20" OK for 260 Rem?

[dvdcrr]

A couple rifles I am looking at have 20" barrels in 260 Rem. I would want to be able to zero and hit a large deer at 300 yd. and under. That is a minimum because me and a friend both have taken deer at 375. I did it with a 270WSM he did it with a 30-06. I would prefer the 130 gr. Accubond for this. Is 20" enough barrel or too slow for 260? Does 20" yield enough energy for clean kill at 300?

[precision_shooter]

Shouldn’t have any issues with a 20” barrel. Talking maybe 100fps slower than a 24” barrel.
Not enough to make any difference on your end or the animals.

[dvdcrr]

Thank you for that info

[603Country]

20 inches works fine. I had a Tikka ‘built’ in 260 with a 20 inch barrel. The barrel is a bit heavier than a std sporter weight barrel and is amazingly accurate. I shoot the 120 gr Nosler BT over a warm load of R17. A couple of days ago I took a nice 9 point at 265 yards.

[MarkCO]

My .260 has 21.5" of barrel. One shot drops on Deer and Pronghorn with the 130 AB out a LOT further than 300 yards.

[jmr40]

Hunters are using the 6.5 Creedmoor at over 700 yards on elk. The 260 is basically the same. Having the bullet leave the muzzle 50 fps slower still leaves more than enough for deer at 300.

[Mobuck]

"Does 20" yield enough energy for clean kill at 300?"
I've had excellent results with 7mm08 and .308 out of 20" barrels. They tend to be fairly "barky" and seem to accentuate recoil of even moderate sized cartridges. 300 yards?? The remaining energy with a 20" bore is going to be close to what you'll get at 350 yards from a 24" bore.

[Mobuck]

"Hunters are using the 6.5 Creedmoor at over 700 yards on elk. "

FWIW
The outfitter I hunted elk with last week won't even let his hunters uncase a 6.5C after too many failures.

[603Country]

I like my 260, but i’d Go bigger for elk, and no way i’d Shoot any game animal at 700 yards.

[Wyosmith]

I have made a few ARs in 260 with 20" barrels and they do just fine. I would not worry at all.

Now to address the rabbit trail:

Mobuck says FWIW
The outfitter I hunted elk with last week won't even let his hunters uncase a 6.5C after too many failures.

I too know of of way too many failures on elk with the 6.5 C but I know what the problem is, and it's not the shell. It's the bullets that some of these guys insist on using.

They seem to think a bullet that shoots 1/2 MOA is "better" for big game than one that shoots 1 MOA, and never think about the facts that (A) elk are big targets and (B) any elk bullet needs to be able to break a heavy bone and still penetrate at least 24 inches after it does.

I know of quite a few elk killed with 243s and 257 Roberts, neither of which are more powerful than the 6.5C, and those elk were killed wonderfully. But the hunters used bullets that hold together. My daughter is one of them.

Even the old 6.5X56 Mannlicher is just fine for elk and and it's not as fast as the 6.5 C, but the old M/S was usually used with 156 or 160 grain bullets that did exactly what I described above. expand and go clear through in a relatively straight line.

140 grain Nosler Partitions and 130-140 grain Barnes bullet from a 6.5 C are JUST FINE, and so are the PPU 156 grain round nose bullets, but the fragmenting high accuracy bullets commonly used in the cartridge are not what they should be for elk hunting.

Sure they kill elk, -----and so will a 22 LR, but not as efficiently as we would like.

A perfect shot, broadside, that doesn't hit the leg or shoulder bone or shoulder blade is not a good test of any elk bullet. A 9MM pistol will kill elk with that shot.

Outfitters want to know that if you do hit bone, (accidentally of not,) that your round will go clear through in a fairly straight line.

The 6.5 Creedmoor is fine for elk hunting if the hunter loads an elk bullet in it.

I have personally seen more failures on elk with stupid fragmenting target bullets from 7MM Mags and 300 Mags than all the other cartridges. Many of the owners of those guns are falling for the lie that a tighter group on paper is an indicator of a quality elk bullet.

NOTHING could be farther from the truth!

2 MOA with good expansion and full penetration is WAAAAAY better than 1/10 MOA with a bullet that breaks up. I hear and read things all the time about bullet weights for elk and most are from men that don't really understand and have not killed very many elk. If I am asked what weight bullet a hunter should use I always say "80 grains or more.......when the bullet STOPS!"

A 180 grain bullet that weight 40 grains when it stops is not a good elk bullet. But a 100 grain bullet that weights 80 when it stops is an elk bullet.
Remember, it's the bullet hole that kills, not the bullet. You want a hole that goes clear through, and you want a hole through any bone it hits.

7MM Mags and 300 mags are very good calibers for elk hunting, but no cartridge case kills game. Bullet holes kill, and bad bullets many times don't make deep holes and straight holes.

There are WAY too many bullets made today with labels on them, or advertisements about them that say they are for hunting game over 400 pounds when in fact they are not. Many are target/varmint bullets with an outright lie printed on the label.

Keep in mind that a big cow can be 700 pounds and a big bull can go up to 900 pounds.

If you have a 6.5 C with deer bullet you'll love it on deer. But elk are bigger. LOTS bigger. They die fine when shot with smaller rifles, as long as you get good expansion and full penetration.

[Mobuck]

I agree with what Wyosmith wrote.
My friend and I both used 7mm Rem mags this year. I shot a big calf (about 250# on the hoof)@ 250 yards using 160 Nosler Partitions. I had to be extremely careful not to hit a second elk with the pass through(quarter sized hole in and out breaking a rib on both sides). My buddy used Rem Corelokt 175 @ 300 yards passing through approx 24" of shoulder and neck on a big cow(upper end maybe 600-650#). Opposite ends of the penetration spectrum but either is possible.

[GeauxTide]

Wyosmith is the Bomb.com. Splendidly iterated.

[Mr. Hill]

Yup wyosmith is right, take it from someone who learned the hard way. Penetration trumps accuracy with elk.

[44 AMP]

Penetration trumps accuracy with elk.

penetration trumps "sub MOA" accuracy on any big game.

A 2MOA load means that under perfect conditions your bullet will be ONE inch off your point of aim, in some direction. (assuming a properly sighted rifle)

You judge the wind, your judge the distance, you aim right, and the bullet will hit the vitals. Once you have that level of accuracy, anything further is irrelevant. What matters is what the bullet does AFTER hitting the animal.

The .260 Rem is the equivalent of the time tested and deservedly honored 6.5x55mm Swede. A 20" barrel does give up some speed but the deer doesn't know that. Neither does the Moose.

Use a bullet designed for the job of putting down a big game animal, even if it groups a little bigger than a target bullet, and aim well and the job gets done. Aim poorly, and the failure is yours.

The cartridge and barrel length combination has more than enough power to do the job. If you do your job right, it will work just fine.

[mete]

The often quoted "Swedes use the 6.5x55 is used for elk " usually ignores the rule that the heaviest 6.5 bullet must be used . A premium 140 would also work but is not permitted .Swedish elk are smaller than ours .
In any case there are too many who want to turn the 6.5 s into light bullet varmint guns.
I only use the 140 for deer and it's the perfect weight especially with a premium bullet like the Barnes that I use !!

[eastbank]

I bought a 700 rem sps in .260 with a 24" barrel and like it. it will do anything the 6.5cm will do and it only weights a few ounces more than my sps 700 rem in 7mm08 with a 20" barrel. and the good thing is I only paid 500.00 for it new. eastbank.

[reynolds357]

The 6.5 Creedmoor is in my opinion not the ideal choice for Elk, but inside appropriate ranges which maintain sufficient energy. Of course proper bullet selection is essential. I still prefer 140 gr Barnes X in 7 RUM.

[dvdcrr]

What groups are you gettin out of that SPS Eastbank?

[Wrought]

Smaller bores do better with longer barrels and bigger bores are less effected by shorter barrels. That being said its a hunting rifle and maneuverability means more than than anything else

[eastbank]

with factory 140gr bullet and a 3x9 leupold scope 1 to 1-1/4" 3 shot groups at a hundred yards, I know it will do much better with reloads it likes. I have the same rifle in 7mm08 and with my reloads with nosler BT 120gr bullet shoots into a inch or better. eastbank.

[HiBC]

This comment is about barrel length,not elk bullets (I agree with Wyo)
I have a MOA handgun in .260 Rem. It has a 14 in barrel.
I get 2600 fps with a 120 gr Ballistic Tip.
It has a snapover extractor on a rimless case. I have to keep pressures on the moderate side or I get FTE's

[dvdcrr]

thanks Eastbank for the info. Have you upgraded the stock or trigger.

[Doyle]

My .260 rifle has an 18.5" barrel. I would feel totally confident in taking deer out to beyond 300 yds. I used to own a Remington XP100R in .260 with a 16" barrel. I would have felt the same way about that one (well, maybe in the hands of someone a little more skilled than me with a handgun).

[Road_Clam]

High Power competition shooters take the AR-15 5.56 / .223 out to 600 yards using a 20" barrel with excellent precision and velocities.

[ThomasT]

Here is what I wrote in the other thread "Thoughts on the .260 Remington".

Its sort of funny that light weight bullets are what everyone wants to shoot because all they are concerned with is velocity. I have a book called "The Selected Works Of Finn Aagaard" and he has a couple of chapters on the 6.5 cartridges. There were several in use around the turn of the last century. It was a popular bore size for the armies then switching to smokeless powder rounds.

The early rounds all used bullets in the 150-160gr range. They gave deep penetration and were even used on Elephant. A 120gr bullet would not be a good choice for that animal. The heavy bullets gave deep, straight penetration and most of those African hunters preferred the FMJ bullets to prevent bullet break up. Something they really wanted to avoid. The early 6.5s also only shot around 2300fps. But most of the shots they took were 200 yards or less. I guess they were better at being hunters and didn't consider longer shots. Plus most all the rifles were open sighted. Those heavy bullets made the reputation of the 6.5 bore.

This pretty much mirrors what Wyosmith wrote. I still think heavier bullets in about all calibers are better than light weight bullets that are picked just for the sake of more velocity to make the elusive 400+ yard shot. And at longer ranges the lighter bullets have so much less striking power. I think anyone shooting at Elk out to 700 yards is an irresponsible hunter. Its the animal that takes all the risk and the chances of a wounding shot are too high for that kind of "hunting". Shooting targets that far is fine, just not animals.