I have observed in recent posts what appears to be considerable interest in the .25-06 cartridge. I have absolutely no bone to pick with that cartridge, but I was wondering why the other two over-the-counter 'quarter-bores' - the .257 Roberts (6.3x57) and the .260 Remington (6.3x51) - seem to be getting so little consideration 'over there'. Seems to me, and forgive my ignorance if I'm missing something, that:
1) With the cost of powder,
2) The propensity of your FEOs to be ignorant of the realities of stalking firearms and ammunition, and
3) The ranges most of you report that you take deer,
that the .257 Roberts or .260 Remington would get at least some attention in the alternative to the .25-06.
Don't get me wrong. I think the .25-06 is a fine cartridge, it just seems to be cost ineffective (and less politically 'correct') in light of "your" (the collective "your") expressed needs and constraints.
I can appreciate that the .260 Remington might be a 'bad seller' carrying the reviled Remington name, (this is about the same silliness that keeps 'average' Americans from buying firearms chambered in the OUTSTANDING 8mm caliber just because it's "metric"). But the .257 Roberts (6.3x57) seems like a 'natural'. Less powder, no practical difference in external ballistics out to 300m, "friendlier" in the eyes of ignorant FEOs. What's not to like?
I'm not trying to talk anyone "out of" what they want to use, nor "in to" using 'something else'. I'm just curious about the attitudes that might be driving what appears to me to be a 'trend', and thought I'd start a discussion to see if I could understand the thinking a bit better.
For my two-pence-worth, I 'like' the .25 caliber "better" than the .243/6mm for everything but varmints, and yet the .243 seems to have a very substantial 'following' "over there".