Page 3 of 3

Re: Reduced loads for .260

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:02 pm
by Bob259
Innocent wrote:Silence is golden. To hell with the shoe size. Simply take a measurement of the middle finger folded to touch the palm, then stretched out.

Innocent
I won't even ask how you know that...... :shock: Innocent.... yeah right =)) :ymdevil:

Re: Reduced loads for .260

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:44 pm
by kevinbear
Wow Trent, you really dragged this thread down the low road :P

Re: Reduced loads for .260

Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:29 pm
by Trent
kevinbear wrote:Pretty quiet on here tonight, you guys re-check things and found you don't quite measure up! Btw Trent wears something like a size 12 shoe, don't tie him in a match, you'll lose! x_x
Size 14, and trust me I'd rather have a shorter measurement and be able to find shoes in my size.

Ok, maybe not. :D

Almost home from the UK. Sitting in Wash DC waiting to bounce to GA. Looking forward to seeing you fools in Missouri!

Re: Reduced loads for .260

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:35 am
by Jerry G
JB, what do you measure when you have a shoot-off with Joy or Kathleen? =))

Re: Reduced loads for .260

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:38 am
by RBriscoe
Charlie,

Just a couple of thoughts.

I recommend lookings for some Sorbothane to make a recoil pad for your shooting vest.

http://www.sorbothane.com/

I would also take a look at my rifle's recoil pad and make sure the rifle is at max allowable weight (it probably is already, but...).

I have shot some loads similar to those Dan recommended, though not quite as low. I did try 34 grains of 4064 briefly, but it turned out to be position sensitive. That is something to look out for with very light loads.

You might give some thought to 130 grain bullets for rams. Several of the people used to use them with moderate loads with good results. I have shot them on occasion, but with loads I can not recommend in your situation. I can say that the felt recoil was noticeably less than similar loads with 142s.

Aside from the fact that you have a good supply of 4895, my experience with it in the .260 Rem suggests that it is, perhaps, a bit more flexible in use than Varget, a superb powder in its own right. I probably ought to work with it some more.

Good luck,

Rick

Re: Reduced loads for .260

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:12 pm
by Jerry G
Kathy was shooting light loads at the nationals. I thought they were 95 gr at 3 close animals and 115 gr loads at rams in a 6.5. Seems to have worked for her. :ymdevil:

Re: Reduced loads for .260

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:15 pm
by lone ringer
Jerry G wrote:Kathy was shooting light loads at the nationals. I thought they were 95 gr at 3 close animals and 115 gr loads at rams in a 6.5. Seems to have worked for her. :ymdevil:
You meant to write 6mm, right Jerry?

Re: Reduced loads for .260

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:12 pm
by TXCharlie
Tony and Rick.......Thanks for the info, glad the thread got back on track.
Here is some published info from Hodgdon http://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/H4895%20Redu ... 0Loads.pdf