Once again TLDR warning so move along if you don't give two cold s**ts
.308 mostly, but that's what I have the most experience with.
6.5 kind of because of the 6.5 x 55
The .308 in the Remington 788 (both versions) as well as multiple battle rattles.
The 6.5 in too many rifles to detail properly but included a Md 70 and a Surplus Swede/Mauser.
Actually neither.
The 35's. This includes every 38 Spl , .357 Mag pistol bullet. This includes every loading of the 35 Remington. This includes everything .357-.358".
Now pick your rifle brass. I'd stay with the short action and expand LC .308. Better yet there is a fair argument to Improve the chamber although it's another step. Then again, .35 Remington is already there if not available in stores near you.
There's a bump in the road, however. There are some pistol bullets that will not stay in one piece at extended velocities with a 1:9 -1:10 twist. The first that comes to mind are the 125gr Silvertips. There are some heavies, 250gr plus, that also won't stabilize.
Why?
Bullet selection. My favorites were the 125gr, truncated cone, semi-jacketed, flat point at some predictable node over 2,200 to 2,400. Much faster and you detonate small game at short ranges.
Most any 158gr loaded down to reasonable cast boolit velocities. Same for 200gr Lyman.
Whatever that 225gr was that Nosler put on the Whelan.
Share rifle and pistol caliber. Add a .357 lever gun or 35 Remington (141) and a revolver and you're covered. At that point if you have something like the Remington 141 do you really need a reach out and touch little things far away bolt gun?
At this point .358 bullet selection just might be second only to .308 and possibly greater.
.35/.308 AR10. What a novel concept. You know it's been done.
Think of all the rail space you'd have to clown it up! Or not and stay high speed low drag. Consider barrel weight/length carefully here. 16" is no better an answer than 24" so use your head and get the result you want.
Why not?
Because you asked 6.5 or .308.
Expanding .308 is not a one operation deal and should include an anneal step and results in a somewhat thinner neck.
Because you don't see the convenience in having the same rifle and pistol bullet diameters.
Because you have no interest in detonating pests at close range with pistol bullets traveling 1,000 ft/sec faster than they were designed for.
Because you don't agree with a rifle in a caliber that allows you to go between a 125 varmint round and 250gr bear poison in seconds.
Because you have no need to share rifle and pistol caliber.
Because you don't see the utility of having a 250gr soft point to distract a bear.
Yes, I said distract. I've had to convince a bear and myself that the bear was indeed dead. The trouble is the bear figured this out some time after I did. The bear never got within 30 yards, but he knew where I was and was headed in my direction. I don't think multiple 6.5's could have been a viable talking point. I'm not sure a .308 mono/solid would have been convincing. I am sure that of the 4 hits, two 250gr 35 round nose were placed well enough to be a convincing argument and the third ended it.
Sights
I'd use a LPVO and have. It's one of the many 4X prism scopes. Works well. ACOG, sure why not. I just don't see the need here for big tube big mag FFP clown scope. Only reason I'd use an optic now is my eyes. Up to the last few years I'd have been happy with micro click diopter irons.
So TLDR from some greybeard that likely knows nothing or something to think about. It's up to you I didn't force anyone to read it.
Note, I answered this for a friend last week, so it was on my mind. I left it on the 'hide and I'll get smoked for it for sure. I'll probably leave it on THR as well since I haven't posted there in a year or so. Thought I'd share.
.308 mostly, but that's what I have the most experience with.
6.5 kind of because of the 6.5 x 55
The .308 in the Remington 788 (both versions) as well as multiple battle rattles.
The 6.5 in too many rifles to detail properly but included a Md 70 and a Surplus Swede/Mauser.
Actually neither.
The 35's. This includes every 38 Spl , .357 Mag pistol bullet. This includes every loading of the 35 Remington. This includes everything .357-.358".
Now pick your rifle brass. I'd stay with the short action and expand LC .308. Better yet there is a fair argument to Improve the chamber although it's another step. Then again, .35 Remington is already there if not available in stores near you.
There's a bump in the road, however. There are some pistol bullets that will not stay in one piece at extended velocities with a 1:9 -1:10 twist. The first that comes to mind are the 125gr Silvertips. There are some heavies, 250gr plus, that also won't stabilize.
Why?
Bullet selection. My favorites were the 125gr, truncated cone, semi-jacketed, flat point at some predictable node over 2,200 to 2,400. Much faster and you detonate small game at short ranges.
Most any 158gr loaded down to reasonable cast boolit velocities. Same for 200gr Lyman.
Whatever that 225gr was that Nosler put on the Whelan.
Share rifle and pistol caliber. Add a .357 lever gun or 35 Remington (141) and a revolver and you're covered. At that point if you have something like the Remington 141 do you really need a reach out and touch little things far away bolt gun?
At this point .358 bullet selection just might be second only to .308 and possibly greater.
.35/.308 AR10. What a novel concept. You know it's been done.
Think of all the rail space you'd have to clown it up! Or not and stay high speed low drag. Consider barrel weight/length carefully here. 16" is no better an answer than 24" so use your head and get the result you want.Why not?
Because you asked 6.5 or .308.
Expanding .308 is not a one operation deal and should include an anneal step and results in a somewhat thinner neck.
Because you don't see the convenience in having the same rifle and pistol bullet diameters.
Because you have no interest in detonating pests at close range with pistol bullets traveling 1,000 ft/sec faster than they were designed for.
Because you don't agree with a rifle in a caliber that allows you to go between a 125 varmint round and 250gr bear poison in seconds.
Because you have no need to share rifle and pistol caliber.
Because you don't see the utility of having a 250gr soft point to distract a bear.
Yes, I said distract. I've had to convince a bear and myself that the bear was indeed dead. The trouble is the bear figured this out some time after I did. The bear never got within 30 yards, but he knew where I was and was headed in my direction. I don't think multiple 6.5's could have been a viable talking point. I'm not sure a .308 mono/solid would have been convincing. I am sure that of the 4 hits, two 250gr 35 round nose were placed well enough to be a convincing argument and the third ended it.
Sights
I'd use a LPVO and have. It's one of the many 4X prism scopes. Works well. ACOG, sure why not. I just don't see the need here for big tube big mag FFP clown scope. Only reason I'd use an optic now is my eyes. Up to the last few years I'd have been happy with micro click diopter irons.
So TLDR from some greybeard that likely knows nothing or something to think about. It's up to you I didn't force anyone to read it.
Note, I answered this for a friend last week, so it was on my mind. I left it on the 'hide and I'll get smoked for it for sure. I'll probably leave it on THR as well since I haven't posted there in a year or so. Thought I'd share.
