6.5x47 vs .260

From the inception of the .260 Remington, I've always wished it had been, well, the 6.5x47, because I've assumed that some of the high BC 6.5mm bullets would need to be seated too deep into the .260 Rem case. But, then again, if your case is shorter and the capacity less, your net powder volume may be no different than a deep-seated bullet!

Anyway, is it, first of all, true the .260 suffers from having to seat high BC bullets too deep? Aren't there plenty of very long-range shooters who use the stock .260 case just fine with their highest BC bullets? If so, then what does the 6.5x47 offer that the .260 Rem doesn't already do?

Is the .260 (let's call it a 6.5x51) actually a better all-around cartridge because it works better with the lighter 6.5mm bullets, whereas the 6.5x47 is a dedicated high BC platform?

Somebody help sort the confusion! :confused:

John

I know nothing at all about the 6.5 x 47 cartridge but have quite a bit of experience with the 260 Remington, mostly shooting high BC bullets. Over the last 5 years I have put 15,000+ rounds thru my bolt rifle. Went thru 4 barrels and 1200 pieces of brass.

The story about needing to seat the heavier bullets too deep and infringing on case capacity is just a lack of thinking on the part of people making that claim. The limiting factor on seating bullets is actually where you need to be able to have full contact between the inside of the case neck and the bearing surface of the bullet. I have not found any reason to seat the bullets down far enough for that to be a problem. In fact, seating the bullets to magazine length puts them at about 0.020 to 0.030 off the lands with the chamber reamer that I utilize, just about right for good all around use.
If you have a problem with insufficient case capacity when you use heavy bullets just go to a slightly faster burning powder and lessen the charge. Simple. I use Reloader 19 and prefer to run the 123 Scenar at 3000-3050 fps in a 26" premium grade target barrel. This normally gives me about 15 loadings on a piece of brass before the primer pocket loosens up and tells me that the loading is pretty mild. When I use the 139 Scenar, I only run it at 2850 fps and don't seem to get quite as good of accuracy as with the 123 loading. From my 22" barreled Remington hunting rifle the velocities are down quite a bit. I don't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head as I only shoot 40 or 50 rounds a year from that rifle but I do remember that the 123 takes 30 moa to get to 1000 yards in my hunting rifle where as it takes 26 moa in my tactical rifle.

From the inception of the .260 Remington, I've always wished it had been, well, the 6.5x47, because I've assumed that some of the high BC 6.5mm bullets would need to be seated too deep into the .260 Rem case. But, then again, if your case is shorter and the capacity less, your net powder volume may be no different than a deep-seated bullet!

Anyway, is it, first of all, true the .260 suffers from having to seat high BC bullets too deep? Aren't there plenty of very long-range shooters who use the stock .260 case just fine with their highest BC bullets? If so, then what does the 6.5x47 offer that the .260 Rem doesn't already do?

Is the .260 (let's call it a 6.5x51) actually a better all-around cartridge because it works better with the lighter 6.5mm bullets, whereas the 6.5x47 is a dedicated high BC platform?

Somebody help sort the confusion! :confused:
John

Bolt action-non magazine: Typically no one shooting 1000 yds seats at the 260 or any cartridge at "reloading manual" length. Therefore, powder space intrusion is a non issue, what you do wind up with is dead space in the case. The 260 is not the easiest to tune, some will even say it's the least accurate of the x/08's family.

Most that shoot a 260 will transition to 6.5-284, velocity is king.

6.5x47 is an intermediate case that feeds from a mag, just like the 6XC.

6.5x47 over a 260

1. 30° shoulder, esentially a .335 tall 6.5 BR case
2. Better loading density using 36-40 grs of powder.
3. Can seat the BT/BS intersection of largest 6.5mm's in the neck and still be well under max mag length of 2.825" . A 142 SMK seated .100 above the junction, leaves .200 of the bearing surface in the neck and the OAL is only 2.778". IMHO, 142's belong with the 6.5-284. The 6.5x47 shines with 107-123 bullets.
4. Lapua brass that you don't have to neck up from .243 or neck down from .308...............no donuts!
5. Small primer pocket

I have a 260, I think the 6.5x47 is a better all around cartridge.

about 4 years late, but better than never.

260 Remington
6.5 Creedmore
6.5x47 Lapua

all three are nearly identical in performance in nearly every way. but in review after review the one that seems to come out on top by just a bit is the 6.5 lapua. and that has more to do with the quality of the brass than anything else.