I've been looking around the Hide for info on a 20" barrel for a 260. I'm thinking of a 1-8 20" build. Does anyone have one? What kind of muzzle velocity are you getting?
- Thread starter Emilio
- Start date
Re: 20" 260?
No, but I was shooting a 18.5" 260... look into the SH RIfle 2009 Build there are details there.
8.8 Mils to 1000 yards, and Chad from Dallas Reload is doing an work on the rifle now to get some hard numbers for it.
No, but I was shooting a 18.5" 260... look into the SH RIfle 2009 Build there are details there.
8.8 Mils to 1000 yards, and Chad from Dallas Reload is doing an work on the rifle now to get some hard numbers for it.
Re: 20" 260?
That's just what I wanted to know thanks.
That's just what I wanted to know thanks.
Re: 20" 260?
I should be taking the SH 260 rifle to the range this weekend, and get some good info from the 18". I'll post details when I have them.
I should be taking the SH 260 rifle to the range this weekend, and get some good info from the 18". I'll post details when I have them.
Re: 20" 260?
This should be interesting. I want to build a .260Rem also but just don't like the 24 - 28" barrel lengths that most shooters recommend.
This should be interesting. I want to build a .260Rem also but just don't like the 24 - 28" barrel lengths that most shooters recommend.
Re: 20" 260?
is he going to SHARE the numbers though, that is the question.
it may be proprietary data
is he going to SHARE the numbers though, that is the question.
it may be proprietary data
Re: 20" 260?
That rifle sure sounds nice but I will stick wih my 27" 260s. I built them for LR and I now wish I had another inch on both of them.
Jon
That rifle sure sounds nice but I will stick wih my 27" 260s. I built them for LR and I now wish I had another inch on both of them.
Jon
Re: 20" 260?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ICANHITHIMMAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That rifle sure sounds nice but I will stick wih my 27" 260s. I built them for LR and I now wish I had another inch on both of them.
Jon</div></div>
Interesting you mention that, as with the load I was originally using the 18.5" 260 was only shooting 3 MOA more than the guys with 28" barrels... so honestly what do you think are you gaining by using only 3 MOA less and that wasn't even a load tuned to the rifle. It's silly the old thinking that longer is better... nothing can be farther from the truth as shorter barrels are proving to be not only very fast, but more accurate due to the deceased length and how it effects the shooter.
For a tactical shooter, the handiness of the rifle cannot be overlooked and what you gain by going "long" is really a waste of time. Unless it is a dedicated F Class rifle, there is nothing to be had.
Long Range is debatable as if you are truly building something for "long range' how about picking the bullet better... a 7WSM at 24" will smoke the 260 at 30" so, application is everything when it comes to long range. I will take a rifle that is just as viable and 10" shorter every day of the week over something longer.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ICANHITHIMMAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That rifle sure sounds nice but I will stick wih my 27" 260s. I built them for LR and I now wish I had another inch on both of them.
Jon</div></div>
Interesting you mention that, as with the load I was originally using the 18.5" 260 was only shooting 3 MOA more than the guys with 28" barrels... so honestly what do you think are you gaining by using only 3 MOA less and that wasn't even a load tuned to the rifle. It's silly the old thinking that longer is better... nothing can be farther from the truth as shorter barrels are proving to be not only very fast, but more accurate due to the deceased length and how it effects the shooter.
For a tactical shooter, the handiness of the rifle cannot be overlooked and what you gain by going "long" is really a waste of time. Unless it is a dedicated F Class rifle, there is nothing to be had.
Long Range is debatable as if you are truly building something for "long range' how about picking the bullet better... a 7WSM at 24" will smoke the 260 at 30" so, application is everything when it comes to long range. I will take a rifle that is just as viable and 10" shorter every day of the week over something longer.
Re: 20" 260?
Frank.
What kind of wind do you give up. I'm building a 260 right now. I'm definatly not worried about dialing a little more elevation. I love the short barrels. I'm thinking about a 24" but maybe you can change my mind. I'm only building this to cheat the wind. I'm currently shooting a .308
Frank.
What kind of wind do you give up. I'm building a 260 right now. I'm definatly not worried about dialing a little more elevation. I love the short barrels. I'm thinking about a 24" but maybe you can change my mind. I'm only building this to cheat the wind. I'm currently shooting a .308
Re: 20" 260?
The 260 has an advantage over the 308 in the wind right from the start, so you're already gaining. You have to figure an average 308 is using about 1 Mil more of wind over a 260 at 1000 yards. (10MPH) 3 MIls (308) to 2 MIls (260)
So using some software to check, as I don't have my 18.5" 260 data here, but I have some data from my other 260s, if you use 8.2 MIls to reach 1000 yards with a 260 and then move to a similar 260 that needs 8.5 Mils to 1000 yards the wind gain is .1 Mils over each other... so go .3 Mils more with a 8.8 Mil 260 you might need 2.2 Mils instead of 1.9 Mils, at least that is how it is tracking. Again, I don't have my data in front of me to say, but read the posts in the SH Build thread and I think I describe my wind hold.
In reality its not my job to convince anyone that shorter is better, but I will point out the fallacies that longer is so much better because the numbers just don't support that nor do the realities on the ground. I still recall when the guys first showed up to RO with 6.5 CM and they were crowing about it, and I laughed, which lead to the 1000 yard challenge... I hit on the first round with my 308, and beat the "wind cheater" in one shot, why simply because I know my round and knew what I needed in that wind. There is no substitute for understanding the rifle you are using.
But its 2010, we have better bullets, powders, and barrels... look at the 178gr Hornady Superformance load, it is puts the 308 back in range of the 260, but still it is the difference between 9.6 MIls verses 8.8 that is a 22" 308 barrel verses an 18.5" 260, still in terms of the 308, its huge gains for that bullet, but over the 260, just enough to be racy.
The 260 has an advantage over the 308 in the wind right from the start, so you're already gaining. You have to figure an average 308 is using about 1 Mil more of wind over a 260 at 1000 yards. (10MPH) 3 MIls (308) to 2 MIls (260)
So using some software to check, as I don't have my 18.5" 260 data here, but I have some data from my other 260s, if you use 8.2 MIls to reach 1000 yards with a 260 and then move to a similar 260 that needs 8.5 Mils to 1000 yards the wind gain is .1 Mils over each other... so go .3 Mils more with a 8.8 Mil 260 you might need 2.2 Mils instead of 1.9 Mils, at least that is how it is tracking. Again, I don't have my data in front of me to say, but read the posts in the SH Build thread and I think I describe my wind hold.
In reality its not my job to convince anyone that shorter is better, but I will point out the fallacies that longer is so much better because the numbers just don't support that nor do the realities on the ground. I still recall when the guys first showed up to RO with 6.5 CM and they were crowing about it, and I laughed, which lead to the 1000 yard challenge... I hit on the first round with my 308, and beat the "wind cheater" in one shot, why simply because I know my round and knew what I needed in that wind. There is no substitute for understanding the rifle you are using.
But its 2010, we have better bullets, powders, and barrels... look at the 178gr Hornady Superformance load, it is puts the 308 back in range of the 260, but still it is the difference between 9.6 MIls verses 8.8 that is a 22" 308 barrel verses an 18.5" 260, still in terms of the 308, its huge gains for that bullet, but over the 260, just enough to be racy.
Re: 20" 260?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: REM700MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm only building this to cheat the wind.</div></div>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0CW4rUklKA
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: REM700MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm only building this to cheat the wind.</div></div>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0CW4rUklKA
Re: 20" 260?
Its looking like an 18.5" 260 is in my future. After reading the 2009 build specs I noticed that the 308 had a tight bore, would the 260 need one as well?
Its looking like an 18.5" 260 is in my future. After reading the 2009 build specs I noticed that the 308 had a tight bore, would the 260 need one as well?
Re: 20" 260?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: huntinaz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: REM700MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm only building this to cheat the wind.</div></div>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0CW4rUklKA
</div></div>
I already ordered a gallon
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: huntinaz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: REM700MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm only building this to cheat the wind.</div></div>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0CW4rUklKA
</div></div>
I already ordered a gallon
Re: 20" 260?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 260 has an advantage over the 308 in the wind right from the start, so you're already gaining. You have to figure an average 308 is using about 1 Mil more of wind over a 260 at 1000 yards. (10MPH) 3 MIls (308) to 2 MIls (260)
So using some software to check, as I don't have my 18.5" 260 data here, but I have some data from my other 260s, if you use 8.2 MIls to reach 1000 yards with a 260 and then move to a similar 260 that needs 8.5 Mils to 1000 yards the wind gain is .1 Mils over each other... so go .3 Mils more with a 8.8 Mil 260 you might need 2.2 Mils instead of 1.9 Mils, at least that is how it is tracking. Again, I don't have my data in front of me to say, but read the posts in the SH Build thread and I think I describe my wind hold.
In reality its not my job to convince anyone that shorter is better, but I will point out the fallacies that longer is so much better because the numbers just don't support that nor do the realities on the ground. I still recall when the guys first showed up to RO with 6.5 CM and they were crowing about it, and I laughed, which lead to the 1000 yard challenge... I hit on the first round with my 308, and beat the "wind cheater" in one shot, why simply because I know my round and knew what I needed in that wind. There is no substitute for understanding the rifle you are using.
But its 2010, we have better bullets, powders, and barrels... look at the 178gr Hornady Superformance load, it is puts the 308 back in range of the 260, but still it is the difference between 9.6 MIls verses 8.8 that is a 22" 308 barrel verses an 18.5" 260, still in terms of the 308, its huge gains for that bullet, but over the 260, just enough to be racy. </div></div>
I definatly agree that the one driving is way more important then what he is driving.
I was just wondering what the numbers would look like out if a 181/2" barrel. I keep hearing don't go shorter then 24". I'm just a huge fan of shorter more maneuverable rifles.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 260 has an advantage over the 308 in the wind right from the start, so you're already gaining. You have to figure an average 308 is using about 1 Mil more of wind over a 260 at 1000 yards. (10MPH) 3 MIls (308) to 2 MIls (260)
So using some software to check, as I don't have my 18.5" 260 data here, but I have some data from my other 260s, if you use 8.2 MIls to reach 1000 yards with a 260 and then move to a similar 260 that needs 8.5 Mils to 1000 yards the wind gain is .1 Mils over each other... so go .3 Mils more with a 8.8 Mil 260 you might need 2.2 Mils instead of 1.9 Mils, at least that is how it is tracking. Again, I don't have my data in front of me to say, but read the posts in the SH Build thread and I think I describe my wind hold.
In reality its not my job to convince anyone that shorter is better, but I will point out the fallacies that longer is so much better because the numbers just don't support that nor do the realities on the ground. I still recall when the guys first showed up to RO with 6.5 CM and they were crowing about it, and I laughed, which lead to the 1000 yard challenge... I hit on the first round with my 308, and beat the "wind cheater" in one shot, why simply because I know my round and knew what I needed in that wind. There is no substitute for understanding the rifle you are using.
But its 2010, we have better bullets, powders, and barrels... look at the 178gr Hornady Superformance load, it is puts the 308 back in range of the 260, but still it is the difference between 9.6 MIls verses 8.8 that is a 22" 308 barrel verses an 18.5" 260, still in terms of the 308, its huge gains for that bullet, but over the 260, just enough to be racy. </div></div>
I definatly agree that the one driving is way more important then what he is driving.
I was just wondering what the numbers would look like out if a 181/2" barrel. I keep hearing don't go shorter then 24". I'm just a huge fan of shorter more maneuverable rifles.
Re: 20" 260?
I currently run a 20" 260 AR-10 style rifle with and I personally feel it to possess the best compromise of variables for this caliber.
The load my rifle settled on is:
42.5 H4350, 140 A-max, CCI BR2, R-P case.
I get 2600 ft/sec with that load, and it really performs well.
I've gone out to 1050 yards with excellent results, and it should be a good performer out to 1200 yards.
Switching to a 130 JLK or one of the various 123's could push it's SS range out to 1400 yards, but I'm really pleased with how it's performing with the 140.
Yes you lose some potential velocity going with a shorter barrel, but when looking at real world performance, the numbers are still very good, and generally better than any .308.
I think lots of folks are in a quest to fix a software problem with hardware if that analogy makes any sense.
I've seen some tricked out guns in major calibers that couldn't seem to connect with a silhouette at 800 yards, (with called corrections that mostly went unheeded).
At the same time a lowly little 1 moa, 18.5", .308 gas gun couldn't seem to miss.
A good handy rifle can instill confidence and seems easier to master. Short barrels, of the same profile, will be exponentially stiffer leading to bigger margins in the loads sweet spot.
I'm currently sorting out the details of a 20" .260 bolt gun build.
I will probably be going with a 5r tight bore because I've seen that combo put out some impressive velocity in shorter barrels.
I'd count on 2650 with 140's, and 2800 with the 123's in a 20" bolt-gun.
Not "interweb" sweet, but real life sweet when you consider the ballistics, and the package.
I currently run a 20" 260 AR-10 style rifle with and I personally feel it to possess the best compromise of variables for this caliber.
The load my rifle settled on is:
42.5 H4350, 140 A-max, CCI BR2, R-P case.
I get 2600 ft/sec with that load, and it really performs well.
I've gone out to 1050 yards with excellent results, and it should be a good performer out to 1200 yards.
Switching to a 130 JLK or one of the various 123's could push it's SS range out to 1400 yards, but I'm really pleased with how it's performing with the 140.
Yes you lose some potential velocity going with a shorter barrel, but when looking at real world performance, the numbers are still very good, and generally better than any .308.
I think lots of folks are in a quest to fix a software problem with hardware if that analogy makes any sense.
I've seen some tricked out guns in major calibers that couldn't seem to connect with a silhouette at 800 yards, (with called corrections that mostly went unheeded).
At the same time a lowly little 1 moa, 18.5", .308 gas gun couldn't seem to miss.
A good handy rifle can instill confidence and seems easier to master. Short barrels, of the same profile, will be exponentially stiffer leading to bigger margins in the loads sweet spot.
I'm currently sorting out the details of a 20" .260 bolt gun build.
I will probably be going with a 5r tight bore because I've seen that combo put out some impressive velocity in shorter barrels.
I'd count on 2650 with 140's, and 2800 with the 123's in a 20" bolt-gun.
Not "interweb" sweet, but real life sweet when you consider the ballistics, and the package.
Re: 20" 260?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ChadTRG42</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I should be taking the SH 260 rifle to the range this weekend, and get some good info from the 18". I'll post details when I have them. </div></div>
Sweet! Will be looking for that data Chad..thanks
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ChadTRG42</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I should be taking the SH 260 rifle to the range this weekend, and get some good info from the 18". I'll post details when I have them. </div></div>
Sweet! Will be looking for that data Chad..thanks
Re: 20" 260?
I like the way it looks to thats a big factor. I see what your saying but I like long. If I where building a small rig I wanted to fit in a bag or backpack with a folding stock to use in urban ops then 18" would be so cool. But for what I do I like them at 27".
Jon
I like the way it looks to thats a big factor. I see what your saying but I like long. If I where building a small rig I wanted to fit in a bag or backpack with a folding stock to use in urban ops then 18" would be so cool. But for what I do I like them at 27".
Jon
Re: 20" 260?
sounds like a 20'ish inch .260 might be in my future as well. Thanks for all the info fellas, hope to see Chad's range report.
sounds like a 20'ish inch .260 might be in my future as well. Thanks for all the info fellas, hope to see Chad's range report.
Re: 20" 260?
Well I like building my rifles on the shorter side of things and don't mind dialing a bit more.
For the short .260 would you get a little slower twist to shoot the lighter 123's which would give you less to dial up for but a harder time fighting the wind...or faster twist for the 140's
Well I like building my rifles on the shorter side of things and don't mind dialing a bit more.
For the short .260 would you get a little slower twist to shoot the lighter 123's which would give you less to dial up for but a harder time fighting the wind...or faster twist for the 140's
Re: 20" 260?
Lowlight:
Have you pushed the short barreled 260 to longer ranges? 1,500 plus? I'm about to have a 6.5 X 284 rechambered to 260 and was wondering if I would need more velocity at those ranges. The rechambered barrel would be about 26".
Lowlight:
Have you pushed the short barreled 260 to longer ranges? 1,500 plus? I'm about to have a 6.5 X 284 rechambered to 260 and was wondering if I would need more velocity at those ranges. The rechambered barrel would be about 26".
Re: 20" 260?
I have no reason to want to shoot a 260 to 1500 yards... I have a 338LM, 7WSm and 300WM if I want to do that... there is no practical reason to do so, so why would I.
Its a tiny bullet, pick the right round for the job.
I have no reason to want to shoot a 260 to 1500 yards... I have a 338LM, 7WSm and 300WM if I want to do that... there is no practical reason to do so, so why would I.
Its a tiny bullet, pick the right round for the job.
Re: 20" 260?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cigarcop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well I like building my rifles on the shorter side of things and don't mind dialing a bit more.
For the short .260 would you get a little slower twist to shoot the lighter 123's which would give you less to dial up for but a harder time fighting the wind...or faster twist for the 140's </div></div>
With the shorter barrels you usually need to err on the side of more twist for the same length bullet as RPM will be a little lower.
I use a 1:7.5 and it does well with 120's - 142's.
Why limit yourself with a slow twist for little perceivable gain?
(just opinion)
For a long barreled 260 I'd go with a 1:8.
For known distance shooting the 140's are better.
For estimated ranges (mil-dot ranging etc.) the 120's may be better, but barely at best.
Personally I feel that any bullet within this range will perform near the top, just pick one and get to know it and your rifle.
(There are so many good ones to choose from in 6.5)
Those finer details end up just being academic in practice.
If you find that you spot your impacts for ranging/wind doping reasons the lighter ones allow you to get back into the scope a little faster to spot this.
A muzzle break really makes a difference here as well.
Only important if you need to see your impact to make corrections from though.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cigarcop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well I like building my rifles on the shorter side of things and don't mind dialing a bit more.
For the short .260 would you get a little slower twist to shoot the lighter 123's which would give you less to dial up for but a harder time fighting the wind...or faster twist for the 140's </div></div>
With the shorter barrels you usually need to err on the side of more twist for the same length bullet as RPM will be a little lower.
I use a 1:7.5 and it does well with 120's - 142's.
Why limit yourself with a slow twist for little perceivable gain?
(just opinion)
For a long barreled 260 I'd go with a 1:8.
For known distance shooting the 140's are better.
For estimated ranges (mil-dot ranging etc.) the 120's may be better, but barely at best.
Personally I feel that any bullet within this range will perform near the top, just pick one and get to know it and your rifle.
(There are so many good ones to choose from in 6.5)
Those finer details end up just being academic in practice.
If you find that you spot your impacts for ranging/wind doping reasons the lighter ones allow you to get back into the scope a little faster to spot this.
A muzzle break really makes a difference here as well.
Only important if you need to see your impact to make corrections from though.
Re: 20" 260?
I am on my 3 rem700 260rem, very happy with the Round, with 140amax, 45grain of H4831, it does 2650only, oal=2.8" on both 24" on one 25" on the other, One you shoot the 260rem, it will tend to hit smaller gong size out to 700meter and 500meter is easy, on my S&B 3.5mil will give me the bull eyes at 500meter. CHEATING WIND IS VERY GOOD.
I am on my 3 rem700 260rem, very happy with the Round, with 140amax, 45grain of H4831, it does 2650only, oal=2.8" on both 24" on one 25" on the other, One you shoot the 260rem, it will tend to hit smaller gong size out to 700meter and 500meter is easy, on my S&B 3.5mil will give me the bull eyes at 500meter. CHEATING WIND IS VERY GOOD.
Re: 20" 260?
This summer, I am looking into doing a 20" 243win, with heavy varmint, not sure on the exact length I do on the 243win, but some where around the 20" mark. 1in8 or 1in9 twist would be acceptable.
This summer, I am looking into doing a 20" 243win, with heavy varmint, not sure on the exact length I do on the 243win, but some where around the 20" mark. 1in8 or 1in9 twist would be acceptable.
Re: 20" 260?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ChadTRG42</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I should be taking the SH 260 rifle to the range this weekend, and get some good info from the 18". I'll post details when I have them. </div></div>
Any updates or reports...inquiring minds
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ChadTRG42</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I should be taking the SH 260 rifle to the range this weekend, and get some good info from the 18". I'll post details when I have them. </div></div>
Any updates or reports...inquiring minds
Re: 20" 260?
My 18" 7mm-08 is running great with IMR4064....2600fps gets with the program.
IMO Modern powders allow for a complete burn for 308Win based rounds within 20".
My 18" 7mm-08 is running great with IMR4064....2600fps gets with the program.
IMO Modern powders allow for a complete burn for 308Win based rounds within 20".
Re: 20" 260?
I disagree, more bore size = greater volume. I.E. a 308 burns more powder in a short tube than 260. I do like 6.5 alot, but think 22-23 is a good minimum. That said, if your ranges are a tad shorter, no reason why you cannot sacrifice more bbl if handling is a priority.
I disagree, more bore size = greater volume. I.E. a 308 burns more powder in a short tube than 260. I do like 6.5 alot, but think 22-23 is a good minimum. That said, if your ranges are a tad shorter, no reason why you cannot sacrifice more bbl if handling is a priority.
