7-08 compared to 7 X 57

7

762shooter

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
45   0   0
I notice some CNG members make comments to the effect that 7 X 57 is superior to 7-08 or that 6.5 X 55 is superior to 260. Yet the numbers in the load tables don't seem to show this to be true. Also, the 7-08 and the 260 will fit a short action but the classics won't.

So what's the truth? Are the classics really better for some reason that doesn't show up in the ballistics table?
 
it's like the 280 is "better" than the 7 Rem Mag and the 6mm is "better" than the 243......no logic, it's just what you "like" better.....and I own or have owned all of the above and none are really "better" than the other....
 
What you might see in your ballistic table is that the 6.5x55 and 7x57 in factory loads are very mild due to the older millitary rifles in those caliber. If you load those two calibers for modern rifles you can load them to modern pressure as well. The case capacity for the 6.5x55 and 7x57 is a tiny bit more then the .260 and 7-08 which technically means more velocity but we're talking like an extra 50fps which is negligible in my opinion. In the real world, 6.5X55 = .260 and 7x57 = 7-08.
 
Last edited:
Other than the short actions that they fit, there really isn't much difference between the modern 308 based cartridges, and their older bretheren.

The older full length ones might handle heavy long bullets a touch better. The newer ones can be loaded to somewhat higher pressures, depending on the load you're using.

Take your pick really. All are optimized by handloading of course.
 
This is a debate without any real winner. It boils down to Long/Short action issues more than anything else, since in all other respects the 7x57/7-08 and the 6.5x55/260 are Ballistic twins if loaded to their potential in modern rifles. As Silverado noted, the "Classics" may actually handle the heavier bullets slightly better than their short action counterparts, but to me, that is a moot point, since I do not shoot 156/160's in my 6.5x55, nor 175's in my 7x57. Some may say the newcomers have an accuracy edge, but I believe that is more of a rifle issue than a Cartridge issue. i.e., many 6.5x55 and 7x57 military rifles have long throats, which don't always handle shorter, lighter bullets well. To Illustrate what happens when we chamber a modern rifle in one of these Classics and leave the throat a bit shorter, I Shot a Factory Remington 700 Classic chambered in 7x57 in a 1000 yard match here several years ago. This was a sporter class entry, and I used the following load: WW brass, WLR primer, 54.5 grains of Norma MRP, 140 grain Nosler Solid Base. This combo shot an 8" group at 1000 yards. Accurate? I think so! Personally, I prefer the old Classic chamberings, but it has absolutely nothing to do with performance, and everything to do with nostalgia. Regards, Eagleye.
 
Sorry to run off on a tangent, but is it advisable to load up the older cartridges, say by loading to higher pressures the 6.5x55 or, in my case, the 35 Remington in stronger, modern bolt action rifles with late production brass? Anyone run across a thread pertaining to this subject?
 
600RemGuy said:
Sorry to run off on a tangent, but is it advisable to load up the older cartridges, say by loading to higher pressures the 6.5x55 or, in my case, the 35 Remington in stronger, modern bolt action rifles with late production brass? Anyone run across a thread pertaining to this subject?
Click to expand...

Knock yourself out, in a modern gun you can load to roughly the same pressures as any other modern standard round (270/280/30-06 say). I don't think I would be trying to make a Weatherby out of it, and keep in mind that even new 35 Rem brass isn't the thickest stuff around. - dan
 
All they are is a new way of doing what was done 100 years ago, in a "new" way. The only benifit of the 260 or 7-08 is being able to find brass or loaded ammo more common. Also if you need to have one of those icky plastic stocked wannabe guns then jump on Bartel's bandwagon.

And then for us snobby folk we will stick with the far superior metrics, wood and blued steel. Yawn.....

May they all have a long future so we can continue to debate it until we blister our finger tips on the keyboard!

Neither is better, it is a bit sad to see many of the old cartridges get pushed aside and forgotten for the new ones. Looking back there were many hot cartridges built but the bullets couldn't handle the job back in the day so they got written off. Newton's, Brenneke's and the like come to mind.

The engineers at the gun factories got put bread on the table so they will continue to find new ways of doing the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom