.260 REM. - Page 2

Armory » General Firearm Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - .260 REM. (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 11/24/2001 11:11:41 AM EDT

[#1]

Phlegmy_Jimmy continues to be his own worst protagonist. He's the only one lacking experience and relying only on a "Paper" argument.

And what's funniest and most damning to his position is he can only back up his words with paper promises.

Keep whipping yourself Phlegmy.

Posted: 11/24/2001 11:22:08 AM EDT

[#2]

To Jim_Dandy Hell I just wanted one I never said that it was good because I bought it . If you feel that way, well, that sounds like a personal problem. On the the other hand you seem to be the one with the idea that "I don't have one so its crap". You read your own words into nearly everyone's post on this subject. All you need to kill anything in North America is a .22 long rifle so theoretically anything above that is a waste. But in the real world I don't think that it is so much better, I think its in a different category. It is better for me for what I want to do. I shoot deer and coyotes. The trajectory is flatter, not by much but never the less it is flatter. I I have proven that myself at ranges out to 500 yds. And it doesn't take super knockdown to take down these animals, instead a wellplaced shot. It might not be better for you but you've got to realize that there is different strokes for different folks.

Posted: 11/24/2001 12:11:41 PM EDT

[#3]

Phlegmy_Jimmy continues to be his own worst protagonist. He's the only one lacking experience and relying only on a "Paper" argument.

And what's funniest and most damning to his position is he can only back up his words with paper promises.

Keep whipping yourself Phlegmy.

Uh, let's see here. Did you or did you not make the claim that the .260 has the same ballistics as the .270 Winchester? Yes or no will suffice, thanks. Did your cohorts in this .260 hall of worship not point to paper figures of the .260? Seems that they did, my man. So again, I'm asking you, did you buy your .260 because you just needed an excuse to buy a new rifle, or did you buy it because it was allegedly better than than some existing round? I know you're all defensive now and red in the face, but try and muster up a well-thought out answer. Thanks.

Posted: 11/24/2001 12:25:08 PM EDT

[#4]

The trajectory is flatter, not by much but never the less it is flatter. I I have proven that myself at ranges out to 500 yds.

Flatter than what? Was the range verified? Via what method?

Posted: 11/24/2001 12:51:25 PM EDT

[#5]

And here I was thinkng that my mother in law was the biggest hard-on that ever lived

Posted: 11/24/2001 2:44:01 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
OK, I see now. If I fire a 120 grain .44 wadcutter bullet at 3000 FPS, and a 120 grain boattail 6mm bullet at 3000 FPS, you're saying the .44 will hit 2 inches lower than the 6mm at 300 yards.

Uh, yeah. I think that's what I said.

Cripes, now I'm leaving out vital information too. I meant to say a zero point of 100 yards.

But your joking, right? Or did you assume I meant a zero point of 285 yards or something? I purposely picked possible but very extreme examples to try and awaken you to the foolishness of your over-generalized assertion.

Posted: 11/24/2001 3:06:53 PM EDT

[#7]

**Did you or did you not make the claim that the .260 has the same ballistics as the .270 Winchester?**

Learn to read and you find out. Don't waste my time with stupid questions.

**Did your cohorts in this .260 hall of worship not point to paper figures of the .260?**

Not my problem.

**did you buy your .260 because you just needed an excuse to buy a new rifle, or did you buy it because it was allegedly better than than some existing round**

You've lost it if you can't understand from TWO prior explanations. Get back on your meds.

Keep backstrokin' dudette.

Posted: 11/24/2001 3:17:33 PM EDT

[#8]

No, actually you most certainly did state that your beloved .260 had the same ballistics as a .270 Winchester. Go back and read your post, my man. I made a direct quote from it. Seems you're the one crawfishing.

Posted: 11/24/2001 4:46:55 PM EDT

[#9]

Without becoming a paper-infatuated anal retentive as yourself, my recollection of the ballistics tables is with the same weight bullet the .260 is in fact SUPERIOR to the .270 in velocity and energy past 200 yards. And within 5 percent below that. But I'll just say they're equal for all intent and purpose and leave the anal detail to you.

But the fact the .260 exhibits less felt recoil than a comparable .270 is just as true.

Posted: 11/24/2001 5:46:20 PM EDT

[#10]

Without becoming a paper-infatuated anal retentive as yourself, my recollection of the ballistics tables is with the same weight bullet the .260 is in fact SUPERIOR to the .270 in velocity and energy past 200 yards. And within 5 percent below that. But I'll just say they're equal for all intent and purpose and leave the anal detail to you.

Now you're imagining things. With an equal weight bullet, the .270 Winchester is good for about 200 feet/second and about 200 LB-FT more than the .260 is when comparing the standard 130 grain load the the 6.5mm 129 grain slug. Greater gas bearing surface in the .270 due to the larger diameter bullet.

Posted: 11/24/2001 6:09:40 PM EDT

[#11]

I'm imagining the Remington Amunition Ballistics Table as posted on their website. We will shoot the heaviest bullet available in caliber and that's 140gr. The 140gr .270 load is the direct comparison. Muzzle velocity doesn't mean squat to a hunter. Maybe you canned hunters shoot game at point blank range. Read it and weep.

But all you seem to do is read, not shoot anyway.

Posted: 11/24/2001 6:14:33 PM EDT

[#12]

My man, you said the SAME WEIGHT, did you not?

my recollection of the ballistics tables is with the same weight bullet the .260 is in fact SUPERIOR to the .270 in velocity and energy past 200 yards

I'd say you're crawfishing. Next time you want a rifle recommendation, you don't have to pay someone halfway around the world. Slide some cash my way and I'll tell you whatever you want to hear.

Posted: 11/24/2001 6:36:26 PM EDT

[#13]

My man, Remington's ballistic tables still show about a 200 feet/second and 200 LB-FT difference even for the 140 grain. Sorry, your .260 ain't no .270 Winchester. That's the breaks.

Posted: 11/24/2001 6:38:03 PM EDT

[#14]

**you said the SAME WEIGHT, did you not?**

Unless your meds keep you from understanding how 140=140 your last post makes as much sense as any of yours.

**200 feet/second and 200 LB-FT difference**

Like I said only you canned hunters shoot game at point blank range. Try looking at real hunting distances.

Get some real world experience and come back.

Posted: 11/24/2001 6:51:12 PM EDT

[#15]

My man, I'm sensing you won't be sending me a Christmas card. You said same weight, did you not? 129 grain and 130 grain are more or less the same weight, are they not? Then you crawfished and said, "Well I mean 140 grain," did you not? Then you refer me to Remington's ballistic tables which are available online. Am I correct thus far, or do I need to go back and post some of your specific quotes in order to refresh your selective memory? So I go to Remington's site and low and behold, there's the data for the .260 as well as the .270 featuring 140 grain slugs. Hmmmmm. Under the 300 yard column there's velocities and energies indicating a 200 feet/second and 200 LB-FT edge by the .270 Winchester. Now what? Before you go and puff up like a mad bull snake and hurl some petty barbs at me, figure out what your .260 is better than. Count backwards from 100 if it'll help you calm down. I'll miss your Christmas card, sweetness.

Posted: 11/24/2001 6:51:18 PM EDT

[#16]

I like the .260 AR that David Tubbs profiled in his book, "The Highpower Rifle". I didn't read anything about 7-08 in there, Howdy Dandy.

Posted: 11/24/2001 6:58:02 PM EDT

[#17]

I didn't read anything about 7-08 in there, Howdy Dandy.

You are a real wit. It only took you something like 24 hours to come up with that snappy comeback. Please don't huff and post, okay? Thanks.

Posted: 11/24/2001 7:02:28 PM EDT

[#18]

My, my, little one, aren't we in a snit tonite!!??

Now just take that little table you discovered and read it on out to distances where game is.

What does snookum's see? Oh my goodness! Velocity and energy for the two cartridges INTERSECT!

Extrapolate that grasshopper.

Posted: 11/24/2001 7:25:37 PM EDT

[#19]

Are there any other cartridges that make you angry, Jim Daddy? How about 32-20 Win? 348 win? That one really puts the deer in the dirt!How about 300wsum? Thats the best 300 magnum!257 Roberts? Its better than the 7-08!280 Rem? Its the best 7mm!The snipers that guard the Pope use it!

Posted: 11/24/2001 7:40:49 PM EDT

[#20]

Now now..G... don't get him started on another cartridge until he explains why the 260 / 6.5mm-08 is a bad round !!

Posted: 11/24/2001 8:44:24 PM EDT

[#21]

I hate to side with JD,but he never said it wasn't a good round.He said it wasn't a better round.Before you jump me I like 6.5mm's. I bought a 280 over a 270 because I wanted to,Not because it was better.

Posted: 11/24/2001 8:48:29 PM EDT

[#22]

Because he can't afford it.

Posted: 11/24/2001 8:54:08 PM EDT

[#23]

can you put a upper on a bushy lower?

Posted: 11/24/2001 8:56:24 PM EDT

[#24]

Well bully...for my purpose it IS a BETTER round.

I bought a Remington Model 7 Youth rifle chambered in .260 Rem for my 10 year-old boy to learn to hunt. By nature or design .260 Rem is a light recoiling cartridge.

In the Model 7 Youth rifle, .260 Rem has adequate ballistics for the type of game we want to hunt.

That combined with the light recoil and the M7Y's short stock and light weight make it the package we will use. The cartridge is only part of the deal but it's better than the other choices.

Enjoy.

Posted: 11/24/2001 8:58:00 PM EDT

[#25]

Jander...try Zantac.

Posted: 11/24/2001 9:02:20 PM EDT

[#26]

Arock,I think you made a good choice.But and this is a big BUT,Is it better than say a 6.5-55 loaded to modern pressures?Better for your son(yes)better round than all the others???

Posted: 11/24/2001 9:35:36 PM EDT

[#27]

Bully I truthfully don't know. Is 6.5x55 the old Swedish round? If so I have a friend who now works for Ericsson but served for a time in the Swedish military and carried what I remember to be a Swedish Mauser chambered for the Swedish cartridge. He had lots of good things to say about it.

Back to my son's rifle for a moment...if pure bullet performance was the deciding factor I would have gotten a M7Y chambered in 7mm-08 for him. I have a Model 7 chambered for that round and like it. It's just that the .260 Rem has adequate performance and lighter felt recoil. I don't want his first real rifle to beat him up.

For a laugh, in 1962 I was 13 and my father decided it was time for me to have something more powerful than a .22LR. So what does he get me as a next step up from .22's? A Remington 700BDL chambered for 7mm Rem Mag! That d@mned rifle almost KILLED me! I won't do the same to my kid(s).

Best.

Posted: 11/24/2001 10:19:10 PM EDT

[#28]

The 260 gives you 6.5 x 55 Swede performance in a round that will fit in the M7's short action. The 6.5x55 and 30:06 based rounds are too long. This is the niche 260 fills....

Posted: 11/25/2001 4:41:00 AM EDT

[#29]

Man I can see a market for a 6mm-378 now. Trim it to short action lengths, neck that puppy down and load it with some 120gr. VLDs.... Low recoil, flat as a laser, 4000 FPS EASY!!! LOL

I’ll call it the 6mm-earsplitinloudnboomer
.
.
.
.
.
.
Never have been able to see why people worry about drop, more than drift.

Posted: 11/25/2001 4:49:58 AM EDT

[#30]

Side note: Anyone else notice that Rem always chronographs the supadoopa stuff out of a 24 inch barrel?

Posted: 11/25/2001 6:44:32 AM EDT

[#31]

What does snookum's see? Oh my goodness! Velocity and energy for the two cartridges INTERSECT!

Exactly where do they intersect? You mention game ranges and that's most likely 300 yards or less. Spare me your weak attempts at wry wit.

Posted: 11/25/2001 7:27:09 AM EDT

[#32]

Phlegmy...go back to your precious paper again. Read the little chart and you tell me where.

Posted: 11/25/2001 7:30:21 AM EDT

[#33]

So you haven't read your own reference. I see.

Posted: 11/25/2001 7:32:33 AM EDT

[#34]

Karma sez..."Anyone else notice that Rem always chronographs the supadoopa stuff out of a 24 inch barrel?""

I noticed the same thing. Don't know if Rem uses 24 inches for everything but for the few i checked they all did.

Can only guess why. There are cartridges out there that for best performance would benefit from a couple more inches of barrel.

Posted: 11/25/2001 7:34:21 AM EDT

[#35]

Phlegm_Dandy sez..."So you haven't read your own reference. I see.""

Got it right in front of me as we speak.

Now do your homework and answer your question for the class.

Posted: 11/25/2001 7:35:36 AM EDT

[#36]

I believe Winchester and Federal do the same thing. In the loading manuals, if a universal receiver is used, a 24 inch tube is also the barrel of choice. Must be easier to just set up the machinery to cut one length of blank.

Posted: 11/25/2001 7:41:19 AM EDT

[#37]

Phlegm_Dandy sez..."So you haven't read your own reference. I see.""

Got it right in front of me as we speak.

Now do your homework and answer your question for the class.

Another weak attempt at wit. The Dale Carnegie course probably has openings in your area, my man. They'll teach you better delivery.

Looking at your reference for the umpteenth time, it still shows an approximately 200 feet/second 200 LB-FT difference out to 500 yards for the .270 Winchester. Didn't you say that the .260 was equal? Hmmmmmm. Only in the bizarro world, my man.

Posted: 11/25/2001 7:45:49 AM EDT

[#38]

Your numbers are as wrong as your logic.

Now like a good little boy go to www.remington.com/Ammo/ballistics/center/270winbal.htm and get your numbers right.

Posted: 11/25/2001 8:04:31 AM EDT

[#39]

For the .270 Winchester:

Velocity (ft./sec.)
300 yds. 400 yds. 500 yds.

140 SAFPSP 2152 1923 1711
140 PSPBT 2355 2171 1995
140 NBT 2366 2187 2014

Energy (ft.-lbs.)
300 yds. 400 yds. 500 yds.

140 SAFPSP 1439 1150 910
140 PSPBT 1724 1465 1237
140 NBT 1743 1487 1262

Long Range² Trajectory *
300 yds. 400 yds. 500 yds.
140 SAFPSP -7.8 -23.2 -48.0
140 PSPBT -6.9 -20.1 -40.7
140 NBT -6.9 -20.0 -40.3

For the .260:
Velocity (ft./sec.)
300 yds. 400 yds. 500 yds.
140 PSPCL 2158 1979 1812

Energy (ft.-lbs.)
300 yds. 400 yds. 500 yds.
140 PSPCL 1448 1217 1021

Long Range² Trajectory *
300 yds. 400 yds. 500 yds.
140 PSPCL -8.3 -24.0 -47.2

Except for Remington's loading of the Swift A Frame, I'd say your .260 ain't equal to the .270 Winchester. However, in the bizarro world I'm sure you view things differently. Patiently awaiting your next witty comment (that's SARCASM, in case you didn't know).

Posted: 11/25/2001 8:24:57 AM EDT

[#40]

Since I use premium bullets for all my hunting the A-Frame is of course the bullet of choice. If Trophy-Bonded Bearclaws were available that would be my first choice, but A-Frames will work fine.

I hope that clarifies the issue for you.

Now show me you have some real world experience. The numbers published for any ballistics table are for the "average" value for a given load. If you handload and characterize your work, you'll know that every load has a set of statistical data associated with it. Among that data are values for mean, standard deviation etc. In real life the standard deviations for both the .260 Rem and .270 Win overlap for most of the distance between 100 and 300 yards. It really comes down to the performance of the particular cartridge you pull out of the box.

Posted: 11/25/2001 8:48:16 AM EDT

[#41]

Nope, doesn't clarify anything for me. The .260 is not the .270 Winchester's equal. It doesn't fill any holes that haven't already been covered three or four times over. It's just something cooked up by Remington to sell more stuff. What's funny is that everyone's convinced themselves that it's markedly better than everything else. It's not.

Posted: 11/25/2001 8:50:07 AM EDT

[#42]

Another little tip: high dollar bullets aren't necessary. Deer tend to be just as dead when hit with Hornady SPs and Sierra Game Kings. They're a little cheaper to shoot, too. Thought you might like to know.

Posted: 11/25/2001 8:57:49 AM EDT

[#43]

You need professional help with your mental problems.

I have to wonder who would spend so much mental anguish over WHY a particular cartridge exists except to satisfy their own preconceptions.

Your argument taken to reductio absurdum would ask why we need firearms in the first place and not just keep on using the chunk of mastodon jawbone great-great-uncle Flintstone used.

I think this thread has run its course and I'm locking it now. If you have more to add contact me offline.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - .260 REM. (Page 2 of 2)

Armory » General Firearm Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us