Page 1 of 3
Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:41 pm
by TXCharlie
I have some shoulder issues and have not been shooting HP for several years. Has anyone tried to reduce the recoil for the .260 with lighter loads? What are your recommendations? Would like to use IMR 4895 and 107’s, the closet is well stocked. I understand the rams will not be friendly, but shooting the others will be possible.
Thanks,
Charlie
Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm
by lone ringer
Charlie, use some 32-33gr of fast burning powder like H4198, VV130, Benchmark, 3031, etc. If 4895 is all you got 33-34 gr of it should do the trick for you. I have to warn you about using extreme powders with reduced loads because if your primer is not hot enough you could get hang fires or even miss fires.
Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:25 pm
by DanDeMan
Charlie,
Here are my super-mild, 260, match loads for IMR4895. Both loads shot 1/4 MOA or better in my custom rifles. For the Ram load, using the 142 Sierra MK's, work up to the 36.0 grains of IMR4895. It worked great in my rifle, but the pressure is probably up near max.
MV: 2,600 fps; 33.0 IMR4895; F210M; 107 Sierra MK
MV: 2,650 fps; 36.0 IMR4895; F210M; 142 Sierra MK
Best of luck with these cream-puff loads. They sure are fun to shoot and should be just the ticket for your shoulder. Both of these loads shot lights-out in several 260 rifles, mine and another woman's who didn't like recoil.
Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:44 pm
by kevinbear
I checked one of my old notebooks from when I had a 260 and found a load for chickens and pigs of 21.0 grains of IMR 4759 with a 120 Sierra, if I remember right it was reasonably accurate and recoiled like a 22lr. I shot 120 Noslers on turkeys with H380 and H414 behind 140's for rams, the ball powders have a more gradual pressure curve that lessens the percieved recoil. The downside of these loads is that the 4759 loads are around 2000fps, very susceptible to wind, and the ball powders are dirty when not loaded to peak pressures. Still they are viable alteratives when recoil is not an option, I've been looking at them again for the 7-08 since I had shoulder surgery.
Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:13 pm
by bwilliams
have herd 21 grains of 4759 will take down turkeys and is a very mild load, plan on playing with this powder shortly as have 2 lbs. In the past i have used 34g of 4895 and had good results, presently use 34g varget with all bullet weights from 95g to 139g in my 260. 34g is light for rams and will leave them standing. need more speed..
brett
Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:49 pm
by DanDeMan
kevinbear wrote:...the ball powders have a more gradual pressure curve that lessens the percieved recoil...
Why is that?
Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:10 am
by kevinbear
I had a feeling you wouldn't be able to leave that one alone, give us your dissertation on pressure curves professor, try and keep it under 1000 words this time.
BTW, your idea of a reduced load is a joke, as usual you missed the point. You shoot those fast recoiling loads with the gun pulled into your shoulder in a silhouette stance for 60 shots and you'll quit for sure.
Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 6:42 am
by DanDeMan
KB,
I guess you have nothing to back up your statement "...the ball powders have a more gradual pressure curve that lessens the percieved recoil..." And, it is you that missed one point of Charlie's original post. He posted that he wanted to use IMR 4895 so I posted light loads I've used with that powder. You, on the other hand, posted loads using other powder types. Now, you've got to explain why the loads I posted for Charlie are a joke, as you posted???
Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:37 am
by Jerry G
The pressure curve depends on many different factors. Powder type, burn speed, bullet weight, neck tension, rate of twist, freebore, the list goes on.

Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:36 pm
by Dee
Can you all really perceive the differences in recoil when shooting a 107s vs a 142s? I would say it has to be marginal at best IMO. I know there are calculations of free recoil energy based on loads and from what I have seen we are only talking a foot pound or two more recoil energy if I recall correctly. When I shoot the 142s I can feel it ever so slightly but it isn't such a drastic change that I would worry about it should I be able to shoot the 107s without any discomfort for 3/4 of the animals. Maybe bump up the Rams to at least 120gr I had pretty good luck with shooting that weight across all 4 animals using a .250 Savage last year that another shooter loaned me in Zwolle.
I grew up shooting 30.06 most of all so I guess all these Silhouette loads feel pleasant to me even with my stiff neck I don't get any discomfort even after 100+ rounds in a afternoon.
Dee
Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:07 pm
by kevinbear
Here's the basic concept Dan, ball powders are coated with inhibitors that slow down the burning process accellerating the bullet down the barrel at a more gradual rate. Not sure but I believe that part of the reason for creating this type of propellant was to lower the port pressures in the M14 as well as extending the barrel life due to their lower flame temperatures.
As far as the use of IMR 4895 it does not lend itself well to reduced loads leaving the only option for low recoiling loads is to use light bullets at high speeds which don't knock silhouette targets off stands very reliably.
Ok Dan, I took the bait, were ready for your 1000 word dissertation on propellants.
Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:02 pm
by Jim T.
Kevin:
"As far as the use of IMR 4895 it does not lend itself well to reduced loads"
You better get in touch with Hodgdon right quick and set them straight!!!
http://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/H4895%20Redu ... 0Loads.pdf
Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:20 pm
by kevinbear
Jim-That's H4895 not IMR4895 but there's very little difference, I had good luck with it in 30-30 cast bullet loads but nothing but trouble in the 358 winchester. As mentioned in an earlier post hang-fires were the problem.
BTW where have you been, haven't been to a match in 2 years?
Just to clarify one point, Dan's ram load is a maximum load, although it's only 36.0 grains I doubt my shoulder could take 10 of them in 5 minutes.
Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:08 pm
by Jim T.
I realized it was H4895. The current edition of the Sierra reloading manual states H4895 and IMR 4895 are interchangeable.
It has actually been a little over a year since I "shot" a match. However, I "attended" a match at Aurora last October. That is, I rode (pedaled) my road bike out there, I think it was 67 miles roundtrip. Just have found other things taking up my weekends, hope to get out and shoot some this fall.
What is wrong with your shoulder?
Re: Reduced loads for .260
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:14 pm
by kevinbear
I had rotator cuff surgery, I thought maybe you had finally got that call from GQ magazine or LL Bean and left the state!