I used to shoot a 25-06 but the rifle got too heavy for me and I didn't like the balance of my Remington model 700. I'm getting older and I have dislocated both of my shoulders and I wanted to find a gun that I could shoot off hand if I had to. I love my CZ Varmint rifle in .223. It is a tack driver and a joy to shoot even off hand. When I was shooting my 25-06 I was loading for the eventual opportunity to shoot an elk, so I loaded 100 grain Barnes X Bullets and 120 grain Hornady's. The X Bullets are deadly on deer. But I digress. I'm having a CZ 557 Sporter Short Action re barreled for .260 Remington. And I am looking to work up a load. The longest bullet that Barnes makes in a .264 is 130 grains. I have always liked the accuracy and killing power of the Barnes bullets and would be happy just loading 130 grain bullets. But before I start to buy bullets I'm wondering if there might be an advantage to 140 grain bullets. Are they more accurate? I know that they would have more energy down range. People seem to like shooting the 140 grain bullets from their 6.5mm rifles. Any advice?

I can't imagine the Barnes TSX 130 not being up to any task you want to use a 260 for if your rifle likes the bullet.
I use 140 Cup and core for my son's whitetail hunting and 140 Nosler Partition for his Elk hunting.
No specific advantage to the 140's in my opinion. 129 Hornady Cup and core has a great reputation and many folks swear by the 125 Partition. All sorts of 120 Cup and core are great on Deer. On a side note, the 160 RN's work just great in the 260 as one would expect as well.

Although I have never used anything except 140gr C&C bullets in my .260, a good 120gr C&C would give you slightly less recoil and with careful placement would do the job.

I like the 140's in the 260. In my 12 yr old son's 260, I originally loaded 120 Sierra Pro Hunters to keep recoil down since he is on the small size and he took a deer or two with them. For a trip to Africa in 2016, I loaded up some 140 gr Sierra Gamekings for him to see how he would do. The rifle shot them very well, probably better than the 120's. The kid did fine with them and and neither he nor I could detect any noticeable increase in recoil. I'm sure there was though no matter how slight. Now he shoots the 140's exclusively. I also load them in my 6.5x55 and am beyond please with how well they perform on game and on paper. I like the 160 Hornady RN in my Swede too.
I think the 120's or 130's would work fine but I'm a heavier bullet fan so I would opt for the 140's if your rifle shoots them well..Bigger is always better!

I agree; I would use the 140s and load them so you can handle the recoil. Why? Because they have more mass, and lighter bullets, while maybe higher velocity, has less. I think on an elk the is important but precise bullet placement is paramount.

The 125 gr Nosler partition or the 120 gr Accubond or even a lighter bullet like 100 gr or 120 gr Ballistic tip will give great results on deer and be kinder on your shoulder.

I got great results with the 125 gr partition in a 6.5X55 Swed at 2950 fps and that is close to 270 Win territory.

Depending on the range you are shooting at, you can load down to 2600 fps and still have a great deer rifle out to 200 meters.

If using a "Mono Metal" bullet why not drop down in weight, that is the customary method.
Try 120 grain or less in a Barnes, GMX or Nosler version.
Win win, higher velocity less recoil and deep penetration.
I have never understood that the 130 grain bullet is the king in a .270 but if you shoot anything .264" you must move up to a 140? makes no sense to me.
Good luck with your project.

The issue of 130gr or 140 gr in 270 vs 6.5 is not an issue of ballistic logic. I feel that it is a cultural / historical issue.

Starting with the 1890s, most of the 6.5 cal cartridges were originally made with 156 / 160 gr bullets at 2000 fps to 2400 fps. Barrels were fast twist 1:7.5 & 1:8 inches.

The 140gr bullets and others were added on later for hunting smaller game - 2600 fps and even more for the light 85 gr bullets.

I think it was the 6.5X68S that the Europeans (1938) made with the modern high velocity hype.

On the other hand the Americans wanted faster and even faster. Roy Weatherby is the legend of this philosophy. Winchester did this with the 270 way back in 1925. Barrel twist is more like 1:10 IIRC. Even the American 264 Win Mag had a twist of 1:9 inch!

There is very little hunting done in Europe (read traditional Europe before WW2 up to the 1980s) where deer, chamois & pigs etc are shot beyond 200 meters. Look at it in the cultural / historical context that the 6.5 cal was very popular in the Scandinavian countries & used a lot on Moose & even Polar Bear and it makes even more sense.

Bullets were also designed accordingly with heavier jackets for the 160gr RN and 140 gr sp bullets.

OTOH the US has the wide plains and the mountains where such long shots beyond 300 meters are not uncommon.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
If using a "Mono Metal" bullet why not drop down in weight, that is the customary method.
Try 120 grain or less in a Barnes, GMX or Nosler version.
Win win, higher velocity less recoil and deep penetration.
I have never understood that the 130 grain bullet is the king in a .270 but if you shoot anything .264" you must move up to a 140? makes no sense to me.
Good luck with your project.

I need to look at cartridges of the world for more history.

I am sure it will confirm my original comment that it is a historical / cultural issue.

I use the 120 grain Barnes TSX in my 6.5x284, if I load copper for my 260 it's the bullet that I would try first.

I guarantee you there is absolutely no difference in performance on animals between 130 and 140 grain bullets.

I have tried them on literally hundreds of African plains game in a 270 Ackley, and could not see any difference whatsoever.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I guarantee you there is absolutely no difference in performance on animals between 130 and 140 grain bullets.

I have tried them on literally hundreds of African plains game in a 270 Ackley, and could not see any difference whatsoever.

I agree unless one is using a radically different bullet design. One well not see any difference.

I found that unless one moves up several calibers and around a 100 grs of bullet weight there isn't much difference.

Using the same type of bullet of approximately the same weight or SD one well receive the same performance within a couple of calibers.