7mm08 vs 6.5 creedmoor or 260 in 20" barrel

*tim* said:
I do reload but am leaning towards 7mm for availability of supplies and ammo just in case
Click to expand...

They all have the .308 for a parent case so the only difference in availability would be the actual bullets. If you can get any of the cases, you can simply form them to any of the others.
 
If that's the case, 7-08 hands down. Very little factory ammo available for .260.
Click to expand...

That is not an accurate statement. :mad: Midway for example, has (27) 7mm-08 loads and (21) 260 Remington loads. In the local Cabelas I was just in, there were 4 loads of 260 Remington on the shelf and 5 of 7mm-08. Remington and Nosler are both working on new loads for the .260 and Remington says it is one of the calibers they are getting more requests about than almost any other. Nosler catalogs fewer 7mm-08 loads than 260 Remington loads.
 
1. All other things being equal, the 6.5 creedmoor will always lag behind the .260 remington in velocity, due to less powder capacity in the creedmoor.

2. The .260 remington has the largest ratio of case capacity to bore volume of the three cartridges. The 6.5 creedmoor and the 7mm-08 are essentially identical. Therefore, the effect of barrel length on velocity will be the greatest on the .260 remington. It should be about the same on the other two.

3. If recoil is a major consideration for a new shooter, then I would chose the 6.5 creedmoor, because of lighter bullets, less powder and lower velocities. The downside is that brass is expensive and not as available as the 7mm-08.
Click to expand...

The 260 has a whopping 0.7gr greater powder capacity, when comparing empty cases...
The 6.5 actually has an advantage over the 260 with heavier bullets. Because of the slightly shorter case you can seat the heavy bullets out farther than you can in the .260. So in the same gun, with both rounds having the same OAL, The 6.5 actually has equal or slightly greater "loaded" powder capacity than the 260.
 
@precision shooter: Thanks for setting the record straight. I mistakenly thought that the 6.5 creedmoor was essentially an improved 6.5-.250 savage and then referred to some tables which gave case capacities in grains of water as measured to the base of the neck. After extrapolating a little for the "improved" aspect, the case capacites for the 6.5 creedmoor and .260 remington still seemed significantly different. I guess I didn't extrapolate enough.

Since you quoted a .7 grain difference in case capacity, I must assume that you have the data. It would be informative if you could share those two capacity values and how they were measured.
 
I have and hunt with a 20" 7mm08 carbine. Expect 200-250 fps loss vs a 24" barrel and exponentially more muzzle blast. If 2700-2800 fps w/140 bullet fits your needs and you don't mind the noise and flash, it's a handy tool. I had to park mine when Grandson started hunting with me since there was concern about hearing damage for him(I'm already nearly deaf).
 
@hammie
I was going from memory in my post last night and mis-stated some of my info.

The 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge was designed off the .30 T/C, which is a shortened .308. It has a 30 degree shoulder, and the body has less of a taper compared to .260 or .308. The shortened case allows the longer/heavier 140+ grain bullets to be seated with less intrusion into the case compared to the .260. When you subtract bullet intrusion from the .260's case capacity with these longer bullets, the .260 has a minimal 0.7 grain loaded advantage. When you combine the 30 degree shoulder (20 degree shoulder in .260), reduced body taper, and shorter case length you get a more efficient cartridge that burns less powder and gets virtually the same numbers as the .260.

This is info provided to me from another member on this board when I myself was researching the 6.5 VS .260.
 
You can make 6.5 Creedmore cases from 250 Savage, 22-250, or 250 Savage Ackley Improved. It's just a necked up 250 Savage AI case.
 
7mm-08

being late to the party, and not reading every single posting; I'd go with the 7mm-08. Having no experience with any of those rounds, I doubt any whitetail will notice a difference in the three. I have worked with the 7x57 Mauser and the 280 Rem (7mm-06) a bit and 7mm bullets penetrate well, kill cleanly and fly true, I would think 7mm-08 availability would be the best of the three. just my .02 cents:D

I do have a 1893 Spanish mauser in 7x57 with a 20" barrel in a mannlicher style stock, that is both accurate and hard hitting and I can use 130grn to 160 grn bullets with about the same point of impact @ 100yds.
 
Last edited:
Tim, I have the Savage light weight hunter in 6.5 Creedmoor. You cant go wrong with any of the three cartridges you mentioned in this rifle. Be forewarned, this rifle is not accurate until you bed it. Out of the box it is trash. With a good bedding job, mine is shooting consistent 3/8" at 100 yards. It literally would not shoot 2" at 100 prior to bedding. The problem is the screwed up excuse for pillars Savage uses in the rifle. They need to be shortened by about 1/16th inch, glued in, and then glass bed the rifle. The bedding is tricky. Savage did not leave a lot to work with in this stock design.
 
Last guy in.
I can't find the post, but I remember reading an online article where a police shooter in Dallas (?) kept sawing down the barrel of his .308 until he noticed a performance drop. I don't remember the exact measure where that was, but he was into the high teens I believe.
Point being, at 20", you will probably be able to get almost full boat performance from any of the 3 you looked at.
Full disclosure: I chose 260 remington and 22", b/c I wanted an antelope stopper. I figure that any of the 3 you listed would be fine enough for stopping white tail.
 
doofus47 said:
I can't find the post, but I remember reading an online article where a police shooter in Dallas (?) kept sawing down the barrel of his .308 until he noticed a performance drop. I don't remember the exact measure where that was, but he was into the high teens I believe.
Point being, at 20", you will probably be able to get almost full boat performance from any of the 3 you looked at.
Click to expand...

That's a matter of what might be defined as "noticed" and "performance drop". All three of these cartridges (and almost any center-fire rifle cartridge on earth) is absolutely still gaining speed well past 20". In fact, well past 30.... and 40... inches. A .308 stops gaining speed at around 45" and starts losing speed a couple of inches later.

Now, the fps per inch of barrel is very small at long lengths. Might only be 2-3fps (or less) at 40" but it's most definitely still there. At lengths between 20"-30", you're looking at 20-50fps per inch.
 
Yeah, color me a victim of crappy memory. I believe that he was shooting at "tactical" not "practical" distances. Meaning, shorter rather than longer.

You're right, of course, Brian. Without any numbers all I've really done is offer another fuzzy picture of bigfoot.

OP, take that into consideration: just more 3rd hand input.
 
Actually there is around 4 or 5 grains difference between the 6.5 Creedmoor and the .260rem. Go the .260 over the 6.5cm for the fact brass and better brass is more readily available and I would also choose the .260 over the 7mm08 for the fact that this rifle will be for a young fella and recoil will be noticeably less. Nothing wrong with the 7mm08 but it's recoil is up there with the .308.

The facts are if you choose any of the 3 rounds listed than IMO you will need to reload for it to get the best out of it.
 
3. If recoil is a major consideration for a new shooter, then I would chose the 6.5 creedmoor, because of lighter bullets, less powder and lower velocities. The downside is that brass is expensive and not as available as the 7mm-08.
Click to expand...

If you handload, for all practical purposes (especially so for a new shooter), there is not a dimes worth of difference between the 3, other than component availability. Any of those cartridges can be loaded to suit the need ...... and none will be ballisticly inferior to the others at ranges a new shooter can hold to in any practical situation.

Now, the fps per inch of barrel is very small at long lengths.
Click to expand...

That depends upon the propellant selected. Slow powders work much better in longer barrels than fast ones, and can downright suck in short barrels.

IMR7828 in a 20" barrelled .243WIN makes for impressive muzzle blast ...... the accuracy? Not so much.
 
jimbob86 said:
That depends upon the propellant selected. Slow powders work much better in longer barrels than fast ones, and can downright suck in short barrels.

IMR7828 in a 20" barrelled .243WIN makes for impressive muzzle blast ...... the accuracy? Not so much.
Click to expand...

The velocity gained per inch of barrel depends very little on what powder is selected.

Two powders might be 200fps different from each other at the same barrel length, but you're not going to gain more than 50fps in most cases and most likely 20-30fps per inch of barrel with any given powder.

Best case scenario, it is rare to gain more than 50fps per inch of barrel. Worst case with a different powder (that's still a reasonable choice for the cartridge) and all else being equal might be 25fps per inch. In most cases, any reasonable powder will make between 20 and 40fps per inch of barrel at normal lengths, say 18-24") in a center-fire rifle.

At VERY LONG barrel lengths, much longer than would normally be on a rifle such as 36", there is virtually no difference in changing fps per inch between powders and virtually no change at all in actual fps. Once you get above about 34", you gain only 3-5fps per inch for most cartridges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top