.260 remington VS. 6.5CM The Truth about all

BigBore45 · Sep 19, 2019

So off of another sidetracked thread this came up. Also one with the 38 Spl cartridge showing how weak it is. I think i must have hit my limit with all these new wonder cartridges doing what others from the past cannot.(same things guys like Taffin, Pierce, Skeeter and Keith have done over and again with pistol rounds.)

I'm going to site some examples of very manipulated data from manufactures and explain what they are doing, how they are doing it and the obvious why they are( to sell new stuff ).

So lets look at factory offerings first for both:

260.rem:
factory offering Federal Gold metal Match SMK 142Gr. B.C.611 G1
2750FPS. right off federals website.

Note: They dont load the 142Gr SMK in the 6.5cm because it sucks. cannot even get close to the velocity of the 260 rem. the bullet is to long to obtain that kind of B.C. so i picked the closest one i could in the creedmore favor. go ahead fact check me look it up.

6.5CM:
factory offering Federal Gold Metal Match SMK 140 Gr B.C. .535 G1
2675FPS. right off federals website

so right off the bat with factory rounds. the extra FPS and way better B.C. is already in favor of the .260 Remington. ( if you think i picked unfair bullets i say again do research before you comment) now wait till i show you the sammi and factory curve to help mitigate this to true long range shooters that reload.

On to the true Potential of the .260 Rem
Now they have already for unknown reasons Set the PSI limit of this round to 60k PSI. It should be 65K psi. ( i wont go into detail about that right now. I'm not a fan of sammi guidelines as you'll come to find out.)

with that in mind lets look at some book reloads first.

From Hodgdons Best load Serria 142gr. Match King
Hodgdon
H4831
.264"

48.0C
2,747
58,700 PSI ( notice this limit ) ill go into more detail later as this isnt even a great powder too use.

Now
6.5CM 142gr Serria Match King
Hodgdon
Hybrid 100V
.264"

41.5
2,737
62,900 PSI ( notice this limit ) well thats quite the unfair advantage.

now why would they do that increase in PSI? they both are so close that there is no reason to rate them 5k psi apart. Thanks SAMMI (not)

Ok now the fun part REAL LOADS

when i do this you guys can bash Quickloads all you want but it does get close and i am not going to be modifying anything so there will be another slight disadvantage to the 260. i am however going to set the PSI to 65K for both. ANYONE WHO SHOOTS LONG RANGE KNOWS WHY AND SHOULD NOT EVEN ARGUE ME DOING SO. WITH THAT SAID:

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

now notice on my 2 screenshots.
First these are the 2 best powders In my experience for each caliber with the match king.

Second ill have you notice velocity. winner 260 remington and your saying yea but not by much. well go to third

Third notice the case fill capacity. yeah to much in the 6.5CM to actually work. and trust me it is even worse in real testing. it just does not have the case capacity the .260 Remington does. and it shows when you load to the real potential of each. Especially when you consider holding the bullet out to mag length you gain even more capacity with the .260 Remington over the 6.5CM. Now we are around 250-300 fps apart with a true long range/ high B.C. bullet.

Now Ive used my Experience Several times in this post so far. before i go into more detail or answer questions that i am sure will follow. I am an ammo manufacture. I hold an 07 FFL which covers 06 FFL. ( dont get me started on that whole joke) I develop/design long range Precision rounds for a side income and im sure you have heard or seen one or 2 of them. i was about to divulge my accomplishments for merit but decided that would be an unfair advantage to persuade any argument in my favor.

Finally some pics and Some enlightenment on SAMMI/GUN&AMMO MANUFACTURES/CORPORATE INFRASTRUCTURE and THE SALES PITCH.

So what do you do when something isnt broken.... you dont fix it. well now there is always room for improvement right?

well i guess ideas just blossom in the new gun and cartridge world every year for shot show.........

Not so much.

Now Im going to tell you something they dont want you to know. SAMMI is a guideline.... there is zero legal enforcement or obligation to follow sammi specs at any time. its more of a standard of practice to make things easy for different manufactures.

With that said. How do you thing the 6.5CM came to be? well the rollout of the 260 remington was a flop. they used the wrong rifle twist and didnt market it as a long range caliber but just a hunting round. however after some work from long range guys low and behold it is fantastic

well what do you do with it? its not really broken so do you reintroduce it or build something almost identical and leave a little room for improvement later?.

well if your income and livelihood depends on selling new and better things you are better off inventing a new thing and improving on it later. take this for what its worth but i see it to many times.

30-06 factory ammo is now close to 308 in velocity and the 30-06 used to run 150fps below a 300 win mag. Sammi dropped the PSI on the 30-06

some other examples are 38 special, 45 colt, 44 special. all dropped in PSI by sammi.

wonder why they would do that? because if they didnt then the guys making new calibers really could not improve on existing ones and would quit following sammi guideline to beat the competition and sell new/better calibers something like a 260 Remington +p or 6.5cm Extreme. lol only difference would be an increase in pressure....

take all this for what its worth but if you ever wonder how buffalo bore or cor-bon or underwood do what they do then here you go. ever wonder why the military runs there ammo way above Sammi Pressures? well here you go. wonder why hard bolt lift, flat primers and every other pressure sign is on long range fields without ever a gun blowing up well here you go.

i was going to do more info sharing from other sources but its been an hour and my kids need my time not people online. Do the Research yourself.

P.S. look at the 300 blackout. It really does nothing the 7.62x39 can not do in an ar-15 platform. Its weaker and more expensive. The 7.62x39 can run a 220 grain 30 call bullet just like the 300 blackout. It can run a 125-150 grain 200 fps faster. Why even invent it? For those that say bolt problems I say look up the 6.5 in an ar-15 and then say something about bolt issues. The 6.5g parent cartridge is a 7.62x39
Same bolt face.

LoonWulf · Sep 20, 2019

The 6.5CM has about 1gr less capacity than the .260, 52.5 to 53.5+/-
when loaded to equal pressure that doesn't equate to a huge difference in velocity.
The only real failing the .260 had was a poorly chosen twist rate at release, that Remington didn't support it properly.

The X39 and 6.5 Grendel both had a reputation for cracking AR bolts.
How prevlent that actually was in practice I'm not sure, I've run mine pretty hard, as I have the .458 socom, and didn't crack a bolt in a couple thousand combined rounds.
There are a number of folks far more knowledgeable about ARs than I.

greyling22 · Sep 20, 2019

The Grendel actually uses a different bolt than the x39. There is a type 1 (x39) and type 2 that was tweaked to help with bolt cracking. Maybe they lengthened the locking lugs? I forget what exactly.

Also, nobody ever said the blackout was better than the x39, the only thing it brings to the table is that you can use standard ar mags and bolts and get something that suppressed well with subsonics. (300 whisper) Then people noticed that it did better than 223 for hunting. But let's be fair, the 223 is a varmint cartridge we somehow got stuck with as a military round. It should never have been put in service. But that's a huge rabbit trail.

Some of the lowered psi is to make sure all you ammo is safe in all old guns. Remember, most people are stupid. Example, a Ruger Blackhawk will handle a lot more pressure than say, a j frame from the 1960s. But you have to only.publish data that is safe for both let's you get sued.

It's more about butt covering than it is trying to upsell you on a new product.

LoonWulf · Sep 20, 2019

greyling22 said:
There is a type 1 (x39) and type 2

From what I've read the type 2 bolts were what colt originally spec'd for the X39, and would still fail from time to time.
Type 2 bolts actually have a slightly deeper bolt face, and won't headspace correctly with type 1 barrels. the reverse is true as well.

earlthegoat2 · Sep 20, 2019

As far as the .260 vs. 6.5CM is concerned, should the 6.5CM round never have been developed and instead a different rifle developed for the .260 round?

I was under the impression that there was a advantage (however slight) to developing a new round [6.5CM] and a rifle that was optimized for it (twist rate, etc) and this would give an advantage (again, however slight) to the average buying public (who may not hand load, competitively target shoot, etc).

I really feel like a book could be written about the histories of the .260 and 6.5CM and the marketing, support, mistakes, and real life performance of each.

beeenbag · Sep 20, 2019

Well, if we didn't have the 6.5 cm hate threads, the day would not be complete.

260 is a great round, and as you acknowledged, was failed by the marketing department and not coming out with the right twist rate barrel for long range shooting, but rather slower twists aimed at using lighter hunting bullets. This isn't technically a "fail" as it is and was useful in this role. However, I am glad that someone was smart enough to take the ability of the 260, market it better, get aftermarket support, market wide industry support, give it a cool name and send it out to consumers to decide if it was worthy or not. Seems the market has spoken and it is accepted. 260 fans should not be angry about this, but rather grateful, as the bullet selection has increased greatly because of the 6.5cm. We all know that it would have been a much greater hurdle to bring interest back to the 260 with marketing alone.

Keep in mind, I do not own a 6.5cm, nor do I see myself getting one unless I happen to just fall into one.

Gtscotty · Sep 20, 2019

BigBore45 said:
So off of another sidetracked thread this came up. Also one with the 38 Spl cartridge showing how weak it is. I think i must have hit my limit with all these new wonder cartridges doing what others from the past cannot.(same things guys like Taffin, Pierce, Skeeter and Keith have done over and again with pistol rounds.)

I'm going to site some examples of very manipulated data from manufactures and explain what they are doing, how they are doing it and the obvious why they are( to sell new stuff ).

So lets look at factory offerings first for both:

260.rem:
factory offering Federal Gold metal Match SMK 142Gr. B.C.611 G1
2750FPS. right off federals website.

Note: They dont load the 142Gr SMK in the 6.5cm because it sucks. cannot even get close to the velocity of the 260 rem. the bullet is to long to obtain that kind of B.C. so i picked the closest one i could in the creedmore favor. go ahead fact check me look it up.

6.5CM:
factory offering Federal Gold Metal Match SMK 140 Gr B.C. .535 G1
2675FPS. right off federals website

so right off the bat with factory rounds. the extra FPS and way better B.C. is already in favor of the .260 Remington. ( if you think i picked unfair bullets i say again do research before you comment) now wait till i show you the sammi and factory curve to help mitigate this to true long range shooters that reload.

On to the true Potential of the .260 Rem
Now they have already for unknown reasons Set the PSI limit of this round to 60k PSI. It should be 65K psi. ( i wont go into detail about that right now. I'm not a fan of sammi guidelines as you'll come to find out.)

with that in mind lets look at some book reloads first.

From Hodgdons Best load Serria 142gr. Match King
Hodgdon
H4831
.264"

48.0C
2,747
58,700 PSI ( notice this limit ) ill go into more detail later as this isnt even a great powder too use.

Now
6.5CM 142gr Serria Match King
Hodgdon
Hybrid 100V
.264"

41.5
2,737
62,900 PSI ( notice this limit ) well thats quite the unfair advantage.

now why would they do that increase in PSI? they both are so close that there is no reason to rate them 5k psi apart. Thanks SAMMI (not)

Ok now the fun part REAL LOADS

when i do this you guys can bash Quickloads all you want but it does get close and i am not going to be modifying anything so there will be another slight disadvantage to the 260. i am however going to set the PSI to 65K for both. ANYONE WHO SHOOTS LONG RANGE KNOWS WHY AND SHOULD NOT EVEN ARGUE ME DOING SO. WITH THAT SAID:

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

now notice on my 2 screenshots.
First these are the 2 best powders In my experience for each caliber with the match king.

Second ill have you notice velocity. winner 260 remington and your saying yea but not by much. well go to third

Third notice the case fill capacity. yeah to much in the 6.5CM to actually work. and trust me it is even worse in real testing. it just does not have the case capacity the .260 Remington does. and it shows when you load to the real potential of each. Especially when you consider holding the bullet out to mag length you gain even more capacity with the .260 Remington over the 6.5CM. Now we are around 250-300 fps apart with a true long range/ high B.C. bullet.

Now Ive used my Experience Several times in this post so far. before i go into more detail or answer questions that i am sure will follow. I am an ammo manufacture. I hold an 07 FFL which covers 06 FFL. ( dont get me started on that whole joke) I develop/design long range Precision rounds for a side income and im sure you have heard or seen one or 2 of them. i was about to divulge my accomplishments for merit but decided that would be an unfair advantage to persuade any argument in my favor.

Finally some pics and Some enlightenment on SAMMI/GUN&AMMO MANUFACTURES/CORPORATE INFRASTRUCTURE and THE SALES PITCH.

So what do you do when something isnt broken.... you dont fix it. well now there is always room for improvement right?

well i guess ideas just blossom in the new gun and cartridge world every year for shot show.........

Not so much.

Now Im going to tell you something they dont want you to know. SAMMI is a guideline.... there is zero legal enforcement or obligation to follow sammi specs at any time. its more of a standard of practice to make things easy for different manufactures.

With that said. How do you thing the 6.5CM came to be? well the rollout of the 260 remington was a flop. they used the wrong rifle twist and didnt market it as a long range caliber but just a hunting round. however after some work from long range guys low and behold it is fantastic

well what do you do with it? its not really broken so do you reintroduce it or build something almost identical and leave a little room for improvement later?.

well if your income and livelihood depends on selling new and better things you are better off inventing a new thing and improving on it later. take this for what its worth but i see it to many times.

30-06 factory ammo is now close to 308 in velocity and the 30-06 used to run 150fps below a 300 win mag. Sammi dropped the PSI on the 30-06

some other examples are 38 special, 45 colt, 44 special. all dropped in PSI by sammi.

wonder why they would do that? because if they didnt then the guys making new calibers really could not improve on existing ones and would quit following sammi guideline to beat the competition and sell new/better calibers something like a 260 Remington +p or 6.5cm Extreme. lol only difference would be an increase in pressure....

take all this for what its worth but if you ever wonder how buffalo bore or cor-bon or underwood do what they do then here you go. ever wonder why the military runs there ammo way above Sammi Pressures? well here you go. wonder why hard bolt lift, flat primers and every other pressure sign is on long range fields without ever a gun blowing up well here you go.

i was going to do more info sharing from other sources but its been an hour and my kids need my time not people online. Do the Research yourself.

P.S. look at the 300 blackout. It really does nothing the 7.62x39 can not do in an ar-15 platform. Its weaker and more expensive. The 7.62x39 can run a 220 grain 30 call bullet just like the 300 blackout. It can run a 125-150 grain 200 fps faster. Why even invent it? For those that say bolt problems I say look up the 6.5 in an ar-15 and then say something about bolt issues. The 6.5g parent cartridge is a 7.62x39
Same bolt face.

Wow, another marathon post from you, light on facts and heavy on cherry picked data and rambling conspiracy theories.... How surprising.

First of all, let's talk about your one cherry picked load data comparison, that you cherry picked from me on the other thread no less, pathetic. Here's a comparison of top loads from other sources that you must have missed in your exhaustive search:

Strange, there are some manufacturers that don't think the 142gr SMK is too long for the 6.5, including Sierra who might know something about the subject. Sierra also doesn't think their 150gr SMK is too long for the Creedmoor, their published data goes up to 2,800 fps.

Hornady data has more of the same, but I don't have my editions on hand right now.

Is almost like the velocity advantage you claim for the .260 (it was 200fps in the other thread, somewhere between 50fps and 300fps in this thread) is complete and total BS. Are all these companies in on the great deception, or do you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about?

The fastest load I posted above is 2,830 fps, go ahead and show the load data for your .260 load that is 250fps - 300 fps faster. I asked you the same thing yesterday and you failed to produce, because you're a liar, making up facts willy-nilly to support your lies.

I also liked your statement, before you heavily edited your post, that since the fill ratio of the 6.5 creed load in your Quick load run was 103%, it wasn't actually realistic to use that load.... That's rich, a man who advocates running 65ksi in a 60ksi cartridge and claims to be a commercial ammo manufacturer doesn't know how to handle a tiny bit of compression?

Speaking of your quickload Sims, that 50fps difference isn't terribly impressive, especially given the fact that you use 760 in the 6.5, a powder that no one who knows what they are doing uses. Run that again with powders people are actually using, RL-16, RL-17, RL-26. I'd love to see your results, while you're at it don't forget to post up your loads that run 3,100 fps with 140gr bullets... 300fps faster right?

Given that per all published data, most people's first have experience and your own quickload runs, the .260 has no meaningful velocity advantage over the 6.5, what exactly are the advantages that make it superior?

Does it have more factory ammo support? No, it has less.

Does it have more rifle manufacturer support? Nope, it has way less.

Does it handle popular longer bullets at factory mag length better? No, better double check the specs before you buy, they didn't come up with the .260 TAC chamber design because the stock chamber was just so perfect.

Hmm, that's weird, why exactly is it better again?

It's a shame that the mods deleted the posts in the other thread, Varminterror had a few entertaining posts disassembling your nonsense before he blocked you due to your belligerant ignorance.

jmr40 · Sep 20, 2019

The problem with 260 is that while it has the POTENTIAL to THEORETICALLY beat 6.5 CM you can't do it with factory rifles or factory loads. The 260 was conceived and designed around 120 gr HUNTING bullets. When you try to load 140-150 gr TARGET bullets in 260 you have several problems to solve. #1 the bullets are so long they won't fit in either the magazine or chamber unless they are seated very deep. And when you do that you reduce powder capacity to the point where velocity suffers. The 2nd problem is the 260 barrels are twisted with 120 gr bullets in mind. They may still work with SOME 140 gr HUNTING bullets which tend to be shorter and have lower BC's, but not the long high BC target bullets.

The long range target shooters were using highly modified 260's with custom rifles and ammo loaded to non standard specifications for a long time before 6.5 CM came on the scene. The 6.5 CM is simply the result of requests from shooters for a cartridge and rifles that could be purchased off the shelf that would to what they were doing with custom rigs and loads.

As far as the .260 vs. 6.5CM is concerned, should the 6.5CM round never have been developed and instead a different rifle developed for the .260 round?

That could have been done, but would have created serious confusion. Some ammo would be interchangeable, some not. It was a lot simpler, and safer to just develop a new round.

BigBore45 · Sep 20, 2019

Gtscotty said:
Wow, another marathon post from you, light on facts and heavy on cherry picked data and rambling conspiracy theories.... How surprising.

First of all, let's talk about your one cherry picked load data comparison, that you cherry picked from me on the other thread no less, pathetic. Here's a comparison of top loads from other sources that you must have missed in your exhaustive search:

View attachment 861010

Strange, there are some manufacturers that don't think the 142gr SMK is too long for the 6.5, including Sierra who might know something about the subject. Sierra also doesn't think their 150gr SMK is too long for the Creedmoor, their published data goes up to 2,800 fps.

Hornady data has more of the same, but I don't have my editions on hand right now.

Is almost like the velocity advantage you claim for the .260 (it was 200fps in the other thread, somewhere between 50fps and 300fps in this thread) is complete and total BS. Are all these companies in on the great deception, or do you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about?

The fastest load I posted above is 2,830 fps, go ahead and show the load data for your .260 load that is 250fps - 300 fps faster. I asked you the same thing yesterday and you failed to produce, because you're a liar, making up facts willy-nilly to support your lies.

I also liked your statement, before you heavily edited your post, that since the fill ratio of the 6.5 creed load in your Quick load run was 103%, it wasn't actually realistic to use that load.... That's rich, a man who advocates running 65ksi in a 60ksi cartridge and claims to be a commercial ammo manufacturer doesn't know how to handle a tiny bit of compression?

Speaking of your quickload Sims, that 50fps difference isn't terribly impressive, especially given the fact that you use 760 in the 6.5, a powder that no one who knows what they are doing uses. Run that again with powders people are actually using, RL-16, RL-17, RL-26. I'd love to see your results, while you're at it don't forget to post up your loads that run 3,100 fps with 140gr bullets... 300fps faster right?

Given that per all published data, most people's first have experience and your own quickload runs, the .260 has no meaningful velocity advantage over the 6.5, what exactly are the advantages that make it superior?

Does it have more factory ammo support? No, it has less.

Does it have more rifle manufacturer support? Nope, it has way less.

Does it handle popular longer bullets at factory mag length better? No, better double check the specs before you buy, they didn't come up with the .260 TAC chamber design because the stock chamber was just so perfect.

Hmm, that's weird, why exactly is it better again?

It's a shame that the mods deleted the posts in the other thread, Varminterror had a few entertaining posts disassembling your nonsense before he blocked you due to your belligerant ignorance.

Oh and the data you provided looks like it was made on Microsoft word with zero pressures. Yet you judge mine straight from hodgdons website? You show no barrel lengths either? Who's fudging numbers now. And yes took a 60k round too 65k. Pretty sure I explained why and specifically stated anyone who questioned that is not a long range loader or shooter. I guess I'll have to get out the gopro and make videos and load them on youtube. What a waiste of 6 or more hours of my time. I'm about 99% sure every one bashing me on this does not have PCB equipment at their shop as I do.

Gtscotty · Sep 20, 2019

BigBore45 said:
Oh and the data you provided looks like it was made on Microsoft word with zero pressures. Yet you judge mine straight from hodgdons website? You show no barrel lengths either? Who's fudging numbers now. And yes took a 60k round too 65k. Pretty sure I explained why and specifically stated anyone who questioned that is not a long range loader or shooter. I guess I'll have to get out the gopro and make videos and load them on youtube. What a waiste of 6 or more hours of my time. I'm about 99% sure every one bashing me on this does not have PCB equipment at their shop as I do.

That data is straight from online load manuals, I even told you the sources, and compiled them for you. You can spend 5 minutes on Google checking them if you think they're wrong. Anyone who questions you doesn't know anything about long range shooting? Lol, another episode in the clown show, how far do you reckon this is champ?

You don't have to make any videos, no one is going to watch them. Just post something other than BS, your magic .260 load data and quick load runs with a decent 6.5 powder (see previous post for a clue) to back up your rediculous velocity claims would be a reasonable step up from your previous efforts.

BigBore45 · Sep 20, 2019

Gtscotty said:
That data is straight from online load manuals, I even told you the sources, and compiled them for you. You can spend 5 minutes on Google checking them if you think they're wrong. Anyone who questions you doesn't know anything about long range shooting? Lol, another episode in the clown show, how far do you reckon this is champ?
View attachment 861064

You don't have to make any videos, no one is going to watch them. Just post something other than BS, your magic load data and quick load runs with a decent 6.5 powder (see previous post for a clue) to back up your rediculous velocity claims would be a reasonable step up from your previous efforts.

I dunno champ. Tell me the size of that gong, and ffp or 2ndfp if second I need the zoom power your on and I'll tell you the distance. Side note looks like your about 3-4k feet higher in elevation than me. Wonder if that plays a role in any part of a controlled burn to move a projectile to a certain velocity?.........yes, yes it does.

And again you trying to use book data? What have I said about book data. It is skewed. I bet what they show as a max load for the 260 is really 6k under. It's always like that for older cartridges. Call it safety margin, lawyer interference, margin for powder lot variation or whatever you want to call it. The fact is it is wrong 95% of the time.

Here is a test for you from another personal experience of mine that is way cheaper than buying testing equipment like I have done. Go get a lb of the newer IMR 4166. Follow load data on this cuz to make it any better than older powders velocity wise they did run it up to true pressures on their data. Then go get an old powder and run it up to max load manual data and tell me which one is hotter. I promise you the new powder will be way above pressure of the old powder yet show the same psi in the load book and most likely the new powder will be below its advertised velocity even if you have a longer barrel and are showing signs of pressure.

I'll get the gopro out. I'll go from the loading bench to the range, show Chrony readings and possibly set up some pressure testing equipment for the 260 rem. Now we are taking up my whole Saturday to prove a point to someone unwilling to invest the time, energy and money I have into ballistic testing.

mokin · Sep 20, 2019

Nice write up BigBore45. I wondered why the .260 Remington never took off.

horsey300 · Sep 20, 2019

BigBore45 said:
I dunno champ. Tell me the size of that gong, and ffp or 2ndfp if second I need the zoom power your on and I'll tell you the distance. Side note looks like your about 3-4k feet higher in elevation than me. Wonder if that plays a role in any part of a controlled burn to move a projectile to a certain velocity?.........yes, yes it does.

And again you trying to use book data? What have I said about book data. It is skewed. I bet what they show as a max load for the 260 is really 6k under. It's always like that for older cartridges. Call it safety margin, lawyer interference, margin for powder lot variation or whatever you want to call it. The fact is it is wrong 95% of the time.

Here is a test for you from another personal experience of mine that is way cheaper than buying testing equipment like I have done. Go get a lb of the newer IMR 4166. Follow load data on this cuz to make it any better than older powders velocity wise they did run it up to true pressures on their data. Then go get an old powder and run it up to max load manual data and tell me which one is hotter. I promise you the new powder will be way above pressure of the old powder yet show the same psi in the load book and most likely the new powder will be below its advertised velocity even if you have a longer barrel and are showing signs of pressure.

I'll get the gopro out. I'll go from the loading bench to the range, show Chrony readings and possibly set up some pressure testing equipment for the 260 rem. Now we are taking up my whole Saturday to prove a point to someone unwilling to invest the time, energy and money I have into ballistic testing.

I agree with a few points you've made.... a few..... but complaining about an excuse to get back out to shoot........*shaking head sadly walking away muttering "lost another one"*

horsey300 · Sep 20, 2019

Gtscotty said:
That data is straight from online load manuals, I even told you the sources, and compiled them for you. You can spend 5 minutes on Google checking them if you think they're wrong. Anyone who questions you doesn't know anything about long range shooting? Lol, another episode in the clown show, how far do you reckon this is champ?
View attachment 861064

You don't have to make any videos, no one is going to watch them. Just post something other than BS, your magic .260 load data and quick load runs with a decent 6.5 powder (see previous post for a clue) to back up your rediculous velocity claims would be a reasonable step up from your previous efforts.

Your target is a little farther than the knoll on the right, sooooooooo, speculatively, 700?

BigBore45 · Sep 21, 2019

horsey300 said:
I agree with a few points you've made.... a few..... but complaining about an excuse to get back out to shoot........*shaking head sadly walking away muttering "lost another one"*

Haha well. It's just like work so. Kinda. Lotta work involved for about 20 shots and no real target

BigBore45 · Sep 21, 2019

Some more facts that are easily attainable. Look up load books and online in powders that are the same. Like h110 and w296. Over half of the books show different loads and pressures for the same powder. Yes h110 and w296 are the same powder. Why the heck would these loads show such different readings. Now tell me again who is showing wild claims ?

1 example. Over 1 grain difference at an apparent max load of the same powder-brass-bullet-primer and COAL. And the one with 1.1 grain more has less velocity? Come on it's the same effin powder. Get real and take the fact that the major players are lieing to you to take your money!

horsemen61 · Sep 21, 2019

If Big Green would’ve done the .260 Rem right thier wouldn’t have been a need for the 6.5 Creedmoor!

rayatphonix · Sep 21, 2019

But Remington didn’t do the 260 right so we have ainother cartridge that most consider an improvement. Why is that a problem? Has anyone taken the 260 away?

horsey300 · Sep 21, 2019

BigBore45 said:
Haha well. It's just like work so. Kinda. Lotta work involved for about 20 shots and no real target

Sounds just like when I was a kid, the work put in just for a few plinking rounds, didn't really add up looking back on it all now.........but it didn't change the fact that it was worth it! Still is come to think of it.......maybe you've lost touch with your inner child??

BigBore45 · Sep 21, 2019

rayatphonix said:
But Remington didn’t do the 260 right so we have ainother cartridge that most consider an improvement. Why is that a problem? Has anyone taken the 260 away?

In a sense. They hinder it's TRUE performance to most with all the above mentioned. Putting the proverbial nail in the coffin.

Walkalong · Sep 21, 2019

A very long time ago when the 6MM Remington and the .243 were fighting for market share the 6MM had a slower twist intended for lighter varmint bullets and could not handle the heavier hunting bullets and it failed at that, while the .243 had a faster twist and when people used it for hunting it faired much better. So when people naturally used them for double duty, varmints and deer, the .243 came out on top and all but killed the 6MM Remington. Plus the fact at the time America didn't really cotton to MM to much, unlike today where it doesn't matter.

blue32 · Sep 21, 2019

Hornady's 8th ed told me all I needed to know about the CM. I suspect they didn't include data for 120-123 gr. 260 loads because the CM couldn't stack up to the hype. They sure didn't test as many powders with the 260 as the CM either.

horsemen61 · Sep 21, 2019

The Creedmoor isn’t all hype folks if it were “all hat and no cattle” it wouldn’t sell so well

Varminterror · Sep 21, 2019

So a question I have asked multiple times to the OP, but have yet to receive an answer:

Why have ALL top shooters in long range competition given up on the 260 Remington? The 6.5 Creedmoor remains, but the 260 has completely fallen off of the map.

Noting here, a presumed favor for several of your preference for the .260rem:

• These are custom rifles with custom barrels, giving equal opportunity for any shooter to maximize performance by ordering custom twists and custom throats for their bullet choice.

• These are ALMOST exclusively reloaders, giving the shooters access to load their ammo to whatever pressure standard they see fit.

• These are long range competitors focused on gaining any advantage for ballistic coefficient and velocity they can find.

So why would these shooters, with access to both 6.5 creed and 260 Rem completely abandon the 260, but remain to use the 6.5 creed? Equally, why did they completely abandon the 243win, with the 6mm Creedmoor being the second most popular cartridge in the game?

Precision Rifle Blog publishes a series of “load out articles,” following the PRS Finale (and now NRL Finale too). They missed 2017, but the data is below for 2015, 2016, and 2018.

There were 6 shooters in the top 100 in 2015 using the 260, with 18 using 6.5 creed. Only one shooter using 243win, with 18 using 6 creed (a wildcat only option at that time, as it wasn’t SAAMI standardized until 2017).

The subsequent year, only ONE shooter remained shooting 260 Remington, and only ONE with 243win, while 9 used the 6.5 creed, and 6 used the 6 creed (again, still a non-SAAMI wildcat).

Two seasons later, the 260 is completely off of the map, 6 shooters still using the 6.5 creed, and 35 shooters using the 6 creedmoor.

So what magic sauce have you discovered which proves all of these top level competitive long range shooters haven’t been able to see? These top shooters which include professional shooter teams, professional manufacturers of bullets/ammo/powder, and some of the most talented and respected rifle builders (no teams or individual shooters sponsored by SAAMI, last I knew)... What do you know about the 308win case which has somehow escaped these professional competitors, such they made the “bad decision” to drop the 260 and 243 for the 6.5 and 6 creeds?

Varminterror · Sep 21, 2019

blue32 said:
Hornady's 8th ed told me all I needed to know about the CM. I suspect they didn't include data for 120-123 gr. 260 loads because the CM couldn't stack up to the hype. They sure didn't test as many powders with the 260 as the CM either.

Manuals often do not include an exhaustive catalog of all powders tested for a given cartridge. It’s very common to be able to contact the publisher to request data for non-listed powders or even bullets. The fact the Hornady 8th manual didn’t include as many powders for an old, relatively unpopular cartridge (which may have had MORE data in past issues) as they did for a new cartridge with less existing data is most likely an issue of “real estate prioritization,” rather than a reflection of their actual relative volumes of knowledge.

.260 remington VS. 6.5CM The Truth about all

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Attachments

Member

Similar threads