Found this little rifle at Wally World over the weekend. I really liked the feel of this rifle and I think it would be great for my kids in a year or two.
The only problem I have witht this rifle is the 16 1/2" barrel. Now, it will make it a great woods gun and will be easy to carry, but will the short barrel affect accuracy and downrange power?
Ruger has a good following, and I own several of their handguns and a target rifle from their making. I trust that Ruger builds quality rifles, but then I used to own a Mini-30 as well. Loved the gun, but couldn't hit $h1t with it past 100 yards. 2" groups out of a $550 firearm doesn't do it for me!

Ok, sorry for the vent. If any of the posters have experience with this rifle I would appreciate the responses. I am looking at two caliber options in this rifle; 243 and 260. Will the short barrel on the compact have much affect on either of these cartridges to make any difference?

Thanks in advance.

Don't think you'll have any problems with the accuracy of the shorter barrel - the T/C's, Remingtons and Savage handguns with the 10" to 16" barrels have been known for fine accuracy for years.

Yes, you'll give up a little in the velocity department with the shorter barrel. You can figure approx. 25 - 30 fps loss for each inch of barrel below 24", the normal barrel length of test guns. This means about 200 fps in this case.

Both cartridges would be fine for a youth to begin hunting, both known for good ballistics and accuracy. Personally, I would start him out with the .260 and let him grow into it, providing ol' Dad doesn't slicky it away from him! The .260 is Remington's answer to the Swedish 6.5x55mm, which is a darn'd good cartridge in it's own right. Potent and accurate.

You would need a 19.5 inch bbl in 243 to match the efficiency of the 260 in the 16.5 inch bbl. One of the most famous and effective hunting rifles in Europe was the 6.5X55 in an 18 inch carbine. The 260 will duplicate this combo in a shorter bbl, aqs it loads to a higher pressure.

You can still break 3000 FPS with eith the nosler 100 gr Partition or the ballistic tip with good old fashioned IMR 4064 and shoot to the same point of impact for varmints OR deer. Go to 140 grainers at 2600 fps in the woods for brush busting.

If anything, accuracy with optics is easy to achieve in a short than a long bbl because it is stiffer.

Thanks for the responses. I am getting just the information I am looking for. This is great.

Ok, so while we are on the topic, Loader gave me some loading options that are interesting. Anybody else have any "pet" loads for the 260 Remington?

Thanks and keep the opinions comin!!!

Can't help with exact loads, but the case capacity of the 6.5x55 is nearly the same, and my old Sweded does real well with IMR-4350 and 120gr. Ballistic Tips or 125gr. Partitions.

I'd start with that, or possibly the Hodgdon short-cut version of H-4350.

Please keep in mind the length of your bbl. The expansion ratio of the 260 is mid-way between the '06 and 270 Win. This is a great place to be, as there are many, many powders that work well and deliver the same velocities. However, the slow burners will not be efficient. You can wind up burning 25% more powder for no useful gain in velocity if you just follow the manuals looking for the highest velocity in a 24 inch bbl.

From 85 to 129 grs, work hard with IMR 4064. For 140 grainers, jump to H4350 or R19. The Ruger twist rate may not be fast enough to stabilize the Hornady 160 grainers, so I would stay at 140 max.

The Ruger M77 in .260 Remington has a 1:8" twist rate - that should be fast enough to stabilize up to the 160 grainers with no problems.

I've always found the slower powders (IMR4831, VVN550) with standard primers to work quite well with the 6.5x55 - even use the same in my 6.5x.257 AI and 6.5-06, with the 120 to 130 grain bullets.

kdub -

Thaks, I stand corrected. One in 8 is fine for the 260 gr. I am only pushing the faster powders due to the 16.5 inch bbl length.

loader,
I understand your point about efficiency with fast vs. slow powders, but my experience with short- and long-barrelled 243's shows that the slow powders work better in either length. With an 18 1/2' Model 7, I still got best velocities and good accuracy with IMR 7828, which is quite slow burning. The only thing I noticed about the shorter barrel (besides the obvious reduction in velocity, when compared to longer barrels) is that there was quite a bit more muzzle blast and flash. Chronograph and downrange results, however, indicated that the best loads in the long barrels were also the best in shorter ones. BTW, I have worked with 18 1/2, 20, 22, and 24" 243's.

FWIW

You guys are great. Really helpful and to the point. I think I just might have to try out this rifle in the .260. There is a gun show nearby next month, so maybe I will try to see what is available there. Anybody have any preference to the blued or the stainless versions?

I like the stainless with the laminated stock, but just not real sure if the extra $$ is worth it. Also a little concerned about sun-glare in the field.

Thanks again.

kdub -

Right again...the slower powders will still give the fastest velocities in a 16.5 inch barrel, but the advantage over 4064 or R15 will be down around 10 to 20 fps. This is a high price in recoil and muzzle blast, since it take 25% more powder to get the small velocity increase. I generally get higher velocity variations when muzzle blast/flash shows up, but that just one man's experience.

By the way I love 7828 in the 243 as well as R25 with 100 and 115 gr bullets.