What is the 6.5 Creedmoor or .260 Remington doing that the 7mm-08 isn't? Besides costing more, and being harder to find, I mean. What else specifically?
According to Hornday's website, and regarding Hornady's ammunition;
7mm-08, 139 grain
2950 FPS out of a 24" barrel, with a BC of .486
6.5 Creedmoor, 129 grain
2950 FPS out of a 24" barrel, with a BC of .485
That Creedmoor -- which is ballistically a twin of the .260 Rem -- has a tiny bit less kick because of the reduced weight. But even in a reloading situation, it costs more and isn't as easy to find as the 7mm-08. Frankly, even though between these two bullet weights the Creedmoor has a touch less recoil, the reduction just isn't that much. Final point, accurate barrel-life for the 7mm-08 is significantly higher than the 6.5 or .260; wider bullet for equal powder charge (give or take) equates to less over-bore.
All of that said, if a person reloads, then the secondary market for .260 and 6.5 bullets tends to be broader than the 7mm-08 reloading market, with emphasis on long range. The bottom line seems to be precious few inches of flatter shooting gained on 1,000 yards.
Am I missing something here? Perhaps my data is incorrect? Am I making bad assumptions? Is there some downside to the 7mm-08 that I'm missing? Or perhaps there is some significant upside to the 6.5 and .260 that I failed to take into account? Seriously, the shooting elite's interest in the 6.5 caliber seems to offer such minimal gain that I'm having difficulty understanding how this relates to common folk who might like to punch paper at longer distances, but don't hang their reputation or life on those few inches.
What this thread is;
Why the 7mm-08 seems -- on paper -- to be underappreciated as a ballistically top-notch cartridge.
What this thread is not;
This isn't about trashing the Creedmoor, or the .260.
7mm-08
Re: 7mm-08
If you are interested in long range target shooting you shouldn't compare hunting loads.
Match bullets are much more common in the 6.5mm size. You need to go up to the 162gr Hornady at the light end of the match bullets in 7mm.
The only real advantage of the 6.5 CM over the 260 is the good and available Hornady match ammo. Can you explain how you find 7mm-08 match ammo more available than 6.5 CM or 260?
If you handload the 308 based 7mm-08 or 260 have more brass options by far over the 6.5 CM.
The heavy match/VLD 7mm bullets may be too long to load to mag length without intruding on powder capacity. The 260 is almost there with the longest 6.5mm VLD.
Match bullets are much more common in the 6.5mm size. You need to go up to the 162gr Hornady at the light end of the match bullets in 7mm.
The only real advantage of the 6.5 CM over the 260 is the good and available Hornady match ammo. Can you explain how you find 7mm-08 match ammo more available than 6.5 CM or 260?
If you handload the 308 based 7mm-08 or 260 have more brass options by far over the 6.5 CM.
The heavy match/VLD 7mm bullets may be too long to load to mag length without intruding on powder capacity. The 260 is almost there with the longest 6.5mm VLD.
Re: 7mm-08
Based on factory only -- and specifically Hornady -- that 6.5 CM isn't available factory loaded passed 140, and Hornady doesn't offer that loading in their SuperPerformance; the highest grain in their SuperPerformance line is 129 which is why I compared the 7mm-08 at the (unusual) grain of 139 and the 6.5 CM at the (equally unusual) grain of 129. Basically, I was aiming for the highest grain for each caliber in the SuperPerformance line.
That said, opening up the comparison to Hornady's reloading components, the 7mm boasts a 162 grain with a BC of .625.
However, the highest that Hornady offers in the 6.5 caliber is a 140 grain with a BC of .580.
Of course Berger and other companies will make different, and presumably better, bullets for reloading, but I didn't want to compare those (which is probably a mistake) because it tends to become an apples-to-oranges type of discussion.
Not arguing with you, nor am I trashing on the 6.5 calibers. I am merely wondering why the long range shooting community hasn't embraced this cartridge as the paper numbers suggest it should be. On the practical side of the house, its off-the-shelf performance should make it more of a contender all by itself since there's plenty of light-hobby shooters that do occasionally push for distance yet don't reload. Also, for folks that make their rifle pull double-duty, its hard to find a better all-around cartridge like this one, the 7mm-08, that seemingly doesn't cost any meaningful compromise. That is, for medium-size game its more than adequate, and puts out more power than 150-grain .308 at the muzzle, at the 100, the 200, and all the way out to who-knows-when, getting there faster, flatter, with more energy, and with less recoil. At the same time, even with a diminuitive 139 grains, its still holding a BC that's better than what the .308 has until you hit above 170-something grains. Hunting-wise, it beats the .308 across the board.
On the long-range side, you'd have to handload the 6.5 CM or .260 Rem to achieve a higher BC than the off-the-shelf 7mm-08. But then, if you're reloading, you could also improve the BC of the 7mm-08. All of this with a longer barrel life.
It just feels like there's got to be something else here, because on paper, the 7mm-08 brings a lot of advantages without bringing any real disadvantages.
----- ETA ----
I see what you're saying about comparing hunting to match; that's an important point. Its just that I also believe the 7mm-08 could enjoy most of the same improvements that any other cartridge would gain from hand-loading, so I feel like that's a wash.
That said, opening up the comparison to Hornady's reloading components, the 7mm boasts a 162 grain with a BC of .625.
However, the highest that Hornady offers in the 6.5 caliber is a 140 grain with a BC of .580.
Of course Berger and other companies will make different, and presumably better, bullets for reloading, but I didn't want to compare those (which is probably a mistake) because it tends to become an apples-to-oranges type of discussion.
Not arguing with you, nor am I trashing on the 6.5 calibers. I am merely wondering why the long range shooting community hasn't embraced this cartridge as the paper numbers suggest it should be. On the practical side of the house, its off-the-shelf performance should make it more of a contender all by itself since there's plenty of light-hobby shooters that do occasionally push for distance yet don't reload. Also, for folks that make their rifle pull double-duty, its hard to find a better all-around cartridge like this one, the 7mm-08, that seemingly doesn't cost any meaningful compromise. That is, for medium-size game its more than adequate, and puts out more power than 150-grain .308 at the muzzle, at the 100, the 200, and all the way out to who-knows-when, getting there faster, flatter, with more energy, and with less recoil. At the same time, even with a diminuitive 139 grains, its still holding a BC that's better than what the .308 has until you hit above 170-something grains. Hunting-wise, it beats the .308 across the board.
On the long-range side, you'd have to handload the 6.5 CM or .260 Rem to achieve a higher BC than the off-the-shelf 7mm-08. But then, if you're reloading, you could also improve the BC of the 7mm-08. All of this with a longer barrel life.
It just feels like there's got to be something else here, because on paper, the 7mm-08 brings a lot of advantages without bringing any real disadvantages.
----- ETA ----
I see what you're saying about comparing hunting to match; that's an important point. Its just that I also believe the 7mm-08 could enjoy most of the same improvements that any other cartridge would gain from hand-loading, so I feel like that's a wash.
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
Re: 7mm-08
Hornady should have just made a 260 load rather than create a new cartridge. They divided the market rather than reinforce and grow the 260. Lapua even makes 260 brass now.
If I remember correctly, there is one advantage to the 6.5 Creedmore - the brass is slightly shorter, which allows you to more easily load longer bullets to magazine length. But the 260 is not bad in this regard. Whereas the 6x45 I was just saying would benefit from making the brass 39mm long to be able to load even middle-range bullets to AR mag length. 45mm is just too long a brass to load 6mm bullets into AR magazines.
If I remember correctly, there is one advantage to the 6.5 Creedmore - the brass is slightly shorter, which allows you to more easily load longer bullets to magazine length. But the 260 is not bad in this regard. Whereas the 6x45 I was just saying would benefit from making the brass 39mm long to be able to load even middle-range bullets to AR mag length. 45mm is just too long a brass to load 6mm bullets into AR magazines.
Re: 7mm-08
silencertalk wrote:Hornady should have just made a 260 load rather than create a new cartridge. They divided the market rather than reinforce and grow the 260. Lapua even makes 260 brass now.
If I remember correctly, there is one advantage to the 6.5 Creedmore - the brass is slightly shorter, which allows you to more easily load longer bullets to magazine length. But the 260 is not bad in this regard. Whereas the 6x45 I was just saying would benefit from making the brass 39mm long to be able to load even middle-range bullets to AR mag length. 45mm is just too long a brass to load 6mm bullets into AR magazines.
I agree 100% with Robert. Had bullet manufactures just optimized the 260 and offered heavier bullet loadings it would have been much better. How many new "cool" trendy 6.5s have come out in the last 5 years? When all we really needed was to have 123, and 139's Laupa match bullets loaded with an optimized powder, in match brass.
Long distance, the next best thing to being there!
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
Re: 7mm-08
I am wondering about 260 vs 7mm. Is 7mm vastly more common?
Is 243 vastly more common?
I own a 260, but no 243 or 7mm.
Is 243 vastly more common?
I own a 260, but no 243 or 7mm.
Re: 7mm-08
Soft or hard targets? Or just paper?
Having a 260 myself i see no reason to get a 7mm 08. When i ordered my Snipers Hide GAP M700 I struggled with this very question. i was thinking 7mm08 for quite some time.. after reading the bang up job and sucess of the 6.5-08 was having i went with the 260. No regrets.
Having a 260 myself i see no reason to get a 7mm 08. When i ordered my Snipers Hide GAP M700 I struggled with this very question. i was thinking 7mm08 for quite some time.. after reading the bang up job and sucess of the 6.5-08 was having i went with the 260. No regrets.
Long distance, the next best thing to being there!
Re: 7mm-08
If I had a .22-250, I wouldn't buy a bolt-action .223. By the same token, if I had a .204 Ruger, I wouldn't buy a either of those. The point I'm trying to make is that there is a similarity between them that -- while one may be better, or have some specific advantage -- the reality is that the gains from one to the other are so minimal, that owning two, or making the jump from one to the other, just isn't worth it.
The 7mm-08 brings something specific to the table that the .260 doesn't, and that is simple availability. I don't believe that advantage warrants dropping a .260, if you already have one, and picking up a 7mm-08. This advantage is significantly reduced, or even nullified, if the shooter is a reloader.
What I was originally trying to point out is that the numbers for the 7mm-08 show that it is certainly a capable long-range cartridge. That combined with its availability and proven track-record for harvesting game make it - in my opinion - a top tier "do-all" cartridge, that miraculously gives up very, very little in the process. Normally a cartridge that tries to do two divergent tasks well ends up doing both with some degree of compromise. In this instance -- long range shooting and hunting -- the compromise is non-existent. It seems like a bonus that the availability is so strong.
The 7mm-08 brings something specific to the table that the .260 doesn't, and that is simple availability. I don't believe that advantage warrants dropping a .260, if you already have one, and picking up a 7mm-08. This advantage is significantly reduced, or even nullified, if the shooter is a reloader.
What I was originally trying to point out is that the numbers for the 7mm-08 show that it is certainly a capable long-range cartridge. That combined with its availability and proven track-record for harvesting game make it - in my opinion - a top tier "do-all" cartridge, that miraculously gives up very, very little in the process. Normally a cartridge that tries to do two divergent tasks well ends up doing both with some degree of compromise. In this instance -- long range shooting and hunting -- the compromise is non-existent. It seems like a bonus that the availability is so strong.
Re: 7mm-08
7mm-o8 offered in more guns and loaded ammo. Can be loaded down with aa 2460 and North Fork Technoligies 130 gr. ( made for single shot pistol lovers ) so small children can even enjoy deer hunting. The bullet is awsome.. If you really want one, watch out for Savage. At one time they started making them in a slow twist-11 I think. The faster 9 - 9 1/2 works a lot better for the larger bullets.