Re: .260 accuracy beyond 1k
Yeah, I understand that it's not a military round and hasn't seen combat as such. I guess my question then would be, what's the furthest distance anyone has made a kill on a substantial game animal, (such as a deer/antelope/etc.), with a .260 Remington or anything similar enough to logically compare? And/or, at what distance does it cease to do enough damage to the vital area to walk away with a clean kill?
I only ask because I'm really leaning toward this chambering for it's ballistics and accuracy out past 1k, along with low felt recoil. But I have no personal experience with what is necessary in terms of "energy expended" on impact at those ranges out to say.. 1500yds, to cleanly kill.
I know there are many rounds such as the .338 variants, that easily kill at that range. I'm simply curious if the same would be true of the .260. While I enjoy punching holes in paper just as much as the next fellow, it would be nice to know what it's "effective" range would be as well.
I guess I'm a bit "old corps" in that respect, as my time in the military learning weapons systems always consisted of two ranges for a weapon. Maximum, and Maximum Effective. The latter being considered the range at which one could expect to incapacitate, and therefore the actual range at which the weapon should be employed at to ensure combat effectiveness.
I guess maybe the only way to find out other than crunching numbers, would be with ballistics gel? If anyone knows of any tests at range with the gel for any round even similar, I would be very interested to see those results. Really, any LR ballistics gel tests with any chambering would interest me as well. I would personally never consider attempting to take an animal at an extreme range such as those listed here, but it'd be nice to know the effective limits of many of the more popular LR chamberings… Yes?