lovely trigger. I have had no problems what so ever getting brass for the 6.5x55. We have 3 6.5x55s in the house, another was passed on, I have had one .260 which has been sold and given the choice between the two I would choose 6.5x55

Go 6.5x55 in the T3; IMO. GRF

Tikka + 6.5x55 + Lapua brass = success.

Get the Creedmoor so you can tell me how it shoots. Been kicking around the idea of a Ruger target rifle in that chambering for long range praire dogs.

I did some more reading (not always a good thing) and have some more to ponder over.

A t3 ss/syn in 6.5x55 would be nice with 140vlds. BC has a nice stock for the t3 which is quality, I can get a aluminum bolt shroud for the t3. It will be a nice "lighter" rifle, perfect for walks etc and 23" barrel. I'm not a fan of magazines. Accurate and smooth (used to have m695 in 7mm rem mag).


I could get the Hakweye in 6.5CM. Same ballistics pretty much except it's heavier, I've seen conflicting reports on barrel length. There is a review where it says 26" and the ruger website has 24". I'm not referring to the target model but the standard hawkeye. The LC6 trigger has the same pull weight as my glock...That's not cool so I'd need to do something about that. They are rougher and clunkier. Hawkeyes also aren't generally as accurate I've heard. I like the hinged flood plate.

People also keep recommending the new m70 featherweight as a great quality piece for the money. They cost about what the other two rifles do. The ONLY problem is that they chamber nothing in 6.5 (buggers) and I'm not about to buy a new barrel for a new gun. They are also 22" barrels but they do have the 7mm-08 which would also be fine I guess. The 162gr/168gr amax/berger would be comparable to the 140vld out of the 6.5. But it's not a 6.5 and the twist on the barrels is 1-9.5" which isn't all that great for the 160ish vlds. 1-9" would be better. I do like everything about the fwt though and nothing would have to be modified on it.

Thoughts?

Looks the fwt looks best. Accuracy the tikka will be best. Ruger should be accurate enough and doesn't look bad. A tikka with a BC stock and metal parts would be killer though.

Thoughts?

PS also 6.5CM is not available anywhere in Canada that I am aware of and I'm not sure I can simply cross the boarder and buy a bunch at a cabelas or something.

The Creedmore could be a passing fad. Just my opinion, but the Swede is here to stay. The Swede with 130 Accubonds is a good combo.

If you don't want a DM, go with the M70. I built a .260 on a Sako 75 action with an EDGE stock, cuz I wanted a stainless short action .260.

If I was looking right now, I'd get the stainless M70 FW in 7-08 at Ellwood Epps, put it in a Hunters Edge stock, load some 120 TTSX and rock on.

One thing I have learned, is to get/build what you want now, cuz you'll end up there anyway, and will save $$ in the long run.

What dogcatch said..

i have used a couple of tikka T3s and a couple of the FN model 70 featherweights...
the 30-06 and .243 that i've used in the fn M70 give nothing away in accuracy towards any production rifle...

unlike many here, i do like the T3 for what it is. but i do prefer the model 70s for most of my uses...

i would list my priorities as to what i wanted in a rifle, and assume that any will give me sufficient field accuracy, for any hunting... pick out the rifle that you really like, and run with it...
when you're field dressing deer, the difference between a .5 & 1.5 moa rifle fades with the onset of reality...

as to the cartridges you listed, the .260 rem makes sense to me... but i'd pick the rifle first, and the cartridge accordingly...

kman,

I use the 6.5/130gr Berger VLD in my 6.5-'06. So far it has killed an antelope for me, but it would do a deer as well.

jim

the list of people, that i know, who are very happy hunting with a T3, grows every year....

It seems everything I am reading is pointing to the fact that the 2.8 coal for the 7mm08 in the short actions will really limit the potential of the 162/168gr bullets. It seems to me that the 6.5x55 having 30/06 size mags in the tikka and being on a long action would accept the 140 vld's with no issues at all. I think the m70 fwt is a handsome rifle and if they made it in 260/6.5x55 I'd have one right now.

I think I will get the tikka in 6.5x55 with some nice lapua brass and make a nice load for the 140's. The 7mm08 is interesting and the fwt is a nice gun but I must admit that I'm buying a new rifle for the caliber and I'd like a 6.5 over a 7mm (had a 7mm rm for a long time). I had a nice remington mountain rifle in 260 rem that I sold years ago and never should have.

good plan...

I think that is a good plan as well. I have to ask though, why are you limiting yourself to very high BC bullets? There are a lot of great bullets designed for hunting that work very well in normal hunting ranges.

My T3 Swede Hunter Grade has been scary sub moa accurate since the 1st trip to the range using 120 gr Sierra PH's & 130gr NAB's. The Sierra PH's are a little "soft" on bone but the 1st kill was at about 130 yards on a mature doe that folded mid stride like a bagpipe with a new hole in it. My only ? now is to decide between 130 gr NAB's at around 2700/2750 under 47gr of RL19 and 129gr SST's as a soft shooting "do All" rifle....and keep or sell the 270 T3 SS/syn Lite and pick up 'nuther Swede in the same SS Lite configuration ...but the danged 270 T3 SS Lite shoots the same way! But then so does the 9.3x62 CZ...
Decisions Decisions
Ron