Suggestions on which long range gun to buy

[STOMP442]

Well in Issue #81 of the Varmint hunter Magazine Brian Litz of Berger bullets and the United states Air Force Academy did a comparison of different bullets to determine actual B.Cs as compared to published B.C.s and for the 140 Hornady amax at a velocity of 2800 fps, he claims the actual B.C. to be .600 even. 15 points higher than published data. The actual drop out of my rifle differs slightly but when I adjust the B.C. down to .595 and using the drop charts created by the Berger ballistics program they match pretty dang close, dead nuts out to 500 and within a click out to 800 of my actual shot drop chart. So although this method may not be the most scientific, out of my rifle pushing a 140 Amax at 2820fps I determined my true B.C. to be .595.

 

Interestingly enough the 178 grain Amax tested in the same experiment by Brian Litz was actually lower than published data only achieving a .481 instead of the published .495.an overestimate on hornadys part by almost 3%

 

Berger Balisitics software with a 200 yard zero

 

178 grain Hornady Amax B.C. = .495 velocity = 3050fps

300 Win mag at 1000 yards is producing

827 ft/ lbs of energy

270 inches of drop

and 80.10" of drift in a 10 mph wind

 

6.5-284 Norma 140 grain Amax B.C. = .585 Velocity = 2850

707 ft. lbs of energy

281 inches of drop

70.70" of drift in 10 mph wind

 

 

As you can see both cartridges are pretty close at long range. The major difference is the 300 Win needs a much bigger bullet pushed by 68-80 grains of powder depending on the powder you use to achieve the same thing accomplished by the 6.5 that only requires 48-58 grains of powder. What the 6.5 lacks in energy it more than makes up for in efficiency, felt recoil and wind drift.

[azgutpile]

It appears that the B.C. from my ballistic program i are incorrect.

 

You are correct in saying the 6.5 -284 is a great long range round, it's just not my ideal extreme long range deer hunting or long range elk hunting cartridge. I thing something in 7mm SAUM, 7mm wsm or the 7mm rem mag would be a better choice when you balance all the factors.

[STOMP442]

The 7s are excellent choices for long range work but again you are using much more powder and producing much more recoil than the 6.5. There is no need for spending an additional 200 bucks on a muzzle break just to make the cartridge comfortable to shoot. The 6.5 fits the bill for what the op asked for. Lets not forget the Swedes have been using the 6.5 to tackle moose for over a hundred years.

[308Nut]

Apples to apples are not being compared here. The 140 class bullets in 264 cal are heavy for caliber. The 178 30 cal is a middle weight. Run the 208 Amax against the 6.5x284 using 140 amax's. Both heavy for caliber bullets of similar form factors. The 208 will drift a couple inches less at 1k and hit with 1.5x the energy in a 300 win mag.

 

Don't get me wrong, I own, use and I love the 6.5x284 but it is not a legitimate 1k elk rifle. Yes there is more powder and more recoil. Like most things, everything is a trade off. You want less recoil. You will give up something else. You want more down range energy. You will give up something else.

 

Using similar design bullets you cannot equal or beat beat bigger calibers with smaller calibers period. You can beat certain aspects such as recoil and trajectory but not down range performance. Even comparing the same case design you can only beat so much. The 308 running 208's has identical drift versus the 260 rem 140 at 1k 10mph and yet hit with 1.3 times the energy. The 260 has less recoil and flatter trajectory but less energy. Similar costs to operate with 1/2 or less barrel life than the 308. Both have clear advantages over the other but contrary to popular belief, neither are overall superior to the other.

[STOMP442]

The 260 with a 140 will hit with 80% of the energy of the 308 with a 210 grain bullet at 1000 yards while providing almost 8 inches less wind drift and provide a flatter trajectory of 70 inches almost 6 feet! I would gladly trade the energy for the greater chance of actually hitting what I am aiming at. That extra energy isn't going to help you when you make a poor shot on the animal.

[308Nut]

Amax versus Amax, please share you calculations for 8" less windage. Just wondering why we see such a difference.

 

Not worried about the trajectory. Haven't been since decent range finders hit the market. Windage is where it's at. That said, I only come up with 33" of difference in drop. When the windage is equal, I'll take extra energy and barrel life for religious field practice.

 

Again, not trying to show one or the other superior to the other, just that you can't beat one or the other in every category and something is given up no matter which way direction you go.

[STOMP442]

I am using Berger bullets and the Berger ballistics program. 210 Berger with a b.c of 631 and a velocity of 2450 and the Berger 140 with a b.c. of 612. At a velocity of 2700.

 

Hornady has a slightly higher published b.c for their 208 and a lower published b.c. for their 140. This is where the discrepancy lies. For the record though there was some independent studies done by Brian litz and the air force academy testing published b.c.s vs actual measured b.c.s by them. Hornady 30 Cal amaxs had an average overestimate of 3% and the actual measured b.c of the 6.5 140 was actually an even 600 under estimated by 2%. The study can be found in issue #81 of the varmint hunter magazine.

 

When running the amaxs through shooting solution on my phone since I am at work I come up with 3.3" less windage for the 260 and a 68.6" trajectory advantage using the same velocity numbers as above. The 308 will have a 177 pound energy advantage at 1000 yards.

 

Most people shooting the 308 will run 150-175 grain bullets in which case the 260 will walk all over it in every category especially at longer ranges. Barrel life of a cartridge used for hunting purposes should not even be an issue as you will never burn out a barrel of either caliber in an average hunting career. If we were talking bench rest shooting barrel wear might become a concern.

[AverageJoe]

Your speeds for the .308 with 208 amax are a bit low. Most guys now are running the 208 at 2550-2650 and even up to 2700 depending on barrel length. Plug 2600 (an average speed) into your calculator and you will get a true comparison. 2600-2700 is very possible in the 308 with R17. I prefer the 200 gn sierra gameking to the amax. I run it at 2640. That combination is simply amazing from a .308.

[STOMP442]

2700 is a little slow for the 260 as well. I used an avg velocity for a 24" barrel since we are discussing hunting rifles.

 

2800+ is easily attainable in the 260 depending on barrel length and using reloader 17 as well so its a moot point.

[308Nut]

Yes the velocities are low. I run them much faster than that.

 

I agree that the 140 Amax is higher than published. I use .603 for my 6.5x284. Between double chronies and drops they match exactly. I also dont know how Bryan came up with .633 for the 208. I don't know any shooters that have had any success using .633. Most use .648 with a high degree of accuracy. At higher speeds I have found .671 to be the reality over double chronies and drops at 2900 fps. Bryan also admitted to me in public on another forum that he came up with .667 at 2900 as well. Real close. So, run the numbers using .648 versus .603 at 2600-2650 for the 308 and 2750-2800 for the 260 rem. Or....run them with the lower for the 308 at 2600 and the higher at 2800 for the 260. Windage is identical.

 

Much closer than most shooters realize.

 

At the end of the day they are both awesome. Hence the reason I have 3 go to rifles. 1: 308, 1: 6.5x284 and one 338 Edge.

[STOMP442]

You do realize that at 2600 fps the b.c. on that 208 is probly even lower than that since the b.c was calculated at 2800 fps. Probly not by much but lower none the less. Both calibers can and will get it done.

[Str8Shot]

I think 308 nut nit the nail on the head stating that the 6.5-284 is not a 1k yard Elk gun regardless of trajectory... well placed shot and energy on impact are both needed .... I am going off memory since my reloading books reside with my dad where I still load with him, but looking at doing loads for a 7mm saum for a friend the 162 gr Amax loads would be far superior to the 140 amax 6.5 load you are selling... the 7mm saum would have over 900 ft-lb @ 1000 versus 600 -650 ft-lb from the 6.5 and the 7mm 162 Amax has a BC of .625, and much flatter trajectory than your 6.5 as well... I am not sure( you can share some if I am wrong) if there is even a load out there in the 6.5-284 that could get much higher than the 600 - 700 ft-lb of energy at 1000 yards without being extremely hot and burning up barrels...

 

I still think 308nut is right, but if your just going by the numbers then the 7mm SAUM with 162 gr Amax would be in the same arena as the .30 cals a lot more so than the 6.5-284...

 

p.s. Hornady does not recommend A-Max or BTHP Match for hunting as they are not tested for expansion and I do not recommend nor support 1k shots on any big game, but if it floats your boat ... cheers!

[308Nut]

The 6.5x284 is hard on barrels for sure, even at safe levels. Just an FYI, running average loads with the 140 VLD type bullets you can get 800-850 pounds of energy at sea level and over 1000 pounds at 5000'. Unfortunately, all the bullets for the 6.5 with BC's high enough to reach those numbers are a bit on the flimsy side for elk. At least in my opinion. That said I have high hopes that Nosler will introduce a 140 in their new ALR line of bullets. If they can make one with a legitimate .610 or better, this would open a lot of possibilities for the 6.5's. I know the 190 30 cal should open a lot of doors for my 308. Both would offer the retained energy levels and the expansion properties as well as the durability needed for elk at ranges previously thought to be too far for elk. I guess we'll find out in a few months if they actually will have decent BC's and perform as advertised. I'm hoping for .57-.59 for the 190. Most manufacturers are within 5-10% of their claimed BC's. At a claimed .64 for the 190 it would be .576 with a 10% inflation factor. Here's for hoping......

[STOMP442]

1000 yards on elk has been done before and quite successfully. Is there better options yes but not without going outside the limits of the original post. The 6.5 gives him everything he is asking for without the added need or cost of getting a muzzle break installed. Not to mention all the added cost of powder usage with the big magnums.

 

Again in typical hunting scenarios the barrel life of the 6.5-284 should last the hunter his lifetime as he is not behind the firing line shooting 20 shot strings in a short amount of time. It would take 50 years firing 20 shots a year to reach 1000 rounds down the tube. At a slow rate of fire the barrel will last much longer than 1000 rounds. Most match shooters are achieving longer barrel life than that with barrels being under much more stress.

[308Nut]

There lays a potential problem for a long range shooter. 20 rounds a year does not lend itself to being profficient at ranges this caliber was made for. It's a nasty conundrum.

 

FWIW, I have just topped the 500 round mark with my 6.5x284. I have watched its accuracy degrade after 375 rounds. What was a solid .2-.3MOA rifle now is a .6-.7MOA rifle. I have not hot rodded it and not fired more than 1 shot per minute for 3 shots and then a total cool down. My go to load has been 49.9 of H4831SC under the 140 VLD at 2881 FPS with Rem 9-1/2 primers. Using a 3 groove barrel to boot. I was hoping for a good long life running moderate loads over a slow course of fire but so far I am disappointed in what I am seeing. I have taken good care of the barrel and stayed on top of the carbon. While the throat has only moved a couple of thousands, the first few inches are firecracked pretty bad. Maybe I should lower my accuracy standards.

 

I am going to fire lap it, have it set back an inch and have a quarter inch taken off the muzzle to see if I can milk some more good accurate life out of her.

 

If I do another 284 based cartridge I am going to try the straight 284. Sucks because the 6.5x284 is such a sweet cartridge. I am totally on board and share your enthusiasm on not needing 70+ grains of powder and 30+ pounds of recoil for LRH. Barrel life on big magnums is not the greatest either. All things considered, I am still stuck on the 308. It fits my shooting style. It is cheap to operate, scary accurate, has sufficient ballistic/terminal performance and allows me to own a barrel for several years. Since i get so married to them, I use it for hunting. The 308 I have now has a 1/2" 100 yard 3 shot guarantee for 10,000 rounds. As long as the round count is documented in their supplied log book, they will make it right. It is a legitimate sub 1/4 MOA rifle. A bit heavy for some hunting trips but there are never any free lunches around a good long range hunting rifle.

 

I'm not trying to argue here just sharing another perspective.