Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/22/2001 3:31:20 AM EDT
Now I know that we all love our little black toys. But do any of you play wiyh this round? MAN,, Ive got it in a Rem model 7 s/s syn and this thing is sweeeet.{have also taken a couple of deer and hog with it ,knocks em down instantly}....
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 4:37:18 AM EDT
Last year around a campfire in South Africa I asked our professional hunter what he would build for a ten year old boy's first hunt.

He said a Model 7 Youth chambered in .260 Rem. After we got back we bought one, cut the stock, mounted a Pachmayr pad and got a pleasant shooting light rifle. Ballistics equal to .270 Winchester with MUCH LESS recoil and weighs 7 1/2 pounds.

If it's good enough for Africa it'll do for us.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 7:15:31 AM EDT
I've considered an AR-10 in .260. Is there any reason why it would not work? Anyone tried it yet?
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 7:25:49 AM EDT
Great Caliber. Low recoil, super Accurate, long range. Doesn't go right through the deer and the deer absorbs more shock than some of the huge calibers.

AR-10 sounds like fun. Expensive on the ammo!!!

-Chuck

Link Posted: 11/22/2001 7:28:31 AM EDT
Just a marketing toy cooked up by Remington and Jim Carmichael. It'll never be as good as the .308 or 7mm-08. A weak sister for sure. I hope it withers and dies.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 7:35:02 AM EDT
Why do you say that? It fills the gap between the .243 and 7-08. 6.5X55 has been around awhile. If it's not needed then neither are numerous other cartridges, especially the .308(30-06), 7-08 or .270 (.280 Rem.). It should be a better game getter than the .243, which a lot of people use for 100lb. white tails.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 7:49:53 AM EDT

It fills the gap between the .243 and 7-08.

What gap? 7mm/.284 bullet weights extend down to the 6mm/.243 weight range. As I recall, the .308 was developed for the military and adopted by civilians. When necked to 7mm, silhouette shooters found that a 140 grain bullet delivers more energy and velocity from 100 yards onward than a 150 grain .30 caliber slug at equal velocity. Proponents of the .260 (commercialized as the .263 Express in Australia by Ken Waters over 40 years ago) only point to theoretical items on paper and fantasies held in their minds. I hope it goes the way of Remington's other bonehead marketing ideas of the past 40 years like the 6.5 and .350 Magnums, .22 Jet, 5mm rimfire, and lame attempt at renaming the .280 as the 7mm Express. If you like it, you've only found something else on which to blow your hard-earned cash and not a better mousetrap. The only gap it fills is the one between Jim Carmichael's ears.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 8:43:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
Just a marketing toy cooked up by Remington and Jim Carmichael. It'll never be as good as the .308 or 7mm-08. A weak sister for sure. I hope it withers and dies.




So true...I havea well my son has a 260rem, he is 13 ....I got a deal on the rifle is the only reason i got it ....if i had had my choice 308 would have been the round ..but i got a deal reason why is that you can pick up 308 round anywhere .....260 ya right ..cost of round...more bullets to pick from ...and as for hogs .....ya right I have about 30 or so hogs under my belt.....I have too call Bull shit on (drop them where they stand)....with a hog you need more grs. of lead ...not saying it can't be done ...but it's hard to find a hog in the swamp if run off and dies..... I use a 444 malin 300 gr XTP one and a 1/2 grs. over max load.....and they still run some....i know what yall are going too say head shot thats bull shit too ,,,they move too dam fast


Link Posted: 11/22/2001 9:29:24 AM EDT
The 260 is the round the military should have invented in the first place. It's too bad they didn't. This round could definitely be a success as a rifle and machine gun round. Too bad the thirtycaliberphiles were still in charge when we invented the 7.62 NATO.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 10:26:01 AM EDT
I had a rifle made for me on a LONG (30-06) Model 70 action in .260 REM.
My complaint about the .260 has to do with the "requirement" to fit into the .308 magazine. To do so puts too much bullet into the case for the 155 gr. bullet thereby reducing the powder capacity. The barrel is chambered so that the boattail ends at the base of the neck of the case. The loaded cartridge is beautiful with so much bullet showing and it shoots sub MOA at 200 yards (the limit of our range). I really like my .260 long.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 2:39:52 PM EDT
the ballistic coef. of the 6.5 mm is far better than the 7 mm, 6 mm as well as the 7.62 mm. the 260 is a round that is far over do. perfect for deer and varmints. a light round that is perfect for a 5-6 pound carbine that doesn't punish. in my opinion, the only thing better about the .308 compared to the .260 is the plentiful surplus of mil. surplus ammo.

sloth
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 4:07:46 PM EDT
Again, a paper theorist hyping a rather pedestrian cartridge.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 4:33:59 PM EDT
jim--i've got to know where this deep hatred for the 260 comes from. are there other rounds that you despise?

if it comes down to it, 90% of the rounds aren't "needed". thats not considering the wildcats out there. you can accomplish most everyting with 5-6 calibers.

sloth
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 4:38:30 PM EDT
JD doesn't have one so he can't stand them.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 6:01:33 PM EDT
Jim_Dandy,
There is not anything wrong with pedestrian cartridges. The .308 is about as pedestrian as you can get. If we only had cartridges that we needed I bet a man could get by with a .22, a .270, a 12 gauge, a.375 mag, and a .45 pistol. You could do the world, but who wants to. You know I don't care for a lot of cartridges, but that does not mean they are worthless. My only complaint about the .260 is that the only left handed rifle made for it is the Tikka.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 6:30:37 PM EDT
The .260 Rem. is brilliant. It is vastly superior to the .308 at extended ranges delivering its bullet with much higher energy and far better trajectory yet having a noticible reduction in recoil. The .308 is a fine cartridge that has a reputation of being "inherently accurate", which in my experience is true. I have a Rem 788, win mod. 70 featherweight custom shop and a NEF handi rifle in .308 and they all shoot less than .75 MOA. However, at ranges beyond 300 yards, the 260 would be my choice over the .308 not to mention the 7mm mag, .270, .280, etc. for anything up to and including elk. What it can do with a standard short action case, 22 inch barrel, and 6 lb. weight is astonishing. If I was limited to one centerfire cartridge, it would be the .260 rem.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 6:53:20 PM EDT
The .260 BETTER than the .308 Winchester and EQUAL to the .270 Winchester? Only in the bizarro world. I don't know what kinds of stuff you guys have been smoking/inhaling/huffing, but since you all are obviously obsessed with the minutae of "paper" ballistics; the .270 Winchester loaded with its most common factory bullet, a 130 grain spitzer generally outsteps the .260 with 120 grain and 125 slugs by about 200 feet/second and 200 LB-FT of energy.

As for the ballistic coefficient BS, see Sierra's X-Ring volume 4, #3. An article by Rich Machholz more or less debunks that. B.C. for a hunter means exactly NOTHING, except for the paper theorists.

If you all are happy with what you've bought, then by all means be so. Nothing to brag on, no better mouse trap, just something else to burn your cash.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 8:15:39 PM EDT
Without reading what JD is referring to, I think I know where he is coming from regarding hunting cartridges. The 130 grain bullet for the .270 really is too light to have a good BC, but it starts out fast and that's more important for trajectory out to 400 yards or so. Not many people should be taking shots at game any farther than that.

Not to say I agree with JD about the .260, though. I think .260 ballistics are just like the slightly larger but lower-pressured 6.5 Swedish. In other words, GREAT for many purposes. And if you get out to 1000 yards or so where it matters, the BC's are great. Looking at Sierra MatchKings, in .30 caliber you'd have to go all the way up to 220 grains to beat the 142 grain .264 bullet. Then you'd have to go to a .300 Winchester Magnum to kick that out at the velocity that the .260 throws the 142 grainer. Maybe I'm a wimp, but it's more enjoyable to me to shoot a .260 off a bench than a .300.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 10:50:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
Again, a paper theorist hyping a rather pedestrian cartridge.

Damn you really hate the 260 REM ! It's just a commercialized downloaded version of the 6.5-08 that has " KICKED ASS " in long range target shooting for years !!!! Untill superseded by 6.5- 284's. The 6.5 - 08 has more case capacity than the Swede 6.5x55 an will fit in a small action unlike the Swede plus there is a ton of excellent 6.5 bullets around !
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 5:08:10 AM EDT
I only recall one individual of note using the 6.5mm-08 to any measure of success in target shooting and that was only recently. Not exactly "kicking ass for years," is it? However, it's only fitting that the paper theorists talk about punching paper. It all dovetails rather nicely together.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 9:52:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
I only recall one individual of note using the 6.5mm-08 to any measure of success in target shooting and that was only recently. Not exactly "kicking ass for years," is it? However, it's only fitting that the paper theorists talk about punching paper. It all dovetails rather nicely together.

Jeez... what is your malfunction ???
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 9:57:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tangeant:

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
Again, a paper theorist hyping a rather pedestrian cartridge.

Damn you really hate the 260 REM ! It's just a commercialized downloaded version of the 6.5-08 that has " KICKED ASS " in long range target shooting for years !!!! Untill superseded by 6.5- 284's. The 6.5 - 08 has more case capacity than the Swede 6.5x55 an will fit in a small action unlike the Swede plus there is a ton of excellent 6.5 bullets around !



I'm sure the Swede round actually has a bit more capacity, it's just limited by the reduced standard pressure level. The .260 fitting into so many standard short actions and autoloaders is a big practical advantage, though.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 10:01:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
However, it's only fitting that the paper theorists talk about punching paper. It all dovetails rather nicely together.




What IS your malfunction? I'd hate to be cooped up in deer camp with you; I'd never get any peace.

You seem to think that YOUR use for a rifle is the ONLY legitimate one.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 12:18:50 PM EDT
Well gee, as I recall this topic began with some rather outlandish claims as to how much better the .260 is than similar sized rounds. Like it's the best thing since sliced bread and pop-top beer. What is it that the .260 does that makes it significantly BETTER than its parent the .308 Winchester or more sophisticated sibling the 7mm-08? No paper theories please. I don't see the .260 as anything more than something on which to burn your cash. It's not an improvement on anything. If you're happy, then great. Just like wearing a dark suit and peeing. It makes you feel nice and warm and no one can tell (or care, either).
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 3:52:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:

It fills the gap between the .243 and 7-08.

What gap? 7mm/.284 bullet weights extend down to the 6mm/.243 weight range. As I recall, the .308 was developed for the military and adopted by civilians. When necked to 7mm, silhouette shooters found that a 140 grain bullet delivers more energy and velocity from 100 yards onward than a 150 grain .30 caliber slug at equal velocity. Proponents of the .260 (commercialized as the .263 Express in Australia by Ken Waters over 40 years ago) only point to theoretical items on paper and fantasies held in their minds. I hope it goes the way of Remington's other bonehead marketing ideas of the past 40 years like the 6.5 and .350 Magnums, .22 Jet, 5mm rimfire, and lame attempt at renaming the .280 as the 7mm Express. If you like it, you've only found something else on which to blow your hard-earned cash and not a better mousetrap. The only gap it fills is the one between Jim Carmichael's ears.



I find nothing wrong with the .350 magnum. IT is a great gun on pigs, bear, elk and large whitetails. My dad hunts solely with it. It is very similiar to the .338.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 4:18:18 PM EDT
Heck, I'd almost bet that the bullets that have better ballistic coefficients on paper also have better ballistic coefficients in the air.

What's that mean? Maybe a little flatter trajectory at extreme ranges, a little less wind drift, and arriving at the target with a little higher percentage of what you got kicked in the shoulder for at the other end. If you're going to burn money on something, you might as well burn it on something efficient.

Unless you shoot only cheap surplus ball ammo and only plan to own one rifle, what's the down side?
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 5:53:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2001 5:46:09 PM EDT by Jim_Dandy]

Heck, I'd almost bet that the bullets that have better ballistic coefficients on paper also have better ballistic coefficients in the air.

Holy flying saucers, Batman!!! Golly gee whiz!! If fired at equal velocities, B.C. results in about a 2.5 inch drop at MOST at 300 yards. WOW!! Being paper obsessed, you really ought to read the Sierra newsletter quoted. Unimpressed, to say the least.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 6:21:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
If fired at equal velocities, B.C. results in about a 2.5 inch drop at MOST at 300 yards.



You're becoming incoherent here. WHAT B.C. results in 2.5 inch drop at WHAT velocity? Compared to WHAT? With WHAT zero?

And 300 yards? Seems to me I was talking about extreme ranges.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 6:33:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2001 6:44:31 PM EDT by Arock]
JD's complained loudly about "paper" arguments and he's the only one who's used "paper" in his argument.

BTW JD, I like a good 'tude on the forum.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 6:52:20 PM EDT

You're becoming incoherent here. WHAT B.C. results in 2.5 inch drop at WHAT velocity? Compared to WHAT? With WHAT zero?

And 300 yards? Seems to me I was talking about extreme ranges.


I should clarify by saying 2.5 inch difference in POI at 300 yards. Doesn't matter which B.C., etc. Assuming both bullets are fired at the same velocity with the same zero, it results in NO PRACTICAL difference. Go ahead and tell us how you killed a b'ar, Davy.


JD's complained loudly about "paper" arguments and he's the only one who's used "paper" in his argument.


Uh, let's see. Oh yeah, all of the defenders of this dodo, yourself included have made statements like "B.C. this" and "B.C. that" and "it has ballistics just like the .270." I would guess that those figures came from PAPER, would they not?

Again, what EXACTLY makes the .260 significantly better than its parent, the .308 Winchester? Is it really better, or have you all just convinced yourselves of this in order to justify buying another rifle? The latter seems more truthful.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 6:55:23 PM EDT
The .260 has less felt recoil than the .308 or 7mm-08. I bought my son's for that reason.

I've shot all three and that's what it is. No paper just the facts.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 7:00:40 PM EDT
Sorry, Jim.I like the .260. Its an improvement over the Swede, which I have and like the hell out of it. 6.5 is the round to use for 1000 yd. competition, and'08 is the case that fits the mags.... Maybe you should lie down for awhile?
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 7:11:00 PM EDT

The .260 has less felt recoil than the .308 or 7mm-08. I bought my son's for that reason.

I've shot all three and that's what it is. No paper just the facts.


Less felt recoil than the .308 Winchester, yes. Less than the 7mm-08? Sorry, that one's in your head. Ed Matunas has a nice formula for calculating the recoil if you'd like numbers. I've shot all three from a bench, prone, etc. Felt recoil in the .308 doesn't start getting readily apparent until you start using 165 grain slugs and felt recoil between the 7mm-08 and .260? Can't tell a bit of difference in identical weighted rifles of similar geometry.


Sorry, Jim.I like the .260. Its an improvement over the Swede, which I have and like the hell out of it. 6.5 is the round to use for 1000 yd. competition, and'08 is the case that fits the mags.... Maybe you should lie down for awhile?

Okay G Money, I don't know if the triptophan is clouding your reasoning or if the residents of your domicile are hitting the egg nog a little early, but I don't recall asking anyone's thoughts on the 6.5x55mm. You dig? Good.

Link Posted: 11/23/2001 7:17:02 PM EDT
No it's not in MY head and it's not on some of YOUR "paper" either. Nor do I care about what some obscure untalented gun rag hack has to say about anything.

My experience, my rifles and my judgements. To bad you can't see past the end of your reading light.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 7:31:55 PM EDT
Jim, I really liked you better before I met you. You seem to be possessed of "Angry Man Syndrome".Maybe you should clean up your toys and go to bed now, young man.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 7:54:23 PM EDT

No it's not in MY head and it's not on some of YOUR "paper" either. Nor do I care about what some obscure untalented gun rag hack has to say about anything.

Because Matunas doesn't write for Marvel Comics doesn't mean he's obscure, you just don't read enough. Anyway, here're some numbers for you. According to my trusty abacus, if fired from 7.5 pound rifles at 2900 feet/second, which is a maximum load for these bullet weights, recoil is as follows:

.260 Remington w/129 grain slug- 12.8 LB-FT

7mm-08 Remington w/140 grain slug- 14.2 LB-FT

.308 Winchester w/150 grain slug- 15.3 LB-FT

1.4 LB-FT difference?!!! THAT'S in your head. No improvement over anything existing. Not even on paper.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 8:17:33 PM EDT
When you get time away from your bedside reading and TV games induced catatonia maybe you'll get out some.

Try going to the shooting range sometime. It'll do you good. And it'll dispel a lot of those paper-induced delusions you suffer.

AND you'll understand how felt recoil can't be reduced to paper.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 8:35:36 PM EDT
Okay, so I'm sensing by your really friendly demeanor that you've finally realized that your beloved .260 isn't an improvement over anything. Correct? It's more or less just been an excuse to buy another rifle. 1.4 LB-FT is nothing, on the range, in the field, on paper. Nothing. From the .260 freaks it's always, "It'll make me run faster and jump higher. The women love me. Blah, blah, blah." Just what is it aside from the desire to buy another gun that makes it significantly better than its parent or siblings? You guys who like to point to paper have been disproved. Now what? The deer that I shot last week with my .308 went down like it was pole-axed. Was that wrong? If I had a .260 would it have freezer-wrapped itself, too? What about the ones that I shot with my 7mm-08? What about the antelope that I shot with those guns? How would the red-headed stepchild .260 bettered any of that?
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 8:44:15 PM EDT
You've amused me this evening. I appreciate that.

What you haven't done is dissuade me the .260 isn't the best rifle I could buy for my son. It's not another rifle, it's his first hunting rifle and it's the right choice. I could have given him my Rem 721 in .270, but it's a 1957 build and I won't cut the stock. He'll get it some day anyway. Could have given him the Model 7 in 7mm-08 or my LTR in .308, but for him none of those work as well.

Strawman arguments aren't going to work. Neither does transferrence. Eat yourself up. It's fun to watch.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 8:48:47 PM EDT
Hmmm, I don't recall myself making any comments that you'd made a poor choice, do you? Examples please. I'm trying to find out outside of personal preference why some are so "ga-ga" over this little over-hyped thing. It's not better than any of its family. Must be just a desire to have one.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 8:50:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:

I should clarify ...



You should, but you haven't yet.

Anybody else understand what 2.5 inches he's talking about??
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 9:02:17 PM EDT
Gee, let's see if I can break it down to signs and pictures for the neanderthals. Okay, here goes. You have two (2) bullets, savvy? That's more than one (1), but less than three (3). They're of equal weight, okay? Johnny's bullet has a HIGH B.C., but little Sally's has a LOW B.C. Johnny zeroes his rifle (a shoulder fired long gun with a spiraled bore) at a certain distance. Sally copies Johnny. At three hundred (300) yards (three feet per yard, twelve inches per foot), Sally's bullet hits about two (2) inches below Johnny's.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 9:06:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2001 8:59:59 PM EDT by Arock]
I made the right choice and among other things don't solicit or consider your opinion.

If you'll read my initial post you'll see I bought the rifle on the recommendation of my PH on my last safari. I did solicit HIS opinion. And I trust Coenraad Vermak with my life. And when my boy goes to Africa I will trust HIS life to him.

You're just another unknown to me bud.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 9:26:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
I'm trying to find out outside of personal preference why some are so "ga-ga" over this little over-hyped thing. It's not better than any of its family. Must be just a desire to have one.



I, for one, never said in unqualified terms that it was "better" than any other cartridges. I just said, with the bullets that are available, it's more nearly what I want to shoot than most of those other cartridges. If, as I believe, it is slightly more efficient with realistic bullet weights, so what if it only amounts to 1% difference? Does that make the 1% LESS efficient round better? Is the rifle that kicks 20% harder (.308) BETTER for starting out a boy, because it's only 20% and not 30% or 100%?

And I don't need to justify past or future rifle purchases. I don't own a .260 and almost certainly never will unless I find a .260 AR-10, FAL, or M1A for less than $500. But I have fired Swedish Mausers enough to know something about 6.5mm rifles of this class. And I just like what they are, more than the various .30 caliber rifles I also own, or the 7mm rifles I also own, or the .243 I also own.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 9:32:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
Gee, let's see if I can break it down to signs and pictures for the neanderthals. Okay, here goes. You have two (2) bullets, savvy? That's more than one (1), but less than three (3). They're of equal weight, okay? Johnny's bullet has a HIGH B.C., but little Sally's has a LOW B.C. Johnny zeroes his rifle (a shoulder fired long gun with a spiraled bore) at a certain distance. Sally copies Johnny. At three hundred (300) yards (three feet per yard, twelve inches per foot), Sally's bullet hits about two (2) inches below Johnny's.



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.

I don't know how I could miss that the first time.
Link Posted: 11/23/2001 9:38:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2001 10:00:29 PM EDT by Arock]
Fuzzy...Nose_Candy uses strawman arguments all the time. He sets up his argument by putting words in your mouth.

Don't let him get to 'ya. He's just upset about the sad state of football in Oklahoma.

*Edited cause I have trouble spelling Baja Texas.

Arock out.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 4:43:24 AM EDT

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.


He sets up his argument by putting words in your mouth.

Hmmmm. Do you mean this, for instance:

Ballistics equal to .270 Winchester with MUCH LESS recoil and weighs 7 1/2 pounds.

I believe you posted that on 11/22/01 at 07:37:18 Texas time, did you not?

BTW, not an Oklahoma football fan at all. Use that one on someone else.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 8:09:33 AM EDT
I don't meen to but right in .......But .Yall are killing me HaHa ....I have too say J.D.'s right ....you can talk #'s bc this and bc that all day long ,and it don't meen a hill of beens .I been loading and shooting awile now....If you do it long anuff.you would under stand where JD is comming from...
Recoil has more to do with load,stock,weight than cal.
308 bullets ,rounds,dies,ect are easier find and cost alot less and you can bet if a new bullet comes out on the market it'l be made in the 30cal. first
If you don't hand load,you would be a fool to buy a 260 over a 308
you could walk in your local Wally World and say"WHERE are your 308? " and not "Do you have 260rem??"
Don't get me wrong ,like i posted a day or so ago I got my son who is 13 a 260 rem700 Mt. rifle.....only becouse i got a deal on it, real good deal..
As far as huntting ,You can just guess how i feel on that..
I realy injoy reading yalls post ...HaHaHa
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 8:55:44 AM EDT
Man just mellow out. It seems to me that you have some kind of complex. Your view on things is not the only correct one in exsistence. I am a firm supporter of the .308 but hell, I have a .260 and love it just as much. Do you have a .260 and have you ever dealt with one other than what you read in the Sierra news letter. You seem to keep saying that we are all just paper theorist but you seem to be one of the only ones that keeps quoting strictly paper. We have real world experience with the round. Also, you may very well feel that I am waisting my money but that's why its my money and not yours. If I feel the need to do so I will pile it on the floor and burn it and whole heartedly support my own decision and if you don't like it you are welcome to shut up and kiss my a$$.

Matt
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 9:31:31 AM EDT

if you don't like it you are welcome to shut up and kiss my a$$

Then take your hat off, sweetness. Thus far the proponents of the .260 have only pointed to paper figures and I have countered. Again, what is it that makes the .260 so special to some? Would it be correct to say that you all just wanted one? To me that would be justification enough, but for you all, noooooooo. "I bought it because it's BETTER." How so? At least bone admitted that he bought his because he was able to get a good deal. Seems fair.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 11:11:30 AM EDT
It seems to me that you have some kind of complex. Your view on things is not the only correct one in exsistence.


I thought I was wrong one time....but I was mistaken..turn out I was right



Semper-fi
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top