Remington 660, 6.5 mag

[metau]

So I snagged a Remington 660 in 6.5 Rem Mag a few years ago, but was never able to find brass. I had contemplated selling it, but I finally managed to find some new brass two moths ago. So now that I have the means to actually shoot this thing, anyone have suggestions on what I should expect out of this thing? What's everyone's preferred bullet out of a 6.5? If I can get this thing to shoot, I'm thinking it might be about the perfect mountain gun. Thanks.

[lancetkenyon]

What is the barrel twist rate? If it is a 1 in 8" twist, try a 140 Berger HVLD. If it is 1 in 9", go with a 130 grain.

 

You should be able to push a 140 out over 2950fps. A 130 should go over 3000fps. Best guess with the powder capacity. That is with a 24" barrel.

 

Some photos sure would be nice to drool over.

[452b264]

The nosler manual list H4831sc with min./53.5/2950 most accurate charge 55.5/3044 and a max of 57.5/3103 for 130 gr. Accubond

 

Nosler 125gr. partition most accurate charge H4831sc min. 54.5/2983 56.5/3082 and max. 58.5/3165 for a 6.5 rem. mag.

[.270]

6.5 rems were twisted 1:9. The only factory load rem ever made was a 120 I think. The 140's have to be seated so deep because of the short magazine that powder capacity is really hurt and performance is quite poor. Another thing thing to remember about bergers is that most of the weight is toward the back, making them extra long for their weight. A 1:9 May not stabilize a 140 berger but may stabilize a conventional designed bullet. They are a great little rifle but you have to load em to match the gun. I'd stick with 100-120 gr bullets. They can be quite a hotrod and work real well for most things. The magazine length and 1:9 twist kinda handcuffs em for some stuff tho. Does it have the laminated stock? Lark

[roninflag]

it has a 20" barrel?? i would load 120 ballistic tips for coues. 125 partition for elk/bear.

[.270]

They have an 18" or 18 1/2" barrel. Another reason it's hard to achieve its optimum. They did make a few 6.5 mag 700's with 24" barrels. Lot better way to go if you want to get much out of it. The 6.5 and 350 mag both really pushed the limits of the 600 action. The .350 has a better potential because the large diameter bullets are short enough that they don't affect powder capacity so much. 6.5 is plenty ok, just hafta stay inside the limits of the 600 action. Lark

[trphyhntr]

Sounds like it's a big pain in the butt to shoot this thing?

[billrquimby]

My 6.5 Remington Magnum is a Model 700 Remington with a 24-inch barrel. Using 140-grain Nosler Partitions, I shot a mule deer in Arizona and four whitetails in Texas a couple of years ago at 50 to 300 yard ranges, and each was a one-shot kill. Although my friend Lark might not agree, it wouldn't take much to convince me that it is ballistically superior to the .270 Winchester. It certainly has much less felt recoil. Although I don't consider sub MOA accuracy is needed in a hunting rifle, my 6.5 RM shoots very tight groups.

 

Bill Quimby

 

 

[.270]

You can do that in the 700. Let's you use the full potential of the round. The 600 action and short barrel limits it a bunch. I shoot a .264 win mag a bunch. It's just like a 6.5 mag, only a lot better. . In the 600 if he stays with 129's or less, it should be a great gun. With all that powder in a little rifle like that, it's gonna kick. Lark

[billrquimby]

Hey, Lark.

 

Saying the .264 Win Mag is a lot better than a 6.5 Rem Mag is like saying the .30-06 is a lot better than the .308 Winchester. You are correct as always, of course, but a deer, elk or black bear shot with any of them will never know there is a difference.

 

Bill Quimby

[.270]

An '06 does have much greater potential than a .308. Like a .300 mag has a lot more potential than an'06. More powder, more options. I use my .264 as a hotrod. Period. Shoot nothing but 100 gr soft points at 3700 fps. It is an incredible deer and pronghorn rifle. Even at long ranges. Longest shot on a deer was just under 600. If I had this 660, and I'd love to own it, I'd use it the same way. I'd shoot 100's or maybe 120's as fast as it can. Put a good, minimally sized 3x9 on it. With its small size it'd make one heck of a horseback rifle. Metau has acquired one cool rifle and if he uses it within the limits of the rifle it'll work real well. Ballistically it should compare to a 6.5x.284. The short barrel, 1:9 twist and short magazine keep it in a box as far as performance. But even with those limits, it'll kill the heck outta things. Lark

[yotebuster]

I could be wrong but the 660 should have a 20" barrel? I have one rotting away in the gun cabinet that I've never shot. Thought the 600's had 18" and the 660 had a 20". Not a lot better but still better! I'd stick with the lighter bullets like lark said. Wanna sell a few brass!?!? I have a 350 rem mag too, I think it's a 600 though. Haven't found a use for them yet but someday I will!

[FB67]

Remington Model 660 Type Bolt Action rifle Place of origin United States Production history Designer Remington R&D ^[1] Manufacturer Remington Arms Produced 1968–1971 ^[1] Number built 45,332 (660)
5,204 (660 Magnum) ^[2] Variants Model 660 Magnum

Specifications Weight 6.5 lb (2.9 kg) ^[3]

Length 38.75 in (98.4 cm)

Barrel length 20 in (51 cm) ^[3]

Cartridge

.222 Remington
.223 Remington
.243 Winchester
6mm Remington
6.5mm Rem Mag
.308 Winchester
.350 Rem Mag ^[1]Action Bolt action Feed system 6-shot magazine ^[3]

[.270]

I've only seen a couple 6.5 mags and they were 18.5". Might have been 600's too. A 20" barrel would be some better. Maybe 100 fps. Lark.

[metau]

It's the 20" barreled 660, and yes, it has the laminated stock. Looks like I can go to an COL of 2.844" without any clearance issues in the magazine, though I'd have to pull the bolt to eject a chambered round. It has an old weaver K2.5 60-B on it, so I'll see what I can do at the range with it. I may have to put something else on it for load development and then throw that back on there once complete. Now I just need to find some dies. Here's a few pics, btw. Love that laminate stock. Thanks.