.260 rem question

Gorsh, I didn't know that a Creed could push 120s to 3180, 129s to 3070, and 140s to 2935 at the chronograph! I'm re-barreling my 6.5 right away!:eek:
 
GeauxTide, I used to love Remington and Winchester brass. That is until I started using Norma. Norma is worth every penny it costs; especially if you run the pressures up real high.
 
Gorsh, I didn't know that a Creed could push 120s to 3180, 129s to 3070, and 140s to 2935 at the chronograph! I'm re-barreling my 6.5 right away!
Click to expand...

Well if you only associate speed with performance, then you might as well get a 6.5mm STW and call it quits.

I get it George, the .260 is the bee's knees of the .264 caliber, followed closely by the 6.5-06. I shall rue the day I bought the 6.5 Creedmoor. Scorn the 6.5 Creedmoor for the audacity to be a more efficient and for having a modern case design. Scorn Hornady for actually doing research and development, instead of necking down a existing cartridge and letting it flounder.

So let us all give three cheers to Remington for their vast selection of rifles chambered in 260 and keeping cost down by sparing us the marketing campaign.
 
Last edited:
Geo, I own a Creedmoor and I like it. Having said that, there is nothing super wonderful about it. It is for all practicalities purposes a .260 Remington. Pretty much all Hornaday did was neck up a .22-250 and lose a couple degrees of taper. There is nothing ultra modern about their design.
 
Reynolds,

No cartridge is super wonderful, if there was one, there would be no need for any other type of cartridge. I love my Creedmoor, and it is super wonderful to me. I would say though, that the Creedmoor is the natural progression from .250-3000 to .22-250 to 6mm XC to 6.5 Creedmoor.

GeauxTide,

The .260 is a fine cartridge, it's just not my cup of tea in regards to short action 6.5 mm cartridges. Max Planck once stated "science advances one funeral at a time." In my mind the 260 represents a stagnation of thought processes, and the 308 cartridge family are the old guard of the short action club. I just tire of the old guard bashing other cartridges as redundant, when instead they should celebrate the advancement in cartridge "science." That is why I get a tad bit defensive.
 
Last edited:
The 6.5 Creedmoore is great, almost matches the performance of what the Swede's put out in 1894. :D

Most shooters would never notice any difference from an accuracy/performance standpoint between the 6.5 Creedmore, 6.5x55 Swede, 260 Remington, 6.5-284, or 6.5-06.

I am a big fan of the 6.5 mm in general, and when I was building a LR rig, I built a 6.5-06, because at the time the 260 had just been introduced, and wasn't widely available. If I was doing it again today, I would build a .260.
 
Geo, the only real difference in the .260 and the Creedmoore is their name. I'm no real fan of either. I bought a Creedmoore because the price was right. Its a nice cartridge, but its success is due much more in part to successful marketing than performance or accuracy difference between it and the .260.
 
How about the 6.5 Remington Magnum?
Click to expand...

According to the latest Sierra manual, pushing a 140 gr bullet, the highest velocity loads are:

264 Win Mag: 3000FPS
6.5-06: 2950 FPS
6.5-284: 2900 FPS
6.5x55 Swedish Mauser 2700 FPS
260 Remington 2700 FPS

6.5 Rem Mag: no loads for 140 gr, Sierra says they did not include them because the OAL would be too long for a short action with heavy bullets. Published 120 gr loads are (surprisingly)~300 fps slower than 6.5-06 or 6.5-284.
My Horrnady manual does lists 140 gr loads up to 2900 FPS.

6.5 Creedmoore: Not listed in any of my loading books. Hodgdon's web site lists 140 gr loads in the 2600 range for max loads.

A practical difference between the 260 Rem and the 264 Win Mag, in a 10 MPH full value wind, you will have about 4" less wind at 600 yards (4.5MOA/28.5" @ 2700 FPS vs 3.8MOA/24.2" @ 3000FPS) The Creedmoore would be a little worse, but not much.

A High master Long Range shooter could probably tell the difference, but most people couldn't. A deer certainly wouldn't.
 
Most of the data you see on the .264 Win. mag. is 24" barrel data. The .264 Win. mag. is significantly faster than published data with a 26" barrel. I have 4 .264 Win mags. Two have 26 in barrels, 1 has 24, one has a 28. The 26" barrel can push the 140 real close to 3300 without showing extreme pressure signs. The 28 will push a 100 grain over 4000fps. In my opinion, all the 22" and 24" loading data out there for the Win. mag. do it extreme injustice.
 
reynolds357 said:
Geo, the only real difference in the .260 and the Creedmoor is their name.
Click to expand...

Reynolds you are correct, the real world application and performance between the two are trifling. I am however a nerd, and love to analyze the minute details between cartridges.

emcon5 said:
6.5 Creedmoor: Not listed in any of my loading books. Hodgdon's web site lists 140 gr loads in the 2600 range for max loads.

A practical difference between the 260 Rem and the 264 Win Mag, in a 10 MPH full value wind, you will have about 4" less wind at 600 yards (4.5MOA/28.5" @ 2700 FPS vs 3.8MOA/24.2" @ 3000FPS) The Creedmoor would be a little worse, but not much.
Click to expand...

Creedmoor Max Loads:

From Nosler's new reloading manual:
140 grain Accubond loaded to max with 44 grains of Hunter is 2730 fps

From Hornady's 8th Edition:
With 140 grain A-Max or SST loaded to a max with 41.7 grains Norma URP, 43.2 grains of Winchestor 760, 42 grains of RL-17, or 42.6 grains of Hybrid 100V you achieve 2725+ fps.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top