Would a 260 be adequate with the proper bullet?

quote:

Originally posted by Willie B:
Would a 260 be adequate with the proper bullet?

yes....but here's my story on it.....

When I see elk they are almost always a long ways away as I spot them while glassing mountainsides and I spend a lot of time doing this.....usually I see elk over 600 yards and then plan a stalk.....

When I hunt elk I want something that can handle a 400 yard shot if I decide I have a good rest and my rangefinder assures me of the distance.....I want a minimum of 180 grains in a .30-06 or if possible a .300 magnum and 200 grain bullets.

The .260 will certainly kill elk with a good shot and a good bullet....but will you be comfortable with it when you're presented a shot at a big 6 X 6 bull at 400 yards.....and trust me here....they can be very big animals.

I just bought a 4-12 Leupold with LRD reticule to attach to my .300 H&H for next years hunt.....just watch now.....I'll get a shot at that bull at 50 yards!!!

It would only be used as a second rifle. Used my 270WSM for my first (ever) elk this year. Had it zeroed with 160 Nosler Partitions and am confident to 400 yards with it. Took my 6X6 at 37 yards.

37 yd.Wow ?. A Baseball bat comes to mind . Just kidding

I don't remember ever seeing one inside a 100 yd. all the times I've been Elk hunting .

As we all know depends on where you hunt , in the woods or on open plains .

Congratulations on your Bull . That's an Archers dream come true .

Every hunting situation may be different..along with a September rut hunt where calling a bull under 100 yds...or maybe a late hunt a cross canyon shot @ 400 yds may be a close as you get...I have a 6.5x55 Tikka and I would not hesitate at all to use it on elk...with the proper heavy bullet...IE 140 Nosler PT or a 160 Hornady or Norma...of course there are better choices such as the 300 Win with 180 or 200 gr Partitions...knowing your rifle & scope and load and feeling confident with it helps too...elk are big and tough critters and deserve a heavy well contstructed and well placed shot...I hear too many elk got away stories..make the first shot count...drop him in his tracks and not have to follow a wounded bull around the mountain all day...

it would all depend on your style of hunting and your ability. I shoot a 6.5X55 alot and am fiddling with a 6.5X68S. If I had a 260 I was familiar with I would not hesitate to use it.

The answer, in short, is a definite "yes."

With a ballistically efficent bullet like a 140 gr Sirrocco or TSX I can,t see the 30 cals are significantly larger to make much difference ........ More moose are killed each year with the 6.5 than with all 30 calibers in Scandanivia . I think 6.5 ie 260 Rem .is like the 375 H&H one of the workds very best calibers

Yes it would do, I shot 3 elk with a 6.5 x 55 and 140 gr Nosler Partition Handloads for one, same bullet weight with a TBBC (I still have 140 of the 200 I bought from Jack Carter) and one with a 160 gr Woodleigh bullet. I am sure that even a 120 gr Barnes x will be more than enough, the key is to make a sure shot and put that bullet were it needs to go. All three of my elk with the 6.5 were shot between 54 and 190 or so yards.

The 260 duplicates the 6.5x55 swede, which has been the dominant moose cartridge in the scandinavian countries since the Vikings deciced that their bows were obsolete. Use good bullets of 120+ or more (140's and 160's are best- choose appropriate construction), and go along your merry way. I wouldn'g try to shoot very far, but I don't recommend shooting far with anything. Learn to be a real hunter and stalk. Save your long shots for varmints! Just my not so humble, and not so popular opinion.

every hunt is different. this year my shot was around 100 yards cause the animals were spooked in my direction, last year was 275, year before that it was around 360 (and no, there was no getting closer on the last 2, the 360 i had already stalked 2 miles)

you just never know. if youre just after meat, and can be choosey with your shots sure! the 260 will be great, accurate, light recoil, light rifle, good high sd bullets. i dont know if id shoot ever 200 yards though.

true, many many moose fall to 6.5's....but maybe our scandanavian brothers could tell us what the hunts are like? average ranges and such. moose are big, but i have been told elk are stronger. plus we must remember euro moose are closer to shiras moose and not the monster yukon moose which is what most people imagine when they hear the word moose. 600 to 800 lbs is a far cry from 1200+ lol

quote:

Originally posted by ron williams:
it would all depend on your style of hunting and your ability. I shoot a 6.5X55 alot and am fiddling with a 6.5X68S. If I had a 260 I was familiar with I would not hesitate to use it.

This is really true. I wouldn't choose the 260 for elk hunting but if I had one & wanted to elk hunt, I would load a good 140gr bullet, get inside 300yds & stay off the big bones.

Yes the 260 is a capable of elk. One son, one shot, one elk. 140 Nosler partition. 75 yards. One friend, one 6.5x 55, 5-6 bulls More cows various distance 140 Nosler partition.

A 260 will kill an elk, Ive killed elk with the 25-35 and 30-30...but the use of such small caliber will certainly test your tracking skills at times..

My light limit these days is a 7x57 with 175 Nosler partition, or my 30-06 with 200 gr. Nosler partitions or Accubonds..I tend to use them for cow elk, but they work on bulls.

My favorite elk rifles for trophy hunting big bulls are the 338 and 375..at the shot Ive always been confident of a kill..

While my favorite elk calibers are the .358 Norma or the .35 Whelen, I wouldn't hesitate to hunt elk with a .260 or comparable 6.5 with good quality 140-grain or heavier bullets. I have shot around 30 elk, most on public land, and only two were at over 200 yards, 214 yards and 354 yards ranged. I guess I have been lucky .

if the 6.5x55 is fine for moose, then then 260 is excellent for elk .. within the shooters real performance level

Wouldn't consider .260. I get decisive results with high speed .40+ calibers on Elk out to extended range ymmv.

I have no experience with elk, only elk-sized animals (kudu, wildebeest, gemsbuck, etc.) that I have seen shot with all varieties of cartridges.
Yes, the 260 does the job on the above, but with so many limitations and a much smaller margin for error.
There are simply better options, in my opinion.

Karoo makes a good point. If used within its limitations then fine but there are better.

I've have a 6.5x55 so same bullet, same velocity. If that's what's in my hand when an elk shows up I'd use it without hesitation. But I've never seen the need to shoot from long distances or crazy angles. I just get closer or call it a day.

quote:

Yes, the 260 does the job on the above, but with so many limitations and a much smaller margin for error.
There are simply better options, in my opinion.

A very true statement.

More so if one has limited time to hunt or is spending a lot of money there are far better choices for elk.

The older I have become and the more game I have killed I tend to stay away from min. just get the job done calibers.

I might add that the 6.5's of moderate velocity are very easy to shoot well if you are capable of shooting well. Shooting well is what it takes to put a good bullet through the vitals of an Elk and that is how to kill an elk. A 260 with a 120 or 130 Barnes TSX at muzzle speeds of 2700-2900 will do that job just as well as the vast majority of rifles people carry afield each year. I would think that bullet would break quite a bit of bone too. Maybe not as much as my old 338WM did with a 275 Speer SS but I would bet it will break enough. Getting it to the right spot is our job, not the bullets.

Its damn foolish to pay $6000 for an elk hunt and not shoot all the rifle you can handle and shoot well, if you can't handle a 30-06 for your elk then take up tennis and ping pong..

Ive spent a lifetime in elk camps both guiding and booking, and Ive followed those big bulls in places they had to pack me out with the meat..Ive used the light calibers and I paid the piper in the long run, mostly with good results but I did have to deal with some agonizing tracking jobs on a few occasions and swore never again in each case..Same when I shot a cape buffalo with my 30-06 and he whirled around and looked at me, it flashed thru my mind "aw shit" I have the wrong gun, then he turned and ran 200 yards and died, but I was 30 yards from him so he could have run my way!! Oh well just conversation to each his own.

My group of die hard Elk hunters were privileged to hunt the White River Herd between Craig and Meeker Colorado, the largest herd in the world. Our numbers were at maximum 16 and the core originals of eight used the .300 Win Mag and the same load of 180 grain Nosler Partition at 3100 fps. One member hunted with a .270 Win and always got his Elk, others used larger bores that were all extremely flat shooting. Personally I got my Elk with three different .300 Winnys, several with a .340 Wby, and also a .338 Lapua, a few with a .358 STA, and one with a .270 WSM loaded with a 160 grain Nosler Partition at 2850 fps. This group averaged 80 percent kill over many years with the two .270’s being the smallest calibers used. Yes, you can kill with smaller stuff and many have but hunting the later hunts in November when the animals are wild from being hunted hard you better have something in your hand that shoots a big bullet flat and fast to up your odds for a successful hunt. This is the way we do it for what it is worth. Good Shooting.

The way I see it as long as you work with the limits of your gun/cartridge/scope and your skills most any cartridge can do most anything.
Like how a lot of folks like the 223 as a deer rifle. It works but has limits to hw well it works. Once outside those limits it will fail.
Leo

As asked, with a capable bullet the 6.5s are definitely viable for elk and that size game. I would always take a well place 140 grain Partition over a poorly placed 250 grain Partition 10 times out of ten. I would not even say that the 260 is marginal, but actually a good choice. The caveat would be limiting shots to 500 yards or less. I don't shoot past that with any cartridge so that's not a detractor for me. If you are one of those Extreme outer-limits guys you may want to move to the big 30s or 338s. I would put a 140 grain .264 against a 160 grain .284 any day of the week.

I appreciate the value of being able to be shot well by the young, old or new to the game. I have zero doubt about a 140 Nosler Partition or 130 Barnes x’ish bullet at 2600+ muzzle velocity going through the vitals. I also know that bigger is better at ceteris parabus conditions. Problem is that conditions are rarely equal.

I think too many times the question becomes 140 grains in the heart is better than 225 in the guts observation. Yes, the 140/6.5 in the heart is better compared to the 225 gut shot.

That is not the discussion. The discussion is when hunting elk (cows 350, bulls up to 800) would you rather have 140/6.5 or larger. Let us assume you take a board side shot at 500 yards. Would it not be better to have the larger wound of the 225 grain 338 or 358 to produce a quicker kill and more blood on the ground for when you get to the spot of the hit with failing light to kill quick and make finding the elk that much quicker? This assumes equal shot placement.

Or you have hunted 6 full days. The bull you wants is 200 yards quartering to you. Dark timber is off to your right. Will a TSX get through that shoulder joint; absolutely. Will that 160/7mm, 180/308, 225-250/3338 or 358, 270/375 get through that shoulder and do more damage; yes, it does.

Therefore, all things being equal shoot the bigger rifle bullet combination. Let the gun mag writers whose publications are funded by advertising and hunts sponsored shoot elk with 6.5 Creedmore.

My experience has been 600 plus pound Red Stag bull and 2 350 pound cows. The Stag was killed with 7mm STW/160 grain Accubond. One cow was killed with 375 Ruger with 270 grain Interlock. The second cow was killed with 35 Whelen 225 Accubond. All loads producing over 3600 FPE

My experience is limited, but I always keep in mind a dead gun writer’s warning, paraphrased, “Use a gun that works when things go wrong not when things are perfect.”

I acknowledge my experience is limited, but one must acknowledge there is a tangible difference between a 6.5/140 at 2800 vs. a 160/7mm at 3207. One can disagree, but my stag not being able to put any weight on both his front legs and gushing blood trail an hour before dark says there is.

Heym makes since and Ive shot elk with smaller calibers such as the 25-35, 30-30, and 250 Savage, but I limited my shots to under 200 yards and 95% were between 50 and 100 yards and I was young and didn't know better so it always worked..

Today my elk rifle is a .338 win., a 8mm/06 Ackley Imp, and a 375 H&H, the 338 and 375 leave a better blood trail than lesser calibers and thats what Im looking for if I screw the pooch with a slightly off center shot, otherwise I use my 06 with 200 gr. Noslers and have on more than one ocassion, but today the 06 is my lightest caliber for elk..If I was hunting horseback and expected to limit my shot range to 100 yards, and thats very possible on a horse, I usually like my 308 Savage 99F with 165 gr. Noslers or 180s...not for its caliber but its ease of packing a rifle under my knee all day..A 6.5 bullet at 500 yards as mentioned is not my idea of elk medicine and its borderline on Mule deer for that matter, plus Ive seen more elk and deer wounded, mostly broken legs at those kind of distances than at ranges under 300 yards or less.

It doesn't need to be a heart shot for the .260 to work and I did not compare heart shot to gut shot. Well placed to poorly placed. It does not take much of a flinch at 150 yards to make a poorly placed shot. I have seen a huge sample of animals of all kinds shot with the 338s and the 6.5s. With cup and core, yes, huge difference. With great bullets, try and stop a 130 to 160 grain 6.5 bullet. They penetrate like mad and destroy tissue the whole way. They will also break bones, punch holes in a thick scapula, and shatter vertabre. With a good bullet you can count on 20" of penetration through one layer of hide and muscle and bone. Limit it to one rib and hide and all soft tissue and you will get a solid 30" of penetration. Plan your shot accordingly. If you can't take the time to take quality shots at animals like elk then take up fishing. And even if it is the 6th and final day of a spendy hunt hunters shouldn't get a pass on taking poor shots. Those are most likely the wounded animals you are seeing Mr. Atkinson.

Respectfully, you said a 6.5 “going through the vitals.” Hence, I used heart shots and equally placed vital hits through the shoulder on a querying to animal for example. I agree the 6.5 with monos especially will get through. The point is so will a 7mm, 30/06, 35 Whelen, 338-06, 338 Mag, and 375 and do more damage, kill quicker, and leave more blood on the ground.

Also, you did not advocate the use of the 6.5 Creedmore at 500 yards on elk. That was purely my hypo due to the mania associated with the 6.5 Creedmore and folks treating 50” yards as the new 30@ yards. The 6.5 Creedmore hype as I see it. You did not engage in such hype.

The 6.5 Creedmore shoots as flat as a 35 Whelen when the Creedmore uses 143 grain bullseye and the Whelen uses 225 grain Accubonds. So, it is not the laser flat, long range death ray the magazines make it out to be.

The 6.5 can be used on elk, but there are better options that shoot as flat or flatter with manageable recoil.

There is a good thread right now in US sub forum on monos and blood trials.

Two guys who have shot more and larger game than anyone have completely different views of monos.

A small mono expands less and has to do less damage than a larger mono or bonded lead bullet of larger caliber. That is all we are saying, and cartridges are available that won’t break your rotator cuff while giving you that increased damage and more blood on the ground.

The discussion was phrased, “ is the 260 adequate for elk with the proper bullet.” I voted yes. I’ll stick with that.
Taking my 35 whelen this trip but that doesn’t make my sons 260 inadequate. It makes it a different choice.

The 6.5x55 has been used to kill all sorts of animals - including elephants!

There is absolutely no reason why the 260 Remington should not be used.

Animals pay no attention to caliber or bullet weight.

Destroying vital organs and they die!

A 260 Remington is adequate for elk, but there’s a big difference between shooting spikes, cows and rag horn bulls that all run 400-600 pounds, compared to a big bull that’ll commonly run 900+ pounds, and sometimes over 1,000.

There is a reason many experienced elk hunters consider the 338 Winchester Magnum to be the best elk cartridge ever developed.

With a light caliber your limiting your success to seeing your elk broadside at short distrance..Todays elk are no longer that stupid after the first shot is fired and in the mountains of the Pacific NW many longish range shots are offered cross canyons, along with short range going south..The last and bigges bull Ive shot was looking at me at 125 yards, spun around and I shot him in the last rib and the bullet came out behind the elks ear..freaked me and my butcher out..It was a 300 gr Woodleigh from my 338 Win. I would not have taken that shot with a lighter rifle..Why put yourself in a position such as that after hunting for 5 to 10 days...Todays elk hunting is tough the bulls are smarter adn the numbers are down. Some act like you can just go hunt elk and pass up the less than perfect broadside shots, well thats BS, Idaho is one of the best elk hunting areas in the US and success rate is about 10% go figure, If I were hunting with my 25-35 or 250 Savage today, short of cow depredation hunts in Alfalfa patches my success rate were spiral downhill I assure you. Using a too light rifle under real hunting conditions is always a gimmick IMO..and I can see no logical reason to do so short of limited ability of the hunter! I used to sit with my granddad on a rock all day long, him with his 30-30, if and when a bull came by at under 100 or 75 yards he would shoot it behind the shoulder and it would run to the bottom of the divide..He would look at me and say go get a horse and get my elk I'll have the coffee made when you get back..About the same with my kids growing up.

I will die thinking it is better to make a bigger whole in tissue that wants to close and blood that wants to clout than a small whole.

If you are hunting elk, you can shoot a 308 Win, 270 Win, 30/06 or even a 7mm/08 at least. So, why use something that is pushing =the scale down when you do not have to or need to.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
The 6.5x55 has been used to kill all sorts of animals - including elephants!

There is absolutely no reason why the 260 Remington should not be used.

Animals pay no attention to caliber or bullet weight.

Destroying vital organs and they die!

+1
Bullet placement the key

"A 260 Remington is adequate for elk, but there’s a big difference between shooting spikes, cows and rag horn bulls that all run 400-600 pounds, compared to a big bull that’ll commonly run 900+ pounds, and sometimes over 1,000."

Swedish bull moose can weight up to 1100p and 6,5 still works well of cause texas heartshots are not allowed.

"If you are hunting elk, you can shoot a 308 Win, 270 Win, 30/06 or even a 7mm/08 at least. So, why use something that is pushing =the scale down when you do not have to or need to."

I hunt mostly with .308w but with a 165-180gr bullet it has lower sectional density than a 6,5 155gr so has .270w with 150s, 3006 with 180gr(most used bullet weight in Sweden) yes you can use a 220gr in 3006 or a 175gr bullet in 7-08 but most hunters use lighter options. Changing from 6,5*55 to .308w i have not noticed and difference. To get shorter running distance after the shot and/or fewer shots you need to step up to 9,3*62 or 300wm to get a noticeable difference, but this step up will only give you an average of 10y less running distance.

Thank you Nordic brother. Happy hunting to you.

Some base shot placement is all that counts and I agree to that up to a point, but a 22 L.R. in the heart or lungs of a large animal such as an elk sucks..Because someone of yesteryear killed and elephant with a solid is a poor reason to praise the fabled 6.5...I shot a 6.5 gibbs at one time for deer, and it was no better than my 30-06 and if fact not nearly as good..

I have no beef with anyone using a 6.5, but how they use it is what counts, and like me using the 25-35 or 250-3000 I had to pass up some mighty fine trophy elk that my 338 would have knocked over..Being a subsistance hunter or a trophy hunter is two different scenarios IMO..

I think you fella's have been very informative on what you prefer over the 260 and a proper bullet for Elk. I am very sure it is adequate with a proper bullet. I am sure my 30-06 is adequate as well. With a premium 180 + bullet, my vote is just fine. My long gone .338 WM with a 275 Speer, could not be beat. My current old 35 Whelen with a 250 Hornady SPT, hoping to find out. With a 225 X bullet, the hammer of Thor. I hope that adequately explains my position on the matter.

Definition of adequate
1: sufficient for a specific need or requirement
adequate time
an amount of money adequate to supply their needs
also : good enough : of a quality that is good or acceptable
a machine that does an adequate job
: of a quality that is acceptable but not better than acceptable
Her first performance was merely adequate.
2: lawfully and reasonably sufficient
adequate grounds for a lawsuit