Hello, I'm new to this forum, so I hope I'm posting this in the right room. My question is really more about the rifle than it is the caliber, but I couldn't find a forum on rifles alone. Anyway, here's my question: I am looking for a small, lightweight rifle for backpack hunting. I do most of my deer hunting for mule deer in the Cascade Mountains of Washington, and it almost always involves hiking in several miles. For almost 30 year I've used a Savage Model 99 in .250-3000, but now that I'm getting older and the weight of a rifle and pack are becoming harder to carry mile after mile, I'm after a "carbine" style rifle. I have been thinking very strongly of the Remington Model 7 SS in 7mm-08, but then I saw a magazine add for the little Ruger 77 Compact rifle, with the 16" barrel. I looked at one in .243 today at a local gunshop and was surprised at how nicely it mounted and how handy it was. I'm thinking very strongly of buying this rifle, but am wondering about caliber choice. There's no arguing that the .243 will do everything I would ask of it - and more, but since I've hunted with a .250 all my life I'm partial to .25's. I've read the ballistics on the .260 and it looks really good on paper - about on par with the old 6.5x55, which I've always liked. I'm just wondering how much velocity loss I would be losing from such a short barrel. Would it be significant? My brother in law, who has hunted every year for 45 years in my state alone, and many more hunts in Canada, says his longest shot ever was about 125 yards. We hunt the same country so I'm assuming I might be able to get a way with diminshed velocity. Anyway, I'm running off at the mouth here and not really saying anything. I would appreciate hearing from others on your feelings about this rifle vs. the Rem. Mod. 7, and the .243 vs. .260 & 7mm-08 (in the Model 7). I wish Ruger had built this little rifle in .250-3000!
Thank you.
Cliff
Seattle

Look at Rugers Ultra Light also. The barrel is 20" but it's still very light and handy. With it's forend tip the Ultra Light is the best looking of the bunch too.

The 260 Rem shoots a much bigger bullet than the .243 Win and as the caliber increases with the same barrel length the increased "expansion ratio" will loose less velocity with a short barrel. The engergies are about 2100 fpe for the .243, and 2500 for the 260 Rem. The 7/08 and .308 have more power yet.

The muzzle blast is going to be something with that short barrel with any of those cartridges.

Here I found you a .250 Ruger M-77 at http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/006123.html

[ 05-31-2002, 07:47: Message edited by: Don Martin29 ]

Sounds like you already have a good plan. Get the weight down and go from there. The only problem I have with the 260 Remington is that not many other ammunition manufacturers are making stuff for it. For that reason I would be more tempted to go for a 7mm-08 or a 308 Win. Honestly, if you are not shooting over 125 yards, there must be quite a bit of cover around. Because of that I would recommend going with a 308 Win. caliber just to make sure and have a good blood trail in case the animal runs off a ways. One of the Ruger lever action 44 magnum rifles would probably work good enough. Mine handles more like a .22 whenever I shoot it, except for the recoil.

So many choices. So few hunting seasons.

I absolutly love the 250 savage... its always nice to hear when others do. Actually you are in quite a predicament... any 308 based cartridge is a dangerious thing... as a person can fall asleep shooting them . I wouldnt choose the 243 mostly because its a slap in the face for any 250 savage owner (the 250 savage was the original deer/varmiter untill the 257 roberts and 243 took a bite). If you reload, any of the others would do... if not I would lean twards the 7mm-08.
take care sf

The Ruger Compact is a prett little thing, hardly bigger than a 77/22. It would be a dream to carry.
I really doubt that you would lose a great deal of velocity in the 20" barrel. and if you handload you should be able to find a powder load combination that diminishes the loss.
As for the .260 I think it is one great round. As you say very simular to the 6.5-55 that has taken everything that moves on earth(including Elephant). For some Bizzare reason the 6.5 has never gotten the respect it deserves in North America. I have a friend that shoots the 260 in 1000 yd Benchrest matches and does very well. He originally built it as a live Varmint Rifle on a 788 action with a factory VSS barrel.
A 260 is very high on my list of "Gotta Haves".
It is one very well balanced Cartridge.
As was said earlier factory loads are limited but there is a lot of high quality components available to a Handloader. The only thing missing is a custom Benchrest quality Bullet and with the popularity of the 6.5 at longrange I think that will come soon. When it does I think I will build a 6.5 HBR Rifle.

Guys, thanks very much for sharing your opinions with me. I do appreciate it very much.
Don: Thanks for the url to that .250-3000 dicsussion, and I am looking at the Ruger Ultra light, too. It's just that this little Ruger Compact is almost perfect for a short barreled, high powered rifle that I can strap to my pack and not worry about the barrel hitting overhead branches, etc. I will be handloading for whatever caliber I choose, so as much as I like to 7mm-08, I'll probably stick with a smaller caliber.

Bruce: Thanks for your input. I, too, sometimes wonder about the .260 and it's impact now and ten years from now. As someone mentioned it's not that much of a deal if you handload, which I will be doing. As for the usual 125 yard shots where I hunt, what I meant by that was that my bro-in-law, who has hunted in the same country (north central Washington-the Okanogon) has taken deer there for over forty years, as well as another twenty years hunting in Saskatchewan & Ontario, and when I asked him once what the longest shot he ever made was, he answered 125 yards. I was amazed because he's always fiddling with his Rem 700 and trying to figure what bullet drop will be at 250 yards, etc., but in reality it has never really mattered, and he's killed a LOT of deer. The country we hunt is typically very mountainous terrain with pine forests opening up into grassy canyons and hills. You can walk through a thickly forrested hillside and find yourself facing a three hundred yard shot at a deer - or 75 feet. I agree with you on the big bore principal, and if it was only forest I would using a bigger bored rifle, like my 86' in .33 Win or one of my 30-40 Model 95's.

Smallfry: Me too. I own several rifles but I've had a love affair with the .250-3000 for about thirty years now. It's one of those cartridges that puts them down and it a lot of fun to shoot. Thanks.

Jim: You're right - it is a cute little toy. I went back to that shop this morning and took a second look at the gun. I'm just amazed that something that small fits me, although I'm not a big guy. It would be a dream to carry. I thank you for your advice on the gun and cartridge.

Now I'm going to throw another variable into this. This is as far as it will probably go, but it's kind of fun to use your imagination. I was bs'ing with a buddy on the phone this morning, telling hm about this, and I guess I was pissing & moaning about no chambering in this rifle for my favorite caliber - the 250-3000 (big surprise). My buddy surprised me by saying "why not make it a 250?" So we called Clowards Gunsmithing here in Seattle and I found out I could get a .250-3000 barrel chambered & installed on this little Ruger action for $445.00. Clowards feels the .243 would lose a substantial amount of energy/velocity in that short barrel because it's such a high pressure cartridge, but they feel the .250 wouldn't suffer nearly the same loss because it's a lower pressure cartridge. Additionally, I could get the barrel glass bedded for an additional $75, and the trigger tuned for $50. Plus, I could go with whatever barrel length & twist I wanted, instead of 16.5" barrel I could go with, maybe an 18" barrel. Not to let it die there, I got out my dad's old signed copy of P.O. Ackley's Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders and researched the .250 (Ackley) Improved. It's a screamer. This rifleguy feels the little scaled down Ruger would be perfect for a backpacking deer rifle. Any, I'll probably just get the .260 Rem., but it's always kind of fun to dream a little.

Thanks to all of you for your advice.

Cliff
Seattle