How do these rounds compare when loaded to equal pressure in a modern rifle. The Swedish mauser case is larger and I would assume that it can be loaded to slightly higher velocity than the 260 with equal weight bullet. Is this correct? Are they essentially the same in the accuracy department? How easy is it to obtain brass for these rounds and what is the difference in cost?

Ballistically identical for all intents and purposes. Loading components are about equally easy to find.

260, 6.5x55, 6.5-257, 6.5x57 are all about the same, but that's no reason not to own one of each.

Case cap. is almost identical, the edge goes to the 6.5x55, but not by much. You'll probably get as much variation from bbl. to bbl. I would choose one over the other based on the rifle you want. The .260 or .260AI is much happier in the M700SA. I would want a med. or std. action for the 6.5x55 to be able to seat the bullets out a bit farther. 140gr bullets @ 2700fps is achievable w/ either.

I have a Model 70 in 260 Rem. and I have a CZ 550 FS in 6.5X55 on the way.

I'll let you know how they stack up in a few weeks.

There might be a velocity edge to the 260 in my situation, because my Model 70 is a custom target rifle with a 27" Krieger barrel, while the 550 has a 20" barrel.

Here's my Model 70, to give you an idea:

AS I recall, the 6.5 has about a 7 grain capacity greater than 260. In theory that should give it about 4% speed advantage over comperably loaded 260, or about 100 fps.
Components edge has to go to 260, it can be made from 7/08 or 308 if the 260 isn't available.
My 260 does very well with a 120 Barnes X and Varget. I get 2750....out of a handgun with a 15" barrel. Push that through a 22" tube and it would likely approach 3000 fps, with enough penetraion and terminal performance to meet most
deer-sized game hunting needs.

Cossack,

Certainly there are more ways to get .260 brass than there is for the Swede, but the quality of the components counts for something, too. Lapua doesn't make brass for the .260, but it does for the 6.5X55 brass. That was enough to tilt me towards it, right there.

Jaywalker



s

You are right Jay, but you can get Lapua, Norma & I think RWS in .243 & just neck up.

I load and shoot both. I own about 3 of each also.

The difference in the real world is rreally negligible. While a lot of guys use the 120 to 140 grain bullets, I use the 100 grain ones a lot.
Either will give me 3350 fps out of a 22 inch barrel with a 100 grain bullet, and out of a 26inch barrel will break 3450. Both are short versions of a 25/06 in performance.

I do prefer a 6.5 x 55 in a long action with a long throat to seat bullets way out there, espeically in the heavier weights. 2800 is obtained in a 6.5 x 55 with a 140 grain bullet, and it will do 2950 fps, but then you are starting to tread into " hot load" territory.

I prefer Remington 6.5 x 55 brass over Winchester ( a real switch for me, usually the opposite). IN the Remington Cartridge, I use 7/08 or 308 winchester brass necked down for the 260. I guess I just have to be different, huH?

Both will give you outstanding accuracy. If they don't it is the rifle not the cartridge. ( or the shooter).

Both are big enough for Elk with good shot placement. Not everyone will agree with that, but then they also have probably not tried to take an Elk with one, so they have not had it fail or succeed. I just believe in a good bullet and shot placement a lot more than foot pounds and raw horse power.

You can't go wrong with either, eh? ( for you Canadians).

Cheers and good shooting
seafire

I was lazy - didn't want to neck up or down, to avoid having to either turn the neck or pull it out of alignment. I have enough problems.

I also found Winchester 6.5X55 brass unusable recently, and just returned 400 cases of it to Graf's. Twenty percent of the 100 cases I checked had neck thickness variation greater than 0.002".

Lapua is so much better it saves me a huge amount of time on case prep.

Jaywalker

Lapua brass for the swede is the only way to go!

Got my 550 FS on Thursday.

Shot it today with Federal 140 gr PSP. After getting centered up and 2" high at 50 yards, I moved to 200 and zeroed there. I let the rifle cool down, scrubbed the copper out, and shot three, very carefully aimed shots. Just a hair over 2 inches center to center for those three consecutive shots!

I'm pretty sure that the rifle can do 1 to 1 1/4 MOA at 200 consistently, since all three shots were on call.

Once I get some more free time and the weather gets a bit better, I'll work up some loads for it. I'm going to try Hornady 129 Spire Points first, because I have had excellent results using Hornady match bullets in my National Match AR15. I'm also going to try the rifle from the 300 yard line to see how it holds up. I'll be happy if I can consistenly get 1 1/2 MOA at 300.

Hey, I like 9.3x62's attitude, own'm all. Guess that is what I have done too, .260, 6.5x54, 6.5x55, 6.5x57. They are all essentially the same and all great fun. Brass is a small problem, in that .260 and 6.5x55 are common and easily purchased, while 6.5x54 and 6.5x57 are purely European now. Suspect I have a barrel twist problem with my .260 Rem M7 because it does not shot heavy 6.5 slugs well, but does great with 120 grainers. Have had great performance with heavy bullets in 6.5x54 and 6.5x55, so I suspect a difference in barrel twist to be the culprit. All in my two cents worth,
Larry

Hmmmmmmmm, I love the reception a new guy gets here.

Not a single "hi", "nice rifle", "tells us about it", etc, etc.............

Are you people always this nice and welcoming?

Hey HP, if you are the new guy, welcome aboard!

This is the first time I saw this thread. So, welcome aboard HP. I do like that rifle you show above. It is great!!!
Come back!!!
Don

Thank you guys. I avoid calling attention to myself, but sometimes one has to call a spade a spade.

Anyway, I do like this site for its emphasis on hunting. I get my fix of competitive rifle shooting info on other sites more focused on NRA HP.

The Model 70 is a 1950 model, but the receiver and bolt are all that's left of it. The stock, barrel, trigger, and sights are all either custom made or specific to highpower rifle.

Seems to me the 6.5x55 is the better ctg., especially for the handloader with a medium or long action.
If a Hornady 140g 6.5mm sp is loaded in a 260 Rem case to a COL of 2.800" the base of the bullet protrudes .2255" (approaching 1/4") into the "powder area" of the already smaller 260 case. This same bullet (which is 1.250" in length) seated to the 6.5x55's COL of 3.150" only protrudes about .044" and this can probably be reduced to zero in most medium and long actions.
Looks like the only thing going for the 260 is a 1/2" shorter bolt throw and a few ounces in total rifle weight?

One thing the 260 has going for it is a nice short throat. With todays bullets the 160's don't really offer anything anyhow.

FVA..
agree, the big long ol 160 rn's are a thing of the past but the 140g 6.5 sp has about the best numbers for SD and BC going and is a great, relatively light weight, long range bullet with a good rep on big game.
Of course, the 260 Rem. with a max COL of 2.800 MUST have a short throat. Don't get me wrong...I like the 260 Rem but I wish it had a longer neck, even at the expense less case capacity. I guess it's just a personal preference, or a reaction to the huge mistake I made buying a Savage Mod. 11 in 7mm WSM. THAT round at a 2.800 COL shoves a 139g 7mm sp 0.365" into the "powder room".
I have'nt seen much written or said about the effect deep seating (below ctg neck) has on accuracy except that it can cause variations in velocity which, of course, is not good.
Anyway, what better thing is there to do on a rainy day than debate the merits of rifle cartridges?

"[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jon:
FVA..
agree, the big long ol 160 rn's are a thing of the past"

True but sad.From the 6.5X54 to the 6.5 X.284 it was probably the perfect bullet for ranges that 97% of the game is shot (250 yds. Max.)by us average hunters. What it isn't is hyper sophisticated as some hunters think themselves to be. The scarcity of the large for caliber 7mm Round noses are already being lamented by those that really understand their worth. I suppose the 160gr. 6.5mm RN will soon follow and than the .260 won't look nearly as inept as it really is. The 6.5X55 has been doing a job for over 100 YEARS better than the .260 will ever do. When the .260 came out there was no real need for it. It was just marketeering trying to create interest in a new toy. If that is the need it fullfills for some than I hope they enjoy it.Hey those marketing people have to eat don't they? Roger

I tried a few of the 160gr. round nosed bullets in my Swedes with mixed results, but God Bless, my Model 70 Featherweight found a friend in the 156gr. Norma Oryx. Shot well, consistently. What I found weird is that this gun, being my main rifle for deer/black bear, will shoot the 156gr. Norma and the 129gr. Hornady like there's no tomorrow, but she won't shoot 160's, 140's, or 120's nearly as well. Oh well, 156 for blackies, 129 for whitetails. Win-win.

MikeyB,

Don't know about the 156/160's, but my M70 likes the 120 - 129 much better than the 140. I'm going to push velocities with the 140 this spring to see if that'll fix it. Shame - with a 140, I'd be happy with nothing else...

Jaywalker

quote:

Originally posted by Jon:
If a Hornady 140g 6.5mm sp is loaded in a 260 Rem case to a COL of 2.800" the base of the bullet protrudes .2255" (approaching 1/4") into the "powder area" of the already smaller 260 case. This same bullet (which is 1.250" in length) seated to the 6.5x55's COL of 3.150" only protrudes about .044" and this can probably be reduced to zero in most medium and long actions.
Looks like the only thing going for the 260 is a 1/2" shorter bolt throw and a few ounces in total rifle weight?

That's funny! Interesting that there is no more than 100 fps seperating these two cartridges so how can one have much advantage over the other? Abosolutely no differance in the field between these two.

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
I suppose the 160gr. 6.5mm RN will soon follow and than the .260 won't look nearly as inept as it really is. The 6.5X55 has been doing a job for over 100 YEARS better than the .260 will ever do. When the .260 came out there was no real need for it.

Wow, when cartridges are this close, how can one be great and the other inept?

Here are a few points to consider. Accuracy?, I'll give the nod to the 260 as the throat is more consistent on rifles chambered for this cartridge. In USA, 260 factory ammo will give the higher velocity for a given bullet weight. Many times a powder that uses 85 - 95% of the powder space yields top velocity and/or best accuracy so seating into the powder space often means squat.....especially in the smaller bullet diameters.

Long action, go with the 6.5x55.....short action go with the 260 Rem.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HogWild:
"Here are a few points to consider. Accuracy?, I'll give the nod to the 260 as the throat is more consistent on rifles chambered for this cartridge."

Well Gee,I just didn't know that. Perhaps the Nordic rifle shooting competiters should all switch over to the .260. OK roger

"Seating into the powder space means squat"?
Even though Jack O'Connor only referred to it as "a minor ballistic crime" it obviously reduces case capacity and propellent amount and can increase pressure. Are you also saying that sticking half of the bullet down below the neck has no effect upon accuracy? If that's true I sure would like to see some data to support it. I've always wondered just what effect it has but other than comments about "erratic velocities" I've never seen any good data on the issue.
You may be correct that it "means squat" as far as accuracy (which I have to doubt) but it clearly does effect case volume, hence pressure.
If you are aware of a source that discusses what happens to accuracy when bullets are seated well below the neck I sure would like to see it.

I get 2800fps+ w/ a 142grSMK form my .260ai. How much better can the 6.5x55 do? I would definetly want a med. or std. length action for the 6.5x55 though, the .260 would also be happier w/ a 3.0" mag box.

To me, the entire point of owning either rifle is to have an effective medium game rifle that is light and easy to carry. The 260 fits neatly in a short action, which makes it about perfect for a "mountain rifle." If you use the swede in a short action, you have to seat the long bullets deep, and there go your few grains of extra case capacity. To get this hypothetical case volume advantage, you have to go to a longer, heavier action. If I'm going to carry that much rifle, I'll get a .270 or somesuch and have done with it.

Not to run down the Swede--they're both excellent cartridges--but the supposed ballistic advantage of the Swede almost never materializes unless you're using a longer (or a single-shot) action.

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

Well Gee,I just didn't know that. Perhaps the Nordic rifle shooting competiters should all switch over to the .260. OK roger

I'll stand by my statement! On factory rifles I think the 260 Rem would average better groups (due to the 6.5x55 throat variance from mfg. to mfg.). On a custom rifle, one is as accurate as the other and I've no doubt your Nordic friends are very happy with their choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon:

Are you also saying that sticking half of the bullet down below the neck has no effect upon accuracy? If that's true I sure would like to see some data to support it.

Never said you could stick half the bullet below the case neck without affecting anything. Will say that a resonable amount of bullet intruding into the powder space will probably mean squat......meaning little or no velocity loss and little or no accuracy loss. A lot of folks use loads that only take up 90% of the case capacity anyhow. What will it hurt if the bullet takes up 9% of the case not being used by the powder?

What's the maximum cartridge length on a winchester action?

I have several older M96 Swedish mausers, and a Remington Classic, all in 6.5x55. I only use Lapua brass and VihtaVouri powders in them and get excellent accuracy. I don't think there's any practical difference between the 6.5x55 and the .260Rem. From what I hear from a friend with a .260 they're quite accurate as well. Welcome to Accurate Reloading and best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

Slowhand,

It likely varies. Mine is a "standard" action, i.e., .30-'06 length, but I understand USRAC has made some in short action, also. At least the lady at the plant said they had when I called to ask...

Jaywalker

Edited to note that I'd look at one in standard length first; mine came from the factory with the Williams one-piece bottom metal that retails for $300!
J.

160 grain Round Noses may be "a thing of the past", but I will continue to use them until they aren't sold any more and I run out of them.

I have had both of my Rugers in 260 throated out to be able to handle the 160 grain Hornadys seated to the cannelure.

Remington's are much tighter throated, but not the Rugers. I can't say with the Brownings and Savages, but they only produced the caliber for a year or two. I had my Remington VLS in 260 throated out to handle 120 grain Ballistic Tips and 120 Sierra HP Matches to seated to full magazine length. That rifle has stayed as a varmint and target rifle.

On the two Rugers, come deer season and bear season, one is loaded with a 100 grain bullet at 3350 fps for open country and mixed terrain hunting. It carries a 3 x9 Leupold with a target dot reticle. The other Ruger carries a 4 power Scope, and is loaded with 160 grain Hornadys with an MV of 2600 fps with IMR 7828. That sees a lot of thick brush and mountain side terrain work.

Cheers and Good shooting
seafire

"

quote:

Originally posted by seafire/B17G:
160 grain Round Noses may be "a thing of the past", but I will continue to use them until they aren't sold any more and I run out of them." Amen brother

"I have had both of my Rugers in 260 throated out to be able to handle the 160 grain Hornadys seated to the cannelure."

Had the firearms companies designed it and built it that way to start with it would not have been inempt: just a hundred and nine years behind times and had they given a longer neck it might have been superior??? roger

seafire

quote:

To get this hypothetical case volume advantage, you have to go to a longer, heavier action.

Heavier by how much? 3 ounces? Time to hit the gym if that's an obstacle for you.

quote:

Originally posted by HP Shooter:

quote:

To get this hypothetical case volume advantage, you have to go to a longer, heavier action.

Heavier by how much? 3 ounces? Time to hit the gym if that's an obstacle for you.

With the M700, that's true enough--there's very little difference in weight between the short and long actions. Other actions might differ by up to half a pound, and that makes a difference to me anyway.

I'm with Fireform. Now I've turned 60 I've started gathering lighter hunting equipment. Those 1/4 pounds here and there add up. When the hunting is all done on foot and you walk for miles, a rifle over 8lbs starts to get a bit on the heavy side. Other bits of kit are being scaled down too. For example the Puma white hunter stays home now and I cary a smaller jagdnicker. When it comes to carrying out an animal I want all the kit to be light. You just get slower and a little less strong as the years start mounting up. But by God I still love to go out and plan to be doing so till I'm 75. If Remington Titaniums are still around then I might just buy me one in 260.

quote:

Originally posted by SlowHand:
What's the maximum cartridge length on a winchester action?

Per a phone conversation w/Winchester/USRA.
"The M70 "Classic" SA magazine lengthis 3.045"

I would say that a OAL length of 3" would be about right, providing the throat is long enough. Easy enough to remedy if it isn't.

The best reason to prefer a .260 Rem to the old tried and true Swede is that Kimber chambers their Montana in the 260. It's hard to argue with an accurate stainless rifle with a top notch trigger that comes in at 6-1/4 lbs scoped, slung and ready to go. That's less than the M700 Mtn. Rifle buck naked.

"[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fireform:
The best reason to prefer a .260 Rem to the old tried and true Swede is that Kimber chambers their Montana in the 260. It's hard to argue with an accurate stainless rifle with a top notch trigger that comes in at 6-1/4 lbs scoped, slung and ready to go."

One question than back to the Will that Montana do any better than a CZ in 6.5X55 or a sporterized Swede? The key word is better.I think not. Granted it makes a nice lady's rifle. roger

Hey Oldun congrats on hunting at your age.agree a light rifle help's. keep going as long as you are able. I'm 75 and still hunt,not as hard as I did carring a 71/2 pd rifle gets heavy quick.
the 6.5 are all great choises