Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
6.5 comparisons
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Viking264" data-source="post: 1268473" data-attributes="member: 97833"><p>I would be interested in seeing your results on your .260 Rem AI with the 147's. QL has no data on this cartridge.</p><p></p><p>FWIW, I am not convinced that there is any advantage whatsoever to running a short action. Improved speed chambering the next cartridge is insignificant, supposedly stiffer action is also insignificant in terms of accuracy (this statement is based upon the fact that so many European competitive shooters are still using the 6.5x55 and are successfully competing with military shooters using HK semi-auto rifles chambered in 7.62x51, and the fact that the 6.5-284 was, according to Norma USA, designed as a long-action cartridge). My only interest in the .260 is that it shoots a .264, but I would not have interest in shooting it in a short action due to the decreased case capacity relative to the 6.5x55. In a long action (110), I'm loading my .260 Rem to a COAL of 2.933 (using the 140 ELD). In my case, this is a result of having purchased the 110 with a custom barrel in .260 Rem. The long action enables the potential of the cartridge to be reached; same goes for .243 Win and any other short-action-designed cartridge, for that matter. The .260 Rem in a long action is much closer to the potential of the 6.5x55 (which I run to ~58K PSI with modern actions). The departure between the two occurs, for me, when using the 156- and 160-grain hunting projectiles, where I believe the 6.5x55 is more suitable. The reason that more competitions are not won with the 6.5x55 here in the States is, I am certain, a self-fulfilling prophecy: few people (almost none) are using them in these competitions. Take the top shooters in 6.5-284 and hand them a good 6.5x55, and they will keep winning with the only modification being adjustment of their turrets. <em>[As an aside, I cannot for the life of me understand why someone would have interest in the 6.5 CM, but that's another thread. If you want lower velocity and "more inherent accuracy", then maybe the 6.5x47 is the ticket (I have only barely read about this, so who knows). Hornady is now selling .260 brass, by the way, in line with their factory production .260 Rem cartridges to make use of all of the new 6.5mm projectiles that they developed for use in the 6.5 CM.]</em></p><p></p><p>I AM NOT taking anything away from the performance of the .260 Rem loaded in a SA as a hunting or target cartridge; clearly, it works extremely well in so many circumstances. Since I only run it in LA, I didn't bother looking at figures on QL when loaded to the shorter COAL. What I am seeing from the figures shows me that the 6.5-284 doesn't really offer much in the means of overall performance. I love the case design; I am probably now 60/40 shooting the .284 Win (again, in long action) vs. the 6.5x55, but I think that's where my interest in the 6.5-284 ends. Running these figures on QL has been an interesting and enlightening exercise. What it will likely lead to is my loading the .260 Rem with 127-grain LRX and 130-grain HPBT (Norma) for hunting and target, respectively, and the 6.5x55 with the same Barnes hunting round and 140-grain ELD for target.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Viking264, post: 1268473, member: 97833"] I would be interested in seeing your results on your .260 Rem AI with the 147's. QL has no data on this cartridge. FWIW, I am not convinced that there is any advantage whatsoever to running a short action. Improved speed chambering the next cartridge is insignificant, supposedly stiffer action is also insignificant in terms of accuracy (this statement is based upon the fact that so many European competitive shooters are still using the 6.5x55 and are successfully competing with military shooters using HK semi-auto rifles chambered in 7.62x51, and the fact that the 6.5-284 was, according to Norma USA, designed as a long-action cartridge). My only interest in the .260 is that it shoots a .264, but I would not have interest in shooting it in a short action due to the decreased case capacity relative to the 6.5x55. In a long action (110), I'm loading my .260 Rem to a COAL of 2.933 (using the 140 ELD). In my case, this is a result of having purchased the 110 with a custom barrel in .260 Rem. The long action enables the potential of the cartridge to be reached; same goes for .243 Win and any other short-action-designed cartridge, for that matter. The .260 Rem in a long action is much closer to the potential of the 6.5x55 (which I run to ~58K PSI with modern actions). The departure between the two occurs, for me, when using the 156- and 160-grain hunting projectiles, where I believe the 6.5x55 is more suitable. The reason that more competitions are not won with the 6.5x55 here in the States is, I am certain, a self-fulfilling prophecy: few people (almost none) are using them in these competitions. Take the top shooters in 6.5-284 and hand them a good 6.5x55, and they will keep winning with the only modification being adjustment of their turrets. [I][As an aside, I cannot for the life of me understand why someone would have interest in the 6.5 CM, but that's another thread. If you want lower velocity and "more inherent accuracy", then maybe the 6.5x47 is the ticket (I have only barely read about this, so who knows). Hornady is now selling .260 brass, by the way, in line with their factory production .260 Rem cartridges to make use of all of the new 6.5mm projectiles that they developed for use in the 6.5 CM.][/I] I AM NOT taking anything away from the performance of the .260 Rem loaded in a SA as a hunting or target cartridge; clearly, it works extremely well in so many circumstances. Since I only run it in LA, I didn't bother looking at figures on QL when loaded to the shorter COAL. What I am seeing from the figures shows me that the 6.5-284 doesn't really offer much in the means of overall performance. I love the case design; I am probably now 60/40 shooting the .284 Win (again, in long action) vs. the 6.5x55, but I think that's where my interest in the 6.5-284 ends. Running these figures on QL has been an interesting and enlightening exercise. What it will likely lead to is my loading the .260 Rem with 127-grain LRX and 130-grain HPBT (Norma) for hunting and target, respectively, and the 6.5x55 with the same Barnes hunting round and 140-grain ELD for target. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
6.5 comparisons
Top