A friend of mine has found a Kimber of Oregon sporterized Mauser in 6.5x55 with a synthetic stock and Weaver bases at a pawn shop. He is not interested in the caliber - I have heard good things. They want $299 drive out. I have not seen the rifle as the shop is about 80 miles from me. Does anyone have any information on this type of rifle as far as quality, etc. and whether this is a good priceor not? I'm debating on whether to make the drive and spend the money. Thanks ahead of time for any info.

I've got one of these rifles and I really like it. The bolt is kinda heavy to close but I have gotten used to that. Mine has the matte silver finish (nickel plating I think) and came with a cheap Tasco scope for the same price. I have shot many groundhogs and a couple of deer with it. Neither of the deer went farther than 30yds. but they weren't that big either. If I had the money to spend and I could find one I would buy another.

I totally agree with Pythium on the 6.5 x55. The Kimber is a military Mauser sporterized. The barrel is trimmed back to 22 inches, with a Butler Creek stock. You can fibd cheaper, but they do a good job. Accuracy is a tribute to the cartridge and the military barrel's quality and accuracy.

Someone in the know would be happy to take it off your hands.

good luck with it,

seafire

Redlander

That is a old Swedish mauser that has been sporterized by Kimber. I would much rather get an unalterd 1896 or a civilan Husqvarna mauser.

Cheers
/ JOHAN

That $299 price is OK for what they are going for. Some bozo has one on Gunbroker for starting at $475 and I think "buy know" for $795. Now thats a big Laugh, Ha. He must be proud.

Some of those kimber modified swedes have origanal contour step barrels, some turned down on a lath, some with different caliber barrels.

The Kimber swedes arnt anything special at all . just simple cheap sporter conversions . I have looked at many of them. The bolt handle is just forged down , No custom stuff.

That plastic stock is just something id throw away. $299 is about tops id pay Just to get the drill/tap work and the action and barrel.

Thanks for the advice/info. I think I've decide to take that $299 and have a Model 7 Rem in 6mm Rem rebarreled to 260 Rem. I've had that gun since I was 14, but the conversion will give a more versatility to the gun while still allowing my wife or other inexperienced shooter to borrow it from time to time.

Redlander.

As a guy who shoots both the 6mm Rem and the 260, along with a 6.5 x 55, if the Remington is a long action, then consider the 6.5 x 55. The only major difference in it and the 260 is when you handload and do shoot bullets of 140 grains or more. The Swede has a little more powder capacity, that does show up in more velocity potential 2750 ( 260) to 2950 ( 6.5 x 55) with a 140.

Not making a suggestion, as much as just adding a few things to think about on the project. One shooter passing on his experiences to the other.

Either road I think you will love the new caliber and what it will do.

I kinda agree withseafire... If you have a long action a 6.5x55 would be more practicle and take advantage of that long action. A 260 is usualy short throated and your 140 grain bullets in a 260 are going to be seated into the case looseing powder capacity. 260 is good for 120 grainers. I guess you could build a long throated 260 for that long action though.

My 140. 160 gr 6.5x55 reloads look like torpedos the bullets are so long , seated to about .010,.020 from the lands on my model 70 and my swedeish mausers

GPS:

I also shoot the 260 owning three, one Remington VLS and then 2 Ruger 77 Mark 2's.

First with any one of them, make sure it has a one in 8 twist instead of getting suckered into a one in 9.

I have had both of my Rugers throated out for the cartridge to fit the magazine length.

With a 160 grain Hornady, in the 260 I have actually chronographed them at 2750 fps plus. That was done with a stiff charge or IMR 7828, and RL 22, and H 1000. Also with H 380, I have pushed that load to 2800 plus.

ON the last load tho, I am going to have to for one say " don't try this at home, I am a professsional (LOL)" It was hot, and the brass life will be short. if you don't know what you are doing don't even try it folks.

I'd prefer the 6.5 x 55, but don't sell the little 260 too short. A handloader can do pretty good with it. Just throat out the rifle to fit the magazine length, and make sure the twist is one in 8, never one in 9. That was strictly a left over from the 264 mag., which had enough juice to utilize a 1 in 9 twist.
Must have been hell on light jacketed bullets of 100 grains and given a muzzle velocity of 3600 to 3700 fps, or maybe that is why they had a one in 9, a one in 8 would have vaporized them, like light bullets do when I fire them at warp 9 in my one in 8 twist 6mm remington.

Hello Seafire,

You make an excellent point about the 1 in 8" twist. I have a Remington Classic in 6.5x55 with a 1 in 9" twist. I'll never know why in hell Remington produced that rifle with that twist. The rifle is very accurate, but I'm a bit limited in what it will stabilize. Otherwise it's a superb cartridge. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

Seafire,



I agree that I would lean toward the 6.5x55 on a long action. However, I do not agree that the velocity difference between the Swede and 260 shooting a 140g bullet is 200 fps. If you had said 50fps difference at equal pressures I would concur; however, there is not 200 fps difference between the two cartridges. If you assume 2,800 fps for the 260 Rem shooting a 140g bullet (slightly more than you stated), 200 fps is a 7.14% increase in velocity. Since velocity increases at 1/4 the rate case volume increases, the 6.5x55 would need 28.5% more powder space than the 260 Rem to achieve a 200fps increase at equal pressures.



I agree that slightly more velocity can be achieved when bullets are not seated deep in the case (an advantage a long action Swede has over a short action 260 shooting heavy bullets) but, the advantage is only about 50 fps (check reloading manuals and you will usually find a load that is within 50 fps of max and uses about 85% of the powder space). If you compare apples to apples (both cartridges in a short action; or, both cartridges in a long action) the 260 definitely gets the nod in the short action and neither claims an advantage in the long action)



As to a 1:8" twist vs a 1:9", that should be based on the bullet weights you like to shoot. I've seen a 1:8" twist shoot good groups with the 85g Sierra and the 1:9" shoot good groups with 140g bullets. A 1:9" twist can only be used with 140g bullets or less. I've heard some folks say the 1:9" doesn't stabilize some 140g bullets. I haven't seen this but certainly doesn't mean there are not exceptions.....especially when shooting reduced loads. I went with a 1:9" twist in a 260 AI since I mostly shoot 120g bullets or less and it has not been an issue. I didn't go with a 1:10" as I wanted the option to shoot 140g if teh notion struck me. If american factory ammo is a consideration in the Swede, I would definitly go with a 1:8" twist as the pressure and velocity are considerably reduced.



I'm sure there is a reason to shoot 160g bullets in 26 caliber but I haven't thought of it yet. Actually, the 120g Barnes XLC will probably penetrate as well as copper jacketed bullets of 140g - 160g and shoot flatter as well.



Redlander,



You will be very happy with the 260 Rem (or the 6.5x55 if you went that route). For the 260 Rem using a 24" barrel, Nosler lists 100g bullets at 3,365fps and over 3,000 fps for 120g bullets. I've read on this site where 3,500 fps is possible with the 85g Sierra and IMR-4064 but I haven't been able to try this combo yet. (BTW, I would love to hear about loads for the 95g VMax.....is 3,400fps possible?). Last year I used the 100g Partition for deer hunting. Only used it on 1 deer but am happy with the results. If Hornady came out with an Interbond that weighs between 110g - 120g, I would give it a try this fall. You will enjoy the versatility of the 260 Rem.



HogWild

HogWild,

I can see we have similar interests and tastes. My indicating a 6.5 x 55 load is what I have chronographed since the load manuals are always light on the Swede's capabilities. The load was using 140 Grain Sierra's with a Charge of 50 grains of RL 22, and Winchester Brass, with Fed 210 primer. So the figure of 2950, was observed Velocity. The rifle was a Ruger off the shelf model 77 Mk 2. Bullet was seated to touch the lands.

As far as 160 grain loads in a 260. Guess you have to have faith in the old Round Nose bullets and high sectional density.
It is a good 200 to 250 yd performer in a 260. While the Barnes X you speak of is a good penetrator, the old 160 grain bullets have been doing the same thing, since the old Swede was designed.

Many an animal the size of Moose and Polar Bear have fallen to a 160 grain, or the European 156 grain RN. Their stats on paper don't give big foot pound numbers, but anyone that has ever used them on something, can attest to their effectiveness. Even Big Bore Lover, Elmer Keith conceded the penetration capability in the 6.5 x 54 of the 160 grain RN.

Even in the olden days in Alaska before big magnums being available, the 6.5 x 54 was used in Alaska against big things.
Not high velocity, but with a .328 sectional density, it sure will go thru a lot at low velocity. Same as the old 173 to175 grain Round Nose in the 7 x 57. Alot of those and the 6,5 x 54 have taken a lot of game in africa since the beginning of the 1900s.

Cal,

I am sure Remington uses the 1 in 9 twist because that is what they used in the old 6.5 Rem Mag. Winchester also used it in the 264 Mag.

Both rounds were envisioned to use bullets of 129 grains or less, to maximize velocity and for Remington, to compete with the 270 and the 264 Mag.

The mags will stabilize a 120-129 grain load just fine. The original loads as I understand it, ( the old timers help us out if wrong) was 100 grain and 120 grain bullets. The 264 was selling the 100 grain bullet at a MV of 3600 fps as a selling feature.

With a short action in the original Model 600 Rem's, 120 grain loads were about all they would take, unless you wanted to seat a 140 way down in the case, and it took up so much powder room, that you lost the real reason to buy one, which was to compete with the 270, without using the same bore diameter, in a short action.

It will be interesting to see if the relaunch of the 6.5 Rem mag will go anywhere this time. Not that I am a short mag fan, but when you think about that Remington was launching the idea in the 1960s with the 600, the short mag is no new idea at all.
My hats off to Remington for their idea in the 1960s.

Cheers/.
Seafire