Why not .257 Roberts? Vs. 243 Win?

[MinnMooney]

There's sometimes no simple answer for why a pet cartridge is not more popular with more shooters.
The 6mm Remington has better ballistics than the .243Win. but back when the 6mmRem was introduced, the rifles had the 1:12 twist and only shot the lighter bullets. Winchester introduced the almost identical caliber - .243Win. - (but with slightly less case capacity) but they rifled their guns with a 1:9.5 or something close to that so it could shoot the 90 and 100 grain bullets & advertised it for deer, antelope and varmints too 'cause it was capable of shooting as small as 55 -60 grain bullets. By the time Remington offered 1:9.5 twisters, the race was already won by Winchester.

With the .257 Rob'ts, the field is crowded with really great calibers like the .25-06 Rem., .25 WSSM, .257 Weatherby Magnum and the old originater of the higher velocity .25 caliber rounds, the .250-3000 Savage.

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

And in answer to JesseL: If you neck the .257 down .014 (though you said 13), you've got, no not the .243, it's the 6mm Remington! Which has the same 7 X 57 Mauser brass as it's parent.

If you really want to blow the .243 outta the water, start runnin' the 6mm.

900F

 

[Shawnee]

"With the .257 Rob'ts, the field is crowded with really great calibers like the .25-06 Rem., .25 WSSM, .257 Weatherby Magnum and the old originater of the higher velocity .25 caliber rounds, the .250-3000 Savage."


I've always heard the .250 Savage went lame when the bulletmongers brought out the 117/120gr. bullets and the rifling in most .250 Savages was too slow to stabilize them. The story (lore ?) I've always heard about the .257 Roberts' decline was that it was always chambered in relatively cumbersome weapons and the introduction of the .243 in the Winnies simply left the Roberts' and it's klunky rifles in the dust.

Both the .250 Savage (aka .250/3000) and the .257 Roberts handle the 87-grainers and 100-grainers very well. It's a shame how so many people do not realize how useful and effective those two .25 caliber bullet weights are. They are devastating on deer - and in the .250 Savage or .257 Roberts - a package that is wonderfully comfortable to shoot.

Frankly - the .243, the 6mm Rem., the .250 Savage, the .257 Roberts, and the 30/30 are the Creme de La Creme of deer hunter calibers. Bar none. Every other caliber is just Madison Avenue hype and not one thing more.

 

[MCgunner]

The story (lore ?) I've always heard about the .257 Roberts' decline was that it was always chambered in relatively cumbersome weapons and the introduction of the .243 in the Winnies simply left the Roberts' and it's klunky rifles in the dust.

I certainly wouldn't call the 722 Remington "clunky" or "cumbersome" It is a very well made old rifle, one of the smoothest bolts I've felt on a Remington. None of the newer Remingtons can approach the smoothness of that old rifle's bolt. It's a light weight, very handy short action gun with a 24" barrel which helps ballistics a bit. It's almost as handy as my M7, just a little heavier and longer, but much handier and quicker to the shoulder than a long action gun like my Savage 110. I'd call the Savage "clunky" by comparison.

However, the 722 was a very PLAIN rifle, all business. It has a non-checkered stock, nothing fancy, no white line spacers, no end cap, just a steel but plate. I refinished the stock and had the rifle re-blued some years ago and it's pleasing to ME to look at, but it's not fancy. But, you cannot call it "clunky" in any way, shape, or form. It has a very good adjustable trigger and the workmanship on the old gun just isn't seen in today's rifles. Compared to a high grade pre-64 M70 short action, it'd work just as well, but just wouldn't be as pretty or fancy. Of course, it doesn't have CRF, but hey, so what? You going to Africa to hunt dangerous game with a .257 Roberts? I continually am amazed how slick the bolt is on that thing, though.

 

[JesseL]

And in answer to JesseL: If you neck the .257 down .014 (though you said 13), you've got, no not the .243, it's the 6mm Remington! Which has the same 7 X 57 Mauser brass as it's parent.

If you really want to blow the .243 outta the water, start runnin' the 6mm.

That was exactly my point.

I love my 6mm.

 

[Hokkmike]

I think the .257, 6.5's (just about all of 'em) and the 7mm -08 are all in a more versatile class of use. The .243 I still think is the bottom margin for deer. I LOVE the .243 as a varmint and deer combo.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

The one thing I've never been able to figure out is why the .257 Roberts (basically a 6.5x57) is loaded with 87-117 grain bullets but the 6.5x55 (.264 caliber) is loaded with 120-160 grain bullets.
I think the Roberts would have done better as it would have been more versatile with heavier/longer/better SD and BC bullets.

 

[JesseL]

The one thing I've never been able to figure out is why the .257 Roberts (basically a 6.5x57) is loaded with 87-117 grain bullets but the 6.5x55 (.264 caliber) is loaded with 120-160 grain bullets.

Funny thing is, while the .257 Bob is actually around 6.5mm in diameter the 6.5x55 is actually about 6.7mm diameter. The difference is similar to the difference between .270 Winchester and .280 Remington.

I'm not really sure why the American quarter bores tend to be loaded with light to average weight for caliber bullets, while the European 6.5mms tend to be loaded heavy for caliber.

It may have something to do with the fact that all the quarter bores were designed as sporting rounds, while the euro 6.5s were military cartridges developed shortly after the age of black powder.

 

[David4516]

I looked at the Remington website and I see what you guys mean about factory rounds for .257 being on the weak side. What's up with that? I never paid much attention to that detail before because I planed on handloading anyway... but lack of good factory ammo might explain why .257 lost popularity...

Some good points about the 6mm/244 vs the .243 also.

I guess a broader question could be, whey aren't cartridges that were designed around the 7X57 case more popular than those based on the .308 case?

I know that a non-military caliber is never as popular as a military caliber. But in this case they're both military rounds... and the 7X57 has more potential because of it's larger capacity...

Is it a short-action vs a long action kind of thing? The .308 case is 54mm long, right? thats only 3mm difference... wouldn't a round based on 7X57 fit in the same action?

Are there any other cartridges out that based on the 7X57, aside from the 6mm, and the .257 Roberts?

As for the .257 diameter bullets, I'm not sure why folks say that they don't have good B.C. Again looking at Nosler book I see that some have as high as .453, that's not bad. Sure there are better bullets but .453 is still pretty darn good.

I'm not saying that it's the best round even, far from it. As others have pointed out a .25-06 has the advantage over .257 hands down. Others mentioned that you can use heavy bullets if you step up to the 6.5mm/.264 caliber rounds. But it does seem to me like it (.257 Roberts) would be more popular than some of the other cartridges in the same class (.243, 6mm, .250 Savage, etc...).

But then again it could just be me. I tent to like the less popular calibers. For example I have a .280 Remington instead of a .270 Winchester... That's another can of worms but it was a case where I looked at the ballistics for both rounds and decided that the .280 looked better...

 

[JesseL]

I guess a broader question could be, whey aren't cartridges that were designed around the 7X57 case more popular than those based on the .308 case?

I know that a non-military caliber is never as popular as a military caliber. But in this case they're both military rounds... and the 7X57 has more potential because of it's larger capacity...

Is it a short-action vs a long action kind of thing? The .308 case is 54mm long, right? thats only 3mm difference... wouldn't a round based on 7X57 fit in the same action?

I think it is largely a short- vs long-action thing, but the 7x57 and its derivatives is a little too long for a short action (.308 is 7.62x51mm) and in a 30-06 length long action it's a little short (it works fine, but people don't like to waste space).

Also most of the folks that were experimenting with different calibers in the US way back when, were more interested in using the 30-06 as a starting point. More capacity than the Mauser rounds and more familiar.

What I wonder is why a 6.5-06 never took off?

 

[David4516]

Oops, I must have been thinking of 7.62X54R... now I just feel silly LOL...

 

[CB900F]

JesseL;

I stand chagrined. Though it would've helped if you'd have actually mentioned the 6mm Remmie.

Now then: .264 minus .257 = .007 difference in diameter. Personally, I think if Winchester had made the .257 WSM, not the Wussum, and built guns to handle 140 grain bullets, they coulda taken a helluva lot of market share away from other calibers. Oh well.

900F

 

[litman252]

CB-
Winchester made some comments that the 25-06 velocity was just too hard to compete with so they stayed away from the WSM in .25. They believed the only way to go was with the SSM.................... Keep it short

But I do agree with ya on that one in general. I've wondered why there is no .25-08 to go with the .243, .260, 7mm-08 and 308???

I like Medium to small rounds, above the .243 yet below the .308 for 99% of my uses.


Tony

 

[ColeK]

David,
I agree with you the, .257 Roberts is better dual purpose cartridge than a .243 Win.
Factory ammo for the .257 Roberts is not loaded to the same pressure as the .243 Win but if you handload you can overcome that problem.
A .257 will fit in a .308 action but a 7x57 may not.
The reason the .257 Roberts is no more popular is that Winchester and Remington stopped building rifles chambered for it in favor of their own cartridges.

 

[MCgunner]

Funny thing is, while the .257 Bob is actually around 6.5mm in diameter the 6.5x55 is actually about 6.7mm diameter. The difference is similar to the difference between .270 Winchester and .280 Remington.

I'm not really sure why the American quarter bores tend to be loaded with light to average weight for caliber bullets, while the European 6.5mms tend to be loaded heavy for caliber.

It may have something to do with the fact that all the quarter bores were designed as sporting rounds, while the euro 6.5s were military cartridges developed shortly after the age of black powder.
__________________

.257 bullets might be on the short side in bullet weight because originally, the .250-3000 and the .257 Roberts were chambered in short actions with a rather long OAL and the bullet would crowd out powder space much over 117 grains and cost you performance. When the .257 was chambered in long actions, you could seat the bullet out, but then why not just chamber for .25-06?

My M722 is a short action and the knock on it has always been the limited space in the magazine for 117 grain loads, but I shoot 'em pretty honkin' fast, 3050, with a compressed H4831 load. I can't ask for more and the little gun is quite handy compared to the long action M721s. I like the gun a lot on its own merits. It blows the 6mms out of the water with heavier deer loads and, in fact, is closer to 25-06 performance than it is .243 or 6mm remington. BUT, the .243 works well on Texas deer and is very popular for those who are recoil shy, took over from the Roberts due to the SAAMI pressure limits on standard Roberts factory ammunition. That was the reason the Roberts died, plain and simple, even if the reasons for those low pressure limits are hidden in antiquity. The Roberts will always perform better for the handloader.

 

[CB900F]

Litman;

It's entirely possible that a .25WSM wouldn't out-velocity the .25-06, but that wasn't my point: "and built guns to handle 140 grain bullets". The point was the ability to step right out, and handle a heavier bullet. Which would've meant running a tighter twist barrel, but giving Winchester something nobody else was offering.

900F

 

[GooseGestapo]

Regarding the .257Robts......
What MCGunner and Mr Watson said!!!
Underloaded by factory because of "many" poorly converted military rifles which "would/will" chamber the factory loads, though not specifically converted to it. Yes, the 722 was plain, but it was short, light, and shot well..... First Roberts I ever shot when I was 14. Wanted one for years until I had one built (see below).

I've got two Roberts and a .257WbyMag. I love my "original" Roberts I had built in '83 on a Mauser '98 with an E.R.Shaw barrel. With some pits in the bore, it'll still shoot 5/8" five shot groups- and it's a 6.5lb rifle at that!

The Ruger .257" kills it's self with Mediocrity (M77MkII). It's 8.5lbs with a scope and won't shoot better than 1.5-2moa. (Glass bedded, trigger worked, ect. -just a lousey barrel!) Yeah; it's "fat" too....... But, I just had to have it, to satisfy my curiosity.....Oh well !!

The problem with bullets no heavier than 120gr's in .257" is the twist rate is nominally 1/10". Neither of my .257's will group worth a hoot with the 110gr Hornady Interbonds (waay tooo loonnggg), and the .257Wby will "disintegrate" 117gr Nosler Balistic tips. And that, with a 1/12" twist! (But at over 3,300fps, I should add) I "splattered" two white-tail deer with it (pieces of deer on surronding brush/trees, but had both escape). However the excellent 100gr Hornady Pt.SP will give sub-moa (except from the Ruger.....) and normally retains 67% weight (on those I've recovered, mostly it completely penetrates....) Only recovered bullets have been at closer range from the .257WbyMag. At lower velocities (3,150fps) of the Roberts, it completely penetrates. The "Flat based" 117's and 120's shoot very well and perform well, However, I've had two bad "lot#'s" of the Hornady 117grBTSP. As many as 50% of the bullets would destabilize and fail to hit a 200yd target. No such problems with the 117gr BT Sierra's however......
If the twist was 1/8", it'd be indescernable from the excellent 6.5's (.264"). I've always heard the .25's referred to 6.35's (bore diameter, not groove depth).

FWIW, the 117gr RN lives on, because, its a perfectly built/constructed bullet. Good SD, fair BC, but expands well, and penetrates far better than anything I've ever gotten from a .243wcf. For me, the .243 doesn't kill any better than the .22-250, and not nearly as well as the .25's-7mm's. The .257 117gr RN is very nearly equal to the 150gr-170gr .30/30's in terminal performance. A very good "neighborhood"........hence, why it's held on......

 

[MCgunner]

Hey, Goose, good observation on the twist rate thing, but I think we're talkin' chickens and eggs here, maybe, not real sure. I left out the 25-20 earlier, too, but it most often was loaded with a flat nose, tube mags.

But, I'm thinking the 1:10 twist rate was because of the 117 grain bullet being the heaviest available rather than the other way around, 250-3000 being available when the Roberts was standardized by Remington. But, heck, I don't KNOW that, just speculating for the sake of argument. LOL The .257 in the original short actions wouldn't work well with much heavier, though, I know this. They had limited magazine space on the short actions like the 722 anyway. I really don't know about the older guns pre 722, though. What was the original, M54 or something like that, fifty something IIRC? So, it's sort of speculation on my part. All I do know is, even if a 140 were available and I had a 1:8 twist, I couldn't push it very fast as I'd have to seat it so deep it'd take up too much space in the case.

BTW, at 3050 fps, I had a 117 Interlock fail to expand at all in a large Texas 7 point (an oxymoron, I realize). It was a good, fatal shot, so he didn't go far, but I couldn't find the entrance wound behind the shoulder and what I knew to be the exit wound looked like an entrance wound. I quit using the interlocks in the .257 for deer. I sorta figured they were built for Weatherby mags or something, LOL. Part of the problem was I hit no bone, went between ribs just behind the shoulder. I sorta standardized on the rather excellent and accurate 100 grain Sierra pushing it 3150 after that. I've had no problems with it and it's very accurate, sub moa. Best have been in the 1/2 MOA range and hardly ever shoots over 3/4 moa. Expansion wise, it seems tailor made for the Roberts and maybe .250-3000 aka .250 Savage.

 

[rdoggsilva]

My wife still hunts with a .257 Roberts with a 98 Mauser action. I tried to get her to use a .270 but she will have none of it. The rifle is a sweet shooter and she as take 15 mule deer with it. I will have her zero in for 250 yards as stated by Shawnee, thanks Shawnee.