Why not .257 Roberts? Vs. 243 Win?


PDA






David4516
June 11, 2008, 01:26 PM
Why isn't .257 Roberts more popular?

I've never actually shot one (yet), but on paper it looks like a good "dual purpose" rifle.

This question came to me a while ago back, when I was trying to decide what caliber to re-barrel an old Mauser in.

.257 seemed the natural choice, as this was originally a 7x57 Mauser and the .257 Roberts is based on the 7x57 case. I took the rifle down to the gunsmith. This is a side story, but he had the rifle for nearly a year and a half and didn't even get started on the project :cuss: . I took the rifle back last weekend and will need to find someone else to do the work... how long is a re-barrel project supposed to take? I figured I'd get the thing back within a month... Grrrrr.....

Anyway, I've already bought reloading dies and brass and bullets for .257 so I started looking at the load data for this round. As far as I can tell the .257 Roberts should do anything that a .243 will do, only better. So why is the .243 so much more popular? Especially taking into consideration that it came out years later.

I would have thought that the .257, with it's head start, and ability to handle a wider range of bullet weight, would have been the more obvious choice.

I'm looking at the Nosler #6 book, it says that their 115gr .25 cal bullet has a ballistic coeficent of .453, not bad at all. And the .257 will push that bullet along at 2800+ FPS. Also, looking at their ballistic tables, it says that this combo will drop about 13 inches at 300 yards, if the rifle is zeroed at 100 yards. Not the flattest shooter, but not bad. Should be a great Deer round.

On the other end of the scale they show an 85gr bullet with a BC of .329 at 3300+ FPS, with a drop of 9 inches at 300 yards, with a 100 yard zero. Sounds like it would make a decent small game/varmint round.

I guess this is a long post for a quick question: Why isn't the .257 Roberts just as popular as the .243 Winchester?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why not .257 Roberts? Vs. 243 Win?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
one-shot-one
June 11, 2008, 02:02 PM
on the .257 are correct.
the .243 is more "popular" because of availibilty or factory guns & ammo.:D

ArmedBear
June 11, 2008, 02:20 PM
.257 is based on the 57mm Mauser case (7x57mm, 8mm Mauser).

.243 is based on the .308 Winchester case (7.62x51mm).

The .308 case is ubiquitous in the US. The Mauser case, not so much.

More importantly, probably: in a standard American action, .257 is a long-action round and .243 is a short-action round. .25-06 will fit in the same rifle as .257, as will .270. The .257 competes with the .270 and .25-06, not the .243, which occupies a slightly a different niche.

The .243 is popular as a "minimalist" round, the lowest-recoil, short-action deer round. It works well for small shooters, light "mountain rifles", antelope hunting, etc.

The .257 Roberts is an also-ran, competing in the same market as the .30-06 family. The .270 has long dominated the necked-down .30-06 world. If there were more surplus Mauser actions being sporterized today, as there were post-WWII, you might see more .257.

None of that takes from the .257's objective merits. The 7x57 is believed by many to be the most versatile hunting round in the world. Others favor the 6.5x55 Swede. Neither of these is as popular in the US as the standard .308 and .30-06 based rounds are. That's just how it goes.

Mr White
June 11, 2008, 02:49 PM
What is the 'standard' bullet for the .257? Remington only loads a 117 gr soft point for it. The performance of that bullet is pretty dismal compared to the .243 or the .25-06; below 2000fps at 200 yd, below 1000 fp energy at 200 yd.

I don't know what the .257 is capable of, but if it isn't any better than that, I can see why it isn't more popular.

drtworks
June 11, 2008, 02:58 PM
My Grandfather's favorite deer rifle was and is his Winchester model 70 in .257 Roberts. I'll bet he took 30 deer with that rifle. He always used .257 Roberts for deer and 30-06 for elk. The one time he shot an elk with the .257, it took 9 shots.

It is a sweet rifle. I hope to inherit it someday.

JesseL
June 11, 2008, 03:00 PM
.257 Roberts does real nice vs. .243 Win, when you neck the Bob down by another .013 :D

ArmedBear
June 11, 2008, 03:00 PM
I don't know what the .257 is capable of, but if it isn't any better than that, I can see why it isn't more popular.

It's a handloader's round, I suspect. In that case, it also competes with more wildcats than you can shake a stick at. If you only plan to shoot your own handloads, there's a lot to choose from.

Ratshooter
June 11, 2008, 05:10 PM
E.R. Shaw and Dan Pederson are well thought of by John Barsness of Rilfe Magazine. Do a google search or e-mail riflemag.com and they can give you the phone numbers.

And it shouldn't take a great deal of time to rebarrel your gun.

rcmodel
June 11, 2008, 05:15 PM
The .257 Roberts is not more popular because the manufactures have to sell new rifles & calibers every year to stay in business.

And all the gun writers tell everyone the new calibers are WAY better then the old calibers, because the gun magazines get big bucks from the manufactures advertising to stay in business.

SO, the .257 Roberts isn't more popular because everybody & his dog want to sell new rifles, ammo, and advertising, & stay in business.

rcmodel

cdrt
June 11, 2008, 05:16 PM
The .257 Roberts was always under loaded by the ammo companies, probably because besides being offered in Rem and Win bolt actions, it was a std caliber in Remington's slide action rifles. Only handloading can bring out it's true potential. On the heavier end of bullets, it has the advantage over the .243 Winchester.

Jim Watson
June 11, 2008, 05:55 PM
I don't think the .257 Roberts was offered in a Remington slide action until the Model 760 which will hold .270 Win, at the time the hottest non-magnum round on the market.

There is a legend that the .257 Roberts is lightly loaded because of the wildcat custom guns made for it on pre-'98 Mausers before it was picked up as a factory load. That does not hold up, either, because the .257 Remington Roberts is not the same as the original .25 Roberts (either of two versions.) And there is no shortage of strength in the Model 30 Remington or Model 54 and 70 Winchesters.

I think the reason the .257 Roberts has always been loaded lightly was that it was hyped for accuracy and with the powders and bullets of the day, the most accurate load was usually well under the maximum the brass and gun would take. The rather blunt bullets gave longer bearing surface which also helped accuracy.

The experts of the day devised the Three Inch Roberts, which they produced by putting a .30-06 magazine follower and bolt stop in a Model 70 .257 rifle. That allowed them to load a spitzer bullet close to the rifling. The real experts reamed the throat so they could seat bullets way out to 3.3". The gain in case volume was not great enough to produce the velocities they claimed, pressures were undoubtedly higher. But the round had been so underloaded that just bringing it up to the standard for other calibers in the same rifles was a big help.

GunTech
June 11, 2008, 06:16 PM
The biggest limitation for the 257 and almost every other quarterbore is the lack of a large variety of good bullets. 243 has benefitted from a huge selection of excellent bullets. Like 6.5 and 7mm, 6mm seems to be one of those 'magic' calibers that result in very good BC.

PotatoJudge
June 11, 2008, 06:18 PM
The +P loadings put the round closer to it's potential:
120 grain bullet at 2,950 fps
100 grain bullet at 3,100 fps
87 grain bullet at 3,300
75 grain bullet at 3,500 fps

Not quite 25-06 performance, but close enough for most purposes. I think the performance difference between the two cartridges is enough to get you into Elk territory, though only with a good load of Barnes TSX or similar quality bullet.

MCgunner
June 11, 2008, 06:46 PM
I've been shooting my grandpa's .257 since age 11. He gave it to me when I was about 16. It's an old M722 short action Remington and a really nice, and accurate little gun. I load it to push a 100 grain Sierra game king to 3150 fps or a 117 Hornady Interlock to 3050. Those ballistics are closer to .25-06 factory loads than .243 and it shoots the Sierra load into 3/4 MOA consistently, the 117 grain load is a 1MOA load. I could reduce that, no doubt, if I weighed bullets, measured case volumes, and other such bench rest nonsense. :D

When the .243 came out, the hype in the Zines was such that everyone clamored for it and the Roberts just sort of died. The round was never loaded by the factories to its potential pressure levels in modern guns due to a lot of older Mauser 93s and such being custom chambered for it back when Remington adopted the round from wildcat status. Original factory loadings pushed a 100 grain bullet around 2800 and a 117 to around 2600, significantly less than the new .243.

In the mid 80s, there was a resurgence of interest in the Roberts. A few rifles were cranked out for it from Ruger and Remington and Winchester came out with a +P silvertip that pushed the 100 grain bullet to about 2950. But, it flashed and died again. It is and probably will forever be more appreciated by the handloader for its potential in a short action gun like the little 722. I'd NEVER THINK of selling mine, of course, due to inheritance and if my heirs sell it, I'll come back to haunt them. I killed my first whitetail with that gun at age 11. But, it's a fantastic little rifle regardless of emotional ties and a truly classic caliber. I don't own a .243. I won a .25-06 BDL in a gun show door prize raffle, traded it for my M7 Stainless in .308. Prefer the .257 to a BDL in .25-06 and I WANTED that M7. :D

When I thought I was going to get to go elk hunting, only rifle I had was the .257. That's when I bought my 7 mag. I wanted enough gun. Oh, the .257 might kill elk just fine with a proper shot and controlled expansion bullet, but that's a lot like hunting deer with the .223 in my mind, marginal at best.

Jim Watson
June 11, 2008, 07:16 PM
due to a lot of older Mauser 93s and such being custom chambered for it back when Remington adopted the round from wildcat status.

As I said, I think this is urban legend. The .257 Remington Roberts never was a wildcat.
The original .25 Roberts wildcat was shorter with a shallow shoulder angle. The .25 Roberts as semi-standardized by Griffin & Howe was the same thing except the neck left full length to save on brass preparation. When Remington adopted it, they went back to the 7x57's shoulder diameter and angle, or close to it. The commercial ammo would not chamber in the earlier wildcats and there were no weak action customs unless built after Remington announced in 1934.

smokemaker
June 11, 2008, 07:19 PM
I've got and old Rem 722 in .257, it shoots the Hornady 117 light mag into 1" at 100 yds, The 100 grain Speer hot-cor shoots real nice too. I suspect that the 100 grain Barnes TSX loaded to +p would do alright on elk. It's a great cartridge!

MCgunner
June 11, 2008, 07:45 PM
Quote:
due to a lot of older Mauser 93s and such being custom chambered for it back when Remington adopted the round from wildcat status.


As I said, I think this is urban legend. The .257 Remington Roberts never was a wildcat.

Just repeating what I've read in multiple articles. Been a 257 nut for life and read everything I run across. Articles always start out like that. I wasn't around when Ned Roberts was writing/working on wildcats. I ain't THAT old. :D

BTW, I get my best ballistics from H4831, a powder which goes WAY back. It is compressed, but shoots probably 150 fps faster than often hyped for the caliber 4350.

Jim Watson
June 11, 2008, 07:53 PM
Partial story is at:
http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/257r.html

It does not mention the fact that the original .25 Roberts was trimmed from 57mm as well as necked down and given a 15 deg shoulder; followed by G&H chambering rifles and not trimming brass to save a step. To learn that, I had to refer to 'Pet Loads' because Ken Waters was personally acquainted with Ned Roberts and a lot of the other big names of the day.

pbrktrt
June 11, 2008, 08:00 PM
why not ? because we have the .257 Weatherby. now there's a hot little number.

MCgunner
June 11, 2008, 08:02 PM
The weatherby is a long action and rather inefficient round. Yeah, it's faster. So is my 7 mag. It's also harder on shoulders and barrels and in varmint shooting, that could matter. I think the .257 is the better, as the OP says, combination deer/varmint caliber of the two.

Shawnee
June 11, 2008, 08:21 PM
Hi David...


GREAT question ! Have enjoyed all the responses ! Great Stuff !

Though I dote on the .243 I'll add a couple minor thoughts about the Roberts here.

No matter what the .243 (or 6mm, or 25/06, or yadda) can do - the .257 Roberts - even in the loadings of 3300 for the 85/87-grainers and 2800 for the 117s - was, and is, a GREAT deer rifle.

You might also want to consider using a 250-yd. "zero" rather than the 100-yd. "zero" - because that gives your Roberts a fair chance. To wit:

87gr. Spitzer at 3300fps

2" high at 100 yds.
zero'd at 250
3 inches low at 300 yds. 1100+ ft/lbs. of energy :what:
_______________________________

117 BoatTail SP at 2800fps.

3" high at 100 yds.
zero'ed at 250 yds.
4" low at 300 yds. 1100+ ft/lbs of energy :what:


EITHER of those loads will dump a deer at 300yds. and either will do it anywhere from 0yds. to 300yds. without moving the crosshairs and, THAT, Sir, is one Fine deer caliber no matter how you or anyone else slices it.

There is a very good reason people love the .257 Roberts, David. Enjoy yours to the hilt.;)

:cool:

eliphalet
June 11, 2008, 08:36 PM
These guys will rebarrel your rifle in a good time frame at great prices, give them a call.
http://www.ershawbarrels.com/

PotatoJudge
June 11, 2008, 08:52 PM
I don't think the difference in performance between the 25-06 and the Weatherby Mag come close to justifying the extra cost and having to mess with a belted mag while reloading.

Art Eatman
June 12, 2008, 12:29 AM
I guess that for me, the .257 Roberts is one of those good cartridges which just didn't fit my needs. Neither fish nor fowl when you have an '06 and a .243 and handload.

It's certainly a good cartridge for most deer hunting, no doubt...

MachIVshooter
June 12, 2008, 08:55 PM
The .257 doesn't really compete with the .243. I'd venture to say that the reason it isn't very popular these days is that it's outclassed by the quarterbore-dominating .25-06. Since the .257 has to be chambered in a long action anyway, most just opt for the extra 200-300 FPS and better ammo selection of the .25-06. That doesn't mean the .257 isn't a great cartridge-it is. But the .25-06 is just a bit better.

FYI, the Roberts was a very popular cartridge for the first 35 years of it's life. But the introduction of the .25-06 as a factory standardized cartridge in 1969 pretty much killed the .257.

MinnMooney
June 12, 2008, 10:21 PM
There's sometimes no simple answer for why a pet cartridge is not more popular with more shooters.
The 6mm Remington has better ballistics than the .243Win. but back when the 6mmRem was introduced, the rifles had the 1:12 twist and only shot the lighter bullets. Winchester introduced the almost identical caliber - .243Win. - (but with slightly less case capacity) but they rifled their guns with a 1:9.5 or something close to that so it could shoot the 90 and 100 grain bullets & advertised it for deer, antelope and varmints too 'cause it was capable of shooting as small as 55 -60 grain bullets. By the time Remington offered 1:9.5 twisters, the race was already won by Winchester.

With the .257 Rob'ts, the field is crowded with really great calibers like the .25-06 Rem., .25 WSSM, .257 Weatherby Magnum and the old originater of the higher velocity .25 caliber rounds, the .250-3000 Savage.

CB900F
June 12, 2008, 11:31 PM
Fella's;

And in answer to JesseL: If you neck the .257 down .014 (though you said 13), you've got, no not the .243, it's the 6mm Remington! Which has the same 7 X 57 Mauser brass as it's parent.

If you really want to blow the .243 outta the water, start runnin' the 6mm.

900F

Shawnee
June 13, 2008, 12:12 AM
"With the .257 Rob'ts, the field is crowded with really great calibers like the .25-06 Rem., .25 WSSM, .257 Weatherby Magnum and the old originater of the higher velocity .25 caliber rounds, the .250-3000 Savage."


I've always heard the .250 Savage went lame when the bulletmongers brought out the 117/120gr. bullets and the rifling in most .250 Savages was too slow to stabilize them. The story (lore ?) I've always heard about the .257 Roberts' decline was that it was always chambered in relatively cumbersome weapons and the introduction of the .243 in the Winnies simply left the Roberts' and it's klunky rifles in the dust.

Both the .250 Savage (aka .250/3000) and the .257 Roberts handle the 87-grainers and 100-grainers very well. It's a shame how so many people do not realize how useful and effective those two .25 caliber bullet weights are. They are devastating on deer - and in the .250 Savage or .257 Roberts - a package that is wonderfully comfortable to shoot.

Frankly - the .243, the 6mm Rem., the .250 Savage, the .257 Roberts, and the 30/30 are the Creme de La Creme of deer hunter calibers. Bar none. Every other caliber is just Madison Avenue hype and not one thing more.

:cool:

MCgunner
June 13, 2008, 10:06 AM
The story (lore ?) I've always heard about the .257 Roberts' decline was that it was always chambered in relatively cumbersome weapons and the introduction of the .243 in the Winnies simply left the Roberts' and it's klunky rifles in the dust.

I certainly wouldn't call the 722 Remington "clunky" or "cumbersome" It is a very well made old rifle, one of the smoothest bolts I've felt on a Remington. None of the newer Remingtons can approach the smoothness of that old rifle's bolt. It's a light weight, very handy short action gun with a 24" barrel which helps ballistics a bit. It's almost as handy as my M7, just a little heavier and longer, but much handier and quicker to the shoulder than a long action gun like my Savage 110. I'd call the Savage "clunky" by comparison.

However, the 722 was a very PLAIN rifle, all business. It has a non-checkered stock, nothing fancy, no white line spacers, no end cap, just a steel but plate. I refinished the stock and had the rifle re-blued some years ago and it's pleasing to ME to look at, but it's not fancy. But, you cannot call it "clunky" in any way, shape, or form. It has a very good adjustable trigger and the workmanship on the old gun just isn't seen in today's rifles. Compared to a high grade pre-64 M70 short action, it'd work just as well, but just wouldn't be as pretty or fancy. Of course, it doesn't have CRF, but hey, so what? You going to Africa to hunt dangerous game with a .257 Roberts? I continually am amazed how slick the bolt is on that thing, though.

JesseL
June 13, 2008, 10:56 AM
And in answer to JesseL: If you neck the .257 down .014 (though you said 13), you've got, no not the .243, it's the 6mm Remington! Which has the same 7 X 57 Mauser brass as it's parent.

If you really want to blow the .243 outta the water, start runnin' the 6mm.

That was exactly my point.:neener:

I love my 6mm.

Hokkmike
June 13, 2008, 11:06 AM
I think the .257, 6.5's (just about all of 'em) and the 7mm -08 are all in a more versatile class of use. The .243 I still think is the bottom margin for deer. I LOVE the .243 as a varmint and deer combo.

Phil DeGraves
June 13, 2008, 11:12 AM
The one thing I've never been able to figure out is why the .257 Roberts (basically a 6.5x57) is loaded with 87-117 grain bullets but the 6.5x55 (.264 caliber) is loaded with 120-160 grain bullets.
I think the Roberts would have done better as it would have been more versatile with heavier/longer/better SD and BC bullets.

JesseL
June 13, 2008, 11:37 AM
The one thing I've never been able to figure out is why the .257 Roberts (basically a 6.5x57) is loaded with 87-117 grain bullets but the 6.5x55 (.264 caliber) is loaded with 120-160 grain bullets.

Funny thing is, while the .257 Bob is actually around 6.5mm in diameter the 6.5x55 is actually about 6.7mm diameter. The difference is similar to the difference between .270 Winchester and .280 Remington.

I'm not really sure why the American quarter bores tend to be loaded with light to average weight for caliber bullets, while the European 6.5mms tend to be loaded heavy for caliber.

It may have something to do with the fact that all the quarter bores were designed as sporting rounds, while the euro 6.5s were military cartridges developed shortly after the age of black powder.

David4516
June 13, 2008, 12:33 PM
I looked at the Remington website and I see what you guys mean about factory rounds for .257 being on the weak side. What's up with that? I never paid much attention to that detail before because I planed on handloading anyway... but lack of good factory ammo might explain why .257 lost popularity...

Some good points about the 6mm/244 vs the .243 also.

I guess a broader question could be, whey aren't cartridges that were designed around the 7X57 case more popular than those based on the .308 case?

I know that a non-military caliber is never as popular as a military caliber. But in this case they're both military rounds... and the 7X57 has more potential because of it's larger capacity...

Is it a short-action vs a long action kind of thing? The .308 case is 54mm long, right? thats only 3mm difference... wouldn't a round based on 7X57 fit in the same action?

Are there any other cartridges out that based on the 7X57, aside from the 6mm, and the .257 Roberts?

As for the .257 diameter bullets, I'm not sure why folks say that they don't have good B.C. Again looking at Nosler book I see that some have as high as .453, that's not bad. Sure there are better bullets but .453 is still pretty darn good.

I'm not saying that it's the best round even, far from it. As others have pointed out a .25-06 has the advantage over .257 hands down. Others mentioned that you can use heavy bullets if you step up to the 6.5mm/.264 caliber rounds. But it does seem to me like it (.257 Roberts) would be more popular than some of the other cartridges in the same class (.243, 6mm, .250 Savage, etc...).

But then again it could just be me. I tent to like the less popular calibers. For example I have a .280 Remington instead of a .270 Winchester... That's another can of worms but it was a case where I looked at the ballistics for both rounds and decided that the .280 looked better...

JesseL
June 13, 2008, 12:46 PM
I guess a broader question could be, whey aren't cartridges that were designed around the 7X57 case more popular than those based on the .308 case?

I know that a non-military caliber is never as popular as a military caliber. But in this case they're both military rounds... and the 7X57 has more potential because of it's larger capacity...

Is it a short-action vs a long action kind of thing? The .308 case is 54mm long, right? thats only 3mm difference... wouldn't a round based on 7X57 fit in the same action?


I think it is largely a short- vs long-action thing, but the 7x57 and its derivatives is a little too long for a short action (.308 is 7.62x51mm) and in a 30-06 length long action it's a little short (it works fine, but people don't like to waste space).

Also most of the folks that were experimenting with different calibers in the US way back when, were more interested in using the 30-06 as a starting point. More capacity than the Mauser rounds and more familiar.

What I wonder is why a 6.5-06 never took off?

David4516
June 13, 2008, 01:08 PM
Oops, I must have been thinking of 7.62X54R... now I just feel silly LOL...

CB900F
June 13, 2008, 08:28 PM
JesseL;

I stand chagrined. Though it would've helped if you'd have actually mentioned the 6mm Remmie.

Now then: .264 minus .257 = .007 difference in diameter. Personally, I think if Winchester had made the .257 WSM, not the Wussum, and built guns to handle 140 grain bullets, they coulda taken a helluva lot of market share away from other calibers. Oh well.

900F

litman252
June 14, 2008, 03:21 AM
CB-
Winchester made some comments that the 25-06 velocity was just too hard to compete with so they stayed away from the WSM in .25. They believed the only way to go was with the SSM.................... Keep it short :scrutiny:

But I do agree with ya on that one in general. I've wondered why there is no .25-08 to go with the .243, .260, 7mm-08 and 308???

I like Medium to small rounds, above the .243 yet below the .308 for 99% of my uses.


Tony

ColeK
June 14, 2008, 10:47 AM
David,
I agree with you the, .257 Roberts is better dual purpose cartridge than a .243 Win.
Factory ammo for the .257 Roberts is not loaded to the same pressure as the .243 Win but if you handload you can overcome that problem.
A .257 will fit in a .308 action but a 7x57 may not.
The reason the .257 Roberts is no more popular is that Winchester and Remington stopped building rifles chambered for it in favor of their own cartridges.

MCgunner
June 14, 2008, 11:04 AM
Funny thing is, while the .257 Bob is actually around 6.5mm in diameter the 6.5x55 is actually about 6.7mm diameter. The difference is similar to the difference between .270 Winchester and .280 Remington.

I'm not really sure why the American quarter bores tend to be loaded with light to average weight for caliber bullets, while the European 6.5mms tend to be loaded heavy for caliber.

It may have something to do with the fact that all the quarter bores were designed as sporting rounds, while the euro 6.5s were military cartridges developed shortly after the age of black powder.
__________________

.257 bullets might be on the short side in bullet weight because originally, the .250-3000 and the .257 Roberts were chambered in short actions with a rather long OAL and the bullet would crowd out powder space much over 117 grains and cost you performance. When the .257 was chambered in long actions, you could seat the bullet out, but then why not just chamber for .25-06?

My M722 is a short action and the knock on it has always been the limited space in the magazine for 117 grain loads, but I shoot 'em pretty honkin' fast, 3050, with a compressed H4831 load. I can't ask for more and the little gun is quite handy compared to the long action M721s. I like the gun a lot on its own merits. It blows the 6mms out of the water with heavier deer loads and, in fact, is closer to 25-06 performance than it is .243 or 6mm remington. BUT, the .243 works well on Texas deer and is very popular for those who are recoil shy, took over from the Roberts due to the SAAMI pressure limits on standard Roberts factory ammunition. That was the reason the Roberts died, plain and simple, even if the reasons for those low pressure limits are hidden in antiquity. :D The Roberts will always perform better for the handloader.

CB900F
June 14, 2008, 11:08 AM
Litman;

It's entirely possible that a .25WSM wouldn't out-velocity the .25-06, but that wasn't my point: "and built guns to handle 140 grain bullets". The point was the ability to step right out, and handle a heavier bullet. Which would've meant running a tighter twist barrel, but giving Winchester something nobody else was offering.

900F

GooseGestapo
June 14, 2008, 05:35 PM
Regarding the .257Robts......
What MCGunner and Mr Watson said!!!
Underloaded by factory because of "many" poorly converted military rifles which "would/will" chamber the factory loads, though not specifically converted to it. Yes, the 722 was plain, but it was short, light, and shot well..... First Roberts I ever shot when I was 14. Wanted one for years until I had one built (see below).

I've got two Roberts and a .257WbyMag. I love my "original" Roberts I had built in '83 on a Mauser '98 with an E.R.Shaw barrel. With some pits in the bore, it'll still shoot 5/8" five shot groups- and it's a 6.5lb rifle at that!

The Ruger .257" kills it's self with Mediocrity (M77MkII). It's 8.5lbs with a scope and won't shoot better than 1.5-2moa. (Glass bedded, trigger worked, ect. -just a lousey barrel!) Yeah; it's "fat" too....... But, I just had to have it, to satisfy my curiosity.....Oh well !!

The problem with bullets no heavier than 120gr's in .257" is the twist rate is nominally 1/10". Neither of my .257's will group worth a hoot with the 110gr Hornady Interbonds (waay tooo loonnggg), and the .257Wby will "disintegrate" 117gr Nosler Balistic tips. And that, with a 1/12" twist! (But at over 3,300fps, I should add) I "splattered" two white-tail deer with it (pieces of deer on surronding brush/trees, but had both escape). However the excellent 100gr Hornady Pt.SP will give sub-moa (except from the Ruger.....) and normally retains 67% weight (on those I've recovered, mostly it completely penetrates....) Only recovered bullets have been at closer range from the .257WbyMag. At lower velocities (3,150fps) of the Roberts, it completely penetrates. The "Flat based" 117's and 120's shoot very well and perform well, However, I've had two bad "lot#'s" of the Hornady 117grBTSP. As many as 50% of the bullets would destabilize and fail to hit a 200yd target. No such problems with the 117gr BT Sierra's however......
If the twist was 1/8", it'd be indescernable from the excellent 6.5's (.264"). I've always heard the .25's referred to 6.35's (bore diameter, not groove depth).

FWIW, the 117gr RN lives on, because, its a perfectly built/constructed bullet. Good SD, fair BC, but expands well, and penetrates far better than anything I've ever gotten from a .243wcf. For me, the .243 doesn't kill any better than the .22-250, and not nearly as well as the .25's-7mm's. The .257 117gr RN is very nearly equal to the 150gr-170gr .30/30's in terminal performance. A very good "neighborhood"........hence, why it's held on......

MCgunner
June 14, 2008, 08:22 PM
Hey, Goose, good observation on the twist rate thing, but I think we're talkin' chickens and eggs here, maybe, not real sure. I left out the 25-20 earlier, too, but it most often was loaded with a flat nose, tube mags.

But, I'm thinking the 1:10 twist rate was because of the 117 grain bullet being the heaviest available rather than the other way around, 250-3000 being available when the Roberts was standardized by Remington. But, heck, I don't KNOW that, just speculating for the sake of argument. LOL The .257 in the original short actions wouldn't work well with much heavier, though, I know this. They had limited magazine space on the short actions like the 722 anyway. I really don't know about the older guns pre 722, though. What was the original, M54 or something like that, fifty something IIRC? So, it's sort of speculation on my part. All I do know is, even if a 140 were available and I had a 1:8 twist, I couldn't push it very fast as I'd have to seat it so deep it'd take up too much space in the case.

BTW, at 3050 fps, I had a 117 Interlock fail to expand at all in a large Texas 7 point (an oxymoron, I realize). It was a good, fatal shot, so he didn't go far, but I couldn't find the entrance wound behind the shoulder and what I knew to be the exit wound looked like an entrance wound. :rolleyes: I quit using the interlocks in the .257 for deer. I sorta figured they were built for Weatherby mags or something, LOL. Part of the problem was I hit no bone, went between ribs just behind the shoulder. I sorta standardized on the rather excellent and accurate 100 grain Sierra pushing it 3150 after that. I've had no problems with it and it's very accurate, sub moa. Best have been in the 1/2 MOA range and hardly ever shoots over 3/4 moa. Expansion wise, it seems tailor made for the Roberts and maybe .250-3000 aka .250 Savage.

rdoggsilva
June 15, 2008, 02:54 AM
My wife still hunts with a .257 Roberts with a 98 Mauser action. I tried to get her to use a .270 but she will have none of it. The rifle is a sweet shooter and she as take 15 mule deer with it. I will have her zero in for 250 yards as stated by Shawnee, thanks Shawnee.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why not .257 Roberts? Vs. 243 Win?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!