Talk:.260 Remington
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Cartridge Pic[edit]
The cartridge pictured looks like it might be a 6.5mm Remington Magnum. If it is it can be used elsewhere! Can someone take a look and at this? I think I spy a little belt on the cartridge. DeusImperator (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it's a belt or if it's just an artifact of the lighting. The image is labeled in the system as a .260, so I'm guessing that's what it is. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Moose hunting with .260 vs 6,5x55[edit]
Talking about Estonian experience, where 6,5x55 is also very popular, many seriuos hunters hand load their cartridges with 160gr softtips for moose. Also modern hunting rifles can be hand loaded for higher pressure, as this pressure limit comes from old military rifle chambers, not from weak cases. Factory loads for .260 and 6,5,x55 with 120 and 140gr bullets are both good for boar and roe deer. Without having personal experience with .260 i can only quote numerous internet sources (as well as this site) which claim that with 160gr bullet 6,5x55 outperforms .260 significantly and thus while 6,5x55 with 160gr is very safe moose round, lighter rounds with 6,5x55 and with .260 may result with many wounded animals (perfect shots excluded of course).
Sporting Usage[edit]
As newbie, I only just realised I could post this question here. I've placed a couple of charts comparing relative performance of various 260 Rem cartridges next to this section. If the author of the text posts the muzzle velocities, Ballistic Coefficients, Sectional Densities of the cartridges they refer to in the text, I'll amend the charts to include them. Cheers, JohnMZoomNoodle77 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC) I could do the same for the following Section (Rifles and Ammunition) too. I just didn't want to go overboard.ZoomNoodle77 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Cartridge drawing
The shoulders in this drawing are shown as 40 degrees. This is not correct for the standard 260 Remington cartridge.SteveOak (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- According to the current C.I.P. TDCC α/alpha is 40 degrees, see http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page97.pdf. From an US perspective this would be alpha/2 = 20 degrees.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Rifling Twist[edit]
The twist rate of the rifling is not a specification of the cartridge and should not be listed in the specification section.
It may be appropriate to include information on nominal twist rates elsewhere in the article.SteveOak (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)