The Great Debate: .260 Rem vs. 6.5×55 — Which Is Better?
One of our Shooters’ Forum readers, Trent from Louisiana, asked for help deciding between a .260 Remington and a 6.5×55 for his latest gun project. In the Forum thread, respected UK gun writer Laurie Holland provided a good summary of the differences between the two chamberings. Laurie writes:
“The 6.5×55 case has 6 or 7% more capacity than the .260s, even more in practice when both are loaded to standard COALs with heavy bullets, which sees them having to seated very deep in the .260 Rem using up quite a lot of powder capacity. So loaded up for reasonable pressures in modern actions, the 6.5×55 will give a bit more performance.
The issue for many is what action length is available or wanted, the 6.5 requiring a long action. So sniper rifle / tactical rifle competitors will go for the .260 Rem with the option of the many good short-bolt-throw designs around with detachable box magazines. If a bit more performance is needed, the .260AI gives another 100-150 fps depending on bullet weight.
Brass-wise, you’ve got really good Lapua 6.5×55 off the shelf that needs minimum preparation, and it’s strong and long-lived. There is an Ackley version too that was popular in F-Class in Europe for a while that isn’t too far short of 6.5-284 performance. If you go for .260 Rem, the American brass isn’t as good but you can neck-up Lapua or Norma .243 Win and trim them (or neck-down .308 Win or 7mm-08). This has the downside that doing so usually creates a noticeable ‘doughnut’ at the case-shoulder junction, that may cause problems depending on how deep bullets are seated. [Editor’s Note: After Laurie wrote this, Lapua began producing high-quality .260 Remington brass.]
For purely target shooting, I think I’d go with 6.5×55 if I was making the choice again today for performance and brass-preparation reasons. In fact, I’ve considered going back to the gunsmith to have the barrel rechambered.
You want a multi-purpose rifle though and that makes things trickier depending on the bullet weight(s) you want to use. The [typical] 6.5×55 and 6.5-08 throats are really designed for 140s, so 90-120s make a long jump into the rifling. If you’re always going to use 130s and up, it’s less of an issue. If you want to use the lighter stuff, I’d say go for .260 Rem and discuss the reamer with the gunsmith to come up with as good a compromise as you can depending on the mix of shooting. 1:8.5″ twist is the norm and handles all the usual sporting and match bullets; you can go for a little slower twist if you won’t use the heavies.
Over here in the UK, in Scotland to be precise, we have a top sporting rifle builder (Callum Ferguson of Precision Rifle Services) who almost specializes in .260 Rem usually built on Borden actions. He throats the barrel ‘short’ so it’s suited to varmint bullets, but will still handle the 100gr Nosler Partition which he says is more than adequate for any British deer species including Scottish red stags.
Accuracy-wise, I don’t think there’s anything between them if everything else is equal. The 6.5 has a reputation for superlative accuracy, but that was high-quality Swedish military rifles and ammunition matched against often not-so-high-quality military stuff from elsewhere. Put the pair in custom rifles and use equally good brass and bullets and you’ll be hard pressed to tell them apart.” – Laurie Holland
After Laurie’s helpful comments, some other Forum members added their insights on the .260 Rem vs. 6.5×55 question:
“To me, the .260 Remington has no advantage over the 6.5×55 if one is going to use a long action. Likewise, the only advantage the .260 has in a modern rifle is it can be used in a short-action. There is more powder capacity in the 6.5×55 so you have the potential to get more velocity plus there is a lot of reloading data available to you for loading at lower velocity/pressure if you choose. The Lapua brass is great and Winchester brass is pretty good at low pressures. Having loaded a good bit for both, the 6.5×55 would always get the nod from me. To me, if someone wants to use a short-action, the 6.5×47 Lapua is even a better option than the .260 for a target rifle.” — Olympian
“There is just one small item that has been missing from this conversation — the 6.5×55 has a non-standard rim diameter of .479″ vs. the standard .473″ of a .308 and all of its variants. Depending on your bolt this may be an issue, or it may not.” — Neil L.
Similar Posts:
- 260 Rem vs. 6.5×55 — Laurie Holland Compares the Cartridges
- Six-Five Smackdown: The .260 Remington vs. 6.5×55 Swedish
- Which is Better: .260 Remington or 6.5×55 Swedish?
- New 30 ARX — 6.5 Grendel Necked to .30 Caliber Beats 300 BLK
- Comparative Specs for Various 6XC Brass Sources
Share the post "The Great Debate: .260 Rem vs. 6.5×55 — Which Is Better?"
Tags: 260 Rem, 260 Remington, 6.5mm, 6.5x55, Cartridge Choice, Laurie Holland
Lapua makes .260 brass as well.
For whats gained with the 6.5×55 having a non-standard bolt face as well as the need for a long action seems to make the .260 the better choice in my book.
So where does the 6.5×284 fit in?
6.5/.284 has a case capacity closer to a 30-06.
There’s also the 6.5 Creedmoor to make things more complicated.
6.5 Grendal ect. ect. ect.
I’ve just built a short action 6.5 x 55 on a Rem 700 and AI chassis. Bullet weight for mag feeding has to be in the 100 to 123 grain range and the bolt needed some work for extraction.
Running it against the 6.5 x 47 however shows a no contest with the 6.5 x 47 winning hands down on reliability, accuracy, recoil and powder use.
Since I wrote those words some time back, I’ve acquired the three small contenders – .260 Rem, 6.5X47L, and most recently the 6.5mm Hornady Creedmoor and started doing load development and comparative tests. All three rifles have match length (28 or 30-inch 1-8s, two NZ True-Flites and one the 260, a 30-inch 5R Bartlein), and although specs vary should all be good enough to let me get good to excellent results.
How the barrel is throated is a key issue with this trio. In my case, I have always had the feeling that the 260 and ’47L are at their best with 120-130gn bullets and both have been chambered to suit the 123gn Scenar seated optimally. Both shoot this bullet fantastically well at getting on for 3,000 fps using Viht N150. I’m constantly amazed by this bullet’s external ballistics performance at up to 900 yards. I’ve yet to try it at 1,000. No, you won’t stand up to someone shooting a 7 short magnum or 284 Shehane with 180gn Hybrids or VLDs at 900 or 1,000 in rough conditions in an F/O match, but that applies to the 6.5-284 too. (That’s what I have a 284 Win F/O rifle for anyway for that matter!)
The Creedmoor which I’ve just about run in properly and am starting serious load development was chambered using a reamer that Dave Kiff recommended and sold to me – PT&G drawing #10618 is throated rather longer and suits 140s. So far, in 100 yards testing, 140s at ~2,800 fps have given the smallest groups, far better than either the 120 A-Max or 123 Lapua. So, I’m concentrating on the heavier bullets trying Lapua’s 136 and 139, a couple of 140 Bergers, 140 A-Max, and some of the blunter short-mid range numbers – Nosler CC, Sierra MK.
To date, all loads use H4350 for two reasons. (1) all US advice says it’s the ‘go-to’ powder, and (2) it’s completely unavailable in the UK, will be all year, and very likely next too. So, after getting precision and MV benchmarks with a bullet the barrel really likes, I can then try it with a range of other propellants that are available here or are likely to be – Viht N150/160/550; Ramshot Hunter; Lovex SO70 (what used to be Accurate 4350)/ SO65; IMR 4350; Hodgdon H100V/H414; IMR-4350/4831.
I’m very taken with all three cartridges. the ’47 is an outstading mid-range number IMHO. The 260 a good all-rounder. But I have a ‘feeling’ that I am going to end up very fond of the Creedmoor and can understand its tremendous success in the USA. Over here in the UK, it barely registers with target shooters, and I doubt if at all with what US shooters call ‘hunters’, we call ‘deerstalkers’. Fortunately, I was able to get 300 pieces of ornady brass a couple of years ago, but we can get very strong Lapua .22-250 Rem cases here easily and they can be necked-up / fireformed albeit to produce a slightly short necked 6.5HCM. I’ll try that anyway at a later time as it looks like the original variety is going to be hard to get here.
Laurie, Interesting read, thank you! The 142 grain Sierra Matchking is very popular at our range with a rather high BC.
Not sure why the 260 AI was mentioned when the 6.5 Swede AI will run with a 6.5×284. Bolt thrust wasn’t mentioned at all. The body taper of the Swede is my biggest issue. I am a Swede loyalist, with that being said, I run on the ragged edge of load performance in modern actions and long barrels. When running the speeds I do brass tends to need to be trimmed more often. Also, at the speeds I am running my Swedes no 260 can even get close. In a velocity race the 260 is well behind a modern Swede. For the people who think they need a short action the 260 is a clear winner. It all depends on what you want to do.
6.5×55 in a Sauer 200 is a match made in heaven.
And I get once-fired norma cases from hunters for cheap.
Laurie
My 6.5 x 47 runs on 142 SMKs and does the business out to 1000 yards. My friend prefers 123 SMKs and not so great at the Longs.
Close in cannot tell the difference.
Just remember the rule of thumb for 6.5 – long and slow is the go.
I’d like to read more on the 6,5 GWI created near Borth Lawrence , OH , at Kelbly’s
The 6.5x55SE proves that 110 years ago, they got it darned right and all we ahve done over the last century is try to re-invent the wheel.
With the cost of componenets, barrels and powders, I am a bit less inclined to do much experimentation. If Lapua doesn’t make brass for it, i wont use it. If I can’t make the highest BC bullets fly fast enough, I won’t bother with it. For this reason, the Swede offers the best combination of inherent accuracy, it uses the 140+ grain bullets well, and in terms of brass… ‘ nuff said.
The ’47 is not enough cartridge to push 140+ without being close top red-line. The Creedmoor doesn’t use lapua brass. the 260 is the runner-up now that Lapua makes brass, but you Americans love it so much that is to too common
I’ll stick witht he Swede.
Having been a professional culler for more than 30 years I initially favoured the 22.250 for the work. But there has been a significant change in weather patterns down under with the number of days of the year where wind velocities play a major role in successful field shooting. The 22.250 was replaced with a 6.5x55Swede in an effort to overcome the effects of the wind and I find it a truly fabulous cartridge in this work. Of course all shots must be head shots or the meat works will not take the carcases so accuracy is always the primary goal. I have found the Tikka rifle to be a superb rifle for this cartridge and by switching to this calibre I was able to expand my target animal base from the light skinned marsupials to the thicker skinned and heavier bodied animals that were far more lucrative and far less controversial than “Skippy”. We are seeing a massive increase in the numbers of feral deer and the “Swede” is the bees knees for all of them. Loading has been settled on one particular projectile, the 120 grain Hornady A-Max which exits the 24″ barrel at 2800fps and I find suitable for everything that brings in my wages. Why is it so well suited to such a wide range of animals? I believe it is the superb accuracy that is inherent with the 6.5SE that allows such precise bullet placement over such a wide range of ranges and the devastating performance of the A-Max on such a wide range of game. Recently one of my 6.5 using friends has been able to get hold of the new 143grn ELD-X projectiles and he is raving about them. As wind seems to be becoming an increasing factor in our work I will be trying some of them. By the way, over the decades I have also used .243, 25-06, 257 Roberts and the 6.5×47. None compare with the Swede as an “all round” cartridge when it comes to real hunting as opposed to punching holes in paper.