20" OK for 260 Rem?

This comment is about barrel length,not elk bullets (I agree with Wyo)
I have a MOA handgun in .260 Rem. It has a 14 in barrel.
I get 2600 fps with a 120 gr Ballistic Tip.
It has a snapover extractor on a rimless case. I have to keep pressures on the moderate side or I get FTE's
 
My .260 rifle has an 18.5" barrel. I would feel totally confident in taking deer out to beyond 300 yds. I used to own a Remington XP100R in .260 with a 16" barrel. I would have felt the same way about that one (well, maybe in the hands of someone a little more skilled than me with a handgun).
 
High Power competition shooters take the AR-15 5.56 / .223 out to 600 yards using a 20" barrel with excellent precision and velocities.
 
Here is what I wrote in the other thread "Thoughts on the .260 Remington".

Its sort of funny that light weight bullets are what everyone wants to shoot because all they are concerned with is velocity. I have a book called "The Selected Works Of Finn Aagaard" and he has a couple of chapters on the 6.5 cartridges. There were several in use around the turn of the last century. It was a popular bore size for the armies then switching to smokeless powder rounds.

The early rounds all used bullets in the 150-160gr range. They gave deep penetration and were even used on Elephant. A 120gr bullet would not be a good choice for that animal. The heavy bullets gave deep, straight penetration and most of those African hunters preferred the FMJ bullets to prevent bullet break up. Something they really wanted to avoid. The early 6.5s also only shot around 2300fps. But most of the shots they took were 200 yards or less. I guess they were better at being hunters and didn't consider longer shots. Plus most all the rifles were open sighted. Those heavy bullets made the reputation of the 6.5 bore.

This pretty much mirrors what Wyosmith wrote. I still think heavier bullets in about all calibers are better than light weight bullets that are picked just for the sake of more velocity to make the elusive 400+ yard shot. And at longer ranges the lighter bullets have so much less striking power. I think anyone shooting at Elk out to 700 yards is an irresponsible hunter. Its the animal that takes all the risk and the chances of a wounding shot are too high for that kind of "hunting". Shooting targets that far is fine, just not animals.
 
A few years ago (I"m sure it's still on the inter-webs somewhere) some SWAT shooter decided to see how short he could cut down the barrel of this .308 before he noticed a loss of performance. I don't remember all the details. He got to 18".
Therefore, in the grand tradition of internet research (by others): I think 20" is fine for your goal.

And wyosmith drops wisdom bombs whenever he finds time to post... always a pleasure to read his views.
 
Last edited:
I would think so...

Many U. S. and countless Scandinavian hunters have killed deer and elk sized critters with the 6.5x55 cartridge for years. Much Swede use is from carbine length barrels (17 inches in some).

The .260 Remington is a modern version of the 6.5 Swede. No, it is not based physically on the Swede case; the .260 Rem is essentially a .308 Winchester necked down to .264 (or 6.5mm if you prefer). The ballistics are somewhat better with the Remington round.

I'd stick with the 140 or 160 grain round for game animals. Lighter bullets probably have use for smaller critters or just plinking or such.
 
Smaller bores do better with longer barrels and bigger bores are less effected by shorter barrels.

Not universally true my friend. The .223 rem has been proven to gain nothing beyond 24". At 26+" it looses velocity with light (55gn and under) projectiles. The 300 mag continues to gain beyond 26". Its not that simple. It has more to do with powder capacity/bore diameter... And projectile weight (aka sectional density when used in conjunction with bore diameter) plays a small role.

Bore diameter is a small part of the equation... But that's it. Powder capacity has much more to do with it.
 
Well those .223s need long burning powder in a long barrel. Not fast burning powder in a long barrel. And youre bore determines how much room your powder has to burn. A .223 with a 26 inch barrel might have the same volume as a .35rem with an 18 inch barrel (not calculated just using it as an example)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top