I'm a new guy here and I've been wondering for awhile now why hasn't any one made heavier bullets in rifles like 25-06 and 257 weatherby, even 257 Roberts? From what I've seen I think 120grn. is the heaviest. I thought it might have to do with twist rate? I don't know. I don't know if it is considered overbore or not? (the above mentioned cartridges) 6.5 bullet weights go up to I think 160 (discontinued Hornady 160grn. round nose.) 270 go up to 190 I think. And look at the 224 caliber aren't they pushing 80grns.? Or is there just no use for a bullet of a heavier weight in 25 caliber? Some people say a 6.5 bullet that is long and thin holds trajectory out of proportion to its speed (flat shooting) wouldn't a heavier 25 caliber bullet behave the same way? Thanks ahead for your answers. willyt1

Twist and that you can only squirt so much propellant gas through a smallish hole before the law of diminishing returns cuts in.

From a killing standpoint, as opposed to pure ballistic performance, good bullets of standard weight do just fine for game that the .25s are suitable for. At some point, it makes more sense to go larger rather than just simply heavier.

My guess is it's (a) twist rate and (b) lack of demand.

You can get 6mm bullets up to 115 grains but need a fast twist, 1:8 or so, to stabilize them. They were introduced only when people wanted to shoot competitive target shooting using 6mms. They previously used 6mms with lighter bullets, such as 105 grains, They don't use 25 calibers perhaps because there are no 25 caliber match bullets (or weren't).

80 grain bullets in .223 were introduced for the same purpose. They require 1:8 or 1:7 twists.

6.5mm match bullets became available because the Swedes used that caliber in military rifle competition. 139 or 140 grain boat tails were available from at least 1960.

Although Hornady has discontinued 160 grain 6.5mm round nose bullets, I believe you can still get 156 grain bullets from Norma.

Twist rate would be the main culprit I would think.....

Makes sense thanks for your reply Pappy, I appreciate it.

Thank you Indy it kind of sounds like a couple of reasons.

Thanks MMGravy sounds like you guys are pretty much in the same area on this subject.

thats what the 6.5mm is for........

Yea I see your point, and the other guys also, but now I wonder why they are using heavier bullets (like 80grns) or more I think in the 223 and then they drop down to 75 or 80 grns in the 243? Maybe its just like the old saying "because we can". But I guess thats how changes come about, experiment and see what happens. Strange affliction we have with cartridges but hey it sure is interesting and even fun, how about it?

Take a really fast twist .25 barrel, chamber it for .257 Robts., put a long throat with a gentle leade angle in it, have some custom 140 grain bullets made, and report back- after discovering that the resulting cartridge is too long to feed through the magazine. Load them short enough to feed (taking care to match the throat accordingly) and discover serious intrusion into the useful powder space.

I often asked the same question, then shrugged my shoulders and went merrily away using 100 grain bullets in the .257 and killing stuff deader than dead.

Blame it on the military.

For decades .22 CF bullets pretty much topped out at 55 gr which worked fine with 1-12 twist. Then, after Viet Nam, the military (Marine Corps IIRC) decided to increase the effective range of the 5.56x45 and began experimenting with heavier bullets which in turn required faster twists. Service Rifle competitors got involved and bullet manufacturers developed bullets for them. Hunters discovered some of those bullets worked for them at long range and here we are today. Of note is that Savage's High-Power was firing 70 gr .227 bullets past 3000 fps and killing all manner of animals in 1912 - amazing isn't it?

The .24's and .25's didn't have any military input but still slay deer by the truckload with traditional weight bullets.

6.5mm and 7mm have used faster twists from the first, but they started out as military cartridges.



BTW, welcome to the 'Fire.

There's an issue of chamber dimensions in the 25's. Much longer bullets would have to be seated so deep there could be pressure issues and diminishing returns on velocity.

Substitute the .257 Roberts with the .250 Savage, and you've got the Creedmoor. They just used the existing (and expanding) lineup of 6.5 and 6mm bullets instead.

Introducing high BC .25cal bullets to the market would be nice IF rifle manufacturers also introduced faster twist barrels. If not, all you'd hear were screams of frustration from the general public that thought a 140gr bullet would be "better" than their current 100-120gr, but couldn't figure out why they were slapping the targets sideways.

I'd personally like to see some high BC engineering applied to the current 85 to 115gr weights. Keeping the weight down, but lengthening the bullets within their stabilization range, could add some benefit to the generally weak BC of most .25 bullets. The quarter bore fans generally seem to be a loyal group, but it'd be nice to enjoy the higher BC that other calibers do.

The .25s were never designed for military or long range target use. The military likes heavy bullets for penetration, target shooters like heavy bullets for wind resistance.

If you want something a little slicker in .25, the Berger 115gr VLD Hunting is the only game in town that I'm aware of.

The same basic situation exists in .277 bore, but .277 was considered big enough to be worthy of some heavy, enhanced penetration hunting bullets by some makers that are arguably as boutique as Berger.

Some cartridges/calibers are condemned to hunting in the practical world, some for other purposes. If a fella wants to kill stuff by the truckload the .25s will do it. OTOH, if he wants to murder paper or critters in the next zip code pick something else. Good excuse to have more than one gun IMO.

Or, one can become very adept at stalking and find a .45 flintlock adequate for most any undertaking.

There was a small company making 130gr .257" bullets a while back (Bitterroot or Northfork maybe?) but I have not looked into it myself since calling them to chat about twist rate. The guy making them said they were incredible but required a fast twist barrel. I had no real reason to re-barrel any of mine so I never even bought a single box.

I've had such good performance from the Hornady 120gr. HP that it's about all I've used out of the .25-06. I've tried several different ones out of the Roberts. Most of them work so well it makes almost no difference. I have a stockpile of Nosler partitions in different weights, a couple different wieghts of NBT, Sierra 120gr HP, a box of Barnes TSX unopened, and even a couple Berger boxes if I remember right. The Hornadys are all used up.

Many moons ago Barnes made a 125 gr bullet in .25 and Remington used to load a "Extended Range" 122 gr in the .257 Roberts and .25-06 but that's about as heavy as the .25's ever got in readily available options. The 122 gr .25-06 load shoots great in my A-Bolt and I'm down to my last half box.

I loaded up a box of 125 grain Barnes Originals a few years back to use as elk loads in my 25-06, and then decided to buy a 7mm Magnum and use that instead.
I guess I should shoot them on deer and see how they work.

You should use them on elk! You won't be disappointed.

Have mentioned this here and there in various publications, but the reason are basically only medium-weight .25 (and .270) bullets is because EARLY smokeless cartridges used very long, round-nosed bullets, apparently because the black powder bullets they replaced used very long, round-nosed bullets. The bullet diameters developed back in the 1890's mostly were military rounds, especially 6.5mm, 7mm and .30, which all started out with such long round-nosed bullets, such as the 156's in the 6.5x55 and 220's in the .30-40 Krag. However, some early sporting cartridges also featured such bullets, especially the .33 caliber British rounds. All of which is why 6.5mm, 7mm, .30 and .33 caliber barrels had relatively fast twists from the beginning.

By the end of the 1890's, however, lighter spitzers started appearing, the reason the original 220-grain round-nose for the .30-03 became the 150-grain spitzer for the .30-06. Lighter spitzers and higher muzzle velocities became the trend in sporting cartridges, often with slower twists, just fast enough to stabilize the bullets, apparently because the bullets of the day weren't very well balanced, and a faster twist made them shoot noticeably less accurately.

The .250 Savage originally had a 1-14 twist for 87-grain bullets at 3000 fps, the .270's 1-10 twist was developed for 130-grain bullets, and smokeless .35 caliber cartridges has 1-16 twists, just enough to stabilize 250-grain spitzers. This is why 6.5mm, 7mm, .30 and .33 caliber barrels all have had twists sufficient to stabilize relatively heavy spitzers, but some calibers (especially .25, .270 and .35) have slower twists.

Savage didn't change the 1-14 twist in their barrels to 1-10 (the standard twist in the .257 Roberts and many other .25's) around 1960, though some other companies kept the twist 1-14 long afterward. The original .257 Weatherbys had 1-12 twists. Both 1-12 and 1-14 won't reliably stabilize any 115-120 grain spitzers, the reason the "heavy bullet" factory loads for both rounds, used 117 round-noses--and until very recently Weatherby still offered a 117 RN factory load.

One oddity about all this is the original twist in the .25-35 Winchester was 1-8, which is what my .25-35 Model 1894 rifle (made in 1898) has in its octagon barrel. If newer .25 caliber cartridges such as the .250-3000 or .257 Roberts has stuck with 1-8, then .25's might well be just as popular as 6.5's for "long range hunting."

Seems like a 25 caliber 130 grain would be handy if the 10 twist of my 257 Roy would stabilize it. High BC and SD as well.

If Berger lengthened their 115-grain VLD (one of the highest-BC .25 caliber bullets) so that it weighed 130 grains, it would stabilize in a 1-10 twist--but just barely.

Unfavorable environmental conditions would destabilize it, and even when stabilized the ballistic coefficient would be reduced considerably. One thing many shooters don't realize is that even if a marginally stabilized bullet groups well, the BC is reduced significantly, to the point where there's no real advantage in using a heavier, longer bullet. Especially one that may start hitting targets sideways in different conditions.

I have Pac-nor barrels with 1:9 twist on a .25/06 and a .250AI. Both do sub-moa with the 115 Bergers, but will shoot one hole groups with 100gr NBTs and solid base. Go figure.

I have 31 of them in a box left from the old days as , I no longer own a .257 anything I have no need for them. Send me a pm if you are interested in them.........
I have left the .257 anything behind and am a .264 convert .........
Having owned more then one .25-06 and a .257 roberts. I am fully all in on 6.5s

Thank You for the welcome and reply. I had to leave for a few days or I would have gotten back to you sooner.

Thanks for the reply. I had a savage in 25-06 with a 26" barrel and I was shooting 120 Rem. factory loads and I ran them thru my Chrony and they were actually going 3200+ fps. (factory loads!) I made the mistake of shooting a whitetail doe at about 40 yds. behind the ribcage, what a mess... I never shot 100 grainers.

Hey I appreciate the reply. Is that the same as overbore capacity? I guess if they increased the weight of the bullets the length would have to be increased also, unless they went with some type of real dense metal .

Hey, thanks for the reply. Do you think they would have to change the twist rate if they were keeping the same weight of bullet but making it longer, or could it stay the same since it would be the same weight as the current bullets?

Hi, Barry. I would like the heavier weight of a bullet in 25 caliber because I always thought if it was heavier it would penetrate deeper. But at the same time the heaviest animal I hunt is a whitetail deer...

Yeah I agree you can never own too many guns!

Hey Nate how did the hp's hold up on say deer size game? I think my uncle used to use hollowpoints but he mainly shot groundhogs and 1/4 sticks of dynamite with his 25-06. I think he was using 87 or 90 grn bullets though.

Sounds like it's time to go shopping. On the 122 grn is it as fast as the 120 or about the same speed? Is it a corelok bullet of Remington or another brand?

Do they still make them in the Barnes original in that weight. The last time I looked it seemed like everything was going to solid copper.

Thanks for the reply. I would have got back sooner but had to leave for a few days. What's the reason for such a fast twist in the 25-35? Or was it made with a light bullet?

I agree with you on that.

Other than the weight difference are the length of the bullets about the same?

I have never loaded any thing heavier than the 120gr NPT in 25 cal. That was in a Weatherby. I was using the 115ge NBT early on and they would tear up to much meat on an antelope.

With the improvement in bullet construction I see no need to go heavier. If you want more bullet weight then step up to a 7MM caliber or even a 30 cal. I'm going to try some of the Barnet TTSX (I think there 100gr) in my Roberts and 25-06. Sierra and Hornady make an 87gr bullet I use in a 250 Savage, a Pre64 M70 with a 1:14 twist.

I like my quarter bores but if I want more bullet weight then I'll take a 7X57.

That is a very good point. Penetration-wise, mono bullets have made heavies almost obsolete.