second guessing my caliber choice

[markm]

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.

I don't think there's a mistake we haven't made.

[CC556]

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.

[taliv]

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.

[CC556]

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.

[C-grunt]

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]

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.

[runngun]

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]

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]

For your enjoyment
http://www.longrangehunting.com/arti...-caliber-1.php

http://www.longrangehunting.com/arti...nchester-1.php

[jpipes]

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.