260 Remington or 7mm/08

CRIMSONBULLSEYE

Well-Known Member
Thinking of building a new rifle based on a Tikka M55 action.
Dont know whether to have it in 260 remington or 7mm/08 has anyone any comments to which calibre would be most suitable or their preference.
Does anyone know where i could get a synthetic stock for the M55 action. Ian.
 
don't know about the m55 action but if you get a cheap m595 short action with the right bolt face. McMillan do a stock for the m595
i dont know if they do one for the m55
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine in nz has a moderated .260 and he loves it. He's twelve (years old). His dad rates it too but until they started reloading the ammo was very dear there. I have a 7mm08 and like that too. They are both capable rounds I reckon, Dirk the kiwi lad shoots wild pigs mostly with his.
 
Thinking of building a new rifle based on a Tikka M55 action.
Dont know whether to have it in 260 remington or 7mm/08 has anyone any comments to which calibre would be most suitable or their preference....
Ian
I set out to buy a 7mm-08 in 1999 and came back with a 260 Rem. I am now on my 3rd one as per my gallery. The only comment I would make is some of the 260 Rem rounds I load are quite long - up to 2.9inches. This wasn't a problem with the Mannlicher Pro-Hunter as it has a long magazine, but it does mean that the Remington in my gallery has a Wyatt magazine box installed to cater for longer rounds. I didn't realise what a good magazine I had with the Mannlicher until I changed it.

Midwayuk - Wyatt's Extended Magazine Box Remington 700 BDL Short Action

In practice I don't think you will go far wrong with either one. I see Lapua have brought out 260 Rem brass, however it will be a few years before I work my way through my current stock of brass.

Good luck. JCS
 
Hi,Jcs,the tikka magazine will take rounds up to 2.95 inches long,i already have one in 257 Ackley,i have a 6.5x55 and i love the round but am locking for something a bit more modern that will fit the m55 action.Ian.
 
Have you thought about a 6.5 Lapua? Does what the 260 Rem will do but with only 39 grains of powder. Lovely round to shoot.
 
I have a .260 and a .308 - the .260 is always the rifle I pick up. To get the best out of it, you really need to hand load as it can be difficult to get commercial ammo that suits the rifle.
 
I'm using a 120 Nosler BT, chronographed at average 2980fps (speed variation over 5 shots only 9fps) using 39.3 grains of R15, grouping inside 0.5 MOA off a bipod. Don't know precisely what the pressure is but no flat primers, no stiff bolt and no powder residue.
 
Hi Guys,
I purchased the 260 rem from Tikka on this site, I have shot Roe with the rifle but currently waiting to get new stock fiited. I purchased the stock from Paul Day at UKLAMINATES and it requires quiet a bit of fitting. The work required is above my toolbox so will pass on to have fitted.

I looked long and hard before deciding on the 260 and i am confident i wont be dissapointed.

Dalkur
 
I'm using a 120 Nosler BT, chronographed at average 2980fps (speed variation over 5 shots only 9fps) using 39.3 grains of R15, grouping inside 0.5 MOA off a bipod. Don't know precisely what the pressure is but no flat primers, no stiff bolt and no powder residue.

So, actually, your answer is "I don't know..."

What length of barrel?

I get around 2900 FPS (+/-10fps) with the same 120gr NBT out of the 260, 41gr Re17 in resized 243 Norma brass. This is a sub book max load with no pressure signs and a 20" barrel.

You are using nearly the same charge of a faster powder in a slightly smaller case.......


Edit:

Sorry, did not mean to sound so belligerent.

However, it makes no more sense for you to claim the 6.5x47mm Lapua case is some how intrinsically capable of higher velocity than the 260rem, than it is for me to claim that the 260rem is capable of higher velocity than the 6.5x55sm. It is all about pressure........
 
Last edited:
Its also about how far out you can seat the bullets - heavy bullets in a short action .260 sometimes have to be seated deeper into the case, robbing powder capacity... one of the reasons for the Lapua design. Probably not so much of a problem until you look at 140gr bullets though or VLD designs. Pressure measurements are only an estimate anyway - you need calibrated pressure testing equipment and even then it will vary from rifle to rifle and barrel to barrel.
 
So, actually, your answer is "I don't know..."

What length of barrel?

I get around 2900 FPS (+/-10fps) with the same 120gr NBT out of the 260, 41gr Re17 in resized 243 Norma brass. This is a sub book max load with no pressure signs and a 20" barrel.

You are using nearly the same charge of a faster powder in a slightly smaller case.......


Edit:

Sorry, did not mean to sound so belligerent.

However, it makes no more sense for you to claim the 6.5x47mm Lapua case is some how intrinsically capable of higher velocity than the 260rem, than it is for me to claim that the 260rem is capable of higher velocity than the 6.5x55sm. It is all about pressure........

Going by the figures Nigel and you have printed, it appears clear to me. He is using less powder in a smaller case and getting 80fps more than the .260

I don't think he claimed to better the .260, he said it will do what it does. To be honest I would allow 100fps any side of each of these cartridges and still consider them to be 'doing what the other does' as in practical it's so close to only make 0.1'' for zeroing purposes at 100yds. Hence they are all being compared as in JCS's article. Granted, barrel length will make a difference but so will different burn rates in powder, hence we opt for the most efficient given bullet weight, barrel length etc in any given calibre.

I am interested in this debate because 6.5x47 is a cartridge I am considering building a rifle around. What I have read is that it is a very efficient cartridge, so allows for good velocity with not a large powder load. The quality of the brass also has a bearing in allowing pressure to perhaps be pushed to the max. I don't see an issue with that in quality components.
 
Back
Top