I was looking in the latest version of the Nosler reloading book. It shows that the .260 is faster with every bullet and with less powder charge. The sweed test barrel is 1" shorter but not enough to make this much difference. Would you people say that the .260 is more efficient?
Maybe overall a better cartridge or is Nosler being unfair in their data?

It's just some magic, called higher pressure.

When loaded to equal pressures and barrel lengths, the 6.5X55 will be 50 fps faster than the 260 Remington. It holds a couple grains more powder. The 260 is more efficient, but not by much. Both are fine cartridges, the 260 has the advantage of fitting into a 2.8" short action rifle, the 6.5 swede uses a 3.1" OAL, and it usually chambered in long actions.

Twist that 6.5x55 into an improved chamber, and realy watch the magic...

I have Sakos in both 260 and 6.5x55. Actually, I just finished reloading some 6.5x55 not more than 10 minutes ago. My favorite load for the Swede is 48.5 grains of RL-19, Lapua cases, CCI primers under a 120 grain NBT for 3000+ fps. I get about the same out of my 260 using H4350 with NBTs. I don't recall the powder charge but it's about 47 or 48 grains. The only advantage for the 260 is that you can use a shorter action; however, depending on the short action you can't seat the bullets out very far like you can using a 6.5x55 in a long action. When using the longer bullets, i.e., 140-160 grain bullets, you really need the extra length. As far as accuracy both shoot .3-.5 inches if I do my part.

[ 08-04-2003, 08:47: Message edited by: DOCTOR LOU ]

Docter Lou is right on the money with the longer heavier projectiles...

Doctor Lou is the first guy to hit the nail on the head. However any one who loads both will tell you they are pretty interchangable. However if you have a modern higher pressure standing action, and you use slower powders with heavier bullets, you will get a velocity edge out of the Swedish cartridge. However, before we start another battle on here, the difference is not going to mean a lot in the field at all.

Both are very accurate. Just loaded and shot some today myself.

Just as an interesting footnote ( no invitation for an argument or invitation to slander my family tree), I shoot a 6.5 x 57 also. I use 257 Roberts brass from Winchester necked up.

In my 260, since I prefer Winchester brass over Remington, I usually neck down 308 and 7/08 cases for the 260.

Although the 6.5 x 57 case would seem to hold more powder being 57 mm long, vs the 51 mm of the 308 7/08 cases, I filled the 57mm case full with H 380 and then the 260 cases reformed from 7/08 and 308. the smaller case only held one less grain of H 380 before it overflowed compared to the 57mm case.

I then did the same thing with some Remington 260 cases and the same results.

so case capacity must not be that much difference between the two.

When I download a 260, I often use data for a 6.5 mm Carcano or a 6.5 x54 Mannlicher. velocity chronys right at what the manual listed for the other two cartridges. Mid burn rate powders being used, ( RL 15, IMR 4064, 4895, H 380< W 748)

You'll see big differences in velocities for the 6.5 sweede as different throat dimensions etc are common. If you want to build a model 7 rem or something similar, go with the 260, otherwise, there isn't a lot of difference ballistically. Practically speaking, 260 ammo is going to be easier to find, not to mention cheaper. The 6.5 probably has a bit more glamor though being an old war-horse with a lot of history behind it. I'd go with the 260 personally just because 308 based cases are practically free at the range, and it tends to be very easy to make shoot well.

The reason a lot of load data favors the .260 is the fear that someone will touch off a 60,000 PSI load in a 6.5x55 military Mauser and grenade the rifle. So, they print load data that's on the mild side for a modern bolt action.

No need to do so with the .260.

I like the 6.5x55 and 7x57 better than the .260 and 7-08 because I like classic cartridges. Practically speaking, both scions of the .308 are fine rounds and I hope they have long and productive lives.

The .260 makes a fine light-recoil deer rig.

BigIron

[ 08-06-2003, 04:06: Message edited by: BigIron ]

Due to the fact that brass is still used and powders are still basically the same ( Both are more consistant now maybe ); The physics and metallurgy behind the design of a HUNTING CARTRIDGE really hasn't changed much in the last 100 years or so. For consistant feeding in magazine rifles and preclude stuck cases in chambers you need to taper the cartridge and not get wild with the shoulder angle. To handle long and deadly bullets you need a long neck. The old geezers may not have had CAD computers; but they understood the physics & mechanics of the job based on practical application & field knowledge. Thats why the basic Mauser cartridge design; tweeked by caliber; is still about as good as it gets. By the way; the 30-06 is a very slightly modified mauser cartridge design. Yep; just like the 1903 A3 rifle we "borrowed" it from the Mauser design. In single shot applications or where feeding and extraction are compromised; then there are legitimate design enhancements for speed or accuracy. But these are limited in scope. Don't think these new "designs" are in and of themselves better. The feeding problems with the new short fat magnum designs were known about and predicted 100 years ago. Thats why the old cartridges are still the best. They got it right the first time.

My 6.5x55 is a Remington 700 Classic. That's as modern and strong an action as you'll find. It can be loaded safely to more than match the .260Rem. That 6.5x55 is accurate with everything from 85gr. to 160gr. In fact I use it for moose with the Sierra 160gr. SPSP. There is a phenominal range of bullets available for all the .264's. I personally like the .260Rem. but it has nothing on the 6.5x55. It's starting to catch on with N. American shooters, and it only took
110 years. Best wishes to all.

Cal - Montreal

Unless it is an old Mauser action, I use 260 Load data in the 6.5 Mauser all the time. Chronographing does not give me much less velocity than published for the 260 with the same bullet.

In the 6.5 x 55, Winchester Model 70 Featherweight, with a 26 inch barrel, using a 120 grain Nosler, with 44 grains of W 748, and a Federal Large Rifle primer, I have chronographed this load at 3250fps pretty consistently.
With 100 grain partition bullets, I have chronyed, those loads at 3500 out of the same rifle. It is long throated and the bullets are seated to touch the lands in the 120s, but the 100 grainers are a tad short, so I just seat them long. Accuracy is up to what made the 6.5 Mauser's accuracy reputation.

1894:

thanks for the references. However, if something is wrong, I don't know what it is.

The rifle was long throated to reduce pressure by barely seating the bullet in the case.

The brass is Winchester. These cases have been reloaded over 10 times each and the primer goes in just a tight as new each time, otherwise I would disgard the case.

These loads are also tested over a chronograph.
The chrony is pretty accurate, as I have compared the same loads over a Oehler ( a spendy one) and got the same readings.

I am going to humbly submit, that maybe your software manufacturer has some theoretical data or something that may be off.

The only thing else I can think is that maybe W 748 has a different burn rate in your European market than the USA market, ( however I doubt it.)

If I had had problems with this load, or had indications of high pressure, I would not be using it, and secondly definitely would not be posting it on here. I would not want to see someone hurting their firearm or themselves with some bogus load. I view that as morally and ethically responsible for all of us.

As far as what you listed for industry standards, a Ruger Mk 2 of mine in 6.5 Mauser gave close to the same as you listed. However, it is known that the Mausers are underloaded, at least on our side of the pond, ( in the land of more lawyers than common sense). When the barrel was chambered, I included some dummy rounds with the bullets seated very long, but fitting the magazine ( as the rifle had been an '06) when It was taken to the gun smith.
This is a model 70 Action also, not an older Mauser. It will handle more higher pressures.
The rifle also likes this loads most for accuracy.

These loads also are referenced with the pressures listed for the 260 Remington. The latest Nosler manual lists load for their 100 grain bullet at 3350 fps. I get that out of a 22inch barreled Ruger in 260. A long seated 6.5 Mauser has more capacity, and the long seating ability since the rifle was an '06 before rebarrel.

Any good handloader knows to work up also.
However thanks for the prospective.


[ 08-07-2003, 11:07: Message edited by: seafire ]

Well I guess the air must be thicker in England!!!

I have a 3200 fps load with 100 gr Ballistic tips and sticky bolt lift. The rifle is a modern sporter.

Be careful!

Deerdogs,

It is not the velocity, but the powder used that is giving you that Sticky bolt. What powder are you using? What rifle are you shooting it in?>
How long a throat do you have? and How deep is the bullet being seated?

All of these have an effect on a sticky bolt.

When I got my 260 Ruger, I shot a few loads straight from the book and got a sticky bolt.
I took it over at a gunsmith and had him ream the chamber out for a dummy round that took full advantage of the magazine length. That cost me about $30.00. The same load afterwards not only lost the sticky bolt, but also allows me to put more powder in the case than is listed as max, and still not have pressure problems.

My only way of telling if I have pressure problems is to reload a case 5 times and if the primer starts getting less snug after each loading then, I back off that load or scrap it all together. About as scientific as I have the opportunity to get.

Thanks.,

The comparison of the 6.5X55 and the 260 is quite interesting because reloading and modern rifle technology has such a big effect on the Swede, which has an honest 6 to 10% case capacity advantage. When pressures are equal, the Swede has a 1.5 to 3% advantage in velocity. In addition, the Swede case weighs only 1 or 2 grains less than the 30-06 and is massive in the web for its capacity. In fact, itis one of the strongest cases made.

For this reason, it is not a good case to read pressures from on the basis of bolt stick or case head expansion, and some shooters do get Seafires velocities with no symptoms of high pressure.

With the right powder, the best rule of thumb is that it is at max when you generate 2450 to 2500 ft-lbs of ME in a 24 inch barrel.

I have never been lucky enough to own or shoot a 6.5 X 55 but I have seen several people use the 6.5 X 55 and any difference between the Swede and the 260 is so minimal as to be a no issue. I know 3200 fps + is not even breathing hard in either of my 260's with the 107 Sierra MK or the 108 Lapua Scenar. While I have never shoot the 120 grain Match bullets I do have a load for the 120 gr Sierra Pro Hunter that clocks near 3100 pfs with no pressure signs at all. While developing this hunting load I tested loads up to 3300 with no problems. The load at 3100 fps is so accurate (in the .3's consistently) I couldn't ignore it. With a long throat and higher internal capcity Winchester brass that Seafire is using I don't doubt that the velocities he speaks of are achievable.

Shoot Safe, Shoot Straight.....RiverRat

RRat:
I'll have to let my chrony know that it's readings must be wrong! That is what it reads,
I am sure other rifles, may read more or less.
However, seated to touch the lands, I know you are experienced enough to know that it will yield higher velocity and pressures.

I also note that it is being obtained with midrange powders, IMR 4064 seems to be liked a lot by the 3, 260s I own, for the 120 grain and down bullets.

Like all the other experienced on here, work it up, instead of start where someone else ended up.
SAFETY first.