Author Topic: What about the Remington 260? (Read 5581 times)

DalesCarpentry · « **Reply #30 on:** November 20, 2007, 10:59:45 AM »

Doc was that a special chambering? They don't male the Rem. XR 100 in the 260. As of now they only come in the 204 223 and the 22-250. I don't know if in the past they chambered the XR 100 in the 260. Thanks Dale.

beemanbeme · « **Reply #31 on:** November 21, 2007, 03:30:36 AM »

I haven't seen one but I heard on the street that Gander Mtn had Remington make an unadvertised run of XR-100s in .308 just for them so........

?

Graybeard · « **Reply #32 on:** November 21, 2007, 06:11:21 AM »

He didn't say XR-100 he said XP-100 the handgun.

DalesCarpentry · « **Reply #33 on:** November 21, 2007, 12:44:28 PM »

I stand corrected yes it is the XP-100. Dale

DakotaElkSlayer · « **Reply #34 on:** November 22, 2007, 07:54:18 AM »

What do I think about the .260Rem? I think it is absolutely tragic that by the time my 2 year old son is old enough to hunt, that caliber will have gone the way of the Dodo bird! Myself, I have a CZ 550 FS in 6.5x55 and am simply amazed by it. Now the .260Rem basically does the same thing with factory loads as my rifle does with handloads. Add a short action to the equation and you should have a rifle that sells like hotcakes! This year, even Ruger dropped the .260Rem from its standard bolts... Needless to say, I have already started to look for a .260Rem for my son...

Jim

6.5BR · « **Reply #35 on:** November 22, 2007, 03:14:18 PM »

I don't know about xp, but right after Rem came out with the 260, as well as the XR, the XR was mfg in 260, seen them, not real common back then, but I am certain they were mfg for a while.

I built my 6.5/308 6 months prior to Rem intro the 260, nice round, use and enjoy, as above, loads can always be made and I don't believe it will go away anytime soon. Will be interested if Ruger mfg in 6.5mm Creedmore.

DalesCarpentry · « **Reply #36 on:** November 22, 2007, 05:44:41 PM »

If you have time I would like to hear more on this 6.5/308 . Thanks Dale

Graybeard · « **Reply #37 on:** November 22, 2007, 05:48:21 PM »

I bought my XR-100 the first year Remington made them. They were only cataloged in .204 Ruger, .223 Remington and .22-250 Remington. As far as I know that's still the only choices offered. I've seen those three but never any other.

6.5BR · « **Reply #38 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:24:57 PM »

Dale,

Re: 6.5/308, for all practical purposes, I had Chris from Pac-Nor who built it using a no neck turn reamer, send me the drawing for the reamer, simply neck down 308 brass, and it is from what I can tell 99+ % the exact cartridge as the 260, with perhaps the wildcat being a very tad shorter, but I am not positive, when I was in the middle of the project, I heard rumors as Jim Carmichael was writing about the Panther and Bobcat 6.5's, and inklings Rem was going to intro the 6.5/308 as a commercial round. Lonoke, AR ammo plant sent me a saami spec drawing before the release of the 260, and it was as I said, as best as I could tell w/in VERY minute differences one and the same. I contacted them as Rem corporate would say nothing until I explained, then later said, cannot confirm nor deny. Lonoke was much more helpful.

That said, I went forward as I wanted to know if factory ammo would be fine in my gun, I later bought and shot some and it was. SO, that is it in a nutshell.

Any surprises? It did well, and best with WW 308 brass, Federal 308 down was too tight, Fed 243 necked up worked ok, but also perhaps a 'donut' at the neck shoulder junction. Many who reform brass for 6.5-308 and the 260 from 308 brass turn necks to help prevent or reduce donut effect which can prevent chambering IIRC.

I hope that helps. H414 and IMR 4350 did best, used 100-129s but the factory 140 and 140 partition handloads never grouped well in the 9 twist.

I prefer an 8 twist as Ruger did them, over Rem rifles 9 in the 260, most 6.5x55's have 8 (7.5 on mil surp) but a few have 9 twist. 8 works best for 130 and higher grain bullets. That custom was 23" .750 muzzle taper, shot well. Later had a SS model 7 20" and 18.5 blue and neither shot to my satisfaction, barrel seemed to whippy. Hence the SS gun being rebarreled and my blue being traded off.

DalesCarpentry · « **Reply #39 on:** November 23, 2007, 03:11:58 AM »

Quote from: 6.5BR on November 22, 2007, 06:24:57 PM

Dale,

Re: 6.5/308, for all practical purposes, I had Chris from Pac-Nor who built it using a no neck turn reamer, send me the drawing for the reamer, simply neck down 308 brass, and it is from what I can tell 99+ % the exact cartridge as the 260, with perhaps the wildcat being a very tad shorter, but I am not positive, when I was in the middle of the project, I heard rumors as Jim Carmichael was writing about the Panther and Bobcat 6.5's, and inklings Rem was going to intro the 6.5/308 as a commercial round. Lonoke, AR ammo plant sent me a saami spec drawing before the release of the 260, and it was as I said, as best as I could tell w/in VERY minute differences one and the same. I contacted them as Rem corporate would say nothing until I explained, then later said, cannot confirm nor deny. Lonoke was much more helpful.

That said, I went forward as I wanted to know if factory ammo would be fine in my gun, I later bought and shot some and it was. SO, that is it in a nutshell.

Any surprises? It did well, and best with WW 308 brass, Federal 308 down was too tight, Fed 243 necked up worked ok, but also perhaps a 'donut' at the neck shoulder junction. Many who reform brass for 6.5-308 and the 260 from 308 brass turn necks to help prevent or reduce donut effect which can prevent chambering IIRC.

I hope that helps. H414 and IMR 4350 did best, used 100-129s but the factory 140 and 140 partition handloads never grouped well in the 9 twist.

I prefer an 8 twist as Ruger did them, over Rem rifles 9 in the 260, most 6.5x55's have 8 (7.5 on mil surp) but a few have 9 twist. 8 works best for 130 and higher grain bullets. That custom was 23" .750 muzzle taper, shot well. Later had a SS model 7 20" and 18.5 blue and neither shot to my satisfaction, barrel seemed to whippy. Hence the SS gun being rebarreled and my blue being traded off.

Thanks for the information. Did I understand you correctly that you were able to chamber and fire 260 ammo? Dale

6.5BR · « **Reply #40 on:** November 23, 2007, 05:26:40 AM »

Correct, 260 ammo chambered and fired fine in my gun, only thing was is my Redding 65/308 dies were CUSTOM, so much more expensive prior to 260 dies, but to me, they are one of the same, at least my reamed chamber, although it may have been a tad tighter spec than Rem, it chambered NO problem, very well, and no issues when fired, or ill effect on cases.

rifleman · « **Reply #41 on:** December 01, 2007, 12:21:24 PM »

Dale,

I've had a Ruger M77 MKII SS in 260 since 1999, and I love it. Only problem is, my son has taken a real shine to it and has essentially claimed it as his own. That leaves me with my M77 MKII 25-06 Wal/Blu, which I am very ok with.

I handload, so ammo is no issue for me. And, with the recent price increases in ammo, I'm really glad that I do. Mine was kind of fussy finding the right load, and it hasn't really liked any factory ammo to my satisfaction(I'm kinda accuracy anal though). I've found loads for the following Hornady bullets: 95 gr Vmax, 100 gr SP, 129 gr Interlock, and 129 gr SST. I'd probably recommend this round to a handloader only, but that's only my opinion. That said, I'd definitely recommend the round!

If'n my son ever goes and gets his own rifle(fat chance of that), I'd like to shoot it a lot more. I've got plenty of 260 brass, so I don't ever anticipate having a problem there. I'd not be the least bit afraid of making my own, trying 243, 7-08 or 308 cases.

Dave

Oday450 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 02, 2007, 02:49:07 AM »

I picked up a Rem 700 Mountain Rifle in 260 Rem last year. It's become my favorite deer rifle replacing a .270 that I've used for years. Less recoil, less noise, lighter to carry - and very handy in a tree stand.

The 6.5 x 55 - its ballistic equivalent - is used for moose in Europe; however, I feel it's a little small for elk and moose. I also will not use it for a dedicated bear hunt. If I saw a bear while hunting deer I would probably take the shot but only if I were sure of a fatal hit The reason I don't feel it's a preferred bear caliber is the lack of a blood trail if the animal is wounded. I would want something in a 35 caliber or larger for bear to cause a larger exit wound and a higher probability of a blood trail.

Jim See · « **Reply #43 on:** December 03, 2007, 02:46:28 PM »

I built myself a 260 AI 3 years ago. It is my go to gun for most of my deer hunting. It wears a #7 straight taper which gets a little heavy at times but the extra weight with a bi- pod pays off hunting open country. The gun has harvested 2 antelope, 2 muledeer, 5 whitetail, 1 coyote and a prairie dog, from 75 to 609 yards, all of which needed only one bullet. I shoot the 140 grain A-max, and it has preformed well. The only time it stumbled was when I shot a Muledeer at 300 yards, the bullet hit the lower nuckle of the scapula and came apart. The deer only went 30 yards, as enough bone fragments were blown through the lungs.

rich56 · « **Reply #44 on:** December 13, 2007, 11:24:38 AM »

I have a 700 ADL in 260 (a limited production item from Grice) I would use this rifle for varmints if I did hunt them but didnt get good groups with the 85 grain Sierras. I've read that you can get 3100 fps with the sierra 107 HPBT. I use bullets from 120 to 129 grains for target and deer hunting. Problem with this caliber is lack of rifles. I think right now all that is available in this 260 is the Model 7 (a carbine) and the mountain rifle (too thin a barrel)

Brithunter · « **Reply #45 on:** December 13, 2007, 01:36:13 PM »

Quote

Problem with this caliber is lack of rifles. I think right now all that is available in this 260 is the Model 7 (a carbine) and the mountain rifle (too thin a barrel)

So that's another good reason to go with the old tried and true 6.5x55 Swedish cartridge

as there is quite a good choice in the Swedish chambering

DalesCarpentry · « **Reply #46 on:** December 13, 2007, 02:00:31 PM »

You are right. There are a lack of rifles.

I really like the Remington 700 action.

It only comes as the Mountain Rifle. Why would they not chamber this in the 700 SPS? I think they Remington would sell a ton of these if they chambered it in the heavy barrel along with the standard contour barrel. It really sounds like a great cross over caliber between Deer and Varmints. I am looking forward to Remington's line up next year. I can only hope they would come out with it in the SPS Varmint. I would be tickeled.

Dale

Brithunter · « **Reply #47 on:** December 13, 2007, 11:04:27 PM »

Dale I would not hold your breathe

Remington don't seem to have any sense and your expecting a sensible outcome

Heck do yourself a favor and get a CZ or Tikka

Tracer · « **Reply #48 on:** December 15, 2007, 02:05:52 AM »

.260 Remington vs. 6.5x55? I have a .260 Md. 7 SS and two 6.5x55s, both military swedes a 96 and 38. Most likely the reason the .260 isn't made by more gun makers is they don't sell as well as other calibers. This probably holds true for the 6.5x55 since U.S. companies are not making them either. Winchester isn't around anymore and Ruger dropped the caliber this year. Even Howa has dropped the 6.5x55 leaving shooters here in the U.S. with Sako, Tikka, and CZ as the only alternative for new rifles in this caliber. Never had a deer go far after shot with any 6.5 caliber rifle (30 yards at the most) and all three of my 6.5s are decent shooters. I'll keep the .260 for my hunting rifle as its good for deer or coyotes (the hides aren't worth much anyway) and I will not covert my old swedes because they are not worth converting or customizing. However I like short action receivers and the 6.5x55 is medium length cartridge. If they were to both go away and I wanted a 6.5mm rifle I probably would have a .260 built. The 6.5x55 will always rule in Europe. T

Brithunter · « **Reply #49 on:** December 15, 2007, 09:50:59 PM »

Ahhh I see the old saw about short Vs medium length actions pops up. I wonder how much difference in time and effort 0.157" in bolt travel actually makes $:-\$ Heck even in action weight it cannot make enough for anyone to notice.

beemanbeme · « **Reply #50 on:** December 16, 2007, 06:12:29 AM »

I heard the same story between the 7-08 and the 7x57 so much that I bought a 7x57 just to compare their relative abilities side by side. The 7x57 was a Mark X and the 7-08 was a 700 that had started life as a .243. The 7x57 was looong throated, I assume to shoot milsup or equivalent ammo with long, heavy bullets. With 140s and 150s the two rifles were about the same and killed our 100# deer with dispatch. Here in West Virginia, we shot out our elephants long ago so I couldn't test the rifles on anything of substance so deemed the test a tie. The slight difference in action length being considered a nit that was being picked by someone without anything of substance to say.
I've never owned a 6.5 but do own a .260. And I would think much the same arguments apply. My .260 started life as a .243. I have killed two deer with mine using 140gr Core Lokt bullets. One deer was inside of 100 yards and the other was a measured (maybe I'm supposed to say lasered) 250 yards. Both dropped like they were hit with the Hammer of Thor.
My only concern for the .260 is the niche between the .243 and the 7-08 is very narrow. I don't know if there is room for another cartridge to grow. I have a couple hundred new cases --and a thousand or so surplus .308 cases-- and a set of dies. There are too many Swedes floating around for the 6.5 bullet supply to dry up, so I'm set but I think the .260 is too good of a cartridge to die. Too bad it wasn't unveiled at the same time the .243 was.

Cheesehead · « **Reply #51 on:** December 16, 2007, 06:59:09 AM »

The short action concept is a small part of making a rifle shorter and lighter, but still a part of the equation. If there are 10 areas to reduce weight by 1 oz. each they may/should be utilized for maximum effect. True, the short action by itself does not do alot.

Cheese

Brithunter · « **Reply #52 on:** December 16, 2007, 07:44:30 AM »

Ahhh Bullets in 6.5mm are a safe bet supply wise

after all you have the new 6.5mm Grendel and the following cartridges in that size:-

6.5x52
6.5x53R
6.5x54MS
6.5x55
6.5x57
and:-

.264 Win Mag
.260 Rem.
6.5-06

And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

As for light rifles again it's a fad that does the rounds every few years or decades. It certainly is nothing new. In fact I have a Featherweight rifle made in 1959 and OH shock horror it's a long action as it's chambered for the old Winchester 270 cartridge AND it also has a Walnut stock and it still only weighs 6 1/4lbs. Of course that is without the scope and mounts. The action is dovetailed so it only uses rings and the P-H rings are alloy and I use an alloy bodied scope so the weight is not increased too much. The rifle has alloy trigger guard and floor plate but no plastics.

Now the rifle was made to answer the calls for a light weight hunting rifle from certain areas of the Globe, Canada, New Zealand and North America, but once these intrepid hunters starting shooting their lightweight rifles they found that they didn't like the recoil so inundated the makers with requests for a way to lessen it. The maker came up with a muzzle brake, yes and this was back in 1954 or so, then the customers complained about the noise when shooting

seems there is no pleasing some

.

To lighten the rifle and meet the target weight of 6 1/4lbs they hollowed the bolt handle, scalloped the side wall of the action and reduced the rear bridge in length and of course fitted a slim barrel. The stock also came in for lightening, the barrel channel under the barrel between the bedding point in the fore end to the chamber area was hollowed out as was the butt stock, this had two large holes bored down into to it at angles so they nearly converged and the stock profile was a classic slim one with schnable tip. OK it might not meet Forbes standards of lightness but hey Melvin was still alittle boy back then and MEN carried rifels weighing 8 /2 lbs with out teh scope. read back about Townsends Wheelan's rifles and Emler Keith's they all weighed about 9 1/2-10lbs with scopes and these were normal chhmaberings like the ole .30 Springfield.