Author Topic: Fate of the .260 Remington? (Read 3147 times)

Big Paulie · « **on:** February 12, 2004, 10:34:18 AM »

Dear Shooters,

As you may know, when the .260 Remington was first produced, it received rave reviews in all of the hunting and shooting magazines, particularly as a top notch deer round that can also serve for varmints. Like the 7mm-08, it has been a little slow to catch on, but has gradually made better headway as more people shoot it and more people find out what an excellent cartridge it is. I particularly like the fact that you can get factory ammo in both 120 grain and 140 grain bullets.

But NOW, this massive wave of short magnum and super short magnum cartridges have been unleashed by the big gun companies, as a way to convince everyone that their current rifles and rounds are simply no good. These include the very new .250 WSM (which is just an ugly, very stubby, 25-06.)

In line with this, Browning has dropped the .260 Remington from its entire line of A-Bolt Rifles, and replaced it with the .250 WSM. Other than the Kimber 84M super light rifle, and the Remington 700 Mountain Rifle, I am not sure that any other factory rifles with 22 inch barrels are being made in .260 Remington. (Maybe Ruger M77?) Heck, even Remington doesn't offer it in their own standard 700 BDL, or ADL, or the Model 7 (except in the cut-down youth version only.) Talk about deserting your own kids!

Given this nasty turn of events, I have great pessimism as to whether the .260 Remington will be produced much longer in factory rifles, and whether factory ammo will be available for it 5 years from now (except maybe Remington Core-Locks in 140 grain only.) I believe that this great cartridge may be snuffed out by the recent avalanch of more than 12 new cartridges.

I would certainly appreciate any comments or opinions on this, pro or con. What do you think?

Best Regards, Big Paulie

Lawdog · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2004, 01:10:22 PM »

Big Paulie,

I am afraid I must agree to a certain extent. The .260 is to much like the 6.5mm Swede, which has a very large and loyal following, to really offer anything new to the caliber. As for the .25 WSSM making it, it is way to soon to say. Sure it is supposed to offer .25-06 power and speed in a short package but the early data shows it coming up a bit short. Now if Winchester had listened to the shooters they would have brought out the .257 WSM instead. Now then they would have had something. A short throw magnum near the equal of the .257 Weatherby without the belt. Anyway back to the .260 Remington. Owning a 6.5mm Swede I could not find anything new or improved that the .260 could offer that would entice me into buying one. Yeah I think the .260 Remington is going to die a slow death along with the RSAUM and the RUM line of cartridges. Lawdog

longwinters · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2004, 01:11:49 PM »

I think you are right. The resurrection of the 260 did not take the shooting community by storm even though it is a great cartridge. I would not doubt if several more calibers that have been brought back in the last couple of years will also end up back where they were . . . only a reloaders caliber. Remember these days it is not enough for a caliber to just make a profit for a gun manufacturer ( or any other commodity for that matter ), it has to be a certain percent profit or it is gone.

long

Bob the Cynic · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2004, 08:25:26 AM »

I would hate to see it go. I have it in a Remington model seven that has become my main deer rifle. It might give me the excuse I need to start hand loading though.

rickt300 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2004, 08:51:12 AM »

The 260 is dead already. A cartridge will not survive as a factory round for long if rifles chambered for it don't make it to places like WalMart. I never saw the need for it with the 7-08 and the 6.5x55 available anyway. I have seen 4 boxes of factory ammo on the shelf at Academy max at any one time, not good right.

ajj · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2004, 10:44:06 AM »

I think the round got some support from the Across the Course Highpower shooters and that those folks are not building a lot of new rifles for it now, having gone on to some other specialized cartridge. At least it'll always be super easy to make brass.

Big Paulie · « **Reply #6 on:** February 13, 2004, 11:02:42 AM »

The big need I see for the .260 Remington is the fact that there is factory ammo available with both 120 grain and 125 grain bullets. One thing that really really puzzles me about the 6.5 Swede is that half the people who love it are always saying that they shoot hand-loads with 125 grain bullets, and how great these are for deer and smaller game. So how come none of the ammo manufacturers offer factory 6.5 Swede ammo with a 120 or 125 grain Nosler Partiion??? The only one making it is Hornaday, but this is in their Light Magnum Load, and who wants to shoot a Light Magnum round for smaller game? The fun of the lighter bullet is less recoil than the heavier rounds.

I would think that if Federal or Winchester offered a standard velocity 6.5 Swede in these smaller bullet weights (both hollow point and soft point) Swede fans would snatch them up.

(I know that this is heresy, but re-loading gives me a migraine headache, and takes up the few spare hours of time I have on the weekends.)

Big Paulie

lgm270 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2004, 06:55:30 AM »

I agree that the .260 Remington may not survive the test of time, at least not as a popular factory chambering. The problem, if you want to call it that, is that there are too many cartridges. We suffer from an embarassment of riches in that regard.

The great thing about the .260 Remington is the ability to use cheap 7.62 military surplus rounds as a source of cheap brass with which to load the fantastic 6.5 mm bullets that are that caliber's strong point. I have extensive experience with the 6.5x55 but the problem is the weird brass size that cannot be formed from other rounds because of its offbeat head size. Well, it can be...and I have formed 6'5x55's from 30-06's, 270's, 7x57, 8x57 and even from .308 winchesters. The .308's had very short necks, but did headspace and function. All had buldges around the case head after being fired and I used only mild loads with them. This was some time ago before 6.5x55 brass was readily available and you had to be creative if you wanted to keep them shooting. Now everyone makes 6.5x55 brass and ammo and you don't have to do things like that....thankfully.

I have a ton of 7.62 Nato once fired that I got for a song and I've always thought a .260 Remington in an intermediate length Mauser action with a barrel long throated for the 140 grain bullets would be kind of cool. Supposedly you can get 2800 fps with this combination and that would be a neat hunting round with 140 Grain Nosler Partitions and a great target round with any of the numerous 140 grain match BT's available. You would have an unlimited supply of cheap brass to shoot with.

Long bullets and long throated chambers to the contrary, you're right about the usefullness and the appeal of the 125 grain Nosler Partition in either of the 6.5 rounds. You get 2900-3000 fps with this bullet with optimum handloads in either round and that's right up there in terminal performance with the factory .270 WCF 130 grain bullet at 2950 fps which is what you generally get from factory .270 ammo with 22" barrels in my experience. I met a guy at the range who gets 3000 with the 125 Partition bullet in his 6.5x55 (a winchester m-70) and he has foresaken his other hunting rifles for that round for deer hunting. He let me shoot it and it does kick noticably less than the .270/130 and according to my chronograph it got an honest 3,000 fps with the 125 Nosler bullet.

The 6.5x55 has always seemed to give great performance as compared with recoil which is the basis of its appeal, apart from its accuracy. I don't know why the .260 Remington should be any different.

If you're a .260 Remington shooter, you'd best take up handloading because the demand for factory ammo and the willingess of the factories to produce it may not be very long lived.

kirkwhitaker · « **Reply #8 on:** February 22, 2004, 02:37:41 AM »

as a die hard 6.5 nut...(i have three different one)..i love the bore..but, when they brought out the 260 rem they tried to reinvent the wheel. I admit it is a great round...has been a great wildcat for years...much like the 6.5-284...there will always be a following..but, like the 280rem..it's popularity will come and go....remington now only offers the 280 in the mountain rifle...but, ruger, browning and others still do...but it will never catch the 270win. the 260 is in the same boat...it is in between the 7-08 and the 243...and will always be a read headed stepchild...there are enough rifles out there and ruger and others will continue to offer it at least on a limited basis for it to live well into the next decade...(look at the 264 win mag.)...i personnaly saw no real reason for them to offer it...i have a swed....and would buy a 257 robert or 250 sav. before i would buy one...why...classics....
the ONLY one of the new short mags i even like is the 270 ssm...i hunt in the SE and it make sense for whitetails...have not heard much on the 25ssm...but a new quarter bore does sound neat...the only problem is they don't ask "real" hunters what they want....they depend on think tanks and gun writers...who get PAID to do that....Most people don't need a super mag...7 STW is a great round...but most people don't need it...7 mag is too..but still most people who shoot it don't need it....the 257 roberts to 30-06 class covers 80% of all big game hunting in this country...but according to the gun guys we need a super cannon... I totally dissagree...more deer are killed every year with a 243 win that all the 7 through 300 mags combined...at least in my neck of the woods...
go to wally world and look on the shelf....they will have more 243, 30-06 and 270 than anything else....followed by 308, 7mag and the rest...
just my .02
kw

onesonek · « **Reply #9 on:** February 22, 2004, 06:43:33 AM »

I don't know. Time will tell. I think Rem. brought the .260 out to fill the gap between the .243 and 7-08. Also an option for the small framed, or recoil sensitive, market niche. As some believe, the 7-08 is more than needed, and the .243 isn't quite enough. And that market will always be there.
As for the SM's pushing the standard short action out of the market, I doubt. They really don't have any advantage over anything, already in use, at the expense of recoil. We'll just have to wait and see how the market plays out. :roll:
Now with that said, in a more specialized situation. If I had a need for more range than I currently do. I could see a 300 WSM or a 7 SUAM chambered in a heavy barreled Ruger #1. As I do believe in short powder columns aiding in accuracy. :wink:

James B · « **Reply #10 on:** March 10, 2004, 05:20:12 PM »

Ruger chambers the 260 and 6.5x55 in thier all wearher bolt gun. It has a 22 inch barrel. I am going to pick up another coup;e hundred new brass for it soon. I also have a couple 6.5 x55 Swedes.

RaySendero · « **Reply #11 on:** March 14, 2004, 11:34:32 AM »

Yeah, If you already own a 260 Remington it would probably be a good idea to get a set of reloading dies. Its a shame too - the 260 is a good idea designed on a good parent case. There's just not that much room between a 25 bore and a 270 bore plus the 6.5x55 was already there.

BattleRifleG3 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 18, 2004, 05:42:35 AM »

I have been looking all over for info on the 260 Remington. Is it in fact 0.264"? Even ReloadBench.com, which has tons of data on obsolete cartridges, had nothing on the 260 Rem.

Lawdog · « **Reply #13 on:** March 19, 2004, 09:08:13 AM »

BattleRifleG3,

Yes the .260 Rem. is .264 caliber and it isn't an obsolete cartridge, YET! You can find information on it in most any reloading manuel. Lawdog

Lone Star · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2004, 03:18:19 PM »

http://www.accuratepowder.com/loaddata_caliber_rifle_standard_264cal.htm

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/260rem.php

http://www.imrpowder.com/pdf/IMR_rifle.pdf

http://recipes.alliantpowder.com/rg.taf?_function=centerfire&step=1

TX65 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 23, 2004, 02:43:25 AM »

The 260 Remington was nothing new when Remington put their name on it. For years, competition shooters have used it under the name 6.5-08. It is still used for silhouette competition. In highpower, while still used, the 6.5-284 has taken the lead for long range. The new cartridge in 6.5 is the 6.5 Grendel which is an intermediate size cartridge built for use in AR15's, but has application in bolt action rifles as well.

Back to the 260 Rem, Browning is in bed with Winchester and they are both focusing on the WSM and WSSM cartridges so I wouldn't see their actions as being a vision of the future.

As others have mentioned, 260 Remington does not do anything that a 6.5x55 does. Historically, 6.5x55 has the edge in terms of numbers of rifle models and multiple makers of brass.

Yukon Jack · « **Reply #16 on:** April 23, 2004, 10:26:44 AM »

I just don't get these "re-invent the wheel" cartridges.

The 260 is nearly exactly the same as the old 6.5x55. No great sales numbers are being posted for the Swede, what would make the manufacturers think sales would magically increased for the same cartridge in a different wrapper? Why even spend the R&D and advertising on it when they could just test the waters with the Swede?

The 7mm-08 is the same as the 7x57 in a different case. The 7x57 has been around for over 100 years. Want more performance, there's the 280 and various 7mm Mags. Unless you can get 10% or more improvement from at least one part of the equation, why bother? 10% more performance, lighter rifle WITH the same performance, etc...

The 8mm Mag was the same thing, the 338 Win Mag (and others) existed, yet Remington chose to offer it up to the slaughter anyway. It's performance for its class as a hunting cartridge (same difference as the ones above) was already met by several others.

Personally, I'm all for developing something new as long as there will be some improvement or progress. Why invent something new just because it is new?

The same can be said about the 7mm Rem Mag. In 1911 or 12, Holland and Holland brought a sharp shouldered, 2.5" 7mm cartridge based on the 300 H&H Mag case. It's ballistics were 160 grain bullet at 2800 fps with powders of that time. Remington brings out a ballistically identical cartridge over 50 years later (indeed one that is very similar in case dimensions also). Why not just reintroduce the H&H? Name recognition is all it is.

The Bonz · « **Reply #17 on:** April 23, 2004, 12:29:29 PM »

Remington has shot themselves in the foot on this one,(by bringing out the short magnums) and the .260 did it to the .280 Remington 6 or so years ago. The .280 is dramiatically more versatile in my opinion, and was really on a roll when they brought out the .260. The short magnums have a foot hold and deservedly so. I think they make good sense. I have a .284 Winchester in a Savage M99 that was the same concept only 40 years ago. I just cannot see a practical difference between a .260 and a 7mm/08. Just as there is not a real diff. between a .270 and a .280. when it comes down to terminal performance. I like the idea of a .260 for smaller statured shooters or recoil sensitive folks, however can a 7mm/08 be that much more stout on recoil? Heavens no it isn't. I champion the .35 Whelen and had a gun built in .35 Whelen Ack. Improved on a Mauser 98 action with a Shilen bbl. It isn't the light recoiling round that my .280 Remington or .270 Win. are, but it works for me as I like bigger bullets. Remington may have made a mistake with the .350 Rem Mag re-introduction as opposed to a .358 SAUM. If Winchester makes a .358 Short Mag, the .350 Rem mag. is dead, again. I would line up (well, not literally) to buy a .358 WSM.
Happy shooitng!

Lawdog · « **Reply #18 on:** April 24, 2004, 11:47:36 AM »

The Bonz,

A .358 WSM does sound good. From what a few of the fellows that built up .358/300 WSM's that I have talked to say it will rival the .358 Norma Magnum. If so the .358 WSM would make a great timber country Elk cartridge. Now if Savage would bring back the M99 with the rotary magazine, chambered for the WSM line of cartridges that would be the crowning star in their crown. Lawdog

Lawdog · « **Reply #19 on:** April 24, 2004, 11:47:42 AM »

The Bonz,

A .358 WSM does sound good. From what a few of the fellows that built up .358/300 WSM's that I have talked to say it will rival the .358 Norma Magnum. If so the .358 WSM would make a great timber country Elk cartridge. Now if Savage would bring back the M99 with the rotary magazine, chambered for the WSM line of cartridges that would be the crowning star in their crown. Lawdog

The Bonz · « **Reply #20 on:** April 24, 2004, 12:17:14 PM »

Lawdog, I am with you on that. The Savage 99 is the best short action cartridge vessel I can think of. It's accuracy has never been what my bolt guns will do, but in a .358 WSM, it would be aimed at big animals and even at 300 yds, an elk is big. (that sounds like a Yogi Berra 'ism.) As I said, I have a 35 Whelen AI, and I am half tempted to take my .284 Win and turn it into a .35 caliber something. I won't as the.284 is relatively uncommon. I'll just wait to see if Savage sees the light!
BONZ.

Lawdog · « **Reply #21 on:** April 25, 2004, 09:29:16 AM »

The Bonz,

Your right about them not being as accurate as bolt actions but they are the most accurate lever action rifles I have ever owned(all six of them). I got to talk to one of the technicians at Savage a while back and while I had him on the phone I asked him if Savage would ever bring back the M99? His answer was that Savage has had many offers to sell their patent on the M99 but will not sell it even when they were in deep dire straits money wise. I think they could cut the rotary magazine down to a three or four shots and widen it a bit to accommodate the fatter WSM cartridges, then stick a 24 inch sporter weight barrel on it and keep the weight around 8(+/-) pounds and they would be one sweet rifle. Especially for left handed shooters(my son started with one and used it until he found a bolt action that suited him). I guess we will just have to keep hopping that Savage will re-introduce the M99 someday. Small groups and tight lines to you. Lawdog

The Bonz · « **Reply #22 on:** April 25, 2004, 01:47:36 PM »

Lawdog, I grew up following my dad through the deer woods while he carried his M99 in 300 Savage, and he carved the animal descriptions one by one into the forestock when he harvested them (8 pt, 1972, doe 1973, etc.). That gun is still a sweet one, and hope one of my boys will use it someday. My dad now carries a .280 Rem in a Remington 760 pump, and slings those bullets as fast as he used to with the Savage! He has 3 Colorado elk and gosh knows how many Kansas Whitetails with the .280 and you can always tell he's doing the shooting because only a semi auto might be faster at emptying the rounds when needed! We hear the noise and follow it knowing we will be quartering out something real soon!
That's interesting on the patent w/Savage. I think the modifications would be minimal, as my .284 is a pretty wide cartridge already. They just have to want to do it. Winchester made the Controlled Round Feed design come back with modern methods of machining, and I believe Savage knows they could do it. They just have to want to. Happy shooting!
Bonz.

ratherbefishin · « **Reply #23 on:** May 18, 2004, 12:44:20 PM »

I have a couple of 6.5x55 Swedes,$69 specials, nice wood, and they sure dump blacktails witha 140 gr bullet- seems to be just about the right combination.I'd like to get 160 gr bullets in factory ammo[ I don't reload- strictly a hunter]
I think the big thing here is sales and marketing keeps on trying to come up with new ideas to sell guns- and sometimes that just plain backfires on them.The 6.5 swede has been around a long time[ 100 years?] and few people see the need to replace it.It seems to be one of those guns that just does the job with no fuss.

Old Griz · « **Reply #24 on:** May 23, 2004, 06:31:18 PM »

:cb2: I wasn't quite so lucky. I had to pay $79 for mine, but then I paid (maybe wasted?) $10 to get a "hand select" gun. Then I paid another $200 to get a scope mount installed. This included bending the bolt handle, installing a new type safety and a wee bit of cutting and carving, but teh result was fantastic. The old gal was built during World War I, but she still out shoots almost anything that shows up at the range.

I see Ruger has dropped the 6.5x55 from their line of M77 rifles this year. What a shame. I begged for years to make a #1 in 6.5x55 but Ruger just keeps adding bigger, heavier recoiling rounds. As if we're gonna find a stray herd of Cape Buffalo or elephants sniffing under our deer stands any time soon.

If Browning would chamber the BLR in .260, 6.5x55 (yeah, right), .25-06, or even the .25 WSM (or what ever it's called), I'd snatch one up in a flash.

Does Winchester still make a 6.5x55? It'd be a shame if the only way you could get one would be in a CZ.

MGMorden · « **Reply #25 on:** May 24, 2004, 04:45:10 PM »

Quote from: Old Griz

Does Winchester still make a 6.5x55? It'd be a shame if the only way you could get one would be in a CZ.

Winchester still makes them in the Mod 70 Classic Featherweight.

Howa and Tikka also make them though, in addition to CZ which you mentioned. As a matter of fact the Howa Lightning with Synthetic stock seems to be the cheapest (*New) 6.5x55 on the market, retailing for around $375 at most places I see. Everything else costs more.

Myself, I've got an M96 that someone else already sporterized. When I bought it it alread had mounts (drilled/tapped), monte carlo sporter stock, a scope/rings (which I replaced), bent bolt handle, low swing safety, and a cut/recrowned barrel (22"). Whole thing was $200 ($238 after shipping and FFL transfer). A non-informed person would never know it wasn't a modern rifle by looking at it, and it is a very sweet shooting gun. If I every wear out the barrel though, I'd likely go for a Tikka 6.5x55 as a replacement.

Old Griz · « **Reply #26 on:** May 24, 2004, 06:38:09 PM »

:cb2: Oh, so many toys . . . I don't guess I'll ever shoot any one of them enough to wear out a barrel. Dang it though, Summer's here at last. I can sure as heck try!

I thought about sporterizing the 96. Had the stock picked out and everything. But it looked so doggone neat after having the scope mounted and all, that I just didn't have the heart to do it.

MGMorden · « **Reply #27 on:** May 25, 2004, 10:48:16 AM »

Quote from: Old Griz

:cb2: Oh, so many toys . . . I don't guess I'll ever shoot any one of them enough to wear out a barrel.

I seriously doubt I would ever put that many through a single rifle myself either, it's just that I have no idea how many rounds were put through the rifle before I actually got it, so I'm open to the possibility that it might not have a "full service life" left.

Old Griz · « **Reply #28 on:** May 25, 2004, 05:43:07 PM »

:cb2: Well, if one ever DOES wear out, that simply means NEW TOY TIME!