View Full Version : second guessing my caliber choice
I haven't bought the gun yet but I have scope base and rings. I was torn between the 22-250 or a 223. but after reading more on other short action calibers I am leaning towards the .260 or .243. the rifle will be a remmy 700. I want a long distance gun capable of 1000yrds but more for 600yds. I'm really leaning to the .260 after reading. I reload or at least I have the stuff to do it. I need to just sit down and learn how to do it
.260 Remington will easily get you out to 1,000 yards.
Failure2Stop
05-27-13, 21:16
.260 is a really neat cartridge.
I prefer 7.62 for "real work" due to the plethora of projectiles available, but I am very interested in a .260 for long range fun.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
I haven't bought the gun yet but I have scope base and rings. I was torn between the 22-250 or a 223. but after reading more on other short action calibers I am leaning towards the .260 or .243. the rifle will be a remmy 700. I want a long distance gun capable of 1000yrds but more for 600yds. I'm really leaning to the .260 after reading. I reload or at least I have the stuff to do it. I need to just sit down and learn how to do itIf by chance your more of a visual learner http://www.ammosmith.com/ammosmith-com-video-library.php good forum for learning to reload(good guys) and good loads.. And of course these the tried and true old faithful https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=109135&highlight=free+reloading+manual once ya get started, your going to kick your self for any earlier hesitation. Reloading is not hard, just time consuming and tedious.....
Coal Dragger
05-27-13, 21:44
Of the cartridges you have listed the .260 would be the best bet.
Frankly a .223 is a marginal choice for 600 yard work, and a piss poor one for 1000 yards. You simply don't have enough powder capacity to get the bullet up to a speed that is going to give long range performance. Plus .224 diameter bullets don't really have very good ballistic coefficients until you get into the really heavy for caliber offerings of 80gr or over, and then you really eat up powder capacity in a small case.
The .22-250 is an improvement over the .223 in the horsepower department, but there again heavy bullets are going to eat up too much space. Plus good luck finding a factory barrel in .22-250 with a twist rate fast enough for a bullet much heavier than 60gr.
Also worth serious consideration are the 6.5mm Creedmoor, and the 6.5mmX47 Lapua. Both have performance pretty much equivalent to the .260 Remington, although both will offer some advantages to the reloader where brass is concerned. Namely the .260 Remington has a shorter neck than many accuracy nuts would prefer, and the 6.5mm Creedmoor corrects this "problem". One nice thing about the 6.5mm Creedmoor is that Hornady factory loads have the load printed on the box, so you can duplicate them very easily if they shoot well.
Of the cartridges you have listed the .260 would be the best bet.
Frankly a .223 is a marginal choice for 600 yard work, and a piss poor one for 1000 yards. You simply don't have enough powder capacity to get the bullet up to a speed that is going to give long range performance. Plus .224 diameter bullets don't really have very good ballistic coefficients until you get into the really heavy for caliber offerings of 80gr or over, and then you really eat up powder capacity in a small case.
The .22-250 is an improvement over the .223 in the horsepower department, but there again heavy bullets are going to eat up too much space. Plus good luck finding a factory barrel in .22-250 with a twist rate fast enough for a bullet much heavier than 60gr.
Also worth serious consideration are the 6.5mm Creedmoor, and the 6.5mmX47 Lapua. Both have performance pretty much equivalent to the .260 Remington, although both will offer some advantages to the reloader where brass is concerned. Namely the .260 Remington has a shorter neck than many accuracy nuts would prefer, and the 6.5mm Creedmoor corrects this "problem". One nice thing about the 6.5mm Creedmoor is that Hornady factory loads have the load printed on the box, so you can duplicate them very easily if they shoot well.
ok 6.5 i'm interested. what would I do, buy a 260 and swap out the barrel?
.260 is a really neat cartridge.
I prefer 7.62 for "real work" due to the plethora of projectiles available, but I am very interested in a .260 for long range fun.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
i'm way out of my lane when it comes to terminal ballistics discussions. however, if the consensus is "shot placement is more important than bullet selection" and you get more hits with a 260 (they call them cheater cartridges for a reason) i think it's worth pondering for 'real work'.
granted, logistics such as ammo availability, barrel life, etc still heavily favor 308. probably forensic data as well on the LEO side.
i'm just saying, if i miss my wind call at 500 yards by 5 mph, that's 12" with a 308 vs 8" with a 260, both shooting SMKs. using an ipsc for reference, that's a complete miss vs d-zone hit. @ 2.5mph wind est error, that's 6" vs 4" which is C zone vs A zone hits.
again, honestly i don't know. but would a better 308 bullet in the C zone be a better choice than a 140g in the A zone?
Coal Dragger
05-27-13, 22:44
ok 6.5 i'm interested. what would I do, buy a 260 and swap out the barrel?
Well depending on your budget you could just buy an action and have the rifle built.
Alternately if you can find a heavy match barrel equipped .260 just buy it and shoot! I was just throwing out some other options.
For that matter unless you're hell bent on a short action you could go 6.5mmX284 Norma and gain 250+fps over a .260.
Not really sure what your purpose for the gun is. I started down the target load path for accuracy, and thought I researched out some good stuff, then talked to very confident smith/shooter, and he knew what I wanted to do, and knew my income. He ended up telling me that for what I wanted, that I was going to need everything custom built, to use some of the reloading tools I had already purchased, and that I was possibly going down a road I really shouldn't. Eventually I understood what he was talking about. If you are into 1000yd comp, check out what is being used for this in your area, within your budget. Some used to use 22ppc, 6mmbr, 308, and 300's. I've been out of that for quite some time now.
Frankly a .223 is a marginal choice for 600 yard work, and a piss poor one for 1000 yards. You simply don't have enough powder capacity to get the bullet up to a speed that is going to give long range performance. Plus .224 diameter bullets don't really have very good ballistic coefficients until you get into the really heavy for caliber offerings of 80gr or over, and then you really eat up powder capacity in a small case.
Do you have experience with a 223 bolt gun at distance?
The 223 is the perfect cartridge for 600 and in, especially with the heavies (75+). You get less recoil, less cost to load, and performance equal (if not better) than most .30 cal offerings. This hold especially true when you have a properly set-up long range .223. I am sending a berger 82 BTHP, pointed, at 2900, which keeps the bullet supersonic to 1200 yards. Inside of 800, I'll take that over just about everything else.
At 800, that combo is 5.9 mils/1.7 mils...at 1000 I am 8.7/2.3. All assuming a 1500 DA and a 10mph 3:00 wind. In comparison, my 308 sending 155 scenars at 2925 is 5.9/1.7 and 8.8/2.3. In other words, I am getting 308 palma-ish load performance in my 223 with half the powder, half the recoil, and half the bullet cost. I also have double (if not more) the barrel life of the 22-250 that people seem to think is superior.
The two downsides are 1) there isn't a lot of energy downrange with the 82gr bullets, so spotting impacts and misses requires you to be johnny on the spot at distance, and 2) it helps to point the bullet, which is another step in the reloading process.
The positives far outweigh the negatives, and the numbers don't lie. A properly set-up 223 is an excellent 1000 yard gun. Bullet/powder technology has come such a long way, and we aren't stuck shooting m193 anymore.
Littlelebowski
05-28-13, 07:49
Do you reload? Do you plan to hunt with this rifle?
Of the cartridges you have listed the .260 would be the best bet.
Frankly a .223 is a marginal choice for 600 yard work, and a piss poor one for 1000 yards.
That's funny. I did a bolt action double tap last weekend where I got two shots off at 1000 on an IPSC 1/4" steel before the audible report on the first one got back to us.
PISS POOR!!:agree:
Do you have experience with a 223 bolt gun at distance?
The 223 is the perfect cartridge for 600 and in, especially with the heavies (75+). You get less recoil, less cost to load, and performance equal (if not better) than most .30 cal offerings. This hold especially true when you have a properly set-up long range .223. I am sending a berger 82 BTHP, pointed, at 2900, which keeps the bullet supersonic to 1200 yards. Inside of 800, I'll take that over just about everything else.
He's full of shit. Christ... we took Pappabears 12.5" with an ACOG out to 700 yards. 800 too, but at that distance we were very spotty on hits.
i'm way out of my lane when it comes to terminal ballistics discussions. however, if the consensus is "shot placement is more important than bullet selection" and you get more hits with a 260 (they call them cheater cartridges for a reason) i think it's worth pondering for 'real work'.
granted, logistics such as ammo availability, barrel life, etc still heavily favor 308. probably forensic data as well on the LEO side.
i'm just saying, if i miss my wind call at 500 yards by 5 mph, that's 12" with a 308 vs 8" with a 260, both shooting SMKs. using an ipsc for reference, that's a complete miss vs d-zone hit. @ 2.5mph wind est error, that's 6" vs 4" which is C zone vs A zone hits.
again, honestly i don't know. but would a better 308 bullet in the C zone be a better choice than a 140g in the A zone?
Again, not touching on department logistics etc...
The 6.5 cartridges are commonly used for hunting, and there are many excellent bullets available from all the major manufacturers that would be suitable for applications where terminal ballistics are a prime concern.
That's funny. I did a bolt action double tap last weekend where I got two shots off at 1000 on an IPSC 1/4" steel before the audible report on the first one got back to us.
PISS POOR!!:agree:
He's full of shit. Christ... we took Pappabears 12.5" with an ACOG out to 700 yards. 800 too, but at that distance we were very spotty on hits.
I'm always amazed the .223 is a viable rnd at those distances with the proper set up. The .223 is clearly the little bullet "that could" :cool:
And to be clear, I couldn't hit a target with a LAW rocket at 1000 yards but really enjoy reading about those who can.
And to be clear, I couldn't hit a target with a LAW rocket at 1000 yards but really enjoy reading about those who can.
Pappabear is always pushing us. I was just pinging away at it... and he's like... double tap it. :p
Really the biggest challenge is finding the land. It took us a while to get good at doing it. Now we put our new buddies on the gun, give them a wind call, and they get a hit on their first try. :rolleyes: After ALL that work we put into learning it. :p
Failure2Stop
05-28-13, 10:08
i'm way out of my lane when it comes to terminal ballistics discussions. however, if the consensus is "shot placement is more important than bullet selection" and you get more hits with a 260 (they call them cheater cartridges for a reason) i think it's worth pondering for 'real work'.
granted, logistics such as ammo availability, barrel life, etc still heavily favor 308. probably forensic data as well on the LEO side.
i'm just saying, if i miss my wind call at 500 yards by 5 mph, that's 12" with a 308 vs 8" with a 260, both shooting SMKs. using an ipsc for reference, that's a complete miss vs d-zone hit. @ 2.5mph wind est error, that's 6" vs 4" which is C zone vs A zone hits.
again, honestly i don't know. but would a better 308 bullet in the C zone be a better choice than a 140g in the A zone?
Agreed that hits are better than misses, and hits where you want them are better than hits "somewhere on target". It's why I'm interested in one to play with at long range.
I simply have more experience with 7.62 projectiles as far as what they do terminally and how they perform after going through other stuff. Maybe there are plenty of .260 projectiles that have enough supporting data to coerce folks into their use for "work", I simply do not. Nothing against the cartridge, it holds a lot of promise.
The other issue for me is one of simple function. I have a bit of time with 7.62 semi-auto guns, but none with .260. I would like to get a .260 upper, but I don't think that it is going to happen any time soon.
Pappabear is always pushing us. I was just pinging away at it... and he's like... double tap it. :p
Really the biggest challenge is finding the land. It took us a while to get good at doing it. Now we put our new buddies on the gun, give them a wind call, and they get a hit on their first try. :rolleyes: After ALL that work we put into learning it. :p
Only place I have ever seen 1000 yard range was when I was in NV. Where I'm from (NE) 1000 yards and you're into another state!
So, 1000 yards of flat open space that also happens to be a range, is very rare indeed in my area, but I can't say I have searched far and wide for such a thing as I have neither the equipment nor the skill sets to make take advantage of such a thing.
Regarding hunting....let me also say that many a deer and hogs have died from my 223. 75 amaxes and 75 SS2's do wicked things to mid-sized game animals. Again, bullet/powder selection are very important, but not more important than shot placement...which comes from practice...which the .223 allows you to do in abundance and on the cheap.
You may be able to find a Remington 700 Varmint in 260.
A 22-250 or 223 (with a fast twist barrel) make a fine 600-yard rifle. They will keep up with a 7.62 until the wind kicks up. As a starting shooter you gain nothing using them at 1,000, as 80 and 90 grain bullets require an experienced shooter to be on his "A" game.
A 260 with premium match bullets and good velocity will shoot inside a 175-grain 7.62 at 1,000 on paper or steel targets. If you are shooting at people shooting back at you or game animals (depending on your wind-reading and shooting ability) you may want the kinetic energy behind a heavier 30-caliber bullet.
There are many, many good 6.5 bullets on the market.
Really the biggest challenge is finding the land. It took us a while to get good at doing it. Now we put our new buddies on the gun, give them a wind call, and they get a hit on their first try. :rolleyes: After ALL that work we put into learning it. :p
heh, i know exactly how you feel. yesterday my 15 yo daughter first-rounded an 8" plate at 600 yards and then was 3 for 5 on a plate past 1000 yards and then went 5 for 5 on a partially exposed flapper behind a ipsc hostage head at 320 yards. (with factory ammo) no big deal to her. she can't understand why we all think this is so hard.
I have neither the equipment nor the skill sets to make take advantage of such a thing.
I'll tell you that if We can do it.... ANYONE can.:p
I don't think there's a mistake we haven't made.
You may be able to find a Remington 700 Varmint in 260.
A 22-250 or 223 (with a fast twist barrel) make a fine 600-yard rifle. They will keep up with a 7.62 until the wind kicks up. As a starting shooter you gain nothing using them at 1,000, as 80 and 90 grain bullets require an experienced shooter to be on his "A" game.
A 260 with premium match bullets and good velocity will shoot inside a 175-grain 7.62 at 1,000 on paper or steel targets. If you are shooting at people shooting back at you or game animals (depending on your wind-reading and shooting ability) you may want the kinetic energy behind a heavier 30-caliber bullet.
There are many, many good 6.5 bullets on the market.
Depending on the distances we're talking about a more aerodynamic 6.5mm bullet, while starting out with a little less kinetic energy than a .308 at the muzzle, will often have more kinetic energy than that same .308 bullet by the time they've both travelled a few hundred yards downrange.
you know, it's kind of weird. i know the calculators and ME formula show the 308 inferior at distance, but i have these ipsc 3/8" steel knock down targets and my 260 won't knock them down at 1000 unless i hit them in the head, and my 6mm won't knock them down even with a head shot. but the 308, which is near subsonic there, still knocks them over even with a body shot.
i've been scratching my head over that one for some months.
you know, it's kind of weird. i know the calculators and ME formula show the 308 inferior at distance, but i have these ipsc 3/8" steel knock down targets and my 260 won't knock them down at 1000 unless i hit them in the head, and my 6mm won't knock them down even with a head shot. but the 308, which is near subsonic there, still knocks them over even with a body shot.
i've been scratching my head over that one for some months.
Same as when shooting matches and 308s make steel ring nicely at 1k while my little 6mm bullets are much harder to hear. Just a guess, but I bet the slower/heavier .30cal bullets transfer more of their energy to the target than the lighter and faster bullets do as they splatter against the steel. Obviously if we're talking about shooting something that the bullet actually goes into (and stays inside) then in either case the target absorbs all the energy that each bullet has.
you know, it's kind of weird. i know the calculators and ME formula show the 308 inferior at distance, but i have these ipsc 3/8" steel knock down targets and my 260 won't knock them down at 1000 unless i hit them in the head, and my 6mm won't knock them down even with a head shot. but the 308, which is near subsonic there, still knocks them over even with a body shot.
i've been scratching my head over that one for some months.
I'd say the heavier 308s have more momentum than the lighter and faster 6.5s. I see the same thing at the range at work with handguns. The 45s always knock down the steel while the 40s and 9s don't.
Coal Dragger
05-28-13, 17:37
Do you have experience with a 223 bolt gun at distance?
The 223 is the perfect cartridge for 600 and in, especially with the heavies (75+). You get less recoil, less cost to load, and performance equal (if not better) than most .30 cal offerings. This hold especially true when you have a properly set-up long range .223. I am sending a berger 82 BTHP, pointed, at 2900, which keeps the bullet supersonic to 1200 yards. Inside of 800, I'll take that over just about everything else.
At 800, that combo is 5.9 mils/1.7 mils...at 1000 I am 8.7/2.3. All assuming a 1500 DA and a 10mph 3:00 wind. In comparison, my 308 sending 155 scenars at 2925 is 5.9/1.7 and 8.8/2.3. In other words, I am getting 308 palma-ish load performance in my 223 with half the powder, half the recoil, and half the bullet cost. I also have double (if not more) the barrel life of the 22-250 that people seem to think is superior.
The two downsides are 1) there isn't a lot of energy downrange with the 82gr bullets, so spotting impacts and misses requires you to be johnny on the spot at distance, and 2) it helps to point the bullet, which is another step in the reloading process.
The positives far outweigh the negatives, and the numbers don't lie. A properly set-up 223 is an excellent 1000 yard gun. Bullet/powder technology has come such a long way, and we aren't stuck shooting m193 anymore.
Yes I do, and frankly compared to the other calibers listed the performance is marginal at best. Clearly you're a .223 fan, so am I. Just not for 1000 yard work.
I've bushwhacked p-dogs at 600-ish with a .223 so I know you can get hits, but wind calls are tougher and frankly the results on target are a bit underwhelming when the round gets there.
You may want to try the 6.5mm Creedmoor. It is the ballistic twin of the .260, and has factory ammo available from Hornady. This way you are not dependent on reloading right away.
Other options are 6.5x47 Lapua, 6x47 Lapua, 6mm Creedmoor, .243, or 6XC. all will perform better than 22-250, .223, or .308 at 1000 yards.
While there is no doubt that .223 and .308 can be used effectively at extended range, the other cartridges listed above will allow a great hit probability, especially when uncertainty in range and wind speed are considered.
Coal Dragger
05-28-13, 18:24
You may want to try the 6.5mm Creedmoor. It is the ballistic twin of the .260, and has factory ammo available from Hornady. This way you are not dependent on reloading right away.
Other options are 6.5x47 Lapua, 6x47 Lapua, 6mm Creedmoor, .243, or 6XC. all will perform better than 22-250, .223, or .308 at 1000 yards.
While there is no doubt that .223 and .308 can be used effectively at extended range, the other cartridges listed above will allow a great hit probability, especially when uncertainty in range and wind speed are considered.
Careful, or you too will be labeled as "full of shit" by the .223 for everything fan club on here. I suppose to some ease of getting results, and effectiveness on target are not to be considered in this equation. Only cheaper ammo and marginally less recoil in a 13+lb rifle that isn't going to kick much anyway.
ICANHITHIMMAN
05-28-13, 19:01
For your enjoyment
http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/30-caliber-1.php
http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/308-winchester-1.php
Careful, or you too will be labeled as "full of shit" by the .223 for everything fan club on here. I suppose to some ease of getting results, and effectiveness on target are not to be considered in this equation. Only cheaper ammo and marginally less recoil in a 13+lb rifle that isn't going to kick much anyway.
Come on now, you're better than that.
You said the .223 was marginal for 600 yard work, and the OP mentioned nothing about "effectiveness on target". We provided proven data to refute that. Nothing more, nothing less.
Coal Dragger
05-28-13, 19:36
Jpipes,
I don't recall you saying I was full of shit. That was another member.
At any rate I will still stand by my position that selecting a .223 for 1000 yard shooting, even of paper, is a less than ideal choice. I am not out here advocating a .338 Lapua for crying out loud, just a fairly mild .260 Remington or a 6.5mm Creedmoor as better choices.
Will ammo be more expensive? Sure it will be a bit more $$$ per round. Can't argue that. It will cost more to reload a .264/6.5mm than it will a .223/5.56mm both in the cost of bullets and powder charges, although realistically we're only talking about a 20gr difference in powder charge here.
I will note though that in the case of a 6.5mm Creedmoor you can just order match ammo that will work great from Hornady. Which you can't do with a .223 and loads using heavy 80-90gr match bullets, at least I don't know of any. So you're stuck with a hand loading only proposition. No getting lazy and buying a few hundred rounds of factory loads when you don't have time to reload, or don't feel like it.
Plus the ballistics of the 6.5mm in either .260 or Creedmoor form are better than a heavy .223. An 82gr Berger in .223 has a BC of .444, vs a 142gr Berger with a BC of .612, and both will start out at about 2700fps with maxed out loads according to Hodgdon. If it were me, I would pay the extra money for the 6.5mm but that is me.
I will note that personally I would put up with the relatively shorter barrel life, and step up to a 6.5mmX284 Norma, but I like that round and have some friends who have been shooting it for awhile and have gotten excellent results with it.
Thanks for all the answers guys. This gun will see some hunting but nothing bigger than a coyote. I have messed around with my brothers bolt .223 and we were hitting 500yds pretty good with it. I have a 650yd range on my property and we are trying to clear it out for 1100. so I wanted something more. I do reload but I just got into it so with the 6.5 having more factory options that sounds like a better option for me.
so onto the next question. I don't want to say money isn't an object here because I've seen the price tag on some of these rifles, but I do want a tack driver. I would say my budget is around $2000 without optic. what are some options? again I want to stick with the 700 action because I already have $250 in seekins base & rings and I am familiar with them.
Coal Dragger
05-28-13, 21:41
Well.... that's a tough one since you are married to your bases. Just kidding, no reason not to use a Remington 700 if that is what you like. I have a personal grudge against Remington because I was once fired from a part time job while in college for telling the them CEO of Remington (Tommy Milner I think is what his name was) that the newly released Model 710 was a pile of crap. He didn't like hearing the truth. So for illogical reasons only affecting my particular brand of psychosis I don't buy Remington products of any description.
You should be able to get a Remington 700 pretty close to what you want in .260 Remington. If you want a factory 6.5mm Creedmoor you'll probably need to look elsewhere. One option would be a Cooper M54 Phoenix in 6.5mm Creedmoor, although you'd need a different scope base with that action. I have 2 Coopers, one in .22LR and another in .280 Ackley Improved and both shoot like hell is on fire for what it's worth. Then again you will be right up against your budget with a Cooper, but they are already glass bedded, action is blue printed, etc.
Thanks for all the answers guys. This gun will see some hunting but nothing bigger than a coyote. I have messed around with my brothers bolt .223 and we were hitting 500yds pretty good with it. I have a 650yd range on my property and we are trying to clear it out for 1100. so I wanted something more. I do reload but I just got into it so with the 6.5 having more factory options that sounds like a better option for me.
so onto the next question. I don't want to say money isn't an object here because I've seen the price tag on some of these rifles, but I do want a tack driver. I would say my budget is around $2000 without optic. what are some options? again I want to stick with the 700 action because I already have $250 in seekins base & rings and I am familiar with them.
Remington doesn't currently offer a rifle in .260Rem, and IIRC they only ever offered one rifle for a limited time chambered in it. Other than finding one of those (and modifying it to suit your purposes) another option is to build one. Any of the short action .473" boltface 700s would work fine, pawn shops are a good place to look as well as places like walmart or other chain stores that sell basic models. Once you have a donor rifle you can have a gunsmith chamber and install a 6.5mm barrel and you'll have a .260 or any other chambering you want. You can build a pretty nice rifle with a $2000 budget.
Another option that might save a little cash is to check out used rifles somewhere like the for sale forums on Sniper's Hide.
Remington doesn't currently offer a rifle in .260Rem, and IIRC they only ever offered one rifle for a limited time chambered in it. Other than finding one of those (and modifying it to suit your purposes) another option is to build one. Any of the short action .473" boltface 700s would work fine, pawn shops are a good place to look as well as places like walmart or other chain stores that sell basic models. Once you have a donor rifle you can have a gunsmith chamber and install a 6.5mm barrel and you'll have a .260 or any other chambering you want. You can build a pretty nice rifle with a $2000 budget.
Another option that might save a little cash is to check out used rifles somewhere like the for sale forums on Sniper's Hide.
thanks! that's just what I needed to hear.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.