While running the 260 Remington up and down the flagpole in a fantasy ownership thought I came accross the blurb in Nosler #5 by the old slouchy hat Jim Carmichael who claims to have been working with a wildcat in the "1980's" that he wrote an article about in O.L. and therefore Remington came out with the cartridge.

In so many words he says that he thought it all up.

But a look at Parker Ackleys book dated 1962 finds that many did work on that exact same case and Ken Waters did the most according to Ackley. Waters called it the .263 Express.

I really think Carmichael is out of line in the way that he wrote that blurb for the manual. Oh well.

I was considering getting a sporter chambered for the 260 but it looks like it's going nowhere. The 7-08 seems far more popular and the 243 covers the other side.

I would have to say that the .263 Express was the first documented 6.5 on a .308 case (early 1960s).

Lee Martin
www.singleactions.com

Savage,

Depends on your question;

Who first came up with the cartridge

Or who first came up with the 260 Name?

Plain fact about Ken Waters writing about it back in 1962. I also understand those wonderful Aussies had in around as the 263 Express for a long time.

I hope you are wrong about the 260 going nowhere. When people ask me about it, I usually say it is the cross between a 270 and a 243, or it is like a 243 that you can get bullet from 85 grains to 160 grains for. Right or wrong, people seem to understand the definition

FWIW, "Cartridges of the World" gives credit to A-Square, and even lists it as the "6.5-08 A-Square".

Regards, Bill

Seafire,

I hope I am wrong about the 260 Rem. also. As you point out it spans the varmint range and also provides a significant bullet for light big game.

I looked at the ammo for sale in a big gunshop and all that they had was Rem 140's. On the other hand there were many weights of 7mm-08's for sale.

This is all part of a frenzy I just got over this morning on getting a Kimber 84M. No need to pick a cartridge anymore.

We may never truly know since someone with a surplus action, a surplus 6.5 barrel and a brand new .308 reamer probably put one together about a month after the .308 was announced. Most folks today could never imagine some of the creations of the '50s and '60s, when surplus was everywhere and factories were slow. Wild and crazy period for gun nuts.

This is funny, I just read that same page of the Nosler #5. I've also read through COTW, and if I learned anything from that it's that there's nothing new under the sun.

So while Carmichael didn't invent the 260 Remington, or any sort of 6.5-308, he can probably take credit for getting Remington to recognize the cartridge and turn it from Wildcat to factory standard. I think we can give him credit for that much.

I know you guys are mostly hunting oriented, but the 6.5-08 became a very popular wildcat in long range target circles, mostly due to the incredible ballistics of the many excellent 6.5 mm target bullets.

It is still, to this day, one of the cartridges of choice for across the course and long range shooting. It is one of the few factory chamberings in the TUBB 2000 rifle.

And speaking of David Tubb, stand by for his outstanding wildcat, the 6 mm XC, to become a factory item fairly soon. The 6XC is casically a 243 Winc case held several thou short (can't remember the exact amount) and with a 30 degree shoulder angle.

It has most excellent ballistics with 6 mm match bullets, much better barrel life than the 243 Win, feeds like shit through a goose through bolt actions, and leaves plenty of room in almost all magazines to seat the bullets waaaay out there and still fit.

I think the .260 is coming along. It wasn't too long ago that the 7-08 was unknown. I hope the .260 stays with us. I have a rifle at the smith right now being rebarrelled from a .243 to a .260. (see, there is help for you .243 owners )

What are you guys using for .260 Rem brass? Is Remington the only game in town or is there any benefit in necking up or down from other brands in 243 or 7-08?

Two things that I believe side-tracked the .260 are 1., Remington's failure at promoting the cartridge and 2., the rise of the new "don't need them, but here they are anyway so you DO need one" magnums.
The .260 has now been pretty much relegated to a reloaders cartridge as the amount of new offerings dwindle.

Savage,

I love that Kimber 84.! BEAUTIFUL Rifle!!!!

What caliber did you go with?

While I don't own a 7/08, I do have 3; 7mm Mausers.( 2 Rugers , one the result of a trade for a gun that I NEEDED to get rid of since it shot like crap, and a Winchester Featherweight)

I really can see where a guy could really cover anything bigger than 22/250 with a 260, and anything short of a 30/06 or 300 Mag with a 7/08.
The 260 wades well into the smaller calibers territory with 85 grain bullets, and the 7/08 goes into the bigger guys territory with a 175 grain spitzer.

One of my 243's will become a 7/08 in the near future. If Ruger made a 7/08 in their Stainless Laminate Model 77Mk2, I would already have one, instead of the second 7x57. If I ever had found a good 7/08 in a Winchester Featherweight, I would have bought it.

I did cancel a left handed 270 Ruger I had ordered for my son, for his first rifle, since I found out that Browning is making a left handed Micro Hunter in 7/08. I may end up with one of those myself.

I don't know why, just distribution I am sure ( I am not near the big cities) but all the 7/08 Winchesters I have seen in 7/08 were really poor on the quality control. That is why I never bought one. Not to blame it on Winchester, the good ones go to the big markets, and us hicks have to take the left overs.
The price for living in a place where you can get up at 5 am, go out on the edge of town to deer hunt until 10 or so, and come back and still do half a business day, or take off at noon and go out in the afternoon til dark.

Seafire,

I have not bought a M 84 yet. First I could not decide on a Classic or a Montana and neither could I pick the cartridge from the 260 or the 7-08.

At the moment I am leaning towards the Classic and the 260 but the brass is a concern.

I see that Sierra 85 gr 6.5 mm bullet but the Ci is only .225! There is a 95 gr VMax however and my guess is the Ci is around .35 maybe a little less.

The best varmint bullet in 7mm is the 120 VMax as far as I know with a .375 form. So your right that the 260 has an edge on varmint bullets.

Savage 99,

I have used Rem, and Lapua 243 & 308 brass for may various 260s. Necking up/down the Lapua is one pass through the FL 260 die, have lost no cases. I did use a carbide expander ball.

One of them is chambered with a SAAMI minimum neck diameter (.297"). Fired 308 Win brass would not allow a bullet to be inserted in the neck, so I did turn those for minimum clean-up and a little peace-of-mind. I use a bushing die (no expander ball) for that group of brass, so it should improve concentricity as well.

Regards, Bill

Thanks Bill,

That's good feedback. The assumption is of course that the Lapua brass is better in some way and with all that neck work still is more uniform?

99,

100% correct! I think Lapua is the best brass I have used, and use it whenever I can. The Rem stuff doesn't seem all that bad. I don't use both Rem & Lapua in any single 260, so I don't know if one is more accurate or has better case life. Anytime that you properly turn necks, uniformity should be improved. I didn't want to take off anymore than I had to, more of a "skim" cut, as I didn't want too much neck clearance. Surprisingly to me, even the Lapua necks on that batch were not all that uniform. About half cleaned up 100%, some had unturned brass half way to the shoulder (looked like a semi-circle), and a very few had unturned brass 3/16" or so wide all the way to the shoulder. I finally finished neck turning the second batch of 100 last week - what a pain!...

Bill

Sorting necks or turning should both work if done right. I agree that turning is a tiger by the tail. This particular rifle would not have any potential to be a match gun. It's too light. I just wanted feedback on how else to get brass and you answered it.

This site has Coefficients on some Hornady bullets. The numbers are a little different than what I have read elsewhere but seem to make sense.

www.varminthunters.com/tech/vmax.html

As a walk around varmint rifle the 260 gives up nothing to the 243 in terms of ballistics. The 243 may shoot 55's however and therefore richocet less.

I see the 260 as a useful compromise that will use heavier bullets than the .25's.

It's all very interesting.

I don't think one can cite the origins of this caliber with any degree of certainty. It didn't take very long for the re-introduction of the .308 case in every possible caliber. The same thing happened many years earlier with the .30-06 didn't it? I was hearing about the 6.5/08 a long time before Remington released the .260Rem. You know, they're still arguing about the true origins of the .243Win. Some say Huntington, formerly of RCBS. Some say Warren Page the benchrest shooter. Some say something completely different. The .260Rem. appears to be a winner, and that's good enough for me. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

Don't know who came up with the 260 first but do know they came up with a winner.Have took a lot of deer with different cals,and the 260 is the meanest (if there is such a word) that I have used for deer.I have had 3,ruger,rem mtn and now have a rem bdl ss.I sold and traded the ruger and mtn rifle but still have the bdl,was told that rem quit making the 260 in the bdl,but still make it in the 7 and mtn rifle,don't know if that is 100% correct or not though.Have taken deer with the 100,125 and 140 gr bullets,will try the 129 gr sst this year if I get a shot at one when carring the 260.

This is a round (260 Rem) that I think would make a real good blacktail deer rifle. It is one if I had extra money, I would go buy and give it a go.

I think the .260 Rem is one of THE cartridges for the Savage Model 99. The other is the .358 Winchester. I've been pondering building a rifle... $$$$ and the missus keep getting in the way!

It could be they're all right. The 7-08, before Remington standardized it, was to be had in a dozen or more variations, with each smith having a different idea as to what was the best shoulder angle, etc. Who thought of it first? Its hard to say with a certainty. I was gonna make one myself with a 40.5 degree angle on the shoulder and a small primer and call it the 7mm Beemanbeme-AI.

[ 10-05-2003, 17:41: Message edited by: beemanbeme ]

The only reference to The 260 Remmington was in the
SPEER Reloading Manual #13

Although the 6.5mm cartridges have been as popular in the US as in other countries, they have held their own because of solid reputations as game getters. Much of their success is due to the superb penetration demonstrated by 26 caliber bullets at modest velocities.
Over the years, various 6.5mm wildcats based on the 308 Winchester case showed promise. One has now become a commercial cartridge. In January 1997, Remmington announced the 260 Remmington cartridge. Based on the 308 Winchester case necked to hold 26 bullets, The 260 was conceived by writer Jim Carmichael as a target cartridge but, is also a fine medium game cartridge. Lighter weight bullets can be used out to 250 yards. Pick the Speer 120 grain Hot-Core for heavy varments and lighter deer and, the 140 grain Grand Slam or Hot-Core for heavier deer. Industry velocity specifications call for 2725 ft/sec with the 140 grain bullet from a barrel.
The 260’s mild recoil will find favor with new shooters yet, with proper bullets, it can take the larger deer species. It is a natural for short, light rifles like the Remmington Model 7, as well as in heavier target rifles for metallic silhouette competition. The 260 Remmington is now available in Speer’s NITREX factory ammunition loaded with a 140 grain Grand Slam bullet. With factory rifles and two [2] brands of factory ammunition now available, the 260 should prove to be a fine addition to the rifle rack.
Like the 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser cartridge, reloaders will find best velocities with the medium to slow-burning rifle powders. Many loads giving the best velocities require some powder compression.during bullet seating. Pressures drop rather fast in this small case as you reduce the charge weight. Therefore, set the start loads two [2] grains under maximum and, recommend that slower burning powders not be loaded below these levels.

Savage,

Been a while since I noticed this post.

As far as Brass for the 260, I don't really care for Remington Brass as compared to Winchester.

For my 260's, I use Winchester 308 and 7/08 brass almost exclusively for it. I originally bought Remington marked 260, but as the brass's life cycle ends, I replace it with Winchester. I also have gotten longer life cycle from the Winchester than the Remington game me. ( Just my experience on that).

Nothing wrong with the Remington, just prefer Winchester.

In my dies, it seems that it is easier necking down 308 and especially 7/08 than it is necking up 243 brass. Since I don't own a 308 or a 7/08, the head stamp always lets me know it is for the 260.

Actually in my demented rationale ( don't try this at home kids, I am a professional Hahaha)
when I go in the field, I have both of my 260 Rugers in the truck. One is set up with a 3 x 9 Leupold with a flat shooting load, the other is topped with a 4 x Weaver for close cover, and I shoot a heavier load, like 125 or 140 grain partitions. I load the lighter bullets in the 7/08 brass, and the heavier ones in the 308 brass. Then occasionally I may have some older loaded up 129 grainers with me, but they are in the Remington 260 brass.

( Sounds like I spend too much time out smarting myself doesn't it?)

Forgot on the post above:

I did find out who invented the 260 Remington!

I have the dubious honor, of having Al Gore as a Second Cousin ( my Mom remarried to one of his family relatives when I was a kid). I have a Republican myself.

However Al did own up to inventing the 260 Remington. He accomplished that, no long after he invented the INTERNET, if everyone remembers that accomplishment.

Seafire,

Thanks for the feedback on brass. I carried two rifles once when I had just finished a nice 7mm Mauser that had a Lyman 48 for sights. So I had a 222 with a 6X for longer shots on chucks and the 7mm for the ones I could see over the front sight. I did that only once.

We should rig some sort of golf bag on wheels for our battery so we can have all the rifles with us for every opportunity.

I carry two loads with some rifles. For instance when woods hunting with the 7mm WSM last year, which is really a "Western" rifle, I had it sighted 1" high at 200 with 140 Sierra Pro Hunters and about on at 100 with 160 Partitions.

I still don't have that 260 I ordered and I am silent on the situation.

MMadison, you may want to check your spelling of Remmington.

Go to their wesbite and have a look at how they spell their own company's name. I bet they are right.
ReMington Arms Company

Orion,

If folks were rated on their spelling on this board, we would have a lot less people on here.

I am sure a lot of guys are like me, can spell just fine, but can't type worth a dam.

I am still using my speak and spell.

Sorry could not help it.

There are a lot of spelling mistakes in forums. Lets just let them go unless it affects the undersanding of the message.

Of course if a member is looking for trouble then you can take countermeasures and if their spelling is incorrect that might be something to bring out.

Meanwhile this pleasant exchange has been temporarily interupted by a comment on spelling that was not really relevant.

Can't talk about the 260 without mentioning the true strength of ANY 6.5, and that is fast twist rates (under 1 in 8) and heavy bullets with very high sectional densities and BCs for the caliber. Credit for this type of thinking geoes way back to the 1890s all over Europe and as far East as Japan. The initial application was, of course military, and penetration was the name of the game. This they did with ball ammo and sectional densities well over .300 at moderate velocities.

I think the first cartridge with good velocity potential was the 6.5X55, not a gnat's ass different from a 260, except for being 55 vs 50 mm in length. As hunting applications emerged, so did spitzers in the caliber and bullets in the 140 gr rage grew longer than even the 6.5 160s, but the fast twist stabilized them nicely, even at moderate velocities. These had BCs close to the bigger 7MM and .308 bullets used for long range shooting nad there was really nothing the bigger rounds could do in the accuracy department way out younder that the 6.5s could not duplicate.

On top of this the 6.5s had remarkable killing power on game that otherwise would seem too large for the bullet weights involved, particularly the little 6.5X54 MS in Africa. Again, penetration and accuracy were the name of the game for the men that did not give two hoots for foot pounds.

Lighter 6.5 spitzers emerged and propellants imporoved and we had 120 grainers shooting flatter than Kansas at deer and bullets as light as 93 grains leaving the 270 choking in its dust. Today the caliber is dominating the 1000 yard competition out of the 284 case...again with fast twist rates, heavy bullets for the caliber, high SDs and Bcs as high as the bigger bores. At 300 yards in hunting applications up through moose, there is no practical difference between a 270 and a 6.5X55 in a modern bolt action except for 2 inches of trajectory...the energys are the same.

There was a lot of work sponsored by the Military after the Korean conflict looking for a NATO round, and it spawned the 223, but the 7.62X51 was necked to 6.5 and 7MM as part of that work, so the 6.5 NATO round was a 260 Rem. I have no idea what this thinking was, but my guess was that they planned to keep the 7.62X51 around as a battle rifle and wanted something very compact and light to suppliment it on emerging combat missions.

Personally, I can think of no better all around battle rifle than an AR chambered for the 6.5X51 (260 Rem) with 80 to 100 gr bullets buzzing along at 3300 to 3000 fps at a barrel saving 54,000 PSI and less recoil than a 243 Win.

Al Gore , or was that the internet , not really sure.

John Noveske Gunworks in Grants Pass, Oregon has done some work with converting ARs to 260 Remington. Although not an AR shooter, I have used some of his work in 223 and 6mm Remington with excellent results. ( In a bolt gun).

If I had to carry one of these ARs into combat, chambered in a 6mm, 6.5 or 7mm on a 308 case would make me a lot happier.

Instead of the 308, I am wondering why the military does not convert sniper rifles to the 6.5 or 7mm bore versions of the 308. I think that would get better ballistics, and any bullet on the market now, would have sufficient energy and trajectory to take out a Human Target ( the enemy for the politically correct< living in Disneyland or the land of Welfare Euphoria of Hillary Clinton)

Seafire -

I agree. Even if pushed into service with any one of my 20 plus bolt actions, I would take the 6.5X55, since I don't have a 260. I do have a 308 and a 7-08, but bullets need to be fairly heavy to get good BCs and recoil is noticably higher than the 6.5.

According to Peter Ackley's "Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders" the .263 Express (a .308 necked down to accept 6.5mm bullets) had a lot of early work done by Ken Waters of New Canaan CT. He doesn't give him exclusive credit nor does he date the reference. He also says that RCBS offered dies for a cartridge in their catalog designated the 6.5-308...this was written in 1962.

Sabot:

I own both the 260s and the 6.5 x 55 ( and a 6.5 x 57). They are pretty much interchangable until you do get to the 140 grain and up bullets.

Although not in the reload books, I use 260 reload data in the Swede and the Swede's reload data in the 260. Started doing the latter ( and worked up) having a 260 before the reload data was readily available.

If you worked with testing, you must be connected with the Radford Arsenal then. If so, that must be a fun place for a rifle affectionato to have around. I am envious.