For hunting whitetail and possibly an occasional elk hunt, is there any "real world" difference when it comes to killing the animal? Forget about ammo availability , just interested in performance on game.

This could turn into a classic popcorn event...

DF

Couldn't imagine a well placed 140 grain Partition from either one not performing it's duty on an elk. Questioning their abilities on a whitetail is a moot point.

Yep, I am going to enjoy this one.

I have yet to see a real difference. Both proven very effective in their modern form or their classic ballistic twins 6.5x55 and 7x57. Speed vs bullet weight vs sectional density.... blah, blah blah

At normal ranges they both perform admirably. Go with your gut.

I got it popping now!!

Both effective when using good bullets thru vitals....

Insert the definition of 'tried and true' here ...

If for some reason you want a heavier bullet, consider the 7mm.

It's amazing how easy it is to entertain a bunch of Loonies.

Cheap entertainment at its best, loving every post...

DF

Well I never shot a 260, hunted for four seasons from 1980-84 with a 7mm-08, I have shot and still do shoot a 6.5 x55. Nope not that you would be able to tell with the numbers of White tail and Elk you are ever going to be able to shoot in your life time. One of my old buddies from Alaska, shot all his moose with a 7mm-08 thought it was the very very best cartridge for the job. He would shoot a good 15 or so Moose with a box of cartridges, he would check zero from time to time. With the other 5. The key will always be putting the bullet in the right spot. So Marksmanship skill is first in importance, you could then say Bullet and Bullet construction for the task at hand second and third the cartridge you launch the bullet from, sights could be forth on the list ( you have to be able to see well enough with the sights to shoot accurately enough for the conditions) and sixth the rifle itself, it can be anything as long as it fits you and it has a reasonably good trigger. All this is contrary to the folks here at the 24 hour Campfire. Were endless experimentation and hair splitting rules supreme. We all have at one time or another chased the purple dragon of finding that perfect combination of rifle-cartridge-bullet- sights and accuracy. Its what makes hunting and shooting the finest of all sports, I will leave Flyrods and trout fishing for another day.

in the field no real difference....ive got a 260 cause im a 6.5 slut and the wife has a 7-08 cause thats what we found a Rem Seven Youth in and she loves the rifle.....

If you want to buy factory ammo over the counter, the 7mm-08 is maybe a little better bet, but not much. If you hand load your ammo, flip a coin. If you are using exclusively factory ammo, the .308 is the way to go.

John

Within reason, proper placement of a properly constructed projectile usually trumps case capacity and bore diameter. The 0.020" difference in bore diameter between the 260 and 7mm-08 is, for a practical matter, inconsequential except in the mind of the shooter.

Distillation = no practical difference if the shooter does his/her part.

Or so it seems to me.

Jeff

260/Swede = same/same.
7mm08/7x57 = same/same

Both the Swede and 7x57 have been killing moose (and everything smaller) for over a hundred years. Flip a coin.

Is there a difference if the shooter doesn't do their part?

With similar BC bullets, there is about 2 pounds less recoil from a 260. Hurts a little less on the shoulder while seeming to produce the same terminal effect.

^^^^^^^^^^ +1
My regular using rifles are a .260 and a 7x57(same as 7mm-08)
Different guns but same terminal effects.

Larger caliber never compensates for poor marksmanship.


Thanks guys you've confirmed what I thought, no real world difference!

stir.....stir.....

Good summary with differences only a Loony could come up with, a Loony with too much time on his hands.

For the .260 argument, do a Fire search for Scenarshooter and see pages of dead critters taken with well placed 6.5 Scenar projectiles. That scenario probably has more to do with Pat than the round, just happens to be one of his favorites.

DF

I always love the 'this caliber is better when I [bleep]-up' answers....

There's no replacement for shot-placement ....

Sorry if I ruined a good popcorn thread with logic and common sense. LOL

Pete

Couldn't have summarized it better. I have both barrels for my T/C Encore and it's why the .260 goes hunting with me while the 7mm-08 stays home.

They are both almost as good as their daddy, the 308

Pop pop pop

LoL

The only difference is that it's easier to find 7mm bullets around here than 6.5mm bullets...

The .260 will make a .264" hole in an elk, while the 7mm-08 will make a .284" hole. Thus the 7-08 will leave three more drops of blood when you follow the blood trail the 30 yards to where the elk fell.

John how many more drops will a 308 leave approximately?

No expansion!

Both are apparently prone to bullet failures.

Expert opinion that neither works.

You better get a 7mmRUM to ensure expansion.

LOL

Yeah, gotta be careful with logic and common sense. Could ruin a perfectly good thread.

DF

King Kong v Godzilla
ok actually
monkey v lizard

I can see a number of spin off threads, splitting hairs about your post...

DF

260 or 280 hmmmm try a 444 and remove all doubt!

270 splits em' where it hurts... Everything else is just something to clean up....

W

Interested in on game performance? Think bullets. They matter more especially since dudes are killing elk at long range with the wee little .243 Winchester.

Easy decision for me. I don't shoot anything in mm.

Easy for me all the way; 7/08 without a doubt. My birthday is July 8 and that counts for more than the vast amount of trivia and minutae than what accompanies most of the this or that dialogues. YMMV.

Maybe, but as JB has pointed out a time or two, the precision required for killing game isn't all that great, given that the heart/lungs are about the size of a volleyball.

I guess that I am guilty of over-thinking the problem yet again.

Jeff

260 or 7-08? easy question. Guns are relatively inexpensive and your money isn't worth chit, buy both or the extra will get wasted on rubberdogshit made in China available at Wallyworld. Either one can fail so you also need the other as a backup. Gas is the expensive part, so be a Boyscout and "be prepared". I went the 7x57 and 6.5x55 route myself. Load all your ammo too or forever beheld hostage to politics and marketing dickheads. Any other questions?

Another very well-put and accurate post.

Of course, we could also just suggest buying a .30-06, but what fun would that be?

I just bought a 7-08 for deer hunting,and plan on using 130-140 grain bullets at around 2700-2800 fps.
I cant see a 260 being much more or much less effective.

That sounds good enough for me! I'm keeping my 7mm-08!

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.

If that's true, then it's also true about everything since the '06.

Actually, it's probably true about everything since the .30 Gov't, aka .30-40 Krag. Ballistically comparable to a .308 Win. in a MODERN rifle. If we're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... Of course, I sold my .30-06s but still have a pair of .260 Rems and .243 Wins - both provide solutions to my "problems".

Selmer, care to elaborate a bit on that.

Not Selmer, but I have a 260 and another on the way. I'm betting his only "problem" that needed to be solved was realizing he can kill anything he hunts with a .260 and it's a lot more pleasant to shoot that an '06 if you're the kind of guy who doesn't measure his yearly output in numbers of 20-round boxes of factory ammo. shot.

You're telling a guy with tens and tens of kills with the 243 105 VLD on both elk and deer that is irresponsible? Why, because it kills too quickly?

Seriously, how may elk do you shoot in NY?

They are not the same,same if you reload.

Or put a 140 Gr. partition in the 260 to have a fair comparison.

260 Rem or 7mm-08 flip a coin.

There are some very cool riflemen (routinely making good shots on game) out there that kill regularly with what many (including me) would consider marginal calibers. But probably more important than caliber (if a reasonable caliber is used) is the construction of the bullet.

I, for one, would not recommend marginal calibers for everyone, even if Jack O'Connor or any other shooting expert used it. A friend in AZ was stating that he was proud because he drew blood (did not find the elk cow). He followed the blood trail for a full day. I was ashamed for him - mostly for bragging what he did. Maybe he was a poor shot, but the rifle/bullet he was using was marginal in my opinion. Another example, my brother-in-law shot an elk with a 165 grain Sierra bullet in the lungs - the cartridge 300 Win Mag. He chased that elk for all that day following a lung blood trail. He never found that cow. My guess he might of ruined one lung and the bullet didn't make it to the other. Certainly a 300 Win Mag is more than sufficient for elk.

I'm in my middle 60's and shooting a 338 Win Mag is still my first go-to rifle for elk. But for some the 338 may not be the best. I aim for the opposite shoulder or the heart depending on the angle of the shot and desire the bullet to go all the way through. I like blood trails that are short and I hate to see an elk run down a ravine when I'm the one carrying out the meat, hide and antlers. Maybe when I get old I'll have the luxury to have horses to haul these items out...

I'd say that to each his own. My recommendation is if you can hit a 1/2 size pie plate every time at the maximum range your going to hunt, use the best caliber and bullet combination you can get a hold of. One wasted elk in a life time is one too many.

That's good advice. I grew up hunting in Florida and still do. We always use a grapefruit as our gauge.

Holes in the right place is what kills. Maybe a 243 is a big enough hole lol

Smokepole, Think you meant to say 6.5x55, it has a longer track record

MJ, a 243 thru vitals with a decent bullet is enough, proven. On large game I'd trust a tad more bullet to reach and punch those vitals from all average shot presentations, but would not hesitate any broadside elk to 300 yds with a good 243 load.

I started with a 308 and that was OK then and probably still is - I doubt that elk are tougher now. But I was young and climbing up and down mountains didn't bother me as much as it does now. I have never felt the recoil of a rifle when I shot at big game - so a 338 is as easy to shoot for me as a 7x57. I am now too over-weight, I have bad knees, and I'm afraid that if I hauled an elk up a steep mountain side it would take more than a day and I might end up in E.R.
Probably the choice of the bullet is more important than the caliber all the way from the 260 to a 375.
I started using Nosler partitions when they were made on screw machines. I still believe that a 260 Nosler partition bullet is better than a 30 caliber Sierra bullet designed for something other than Elk. Nosler partitions never let me down.
Using a varmint caliber though...

Well dammit some one run over to the "What rifles got toted in your elk camp?" thread and tell us how many 243's,260's and 7mm/08's are listed on there...and 358's!

That should give us a hint about how good these cartridges all are...

Depending on the camp, or course, such a survey might be more of an indication of what Field & Stream has been touting all these years.

and the Native Americans in Canada shoot wolves and polar bears with a .223 also, but that doesn't mean it's a better cartridge than a 30-06 or 300magnum for the job. for someone to claim otherwise shows they are off their meds. Thousands of deer have been killed with a 22LR, but does anyone think that is better than a centerfire for killing of deer?

AMEN BROTHER

Wonder if my Pocket Rocket slingshot will kill a deer?

Maybe if I use Buckshot??

Dead is dead doesn't matter what the head stamps says.

You're all over the place. You didn't say the rifle and cartridge he chooses is suboptimal in your opinion, you said it is irresponsible, and I called you out for your choice of words.

I also asked you to list how many deer and especially elk you have killed and to compare that to John's pile of animals killed with the 243/105 VLD. You are conjecturing, he is presenting evidence.

They are not even close to the same.

shooting elk at 600yds with cartridges much bigger than the 243 is pushing the limits of good ethics buy many people in the industry, so for someone to say the 243 [a deer cartridge] shooting a fragile bullet is a better killer than a gun DESIGNED to kill elk and other big animals is irresponsible, regardless of success. It promotes bad choices and bad decisions by people who don't have the knowledge or experience killing any big game animal.

Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done or promoted. To do so is irresponsible regardless of individual results. If he had said he "prefers" the 243 to the 358, that would be different than saying it was better than the 358.

At 600 yards, the 243 is better than the 348.

Additionally, its the Indian, not the arrow. That Indian (John Burns) with that arrow (243/105 VLD) has shown that it isn't unethical for him. He's doing it.

VLD = Fragile? Since when? Have you ever shot an animal with one? No. Stick to what you know.

Just because you or I cannot make the 600 yard 243 shot every time does not mean John and his cronies can't.

You're mistaking your bias with judgement. They are not the same. Your judgement on this is flawed.

I would think that shooting an elk at 600 yds with a 243 would be akin to shooting one at 100 yards with a 22 lr.
could be done,but why would you?
seems someone who can afford to shoot tens and tens of elk should be able to afford a more suitable rifle.

Again, he's killed scores, you've killed what?

The rifle that you shoot well with a bullet that kills cleanly is the appropriate rifle. No?

I still think the 243 is not an elk rifle (at any range); sure some have used it successfully, but it leaves little for margin.

OK, Eskimo's have used 22 LR and 22 Hornet and 223 rifles on polar bears, but ..... how many Eskimos have used them repeatedly successfully and kept their life insurance policies intact? An eaten Eskimo rarely leaves a hunting report.

260 vs 7MM08 Thats what this thread is about.Not friggen 22 LR ,338 Win.Mags or 243s.Short attention spans right here.

Yup....is there REALLY that much, if any, difference between them?

I think the 7/08 was made popular by guys in the silhouette game looking for enough energy and bullet to topple rams while minimizing recoil...a I recall it was Jim Carmichael got the same ball rolling for the 260.

I have used the 7/08 off and on since almost when it was introduced for deer hunting, mostly back here. Friends have done the same. I can't imagine a 260 is substantially different in any way except bullet weight.

I would take the 7/08 since it seems far more popular, and ammo is easy to get. As a general purpose elk rifle neither one would make my short list, but that doesn't mean I'd be afraid to use one on elk either.

I suppose I would go with whoever is actually bringing home the bacon, versus what a bunch of people carried to elk camp.

Burns seems to put some big boys on the ground regularly with his lowly 243 VLD rig. As do his clients. As does anyone else that I know of who uses the 243 with good bullets.

If a hole through the vital kills, how big of a hole does one need to kill quickly? I've seen deer die from 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, and 30 caliber holes. They all seemed to die in about the same amount of time with similar responses to similar hits.

Both are short action cartridges, and are limited to the OAL of the magazine. .264 vs .284. Either can work, but can not take the heaver bullets available in the caliber in the short action without limiting the powder capacity. The medium/long action can take anything available. What is the attraction with the short action? 1/2 a pound at best.. Both are know to have great penetration for caliber.

Magazine length is a limit of the rifle design, not the cartridge. Not all magazines are created equal.

anyway, since the the thread is 260 vs. 7-08, the issue is moot.

your problem is obvious,even to an idiot like me.

both will get the job done

You are arguing with wish and fancy. What I read is that so far the only one who has shot an animal with a .243 at distance and who has posted here in this discussion is John Burns. Know nothing arm chair quarterbacks can always find fault in someone's success and for good reason, they could never make that shot with any caliber rifle under any circumstance.

Ahhhhh come on jimmy it's the internet, where you be everything your not able to be in real life

zackly

Does he speak for himself or do you guys just have mancrushes and can't resist?

what is it to you? If you want to post drivel go post on a gamer site. If you ain't done it don't post B.S. about it, take it somewhere else.

John's shooting speaks for its self it seems...

That's what I was thinking too

Well in that case, I have a 260 because it's more like a 243 in recoil and performs like a 7-08 on game animals.

A couple of the recoil charts I've looked at shows the 260 to have slightly more recoil.

Obvious that actual experience and kills in the field trumps BS about perceived advantages based on bullet diameter?

Me too, I like my 260 Rem.

So, I guess there are some differences in caliber, as we go up the scale?

Reading this thread from the beginning, it took longer than I thought to get derailed.

I'd happily spend the rest of my life hunting with either the 260 or 7-08 and know for certain I'd never see a difference.

Me, I've decided to spend the rest of my hunting life with the 308, but that's just personal preference.

308 based rounds are just more fun to shoot and load for than 06-based and magnum cartridges.

More fun = more shooting.
More shooting = better shooting.
Better shooting = better kills.

Killing stuff just isn't that hard...

I'll go along with that. 243/260/7-mm08 are where I concentrate my efforts these days. (260 is being built now)

Unless I am doing long range target work that requires the High BC s of a 6.5 slug..

The 7mm wins due to ammo/rifle availability.

It's sad the .260 never caught on in terms of sales. Really like the round.

That I agree with. It never really has been difficult.

I've heard Remington is chambering it in their SPS this year, lets see if that ups it any.

with what bullets?

If one considers a cartridge as a duel round (varmint/deer) round then the .260 might have a slight edge....

I just get a kick out of men "defending the honor" of other men.

no, there is no real world difference. one can look at charts that show this or that, but realistically you can use the same round and make the same shot and not tell which is which.

I've had the 260, 7-08 and 308... Frankly, and despite recoil tables, I can't tell the difference between any of them recoil-wise, until stepping up to 180's in the 308. Even then, that's no big deal.

I find a noticeable difference between the 308 and 30-06 though...

Yep! In an 8 twist as well.



Roy

I have no interest in defending anyone, I do have an interest in learning about actual experience vs. what someone "thinks". I shoot deer with a 223 at distances under 200 yards and it kills them dead. If you cannot shoot it does not matter what you miss with. Folks who cannot do things always want to impose their imagination into the discussion.

Brad
To be honest with you, when I've shot my 243 w/ 100g bullets and the 308 w/ 180g's wearing winter apparel I can't tell the difference!

120's in a 7.5# rifle on Chuck Hawks table

I know a lot of guys are happy they've changed the twist from 9 to 8. Was there a problem stabilizing 140g bullets w/ the 9 twist.

apparently, not if you ask the "experts".

C'mon fluffy, everyone is an expert on here


seriously though, I will disagree on your comparison of the 243 at 600 being akin to a .22lr at 100 on elk.

Thanks.

I was going to an energy figure comparison but havent done so.
Not that it matters alot.

1-8" twist is just better I you chose to shot anything over 130 gr. bullets that are a vld shape.

Thanks wyoming

162's are the dirty trick in 7-08 and the closest you'll get in a 260 is 140 Bergers with slightly less azz. 120's are neck and neck. 260 is also "243/105'ish" with 108 Scenars. I had a 243,260, and 7-08. Kept the one in the middle.