looking at these and curious which yall prefer.

does the swede have enough extra case capacity to warrant a larger action?

Today, I'll give you four for the price of one.


Smartass Answer: Chevy!


Flippant Answer: Flip a coin.


Logical Answer: .260 - you'll have no problems selling it later here on the 'Fire.


Personal Answer: Swede. I dig cartridges that require words to describe them. Saying "Swede", "Whelen", or "Roberts" just sounds so much cooler when you're talking to the ignorant masses at the range. > than century's worth of history is cool, too. And do go for the long action.

See - four answers! Too bad none of them were worth a _______...


FC

For the difference in performance, I'd prefer the .260 and a short action. If you were talking about a 6.5-06 vs a .260, might be worth going to a long action then, but then again, I prefer short actions so would probably still go with the .260.

John

That is basically a long action vs. short action decision. If you are wanting to shoot the 160g bullets frequently then the Swede would be better. However the brass situation is easier with the .260. I like the short action better as they make up into a shorter, handier rifle imo. Either is a great cartridge. PH

Either round benefits substantially from handloading. Lapua brass is only available in the Swede. Thus, the logical choice is the Swede and, as is often not the case with logical choices, it's the coolest choice, too.

any real velocity differences?

Alot of (all?) reloading manuals give the edge to the 260, although that is likely due to the higher pressure spec. If you were willing to use the 'equally strong rifle and brass' argument to justify higher than spec pressures for the Swede, the greater capacity might well give it the edge. Ultimately, for reloading prospects, availability / cost of brass is a key. That would generally favour the 260, with the caveat mentioned in a previous post.

As far as brass goes the 6.5x55 can be had in Norma, Lapua, Winchester, Remington, Nosler and Prvi that I know of. The .260 only in Remington and Nosler (correct if wrong). Unless you want to neck up or down and deal with the headstamp issue the Swede is much more accessable. These days loaded ammo is just about as easy to come by, if not more so, for the Swede as well. The Swede is still on top of all the 6.5's component wise mostly because it's been around about 120 years and used around the world, unlike the 6.5 De'Jours we see these days. Having said all that we have each caliber and there's probably not a dime's worth of difference out the muzzle.

Agreed. And ".260 Rem" is especially tough for me to say--------6.5-08 would be a step in the right direction (for me anyway).

The Swede has the history, a sexier look to it, and a little more capacity. The .260's name sucks, has a bit less capacity, but would work better in a short action.

The Swede has a cool factor of 9.23. This is a full 5.1 higher than the .anything Remington.

When it comes to caliber selection cool factor trumps ballistic gack and logic every time.

Coin flip.

Ballistically - figure 50 fps - 1.5-2gr powder - more w/55.

Long vs. short is the BIG decision, UNLESS you want 156-160s, best in swede, though seafire here throated one or both his SS/MKII Ruger 260s long for them, and it has a tad longer box for a short action.

Lapua - GREAT stuff - in 6.5x55

260 = NOSLER/Norma -Same Same, diff stamp. EQUAL quality at least as far as accuracy IMHO as Lapua 55.

Yep, Swede's are Cool, but NOT usually 'short' though I believe Charlie Sisk did a few short Swedes throated for lighter bullets, BUT it may negate some or all factory Swede ammo from chambering - something to think about - or answer before doing a short 55.

I would ask yourself OP:

Do 'I' like short actions, or no preference?
Do I WANT to shoot the 156-160?
Do I want/need factory ammo? Both made, Lapua via NORMA is loaded to safe max pressures, others not.

Beyond that, if wanting a short action, and bullets 142gr and under, I'd strongly recommend a 260, and if you want better rifle options factory made - w/ammo, then the 6.5 Creedmoor needs included - about equal the 260 in speed - same bbl length.

Lastly, if a short action, and it's a custom build, the 6.5x47 Lapua is a SWEET round, ONLY source of mfg. brass is LAPUA, inc. ammo, across the pond if that does not bother you, gilt edged accuracy, but best w/120/123 - 130s, will run 139-142s but not quite with a 260 or Creedmoor w/o running what some say are very warm/hot loads, and perhaps in longer bbls.

Preference? I like both, AND nothing bad about the Creedmoor or 47, but I like to K.I.S.S.

That said, my newest 6.5mm is a Borden Alpine in 260 no neck turn, NON - ackley, match reamer - has a .100/less leade), custom built, 23" Bartlein, using OUT the Box Rem brass - .5-.6" easy at 100 yds.

When I used Norma mfg. NOSLER brass - I shot my last 4 shots into .196 using a modest 10x scope.

I am happy with it, but ALSO love my 6.5x55 in Ruger #1 K1-A (shot 1/2 MOA at 200 yds) and would never say no to a custom in it, OR a good rifle like a Sako or Blaser though the latter in single shot IS pricey...out of reach for me.

For the dough, you can get a Tikka T3 if found, in 6.5x55 and often get .5 moa or better, using Lapua and quality bullets.

Few 260 factory rifle options, BUT the model 75 I had in a Grey Wolf, shot VERY well.

What RIFLE do you want it in really should determine as they are two close to allow your choice to be made for a mere 50 fps. BOTH are great, but a little different in options.

A T3 in a Swede would be a rock star in this house hold. Side from that, I'd go 260 if on a short and 6.5/06 on a long unless one just really wanted the Swede.

Or you could just make life easy and build a .270...grin

Dober

Long action vs. short action

6.5x55 has slightly more case capacity, but not enough to make a meaningful difference, assuming that all other variables are equal.

The most useful advantage of the 6.5x55 is the ability to use longer/heavier bullets, over 140 grains. However, it was recently posted that Hornady has dropped the 160 grain .264" RN, so that longer than 140 grain COAL advantage may have gone away.

I was a happy 6.5x55 shooter until I wanted a stainless rifle that required less frequent maintenance, so I bought my 1st 260, a Remington 7 SS, in 10/97 and have bought around 30 more since then. I can get by with bullets in the 95 to 140 grain range, so the 260 works fine for me.

Jeff

Dober - your bad, we ALL know a 270 is equal a 6.5/06 or near a 264 in like bbls.....and simpler! OH and factory ammo.

Never thought when a kid, my beloved 270 round would later be viewed by me as BORING.....that said it never stopped doing what it does well.

Norma does make 156 and 160s IIRC.

I DO agree, not much the heavies will do outside the 'It's so COOL looking w/long bullets' thing as the 130 TTSX shows to outperform all by good margin.

85-100s have good utility, BUT I'd just as soon run a 120 BT on yotes for wind, etc. Lights fly flat a ways, but then fall out and drift. Not so good on larger game either.

I feel 129-142 make any 6.5 shine. Good results are had on either side of that, but most/none do it much better.

Lapua makes the 155g Mega.
Norma makes the 156g Oryx, Vulkan, and Alaska
Woodleigh makes a 160g (Weldcore?).

Some good choices in there if you did want to shoot 155-160's out of 6.5x55. If you don't think you'll shoot the 155-160's there isn't much difference between the two. Except that whole panache thing the Swede has going for it.

I don't have a clue which is best. I think it's a situation where there's a name distinction but no performance difference. I found a near new Ruger M77 in 6.5x55 not too long ago and have really been pleased with the round. It's very accurate with several different loads, has little recoil and muzzle blast. With the 120gr Nos.BT it shoots as flat as my 30.06 with 165gr bullets, which is not too far behind my long time favorite .270. As I get older, I'm less and less fond of hard kicking rifles so I'm using my Swede a lot. I think that if some computer nurd set about designing the perfect antelope/mule deer round, it wind up looking a lot like the 120 year old Swede.

+1.

I'm in the process of putting together a 6.5x57 on a MK X action. I got a Lothar Walther prefit barrel, 80 oncefired RWS cases and a set of dies in a very well priced package so that was enough reason for me build something a little bit out of the ordinary.
I'd go the Swede for the same reason.

Speak for yourself after revisiting the 270 recently it left me wanting and wanting another 6.5.

"As I get older, I'm less and less fond of hard kicking rifles".....that's kinda been the catalyst for this decision...

sometimes, LESS is MORE

I have one of each and I just cant discern even a hair's bit of difference between them.

Rumor mill has Lapua coming in 260.....

You can get Ruger #1's in the Swede...

Just need to find the right 270 I think...

Why complicate matters...the Swede!

Aalf, interesting, talked at length to a chap who works closely/for Graf's and shoots competition - can't recall his name right offhand, but in 07 we talked ALOT about the then new 47. In O9, saw him ago at SHOT in the Lapua booth and he advised that Lapua 'Was NOT.....NOT, going to make the 260, OR any 6mm/6.5x47 brass - a popular wildcat.

Lost dollars talks, perhaps they realize the 47 did not completely steal the show, as over on snipershide, there are a MANY 260 shooters, and some 47, and as many Creedmoor as 47 - SO, maybe Lapua has seen the light.

Have to say I am VERY impressed w/my out the box Nosler (mfg by Norma) brass at this juncture. Other than price

I haven't bailed on the 6.5, quite the contrary, MUCH rather my 260, 6.5x55 or even a 7/08, just My preference.

That said, for a non handloader and someone who shoots little but hunts, Jack O's round is still getting it done, as most do when used right.

Expect 260 brass with Lapua stamp soon.

I'm still rebarreling my TRG-S for 6.5x55. Within the confines of a 338LM size action & magazine, COAL is a moot point OTOH barrel life is not, which is why I'm not going back to 6.5x284...

I own both a 260 [model 7 with 18.5" barrel] and a ruger 77 MKII in the Swede.

If you like short light guns that handle like pointing your finger, get the 260. If you like longer guns with 22"+ barrels get the swede. What one will do the other will too.

But, the 2011 Savage catalog list at least 4 different 260rem guns coming out including the LRH and a 5.5 pound lightweight hunter with a 20" barrel. If you like the Savage rifles [they look very nice and shoot like crazy] then I'd say the 260 is your choice.

I'd like to see 6.5x47 Lapua quality brass in the 6.5 Creedmoor. Guessing that would set hairs afire.

Hey Guys: It's JWALL, are you sitting down? Had your nitro pill yet?

I'm ACTUALLY considering a 260/6.5 SWEDE. Can you believ dat?

The thread "Recoil Induced Concussion..." brot me to this point and if Dr. Ken will send me a prescription for Concussion Protection, aka light recoiling rifle, I can sell it to my wife.

I've only just begun my investigation. I know the pros/cons of 260 - 6.5 (I've already read everything on the FIRE about them). IF I could find the RIGHT rifle a 260 would be fine. However I've ALREADY found a TIKKA T3 LITE SS in 6.5. (I LUV my 270 in same) Price -$600. If I tell you where I'd have to shoot ya. GRIN

JUST got off Midway site, 6.5 brass is available in ww,lapua,norma,nosler, & (rem.not for me).

REMEMBER the decision has NOT been made yet, BUT I am seriously considering it.

WHAT RIFLE IN 260? Rem m 7 is not for me. The Ruger compact only has 16" bll, also not for me. I'd prefer SS but MUST be light and want 22" bll.

ALSO for consideration, my FIRST handload for 270 was 130 gr.bullet, 49 grs 4064 = 2900fps. Lower m blast, light recoil,plenty accurate. So I could LOAD DOWN my Tikka T3 Lite SS 270 and accomplish same.

HOWEVER I wouldn't get a NEW RIFLE in a NEW CALIBER (don't tell wife!!)

I AM SERIOUS tho about 260/6.5, looking for sugestions.

JWALL - A NEW FRIEND?
________________

Son I Don't Know You Well Enough To Miss You.........Johnny Cash

270/55 Swede, I hear good things about the 270/08 so a Swede case necked up to 277 can only be better. YMMV

I suggest you buy mine, I have one too many. Check it on the classifieds.

Just to add fuel to the fire, Lapua has added .260 Rem brass to their line of excellent products. http://www.lapua.com/en/products/new-products/1

shootem: I've been thru 25 pages on classifieds. Found 1- 6.5
but wasn't your handle. Is yours a 260 or 6.5. Can you tell me what page your gun is on.

JWALL

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth..._CZ_American_6_5x55_funky_st#Post4788250

That took 17 seconds. Click on users name and then go to View Posts

Steelhead: THANKS, this is my first time to even look at the classifieds.

JWALL

Hmmm...a 6.8x55 American Mauser. Just might save the world.

shootem's 6.5x55 is a sweet looking rifle - if I didn't have it's twin in .260 Rem. I would have this one!

Sell yours, please. ;>)

No, I've got too much invested in brass and dies and the rifle itself at this point.

I would agree with what most have already stated. It is a short vice long action choice. Second issues is what will the rifle be used for? The Swede will handle the heavier bullets better than the 260. 140 on down then no real differance. One of my 6.5's is the "other one" a 6.5X57. Even with a longer case only about 75fps differance between it and a 6.5X55.

I shoot a 6.5x55 and have had very good luck with the 120 grn TSX. This over a book max. load of RL-19 for just under 3000fps.
Put a 250# mule deer on the ground after 3 steps. Lots of internal damage. Have yet to try the 125 grn Nosler Partition. Really a lot of fun at the range to shoot this T3 Tikka. Very accurate and light recoil makes this a joy to shoot. My son's neighbor is from South Africa and he says they are very popular in hunting antelope up to and including 500lbs. Underated killing power here in the States. Buckfever1

This last summer I was at the range with another member who had a .260. We talked about reloading and he was very familiar with his caliber and various powders. After a great time talking he surmized that there was about a 2 grain additional amout of powder in the 6.5x55 accounting fo around a Max. of 75 fps if bothe loaded to Max. he used his .260 for deer and liked 120-130grn. bullets for them. Was a really nice lightweight Model 7 Remington that was a shooter. Good day at the range. There has been a lot of talk about 6.5x55 and long action. I have experienced that the longer action allows a longer COL coupled with a standard long action magazine. I also have a Tikka T3 30-06 and I can use the magazines from each for each, nice back up. The mono metal bullets will be long for size and the long action is nice. I have never had a short action bolt so it is normal for me. My Tikka T3's shoot Nosler Partition pretty good but not near as good as Barnes TSX and Accubond. Just my guns. I used to use a lot of Partinos in other rifles I have and they were always a very good on game bullet, maybe one of the best.
Buckfever1

I have 2 Tikka T3's in 6.5x55. They have become my favorite hunting rifles for deer and hogs and I have several other "higher quality" guns in 270 win, 308, 7mm-08 and 30-06. I shoot several different bullets, 140 Berger hunting VLDs, 140 SGKs, 140 and 125 NPT's. All have disposed of game swiftly. The T3's are light weight, scary accurate, great trigger at 2lbs (easily user adjustable), slick bolt operation and a pleasure to shoot. I don't reload but have a friend who is willing for a small fee. We've had good success with RE22 for 140's and H4831SC for 120's and 130's.

OR,

Just do like most 6.5 enthusiasts and get a rifle (or two) in each caliber and enjoy!


Steyr-Mannlicher Safe Bolt in .260 Rem



Atkinson Rifle Co. custom Mauser in 6.5x55 Swede

Wow! Beautiful rifles OrangeOkie. Thanks for sharing.

6.5X55, we have 3 in the house the .260 was sold. Tikka T3 in 6.5X55 is a truely lovely rifle. GRF

I have one - .260 Rem and 4 - 6.5x55 Swedes. All shoot as well as I do but guess which one I like best . . .

Orange Okie: W O W ! That Atkinson Custom 6.5 is one of the best looking rifles I've seen in a while. G O R G E O U S!!

I really am not into California stocks but, that one floats my boat. Out of curiosity & if you don't mind telling me:

1. How long is the barrell?

2. What does the rifle weight?

3. What style of SAFETY? can't tell from pic.

IF I owned that gun I'd be AFRAID to hunt it. I wouldn't want to SCRATCH it.

JWALL
________________

Son I Don't Know You Well Enough To Miss You........Johnny Cash

I know both are a tough decision as both are very fine rifles but being as I was shooting a swede befor the 260 Rem. was ever put on the table and one of the most accurate rifles I have ever owned was an ol military 1900 Gustav swede with the original step barrel shortened to 22" and recrowned will leave me with memories not to be forgotten about wonderful rifles..........

Thanks for the compliments. It is my favorite rifle in the safe, and it has alot of competition!

Barrel length is 23.5"
Weight is 8 lbs
Safety is Mod 70 Win/Kimber mauser style

The 6.5x55 will be around when the 260 has joined the 8mm remmag,
7mm and 30 SAUM and all the other silly marketing driven cartridges that have no reason to be on the "what's that "pile.

6.5x55 load data is based on the type 94 and 96 Mausers not modern guns. It holds a lot more powder in a properly throated long action, therefore is faster. The loads we shoot with Berger VLDs wouldn't even fit in a short action !

Two R.F. Sedgley Deluxe Springfield Sporters.
Top 6.55x55, bottom 22-06... a bit more class than any 260, especially since the 6.5x55 is built on a National Match action.
Each will turn 80 next year.

trying to figure out why i would get a swede if the 260 does essentially the same thing in a smaller action...the swede doesnt take advantage of its action length with substanially more case capacity

Gimme boredom......if I want "excitement", rifle cartridges ain't where I'll look....I'd rather go hunting,among other things.

That said, I'd take the 6.5 Swede...I never "got" the short action thingy....It ranks right there with variable scopes for me.

Boss Lady, nice rifles!

Gotta say, I'm an unabashed fan of the Swede. To my way of thinking comparing the Swede to the .260 Rem is like comparing my girlfriend (triathlete, classical ballerina, MBA, CMA, lover of robust, dry red wines and drop-dead beautiful)to Rosie O'Donnell.

I don't know if joe-public will support the 260rem enough to keep it around in the long-term???

The .260 has been around a long time. Remington wouldn't have legitimized it if it wasn't a winner.

If nothing else, it's use in competition out to 1,000 yards will keep it alive.

Where do you find the "substantially more case capacity" that you speak of?

The 260 holds 54 grains of H2O and the 6.5x55 holds 56 grains of H2O. What is a 2 grains capacity advantage, 3.57%, going to get you?

Assuming that the 1 to 4 velocity increase to case capacity increase rule of thumb is accurate, a 3.57% increase in case capacity would calculate to a velocity increase potential of 0.89%.

At 3,000 fps, 0.89% is 26.7 fps. Fast barrel verses slow barrel verses higher/lower outside temperature verses ???? territory.

Love the 6.5x55, currently have 9 of them, but the numbers don't lie. The only reasons that I, personally, would opt for the 6.5x55 over the 260 are:

A. The rifle that I want isn't available in 260.
B. I must be able to shoot bullets over 140 grains without having to seat them more deeply into the case. COAL issues you know.
C. I was going to use it in Europe or Africa, where 260 ammo probably isn't commonly available and the 6.5x55 Norma and RWS is more probably available.

JEff

If I'm not mistaken, the 260rem was introduce in 1997? So it's only been about 13 years, that's not along time to me.

The 7mm-08 came out in 1980 or thereabouts? So it's been around about 30 years and starting to have some success.

I dunno, perhaps the 260rem will make it? The 6.5mm doesn't have a good track here in the U.S.

I think if remington promoted it better, things would/could be different.

BobinNH: I wonder where some get the idea that the 270 is boring?

From MIDWAY alone there are TWELVE diff. bullets weights in diff. configurations from diff. makers available. From 85 gr (more than 1) --180 gr Woodies. .277 cal.

That ought to be enough to keep someone burning a lot of powder and popping a lot of caps, for diff. purposes.

I DON'T say that to DETRACT from the 6.5; I'm seriously considering getting one for VARIETY if nothing else.

I am looking for a 260 but haven't found it in a rifle I want yet. I know I like my Tikka and it's available in 6.5 for a pretty reasonable price.

JWALL
_________________

Son I Don't Know You Well Enough To Miss You........Johnny Cash

my point was it doesnt have substantially more case capacity

JWALL: There are some who love to hate it.....which I find entertaining....

Oh, you were being ironic, I get it now.

JEff

I love the 6.5mm/.264cal and enjoied this whole thread.
I took it apun my self to tally the votes so far.

6.5x55 se received a solid 20 votes +mine =21 votes

260 rem received 3 solid honest votes +4 for action length =7 votes

No difference/ No vote =11 votes

Ramblings =9 votes


Honestly you will be happy with either. I say go for the 6.5x55.
my reasons would be:
1. the 6.5x55 though a very old design and sammi specs, based on origional configurations with turn of the 20th century military rifles, have acceptable pressures rated lower than the very modern 260, the 6.5x55 Se case is actually stronger with a thicker case head. With all modern componets and rifle, the 6.5x55 case will handle HIGHER pressures than the 260.

2. the SMALL case capacity difference (slight advantage 6.5x55) gives this cartridge the advantage in handling the 140gr and up bullets like they were made to be together. The 260 Rem will shoot these heavier bullets too, but will start to drop off in preformance as compared to the old Swede.

3. .264cal bullets have a large selection of "heavy for calibur" bullets to choose from. Therefore, this calibur has a large selection of high BC, High sectional density bullets. These bullets are high BC/ high SD and carry A LOT OF PUNCH ON GAME AND LESS PUNCH ON YOU. (thats exactaly what you are looking for isn't it?) The heavier bullets, higher SD bullets retain velosity better at distance. (all SLIGHT advantage 6.5x55. because remember it handles the heavier bullets better)

**If you are not a handloader and you intend on buying bullets off the shelf, then go with the 260 remington.**

factory bullet for factory bullet you will see NO difference between the two cartridges. Thats because the 260 Rem is normal loaded, and the 6.5 Swede is under loaded. (remember lawsuit, liability, and litigation. factory must have those lower pressures for the swede.) Im ont advocating for reckless powder packing, Im just saying that is what you will find in a factory loading.

+++ IF you are a handloader and want to use 140gr + bullets then go with the 6.5x55. it will absolutely kick the 260 rem's ass in this catagory +++ enough said.

are there other 6.5's/.264's that will out preform the 6.5 swede? YES, absolutely! but I still would go with the 6.5x55 swedish mauser.

oh and I love my 6.5x55 Swede CZ 550 american classic. It is my favorite in the safe

Do you really think an animal will know the difference between these two? I'm thinking if I needed more zip from a 6.5 bullet, why not just build a 6.5-06, 6.5-06AI, or go with the 6.5 win mag?

I seriously doubt the 6.5x55 kicks a 260's ass. That's a stretch, but, are they both fine cartridges, absolutely.

Yes, the reason far more long-range target shooters are using .260 Remingtons rather than the 6.5x55 Swede is that the Swede "absolutely kicks the .260 Rems ass in this catagory (sic)" I know there are other issues involved in this department, but there isn't a critter on the planet that will know if it's been killed with a .260 or a 6.5x55. I'd love to add a 6.5x55 Swede to my collection, but for now I'm settling with my two .260 Remingtons and they harvest deer as reliably as anything out there.

I have no idea to where you are measuring the water capacity of the two cases but it does not really reflect how much powder you can put in a 260 in a short action vs a 6.5x55 in a long action.
That pesky little thing called OAL will get you every time.
Back when I had a SA 260, a 140 took a lot of powder space. In a properly throated 6.5x55 in a LA, that 140 would allow a lot more than a 2 gr difference as it would only take 2/3s of the neck.
BTW the 6.5x55 holds 58 gr of water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5x55mm
Insofar as 1000 yard shooting goes, the 6.5x284 not the 260 rules the roost.

The base of any 6.5mm bullet takes up the same amount of space, whether it's inside or below the neck.

I recently measured the water capacity of fired .260 and 6.5x55 brass, with a 120-grain bullet seated to the SAAMI overall cartridge length for each round (2.825 for the .260, 3.15 for the 6.5x55) and the difference was indeed about 2 grains.

It doesn't matter if the bullet is a 100, 120 or 140-grain. The difference in powder space inside the case will be the same amount, as long as the same bullet is used.

I don't recall mentioning the 6.5x284 in my post? Did I miss something? It was about the inane comment about the 6.5x55 and .260 with 140 gr. bullets. For me to make a statement like that I'd have to be comparing a .264 Winchester Mag or 6.5-06AI to the .260 Remington, and then it's still only a couple hundred fps. For hunting purposes, the critters won't know the difference. Drop a 140 gr. Partition into the vitals with a .260 Rem and it will be just as dead as one hit with a .264 Win. Mag or 6.5x284 for that matter. Flatter trajectory with more energy? Yes. More deader? No.

Well since Savage is bringing out several rifles in .260 Rem this year, it may catch on with other companies again as well. Heck, if I can get one before I leave for Germany in May, I'll buy one.

John,
You are absolutly right as long as the bullets are the same. Now lets talk overall COL, and lenght of throats. That is where there is a differance. A 6.5X55 Swede will allow a longer COL and most (never seen one that did not) will have a longer throat than a 260 Remington. Bottom line the bullet in a 260 will have to eat into the area that could be full of powder. Below 140g I have not seen a differance. 140g and above the Swede will win ever time.

Funny post for me.. Coming back at someone I respect and admire.

Smithrjd,
you said it better than me.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "kick ass" in reference to the 6.5x55 beating the 260rem in the heavier bullet category, but it still stands. All day everyday, the 6.5 swede handles the heavier bullets better. thats its advantage, mild yet does better with the heavier bullets.

Long range shooting (bench rest) is an exercise in consistency. the more consistent you are the tighter groups you have and greater accuracy.
Flat trajectory is not of great importance in 1000 yard shooting. Consistency is!

in hunting where shots might be made and many different ranges, flat trajectory starts becoming more important.

the 2 rounds in question are very similar (OBVIOUSLY) that is the whole point of the discussion. but the 6.5 Swede does handle the heavier bullets b e t t e r than the 260 rem especially when hand loaded!!!!


just like another example
308 vs 30-06
both spit 150gr, 160gr , 168gr, bullets like rockets
but load both with a 200gr+ projectile on then end and 308 just can preform like the 06.
will the 308 with 210gr bullet go bang? yes. will it come out the end of the barrel? yes. will it be going so fast you can't see it? yesss. will it kill something at 100 yeards??? yesss!
will your hold over point of impact have a more dramatic variation over various distances as compared to the 06 same bullet YESS!!


Don't get mad when a slightly bigger cased cartridge eeks out a little more Umph!
They physics are what they are and we all know it.

Dude, there is a 2 grain difference in case capacity between the 260 and 6.5x55. 2 grains = less than 4%. A <4% increase in case capacity will generate a <1% increase in velocity, assuming all other factors are equal. I think that when I ran the numbers, the potential velocity difference for a load at 3,000 fps would be about 28 fps.

The fact is, when loaded to the same pressure, the 260 and 6.5x55 will produce the same approximate results with all bullet weights up to an including 140 grains. Once you start using heavier/longer bullets, the long action 6.5x55 has an advantage over the short action 260 because of bullet seating depth and COAL issues, but not a lot. Simple solution, build your 260 on a long action and you eliminate the COAL issue, so they are equal again.

Where did you get the idea that the 6.5x55 case is stronger than the 260, such that it will allow the 6.5x55 to "handle HIGHER pressures than the 260"?

This is 2011 and bullet technology has improved to the point where lighter premium bullets will allow a reloader to achieve the sort of penetration on game that used to require a longer cup & core bullet of the sort that made the 6.5s famous. If it wasn't so, Hornady would still be making and selling the 160 grain RN, but they aren't.

Although I think that ESPN's Colin Cowherd is a horse's ass, his pet saying, "Live in the is, not in the was.", seems like an appropriate response on this topic.

JEff

Comparing the case capacity difference of the 260 and 6.5x55, 2 grains, to the case capacity difference of the 308 and 30-06, 13 grains, isn't a legitimate comparison and suggests that you are either ignorant of the facts or you are a disingenuous a$$hole like Bosslady/Oldman1942.

If you are going to cite data, you might want to make sure your data is germane to the discussion and that you are comparing 2 data sets that are similar, rather that 2 that are dissimilar. This is the big leagues and you'll find out pretty quickly that you can't BS the players.

JEff

2% in capacity in an empty case, yes, with no seated bullets.. Is the 6.5X55 a stronger case? I have no idea. A 260 in a long action? Kind of defeats it's purpose. Now for a real rifle loony question, is the 6.5X57 cartridge better than both the 260 Remington and the 6.5X55 Swede? Now we are talking a 4% increase in water capacity. However I have yet to shoot a round with water as the propellent.

I don't believe it's significantly better but I'll find out soon. I'm getting a Walther 6.5x57 bbl screwed onto a Mk X action later in the week. I should have the whole thing up and running by the end of the month.

It's not really, but at least 2% more capacity than the 6.5X55 and 4% on a 260. It is however a very nice round based on the 7x57 Mauser. Now I guess it's time to consider the 7mm08 and the 7X57. I am certain that one is most certainly better than the other. Especially given modern bullets and powders. What the heck do I know, I have a 338 Federal and think it is great round for it's purpose. Then again the 338WM and the Weatherby will hold at least 1 cup more water.

Volume is volume, capacity is capacity, it doesn't matter what media you use to use, as long as you use the same media. Water is a good media to use for measuring smaller volumes, as it fills the space to nearly 100% if you remember to eliminate any trapped air bubbles.

If you look at the common 6.5mm/.264" bore cartridge hierarchy;

The 6.5x55 has more capacity than the 260.
The 256 Newton has more capacity than the 6.5x55 and the 260.
The 6.5-06 has more capacity than the 256 Newton, 6.5x55, and the 260.
The 6.5-06AI has more capacity than the 6.5-06, 256 Newton, 6.5x55, and 260.
The 264 Win Mag has more capacity than the 6.5-06AI, 6.5-06, 256 Newton, 6.5x55, and 260.

But only the 260, 51mm case, fits well in short actions. If you're going to go with a long action, why not maximize the performance potential by going with a larger/longer case than the 6.5x55?

Remember that "better" is never a subjective measurement, but capacity always is.

JEff

Still have not answered the COL issue. Capacity that is "useable" to me would be a rather large factor. Now were back to short vice long action, magazine lenght, and throating. I don't shoot cases full of water with no seated bullets. Still have to match the magazine and throat.
6.5X65 RWS and 6.5X68S have even a larger capacity.
I think the 260 is a great round, is it better than a 6.5X55 Swede? up to 140 I think they are the same. One short action one long. Beyond 140g then no the Swede will do better. Do you need a heavier bullet than a modern 140g in a 6.5? Not sure, but the 6.5X55 Swede will do it better than a 260 Remington.

I'm going to bed, as it is about 2:30 AM in Omaha and I've got to clean the snow off the drive in about 4 hours.

If we can agree of the following assumption, I will run the numbers sometime tomorrow:

Assumption #1, it is desirable for bullets not to protrude into the case below the bottom of the neck and any protrusion below the bottom of the neck will occupy case capacity that could otherwise be filled with powder. However, a bullet must be seated deeply enough so that it isn't loose and won't fall out of the case in the magazine or while being cycled into or out of the action. Therefore, we will assume that it is optimal, for the purposes of this discussion, to seat the bullet so that its base is flush with the bottom of the neck for both the 260 and 6.5x55.

If we can agree to this assumption, I'll gather that data and run the numbers tomorrow for the following scenarios:

#1, 260 in a standard short action Remington 700.
#2, 260 in a modified short action Remington 700 with a Wyatt's Outdoor extended magazine box.
#3, 260 in a standard long action Remington 700.
#4, 6.5x55 in a standard long action Remington 700.

If I can find the bullet lengths, I'll run the numbers for both the 140 grain Nosler Partition and the 160 grain Hornady.

BTW, since Hornady has discontinued production of the 160 grain RNs, who is making 6.5mm/.264" diameter bullets heavier than 140 grains and longer than 1.290"?

"Better" is always an objective unit of measure.

JEff

I don't know the length of either of them but the 6.5 Lapua Mega 160gr and Lapua Naturalis 140gr are both long bullets, but greater than 1.290"??, maybe someone else can help there.

Good post atomic

All I have to say is that the 6.5x55 is an inefficient use of a .473" long action.

True, but name me a 6.5mm/.264" bore cartridge with a .473" bolt face and a case length longer than 55mm/2.165" that is available as factory loaded ammo in the U.S.?

My favorite long action 6.5mm/.264" bore cartridge with a .473" bolt face is the 256 Newton, but I hate to make cases. I can turn a 25-06 or 270 case into a 256 Newton case at the rate of about 5 per hour, including breaks. The 6.5-06 would be an easier conversion, but for some reason, Charles Newton opted for a slightly shorter case when he designed the 256 about 100 years ago.

What I don't understand if why some folks are blind to the fact that if you use a long .473" bolt face action to build either a 260 or a 6.5x55, the COAL issues are 100% irrelevent with all bullet weights, which brings us back to the 2 grain difference in case capacity. It ain't much of a box, but some people just can't seem to think outside of it.

JEff

You must really think poorly of a .22 Hornet on a pre-64 Model 70 then...

Following your lines of thinking, much could be argued that the .260 Rem makes inefficient use of a .473 short action when you can tighten up the COAL and load a 6.5x284 or open the bolt face/feed rails and load a 6.5 WSM. I know you have touted the 6.5-06 on a long action because you get more powder per inch of action length, but even then, if more powder is the goal why not skip the -06 and load the .264 Mag or go all out and chamber a 6.5x375 Ruger?

Personally, I like the Swede in a LA and NOT being restricted to a specific COAL when loading 140gr or 160gr bullets--bullets that would otherwise eat a fair amount of powder space in a 2.8" mag box.

With that said, I no longer have my LA Swede and have gone the singe shot route ala Ruger #1. However, I disagree with the fundamentals of your arguement.

Nobody ever said that the 22 Hornet was a good fit in the pre-'64 Winchester 70 action, or for the 222 that many of the Hornets were converted to, or all of the 51mm case length cartridges that were introduced post-308, but times were simpler then.

JEff

No doubt Jeff, I agree that it was less than ideal but it was an exaggerated example that popped into my head.

Gentlemen, from a Hunter's view the Whietail will never know the difference between a 120,130,140 grain bullet well placed by either one. To imagine that a 100 + years ago a group of rifle loonies decided that a 6.5 was a great bullet was sheer genious! I have a 6.5x55 that loves 120 grain Barnes TSX. The deer seem to loathe the combination and my shoulder says, "thats all you got for recoil." Splendid firearm and caliber. By the way I could be just as pleased with a .260. The Whitetails don't know the difference. Buckfever1

being a 260 fan I found this thread quite interesting... and applaud those contributing for keeping it civil and informative.

I think the 6.5x284 rules the .264 caliber roost. Having said that I wish I still had a rifle chambered in .260 Remington I miss it..

PRVI sells 6.5x57 in the US.

I understand what you're saying and I'm a big fan of the x57 case which shares all the traits of the x55 case.

I do think that the ardor for the 6.5x55 would be significantly lessened if the 6.5-06 would have been legitimized long ago.

I also think that if the 6.5-06 were legitimized tomorrow the popularity of the Swede would take a pretty good hit.

No competition in the bore size has been a good thing for the cartridges popularity.

There is a reason the 7x57 is almost non-existent as a factory chambering in bolt action rifles. It doesn't quite fit right in anything and what it does fit can be had chambered in cartridges with superior ballistics.

I can't tell you the lengths but Norma makes the 156g Oryx, Vulcan, and Alaskan and Lapua makes the 155g Mega. Woodleigh makes a 160g and I believe it's length has been quoted at 1.380" or thereabouts.

If you extend the conversation, I think that we could infer that none of the currently "popular" metric cartridges would have much traction in the U.S. except for the infusion of cheap surplus military rifles post-WW1 and again post-WW2. The 6.5x55 would be a niche cartridge without all the surplus Swedish Mausers imported since the 1950s. The 7x57 would be the same if not for all of the surplus Centeral/South American Mausers, both small and large ring configurations. The 8x57 would also be the same if not for all of the war trophies and surplus German 88s and 98s.

The other day, I came across a 1961 vintage ad for the Hunters Lodge of Alexandria, VA, which appears to be related to Interarms, selling surplus British #1, #5, and Pattern 14 Enfields in 303, U.S. 1917 Enfields and 1903 Springfields in 30-06, German and Iranian/Persian Mausers in 8x57, South American and Spanish sr & lr Mausers in 7x57, Argentine 1891 Mausers in 7.65x53, Swedish 1894 (Interarms G33/40s) Carbines in 6.5x55, Italian Carcanos in 6.5x52, Russian Moisins in 7.62x54R, and French Lebels in 8mm Lebel. The prices ranged from $9.95 to $39.95. They also listed 3 different revolvers, Colt 1917s for $25, S&W Victorys for $35, and Webley & Scotts in 38 S&W for $17.

If not for WW1, Charles Newton's firearms production business might have succeeded and the 256 Newton might have become the standard American 6.5mm/.264" bore cartridge.

All relative, since hindsight is always 20/20.

JEff

I do believe that would be the case.

I agree that the 57mm cartridges are intermediates, falling halfway between the short 51mm and long(er) 62/633mm cartridges. Even though their intermediate length doesn't efficiently utilize all of a the long action's COAL limits, I still like the 7x57 better than both the 280 and 7mm-08 by a ratio of 8 to 1 each.

Say a guy, any guy, has 8 7x57s, but only 1 7mm-08, plus 8 6.5x55s and 22 260s? Any guy obviously prefers the longer 7mm, but goes way the opposite way with the shorter 6.5mm. Why such opposing trends when the relationship of the 7x57 to the 7mm-08 is exactly the same as the relationship of the 6.5x55 to the 260? Science, art, or just 'cause?

JEff

Actually, the 6.5-284 and 6.5x55 share the same case length, so if the ROT says that the 6.5x55 is a long action cartridge, why do most folks look at the 284 as a short action cartidge and generally opt for the 280 in a long action?

JEff

Because of the standard SAAMI overall length for the 6.5x55 (3.15") and .284 (2.800).

Originally all 6.5/.284's were built on short actions; today this is known as the 6.5/.284 Winchester. Then the target shooters started seating bullets out to .30-06 OAL, and that variation came to be known as the 6.5/.284 Norma. But the original intent of the wildcat was to put a good amount of powder behind a 6.5mm bullet in a short action.

You can load the 6.5x55 with bullet seated deep enough to fit in a 2.800" magazine, but what with the .260, 6.5 Creedmoor and 6.5/.284, there's no point.

Unless you have a 3.00" magazine SA I consider the .284 and the 6.5x284 to be better suited to a LA. In a 2.800" mag you're severely constrained.

Heck, according to Nosler #6 the SAAMI max COAL for the 6.5-284 is 3.310" (Loaddata lists it at 3.228")

That is definitely LA territory and the length is needed to fit the long .264" bullets comfortably.

OK, I understand SAAMI, but as a practical matter, the 6.5x55 and 284 share the same 55mm/2.165" case length, so wouldn't COAL would be the same for each cartridge, regardless of the bullet used in either a LA, longer COAL, or a SA, shorter COAL?

For example, if you loaded the 140 grain Partition into both the 6.5x55 and the 6.5-284 at short action COAL, 2.800", wouldn't you have to seat the bullet at an equal depth, below the bottom of the neck, to achieve 2.800" COAL? If so, wouldn't that make the 6.5-284 as equally unattractive in a short action as is the 6.5x55?

JEff

Jeff,

COL can be anything any handloader wants to make it, within the contraints of case length. But unless you build a custom 6.5x55 on a short action AND with a shorter throat, there's no advantage in chambering the 6.5x55 in a short action.

The SAAMI OAL length was set due to the vast majority of 6.5x55's being Swedish Mausers, the reason the SAAMI 6.5x55 throat is also quite long. The standard 6.5x55 reamsers used by every American manufacturer have this long throat.

This is also the reason that SAAMI set the OAL length for the 6.5/.284 at 3.3"--the "Norma" length. If they had chosen to go with the short throat of the "Winchester" 6.5/.284, then Norma's factory ammo wouldn't fit due to the short throat.

The reason the 6.5/.284 came into existence at all is target shooting. It allowed 140-grain bullets with very long ogives to be seated with the shank of the bullet in the neck, while the short throat of the Winchester version forced such bullets to be seated with the ogive inside the neck. Plus, the longer seating allowed about another 100 fps more velocity, but the main reason was the seating problem with long-ogive target bullets.

Hunting bullets, on the other hand, can "comfortably" be seated to the "Winchester" OAL, with any such ogive/shank problems. This is why most 6.5/.284 sportinge rifles are built on short actions, to save weight.

This whole conflict between OAL and the modern short action is why the .260 Remington and 7mm-08 came to be in the first place. Yeah, you can fit a 6.5x55 or 7x57 round into a 2.8" magazine by seating bullets deeper--but then you run into conflicts with the standard throat. So the .260 and 7-08 were developed to resolve the conflict.

I once had a Model 20 NULA chambered for the 7x57, and while the magazine prevented me from seating bullets out to the SAAMI 3.065", it worked fine and I couldn't see any practical difference in velocity. But the throat was a little too long for the finest accuracy, so I eventually had the rifle rebarreled to .257 Roberts AI. The case is exactly the same length as the 7x57, but the standard throat is shorter.

John,

I understand that Winchester/Olin designed the 284 to fit the magazine box of Winchester 88s and 100s, so a 6.5-284 wildcat was never part of the equation. I think that a reloader's definition of "comfortably", as you have used it, would directly impact what weight/length bullets that reloader would select for his short action 6.5-284. As you know, some folks feel that any portion of the bullet that protrudes belong the level of the base of the neck is a very bad thing, while others claim that since you're not likely to fill the 284 case to 100% capacity, the protruding bullet doesn't have any impact at all on potential velocity performance. Is there a clear right or wrong on this issue, or is it "my way is better" objective "measurement"? Me personally, I don't like to seat my bullets below the base of the neck, but seldom get a case of the vapors if I do happen to select a bullet that requires a little of the base of the bullet to protrude below the neck.

But putting the 6.5-284 aside, you would agree that a 260 built on a long action wouldn't have any COAL issues that would limit the make/model of bullet used, so that the only difference between a 260 in a long action and a 6.5x55 in a long action would be the 2 grains difference in case capacity? The 6.5x55 would be a suboptimal solution in a short action, because the COAL limitations of the magazine and the longer SAAMI specs throat would directly influence the length of the bullet used and the amount of freebore, but the 260 in a long action wouldn't be a suboptimal solution if the barrel was throated for the longest bullet that builder wanted to use? Would it?

JEff

PS - The corollary of this thread is the ageless "How many spirits can dance of the head of a pin?" debate.

Depends - is it a long action pin or short action?

Jeff,

There are two minor reasons not to seat bullets so that the base protrudes below the neck:

1) Often a "doughnut" of brass will form right where the neck meets the shoulder. This can interfere with accuracy slightly, one reason target shooters prefer those short-bodied, relatively long-neck cases.

2) The problem I mentioned earlier, where the ogive of the bullet ends up inside the neck.

Other than that, there's no reason not to seat bullets below the neck, including the so-called "problem" with powder space. A bullet's base takes up the same amount of powder space whether it's inside a long neck or the case body.

The .284 is a perfect example. The neck is short so almost any 140-grain bullet protrudes below the neck, yet the case still holds more powder than the 7x57 because there's plenty of room AROUND the base of the bullet for powder. We could shorten the case body and lengthen the neck, but then the case would lose a lot more powder room.

As a matter of fact, bullets protruding below the case neck are far more common than not. A 200-grain Nosler Accubond, for instance, protrudes just about as far below the neck of a .300 Weatherby case as it does below the neck of a .300 WSM case.

Sure, a .260 could be built on a long action. The only problem might be feeding from the magazine, but there wouldn't be any major advantage--aside, maybe, from being able to use the super-long target 140's. without part of the ogive being inside
the neck.

It wouldn't gain much velocity, however, because velocity only increases at 1/4 the rate of powder space, and 6.5mm bullet is pretty skinny. You can add a little powder room by seating the bullet out a little, but the .260's neck is pretty short, so you can't see them out much further before the neck won't hold 'em.

I don't understand your question. What is "a long action pin"?

JEff

With 6.5 swede and the 260 loaded to the same pressure the swede has the slight edge, slight. People talk about long vs. short actions, that bolt throw means very little actually. So it comes down to picking your poison.

If I was building a target rifle though, my vote would go to the 260. That simply because I'd make my brass from something else, like '06, so I can turn the necks and fit the case.

Field rifle, toss a coin, it's all about the same.

It was a humorous reply referring to the gist of the thread.

Got interested in these things after the NRA rag did an article on cutting one down for the wife. Then a Swede moved into the hood. Great people, great guns! "Moose?" "Ya". Hunt with a redone 38 Oberndorf 1900, very crude German prototype looks like with a new barrel according to the brass disk. No where near as accurate as scary CZ550 but I like it better. The real Swedes are much nicer as far as true workmanship goes. Remington's 260 is nothing but a punk marketing ploy that didn't even have the decency to adopt what the Highpower guys developed on the range. I hope Lapua lets it rot! The original Mauser cartriges are unimproved upon to this today in spite of a lot of marketing savvy and gullible Americans. 7x57 is still perfection and the Swede more genteel. And if you think only 2 grains difference is immaterial you're delusional about 6.5-284 as well, but that's OK. Gee, I thought I was over it...Sorry!

When you have nothing to say it really doesn't matter how many words you use to say it.

JEff

you said it very well crosshair.

Jim in Idaho, I liked your joke.

I would just like to take a moment to recap as indicated in my original statement.

Of the 2 cartridges in question the 6.5 swede does have a slight edge over the 260. It does.

The greatest argument in favor of the 260 is COAL making it a short action cartridge.

I still say the assets of the 6.5 swede cartridge is all about the cartridge its self obviously in SPITE of it not making "best use of a long action".
The assets of the 260 cartridge, which most overlap the same circle with the Swede, include the 260's ability to be a practical choice in a short action.
you must admit that part of the 260's desirability is that it is a short action cartridge.

I will say again. these cartridges are very similar or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If a short action is important to an individual, the that is a reason to help guide ones choice in cartridges.

Mr. Sako75 Im sorry you kinda got left behind in this conversation.

if you want a short action go with the 260 remington
if you want to use factory ammo go with the 260 Remington
if you want to hand load for a short action go with the 260 remington
If you want a 260 Remington go with the 260 Remington

if you want a little more punch go with the 6.5x55

Gorgeous rifles. absolutely Gorgeous

Gag!

Where, pray tell, are you getting "a little more punch" from the 6.5x55? The 2 grains of additional case capacity will provided about 1% more velocity potential, all other factors being equal. 1% is in the slow barrel vs. fast barrel vs. etc. neighborhood. The difference in performance potential between the 260 and 6.5x55 is more like a light touch, hardly a punch.

JEff

I own both. The reason being I like .264 cartridges and neither is capable of doing what the other can. I have a 99 Savage in .260 and could not get a 6.5 Swede to feed no matter where you located the bullet. Then again, I am partial to 160 grain bullets, and can't load them in my .260. Its a trade off. I suppose I lean toward the 6.5x55, but mostly because I have it on a bolt action (Arisaka).

I see that Savage is producing a light weight rifle in 260 which seems like a nice little Mtn. rifle in a great cartridge. That being said I do own a Tikka T3 Hunter in 6.5x55 which is very accurate and is also nice and light weight and a pleasure to hunt with. I do reload and in my opinion there probably isn't much difference between the 2 when it comes to actual performance on game.

I had a 99F in 260, a 243 rebored to .264", and really like it, or I like it as much as I like any Savage lever gun.

What parts did you use to build your 99 in 260?

JEff

I shoot both, and would never be without either..

I look at it as a Ginger vs Mary Anne thing..

.260RemGuy-----I started with a rusty .308 and it fed .260 bullets perfectly, so I put a new barrel on it. It was a total rework. The blueing was shot, the wood was shot. I shot a small 8 point with it but have not used it since. I'm always trying something new. I use factory Remington 140 grain bullets and it shoots O.K. without reloading.

I am a new owner of a CZ 550 in 6.5X55.

I was astounded to discover how long the throat was in this rifle. With a 130 grain Hornady Interbond loaded as long as reasonably possible there was two tenths of an inch to the lands!

I have ordered a custom reamer to have the chamber brought to a match style of throat, ie very little!

So whatever you get I would verify the chamber dimensions first. The 6.5X55 by CZ was apparently cut to the old Mauser spec so you could shoot 160 grain bullets and not force them into the lands and blow yourself up.

Coltdriver,

Welcome to the Campfire.

Did you shoot that CZ much before ofering the new reamer? The reason I ask is that often CZ's shoot like crazy even with the long throats they typically have in European rounds.

Mule Deer,
That is true in my 6,5x57R and 7x65R.
Sometimes, someone writes something and people read it and tell others about and finally everybody makes an absolute truth out of it without ever taking the trouble to actually proof it true.
And this story of the long throats is one of those myths, but you obviously know better.
BBerg

BBerg,

That's because I've not only shot a number of CZ's with long throats that are VERY accurate (my 9.3x62, for instance, will group almost any bullet into less than an inch, and often 1/2") but because of all the Weatherbys I own that shoot 1/2" groups despite their "freebore."

If a long throat is just slightly over bullet diameter, then the rifle will typically shoot extremely well.

You said it better than me, but you are spot on. Arguing the 6.5x55 is better than the 260Rem is a pretty futile argument.
No Game animal will ever know the difference, and the 260 Rem is the only short action of the bunch. Were I to ever want to shoot a 160 grain 6.5 bullet, the 6.5x55 would be my "last choice".....

Then you would be passing on a round that was designed to shoot exactley that...

This thread has seemed to be about capacity, using water. I have some old Barnes 6.5mm 165g original bullets. They are 1.3680" long. Seat them in your 260 Remington COL 2.800" then seat them in a 6.5X55 with a COL of 3.150. Get both to fit the magazine and the throat/lands of the rifle. Which one do you thing will have more useable capacity in the case for powder? The 260 is a great round, is the 6.5X55 better? Only if you want to shoot really heavy long bullets. Does one need to do this? Don't know, we could build long action 260's with a long throat, or 6.5X55 on a few selected short actions. It's a rifle looney thing.

Jeez, this argument is still going on? 26 days, 3700 views and 7 pages later and still no resolution. Heck, I'd have a .270Win. barrel shot out by now!!

Now back to regular programming.

Bottom line.....ballistically they are virtually the same but the Swede is waaaaaay more sexy. Sexy is good.

bigwhoop: Yeah, much ado about little difference.

I have been considering a 260/6.5 BUT I don't need more OCD.
My 270 has a 260 IN IT ! LOL

JWALL
_________________

Son I Don't Know You Well Enough To Miss You..........Johnny Cash

Yea, but now you're overgunned!

PS. Grew up in DeQueen but that's off topic.

Cabin fever time!

On and on and still no consensus ..... next up is the 7-08 vs. 7 x 57. I'm sure it hasn't been done before... (smiley face, if I knew how to put one of the damn things in)

Im sure all the same people that think my 6.5 Swede is a futile waste for being forced to lug around the burdenous looonnng action as compared to the virtuous 260 in the righteous short action, will think im equally wrong for this............

Clearly the 7x57 is superior to the 7-08.

OK, my name is Tom & I'm a rifle loony. Here's my problem: I have a long action Husqvarna 30-06 in a california style stock. Rifle works OK, but I never cared for the stock style and I am contemplating a rework.
Can anyone come up with a reason to go with 260 instead of 6.5x55? Or is the rifle (one of those with the dovetail shaped locking lugs) not worth the expense of this mod?

Does the bolt face need to be modified for 6.5x55?

I have 2 model 96s and a modified model 38, so I have the 6.5x55 dies.

Thanks for your help.

If you have 6.5x55 dies and components, and a long action there is no logical reason not to do a 6.5x55 over the 260. The bolt face should need no modification. However, since you are a confessed loony among many others here, logic need play no role in your decision.

If you don't like the stock, Hansen & Hansen in CT had some stocks for sale awhile back. The Husqvarana 8000/9000 style actions are great, I have some in their original factory specs and 2 that have been rebarreled to 256 Newton and 338-06. Since your rifle has a long action, it seems reasonable to rebarrel it to a long action cartridge, and although I am a fan of the 260, I don't think that it would be the best option in your long action rifle. My favorite long action 6.5mm bore cartridge is the 256 Newton, but forming cases is a PITA, so I never recommend it to others. There is always the 6.5-06 if you're seeking more speed at safe pressures.

FTR, I am not advocating that anyone do, or not do, business with H&H, just that they might have a stock that would better suit your needs. You might also contact 24HCF member SBHVA, since he is the resident expert on all things Husqvarna.

www.hansenguns.com

JEff

Thanks for your help. Now I need to check with pac-nor and get in line.

I was amazed at how fun the 6.5s were to shoot. The 260 opens up the short action market. They are both tools for the those who rely more on skill than muzzle blast.

I recently picked up a '55 vintage M70 fwt in 270, so I can finally emulate my boyhood hero, Jack O'Connor. Life is good.

260Remguy, You have a 256 Newton?.... nice...:)

I have a 1st Model Newton, SN 3xx, and a Husqvarna custom.

The 256 Newton is a nice cartridge. Like JO'C said of the Newton cartridges, "The next generation's cartridges today". Since Newton was active about 100 years ago, I wonder what he would think of cartridge changes since then.

JEff

If you have a long action in need of a caliber change, go with the nasty uncle to the 6.5x55. Get a 6.5x284 barrel and add 300fps to those 6.5x55 bullets.

Here we go again.

When handloaded (and most people who post here will handload) the 6.5x284 gets AT MOST 150 fps more than the 6.5x55 with 140 grain bullets AT THE SAME PRESSURE.

This is due to the 1/4 Rule of internal ballistics, which states that any increase in powder capacity results in only 1/4 of that amount of increase in muzzle velocity.

The 6.5/.284 Norma holds about 60 grains of powder with a 120-140-grain bullet loaded. The 6.5x55 holds around 50 grains. This 20% difference amount to a 5% difference in potential muzzle velocity.

The 6.5-284 is capable of right around 2900 fps in a 24" barrel with a 140-grain bullet, while the 6.5x55 can get around 2780-2790. This is with published, pressure-tested data for both cartridges.

Additionally, the 6.5x55 case will normally feed perfectly in any .30-06 length action without any modifications, while the 6.5/.284 often requires some gunsmithing to feed smoothly, especially in a controlled-feed action. Though the 6.5/.284 will normally feed easily in a push-feed action.

The 6.5-06 has just about the identical powder of the 6.5/.284, and is capable of the same velocities. It will also work smoothly, of course, in a .30-06 action, if going to the trouble and expense of a wildcat is worth that extra 125 fps.

I have shot both and enjoyed both. For now I have settled on the 260rem and like I said in another post somewhere else, if I need a heavier bullet I grab a different rifle.

One thing is for sure though, I would never be without a 6.5cal rifle, be that 260rem or Swede. With two boys growing up quickly, I figure the 6.5 is spot on for those grasshoppers :-)

Did I ever mention a bullet weight? No I didn't.

The best I've ever got from a 24" barrel swede was 2900+ with the 120 Nosler solid base. Personally, I prefer the 129-130gr bullets for any 6.5 caliber gun. they will do anything the 140s will, and do it with more velocity.

I do believe the 6.5x284 can add more than 150fps to the swedes velocity with those bullet weights, unless people are really stretching the facts of their guns.

6.5x55 data at modern pressures:

Nosler #6 manual, 23" barrel: 140-grain Partition, 2790 fps (52.0 H1000)

Ramshot on-line data, 24" barrel: 140-grain Partition, 2778 fps (49.8 Magnum)

6.5/.284 data:

Nosler #6 manual, 24" barrel: 140-grain Nosler Partition, 2906 fps (50.5 VV N165)

Hodgdon on-line data, 24" barrel: 142-grain Sierra Matchking, 2901 fps (49.5 Hybrid 100V)

These are all the top-velocity listed in each source of data. You'll find other sources will have the same sorts of numbers, IF they list modern-pressure 6.5x55 loads.

260 Rem 22" barrel

130 Swift H 4350 45.2 2,900 mv.

6.5-284 24" barrel

130 Swift RS Magnum 61.0 3,150 mv.

That's 250 fps difference between the two AND I'm willing to bet the 284 case did it with less pressure.

You could take 40 fps off for the longer barrel on the 6.5-284.

So say an extra 200 fps. That's the normal difference between a magnum case and a standard.

Well worth it to me.

With a 260 I get

120's at 3,020
140's at 2,800
No dif between it and a 6.5x55.

What advantage does 250 fps add, in terms of a flatter trajectory?

JEff

I looked up Ramshot data with Magnum and 120-grain bullets:

6.5x55, 2821 fps, 55,000 psi
6.5/.284, 3245 fps, 62,000 psi

So yeah, the 6.5/.284 is getting 300 extra fps but at considerably higher pressure.

Here's Hodgdon's data for 120's:

6.5x55, 2913 fps
6.5/.284, 2979 fps

Hodgdon data for 129's:

6.5x55, 2792 fps
6.5/.284, 2910 fps

Nosler data for 120's :

6.5x55 (23" barrel), 3002 fps
6.5/.284 (26" barrel), 3175 fps

Please note the barrel length difference in the Nosler data.

My experience is that barrel length makes a difference of 25-30 fps per inch on average, not 20 fps. This is with cutting the same barrel, not by comparing different barrels.

Why is a 140gr over 2700fps important anyway? Lots of game has been killed with less....
Why can't we slow down a little?
I think we are pushing thru life too quick these days....

I was comparing 260/130 data to 6.5/130 data.

Even so, I'll take the performance and eat the pressure. After all, it's a hunting round I'm looking for not a target round.



Ok 5 fps dif. I did say 50 fps less to take variations into account.
This is really splitting hairs!

For me, it's more than just trajectory.

For the long range shooter, it's bullet impact and opening up the bullet proper.

Most bullet makers will tell you what minimum impact is needed for the bullets to open up and work as advertised.

SU35,

Whatever.

Thanks to a lot of time spent in various pressure laboratoris, I long ago developed a large amount of skepticism about velocities and pressures in home handloads.

To bad PO Ackley and his followers don't heed that.

OK, if the additonal speed isn't about flatter trajectory, would you pick a bullet, any bullet, and tell me what difference 250 fps of MV actually makes regarding that bullet's impact and opening? I shoot a lot of Noslers and have yet to see a Partition of any caliber/weight that failed to open and penetrate. Of course, I'm not shooting game at particularly long ranges. 400+/- yards would be a very long shot for me to take unless the intended target had an exceptional set of antlers.

JEff

Yeah!

One other thing I've found interesting about the recent turn of this thread, initiated by dmsbandit and his sudden interest in the 6.5/.284, is a post from him last year about shortening the barrel on a Marlin .308:

"I never even fired the gun before the barrel was cut back, so I have no idea how much velocity I lost with the 4" of barrel with this gun. Some guns are faster than others so I might have lost 100fps or 300fps with the 150s. But as you and I are well aware, it isn't velocity that kills, it's placement of the projectile that does the killing."

I have my own notions about velocity, having used various smokeless-powder big game rifles with muzzle velocities anywhere from 1800 to 3700 fps, but our friend bandit is apparently VERY ambivalent about it, depending on which day he's posting.

IIRC, POA is long dead and people that embrace his published reloading data as if it was given to POA by GOD himself on an Egyptian mountain. Like the guy with a 257AI who was claiming 3500 fps with 115/117/120 grain bullets, all using "safe" POA loads. Pressure? What does pressure have to do with this?

JEff

Well, first of all, I never said it's not about flatter trajectory. It's that and more.

Your question begs asking to those who shoot a 264 Win mag 7mm Rem or 300 Win mag. (308 vs 300 on big game at 300 yards) We've hashed this out time and again and I'm not going there.

Under two conditions I see it making a significant difference.

Those who shoot Barnes bullets and those who shoot past 500 yards.

Velocity is not inconsequential.

If it were we would have never progressed beyond the 30-30, the 7x57, and the 30-40 US.

We did and I for one am very happy we did.

But then I like the added velocity of a 24" barrel more than I like any supposed benefit of a shorter tube too.

I posted:

"What advantage does 250 fps add, in terms of a flatter trajectory?"

Then you posted:

"For me, it's more than just trajectory.

For the long range shooter, it's bullet impact and opening up the bullet proper.

Most bullet makers will tell you what minimum impact is needed for the bullets to open up and work as advertised."

Then I posted:

"OK, if the additonal speed isn't about flatter trajectory, would you pick a bullet, any bullet, and tell me what difference 250 fps of MV actually makes regarding that bullet's impact and opening? I shoot a lot of Noslers and have yet to see a Partition of any caliber/weight that failed to open and penetrate. Of course, I'm not shooting game at particularly long ranges. 400+/- yards would be a very long shot for me to take unless the intended target had an exceptional set of antlers."

Then you posted:

"Well, first of all, I never said it's not about flatter trajectory. It's that and more.

Your question begs asking to those who shoot a 264 Win mag 7mm Rem or 300 Win mag. (308 vs 300 on big game at 300 yards) We've hashed this out time and again and I'm not going there.

Under two conditions I see it making a significant difference.

Those who shoot Barnes bullets and those who shoot past 500 yards."

I guess that I misunderstood what you posted. I don't think that I've ever shot anything but pdogs and 'chucks at ranges over 500 yards and I know that I've never fired a Barnes bullet at a varmint, so I guess that the 250 fps difference wouldn't be something I need to concern myself with. My 6.5mm bore rifle inventory is currently limited to medium case capacity rounds like the 260, 6.5x55, 6.5-284, and 256 Newton. No 6.5-06, 6.5-06AI, 6.5 SAUM, 6.5 WSM, or 264 Win Mag in stock at this time.

JEff

Jeff,

For 6.5 bullets.

IF I was a long range hunter out to 1000 yards.

I think 60 grains of powder is plenty good for that range.

50 grains and less for ranges lesser.

I thought about building up a .260 or 6.5x55, then realized I already have two nice 7x57 and thought WHY?

Ack!!!! Who needs a reason to have redundant rifles?

7x57 times 8
260 times 22
6.5x55 times 8
6.5-284 times 4
256 Newton times 2

Seriously, if you don't have a quick twist 22-250 that might be a place to look. 1-9" ROT 22-250 and 60 grain VMax for coyotes and 60 grain Paritions for deer. Fast, flat shooting, and hard hitting.

JEff

You're taking things out of context JB. The 308 which you quote me on was built for hunting locally where ranges are never more than 200-250yds. If someone is hunting doing more hunting at 200-500yds than at ranges under 200yds, then velocity does matter because placing the projectile becomes easier.

I doubt anyone would buy a 6.5x284 to only shoot 200yds at game, but I know a lot of them do buy it to shoot game out to 500yds and matches out to 1000yds. In those applications the Swede and the 260, as fine as they are [I own 4 of them], come in behind the 6.5x284 for putting projectiles on targets [alive or paper] at long ranges.

As far as my "sudden interest" in the 6.5x284, it isn't sudden. I own 3 different 284 rifles that I've had built, and love the case design. I also am a huge fan of the 6.5x55 and 260Rem. I believe them to be the ideal deer cartridges and express that point to any and all looking for a deer gun. With my interest in the 6.5 calibers and the 284 case and cartridge, it's natural to like the 6.5x284 cartridge too.

From Sierra's ballistic program, all rifles sighted in at 200 yards:

6.5x55, 130 AccuBond, 2900 fps: retained velocity @ 500 2097,
drop -39.5

6.5.284, 130 Accubond, 3050 fps: retained velocity @ 500 2220, drop -35.3

6.5x55, 140 VLD, 2800 fps: retained velocity at 1000 1661,
wind drift 56.8

6.5.284, 140 VLD, 2950 fps: retained velocity at 1000 1771,
wind drift 52.4

The 6.5/.284 is a fine round and works very well, as I know from loading and shooting for one a lot, just as I have the 6.5-06 (identical ballistics). Along with those rounds, I have also handloaded and hunted with the .260, 6.5x55, 6.5 Creedmoor and .264 Winchester Magnum. All will work nicely out to at least 500 yards--or have you found bullets from the 6.5x55 to start bouncing off animals at 400 yards?

And yes, the 6.5/.284 is one of the darlings of the 1000-yard shooters these days, though some are going to the 7mm SAUM or WSM for longer barrel life. Others are using the 6.5 Creedmoor or any similar 6.5 wildcat, because of lower recoil and longer barrel life than the 6.5/.284. They all work, and there ain't anything mystical about the 6.5/.284. Many if not most target shooters follow the lead of the shooter who won last.

Plus, all of this has very little to do with the original question, or what anybody else asked along the way--which has all involved the .260 and 6.5x55.

an old friend of mine now deceased taught me this a few years back about him using heavy bullets at modest velocities make the cleanest kills so I took his theory to the woods and walked out with the same conclusion and being as the old battle rifles swede were twisted 7.87:1 and they just do such a beautiful job of putting bullets rite exactly where you send them to go with the 156-160 gr. RN bullets and in my own experience with this combination I think the 6.5x55 is an excellent rifle no matter what you choose to shoot whether its big game to targets with mild recoil deadly accuracy and the ability to put big animals on the ground in short order I just dont think it gets much better,Im sure the 260 Rem. is a fine rifle but Im so enfatuated with the swede I just have not gone there yet.......

I like all the 6.5's!!

Me too! I even traded into a Mannlicher-Schoenauer carbine in 6.5x54 last year, and took a whitetail with it here in Montana.

My only regret is the pre-'64 Model 70 Winchester "Westerner" in .264 WM that I had for a while. It was in hunting rather than collecting shape and shot well, but for some damned reason (probably a hunting trip somewhere, or another rifle) I sold it.

MS....VERY nice!

Glad to see you regret the sale of your 64.

It hurt my feelings to see you do that.

Like, oh man! what is he doing?!

I've decided that 6.5 shooters must in general be a better lot of folks. This has been one of if not the most civil 17 page discussion I have seen on the campfire in ages!

If you look for the names of those who didn't participate, its easy to see why.

JEff

Born to be mild!

That's no doubt why we're attracted to cartridges that may be light on donner und blitzen, but do a great job of bringing home the venison and making bugholes downrange.

Yes, we could be shooting 300 winmags or 338 Lapuas but somewhere along the line, we decided to relax and enjoy the ride.

It's all good.

Milder recoil yields milder discussions. Now personally I think the .270Win. trumps ALL your 6.5's. Ok, back to regular programming.

Of course, and the .270 Weatherby trumps the .264--in some ways.

Which is why it's important to have one of everything!

What's a few inches of drop with an M1 atop the scope.........

Always an excellent point!

Jeff/260Remguy,

I have to say I like your cartridge choices, and I completely agree with you.

Also Lots of respect to you for keeping Newtons alive. very cool.

All I can say JB, is that you must have some mystical powers or something.

In my 24" barreled Swede with modern high pressure loads, I can't get 120gr bullets as fast as you're getting 130s, and every 140 combo tried barely get to 2700fps.

But, you velocity figures for the 6.5x284 seem low compared to what guys are reporting out of their guns.

Much like your comments about getting 257 Roberts ammo to lofty levels, I have to wonder if there isn't a "fly in the soup".

I am reporting pressure-tested loads from various manuals. If you doubt them, take it up with the guys at the various pressure labs.

I get 3150 fps cronographed from 2 of my 257 Roberts using 46.4 gr of H4350 and a 100 gr bullet.

I can't comment on the 260 velocities because I have a 257 Roberts.


ddj

On a previous thread, dmsbandit was doubting my claim of 3000 fps with 115-117 grain bullets in the .257 Roberts. Apparently this was because his collection of loading manuals is rather old.

So I quoted Hodgdon's data: 115 Nosler Partition at 3049 fps, using 46.0 Hybrid 100V. It should also be noted that the pressure is only 46,600 CUP.

Apparently he still doesn't believe it.

I can comment that 3000 fps isn't hard at all with the 110 Accubond still using H4350. I tend to stick with 100 Partitions for my heavy bullet in the Roberts.

He doesn't have to believe it and I will go on shooting my Roberts.



ddj

Maybe he has a slow barrel or slow something else?

Suppose he'd believe it if he stuffed a case with 46grains Hybrid 100V, topped it off with a 115NP and touched it off over a chronograph?

Naw..........

Probably not, since it's not listed in the 1967 Hodgdon manual....

Or maybe he's just a moron?

I think it is more of commenting before he has tried handloading a Roberts.


ddj

Looks like....

115's over 3K were not a real big problem in the Roberts....and over 2900 with 120's. Some easily did 3200 with 100 gr bullets;all reasons why the 25/06's went bye bye when friends and I saw these vels....I'm talking well in excess of a dozen or more rifles.

Nuthin wrong with JB's data for the Roberts....

NAP no appreciable difference

Vihtavuori has just released a new edition of their reloading guide. Perhaps the most important thing is the new set of data for 6.5x55 in modern rifles.

Thanks for posting that. Just under 2900 with a 139 is pretty good!

ruistola - I am going to have to find the 257 Roberts information as well. Thanks for posting the new info.


ddj