[wanderinwalker]

I currently hunt with and shoot a Remington M700 Mountain Rifle in .260 Remington. This little rifle will throw 140gr pills at 2600+ fps without trouble. As a bonus those slugs usually land within an inch of each other at 100 yds for the first 3-5 rounds.

My question is, on what size game animal would I ABSOLUTELY need a bigger gun? Basically I have unquestioned faith in my rifle and shooting ability. (What can I say, too much free time?) I KNOW that any deer/pronghorn/caribou within 250 yards is not long of life once the crosshairs settle.

But, I DO dream of African plains adventures. Would the .260 be sufficient for general non-dangerous game use on the plains? Or would I need something bigger? .30-06, .338-06, bigger? Ideas and experiences from people who have BTDT. Thank you in advance for any input.

[Vern Humphrey]

You wouldn't go too far wrong to think of the .260 Remington as a short-action 6.5X55 Swedish Mauser.

That particular cartridge is routinely used in Scandanavia for "elk" (which we would call "moose.") It is also used for stags or red deer (very similar to our elk.)

During the hey-day of African hunting in the late '40s and '50s and earlier, the 6.5X54 Mannlicher-Schoenaur (which is very similar) was very popular.

That being said, I would suggest the .260 Remington will do everything you want to do with it except deal with dangerous game -- and even there the 6.5s have racked up a fairly nice reputation.

If you WANT a heavier rifle, buy one. But you don't NEED one.

[cratz2]

I've never been to Africa nor do I plan to in the next decade but after talking with several people that have made the trip multiple times, I would think if such a trip were in my horizon, I would have to get a rifle for the trip. Not necessarily a traditional African rifle such as a Mauser in 375 or 416 but a rifle most appropriate for the game on the list and something that you will always treasure. And I probably wouldnt wait till the last minute to buy it either.

I would think that if no dangerous game is planned, something along the lines of a 7mm Rem Mag would be in order. The 300 Win Mag kicks just a bit too much for me, 7mm is quite a bit tamer. And an excellent piece of European glass such as a Swarovski, Zeiss or Schimdt & Bender would be on my list as well. Of course, it's still pretty hard to go wrong with a good 375 H&H built on a Mauser action. Even one of the magnum CZs. Or Rich might recommend a slightly customized 45-70. Even works for dangerous game. ;)

The main things holding back would be cost, I'd imagine. Unless you have a buddy that owns a lot of prime land in Tanzania or work for a company willing to foot the bill, it's gonna cost ya. A LOT! A $1,500 rifle more than likely isn't going to make or break someone's ability to afford the trip.

[wanderinwalker]

Thanks for the input Mr. Humphrey and cratz2.

I don't really WANT a bigger rifle. Here in New Hampshire, the people that taught me to hunt and shoot mostly carry .30/30s, .308s and .30-06s. When they ask me what my little Remington is chambered for, I say ".260 Remington, it's a 6.5mm," and most of them nod acceptance. Well, the old-timers do. The people who are simply older than me (I'm 19 BTW) pick on me for using a "girl's" gun. Some just don't see how anything but a fire-breathing magnum can kill an animal.

Looking at the tables it seems to me that bullet energy gains beyond what I currently have are far offset by the recoil, weight and inefficiency of the larger calibers. And I really don't have an overwhelming urge to go hunting for dangerous animals. (It's only a mild-tickle.) The closest I might come to dealing with dangerous game is a bad tempered black beer or maybe even an outsized moose or elk.

PS: If I ever get a full-fledged itch to pursue traditional dangerous game, I plan on getting a .416 Rem or bigger.

[cratz2]

Actually, upon reading my previous post, it seemed a bit harsh. I certainly didn't mean it as such. In all honesty, I think a .260 or the 6.5x54, 6.5x55 or 7x57 would all be completely acceptable options. I'm sure much game has fallen to these three old but excellent cartridges. Truth be told, these are some of my favorite chamberings, along with the also sensible .243, 257 Roberts, 25-06, 270 Winchester and 308. Probably any of thse (except maybe the 243) would serve quite well for most plains game. Just if I already had a budget going for the trip, I think I would try to find a reason for another, more dedicated, rifle. ;)

[wanderinwalker]

cratz2,

I understand your point entirely! Who could pass up an excuse for another rifle?! :D

My question is about the fact of whether or not my trusted friend would be adequate for the job. It seems that the general concensus is yes, it would be. Simply put, I love being out hunting, and when the moment of truth arrives I appreciate the fact that I have intimate familiarity with my hardware.

[Vern Humphrey]

My dad, who was in the exploration end of the oil business, took a Savage Model 99 in .250 Savage with him to Sumatra in the 1930s, and killed a tiger, among many other critters.

In the '40s, he took the same rifle to Ethopia and killed a lion, a cheetah, and about 50 or 60 head of big game with it.

He would have considered the .260 Remington "overkill." :D

[Braz]

Interesting thread,

Particularly in light of a recent article in Guns on the M1. Seems the original specs called for the .276 Pedersen. The rifle would have weighed only 7 1/2lbs and held 10rds. MacArthur nixed it.

Light, powerful and flat shooting doesn't sound bad to me.

[wanderinwalker]

Mr. Humphrey,

Your dad has quite an impressive list of game with that Savage! And compared to that .250 Savage, yes, the .260 would be very big medicine!

I am a big fan of the 6.5mm cartridges because they are ballistically very efficient. And not very common here in the states. I also like .35 calibers, specifically the .35 Whelen. Which will probably be my next rifle, when I can afford to have one built up. I got lots of life left in me, so I can afford to wait! ;)

(My dad thinks that it is strange to tie myself to rifles that I NEED to handload for.)

[Mike Irwin]

It's not really a question of when you absolutely have to go to a heavier caliber, but one of when it's more prudent to do so.

As an example, many thousands of elephant and Cape buffalo have been harvested with calibers in the same power class as the .260, and probably quite a few people have been stomped into oblivion after hitting dangerous game with a caliber that wasn't up to the task.

A lot of times an expert shot, using a lighter caliber with bullets selected for the particular game in question, is better off that someone with a heavier caliber who has problems shooting it.

My personal believe is that when you start talking about going for elk or moose, that's when you might want to consider starting up the diameter/power chain.

Were I to hunt elk or moose, I'd likely pick a .300 Magnum or a .338 Mag.

Were I to go after Alaskan bear, I'd go for something in the .375 Mag. class.

[wanderinwalker]

Mr. Irwin,

That's kind of what I have been thinking. When going for moose, eland, and the like, I would PREFER a bigger gun. But consider that where I live, New Hampshire, many moose are taken yearly by .308s and .30-06s. Unfortunately, I cannot see a massive gap in performance between the 6.5mm and the 7.62mm, at least at standard velocities.

And I honestly have not seen an elk to be able to judge their size. The few moose I have managed to catch a glimpse of make me think bigger though. Plus, I have a great amount of respect for black bear. That much usage would appear to be sufficient to justify a .35 Whelen, at least in my mind. :)

For dangerous game, yes, I would go BIG! .416 Rem/.458 Win, MINIMUM!

My concern is during the course of an African safari, where I might be carrying the .260 because it is ideal for the smaller species. I'm thinking in terms of one or two animals over 600 lbs if the opportunity arises, not making it a habit to carry a little gun specifically for bigger animals.

[Vern Humphrey]

Dad's preferences not withstanding, I prefer something heavier most of the time. My elk rifle is Bigfoot Wallace, a custom '03 in .35 Brown-Whelen (the most radical form of the Whelen.) That rifle steps on the heels of a .338 Magnum, and does a fine job on elk.

However, I wouldn't feel undergunned with my 6.5 Swede -- although I'd probably go with 160 grain Nosler PJs in that rifle.

[Al Thompson]

I have a friend who hunted plains game in SA this summer. His rifle of choice was a 6.5x55 - 140 gr Sierra JSPs. Lots of dead critters and no tracking. His biggest animal was a kudu, no eland. I'd get something bigger for elk, but otherwise your covered.

[ajacobs]

I don't know all the details but my understanding is that many countries have a minimum bore dia. of .35. I don't know if this pertains to hunting the big 5 only or everything. I hope someone who know better than me will chime in.

[wanderinwalker]

OK, here's the plan now:

I will use the .260 until I go elk hunting or draw a moose permit. Or go to Africa specifically seeking large game. Thinking that on first safari I could skip the eland and do alright for myself.

When I finally go elk or moose hunting, I will either find or have built a nice .35 Whelen. If I could keep the package close to the weight of the .260, I'd be in heaven. (Unless I was sighting-in/checking zero. UGH!)

ajacobs,

My understanding is that the .375" minimum diameter applies only to dangerous game. At which point it could be time for a real cannon!

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me that a 140-grain bullet at 2,600 is about like a 7mm08 at 100 yards. Personally, I'd call the 7mm08 a 300-yard gun for mule deer, thinking about clean, ethical kill.

All this means is that one is judicious about the shot. And, since most hunting shots are inside of 200 yards, I'd never be concerned about the difference in performance.

Another comparison: An '06 180-grain's muzzle velocity is around 2,600. So, the only difference is the 40 grains of weight. Bullet construction is important, so, again, the 6.5 isn't really giving away a whole heck of a lot...

:), Art

[Mike Irwin]

"Unfortunately, I cannot see a massive gap in performance between the 6.5mm and the 7.62mm, at least at standard velocities."

There isn't one, really, other than a heavier bullet (many people like to use 180 and even 220 gr. bullets for moose) and a larger wound channel.

Proper bullet selection, such as a Barnes X or a Hornady Partition, goes a LONG way toward closing the gap.

.35 Whelen is a great cartridge, but black bear really aren't all that tough, nor are they nearly as agressive as their western cousins, unless cubs are involved.

If you're on an African safari, you're going to be hunting with a guide, and the guide is going to be carrying some heavy duty "just in case" armaments.