In the full-house table (
here), 260 REM has 1.6" more wind drift @ 1000 yards with a 10 mph cross, and it has 0.9 MOA more drop. Keep in mind this is comparing a 140gr @ 2860 to a 210 @ 2900 fps. As I said over there,
Quote:
With regard to .260 vs. .300WM specifically, look at how close the wind drift performance numbers are at 1000-- the 300 shooting the 210's has 59.01" and the 260 shooting the 140's has 60.64". There is less than 1 MOA difference in elevation required to get to 1000 yards. This is virtually identical performance!
So why would I want to shoot the .300WM when I can shoot the .260 with 57% less recoil, 48% less powder, and about 14% less cost per bullet? Not counting recoil, the 300WM is 31% more expensive to shoot than the 260 round for round. If you're willing to accept an extra 0.163" wind drift per mph cross and 0.9 MOA more drop @ 1000 yards, the only thing the 300WM gives you is more mass on target and 33 fps more impact velocity.
For target shooting on paper or steel, this is a non-issue. For hunting, it can make a difference in terminal effect; however, I submit that you can get better long-range performance from cartridges other than 300WM at ranges where 260 might not be sufficient (and I consider it competent on thin-skinned game to 600-750 yards based on the fact that it has more terminal potential at 750 than a .30-30 does at 250 yards, which is certainly within its capable range).
|
Now, you can buy off the shelf factory rounds for the 260 which shoot the 139-142's @ 2800-2830 fps which beats the off the shelf factory 190gr SMK load for 300WM. You can make a lathe turned bullet in any caliber and it'll beat conventionally-made bullets. That's nothing specific to 300WM.