http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp
There are a bunch of loads for the 260 at this place.
As you can tell they recommend to start with 34gr of H4895 and they list 36.2gr as a max load with a 142 Sierra
The hunting load with the 140 Nosler partition bullet shows the max load at 34.3gr for whatever reason.

For some odd reason, 36 grains of Varget seems to work with all bullet weights in .260 Rem.

Has anyone tried Re15 in 260?

The Nosler partition has a much thicker jacket and longer bearing surface, same as Barnes solid copper bullets, there fore higher pressures with less of a charge.

VARGET.... (AD2208) perhaps the best thing ever to come out of Australia. Thank you Australian Defense Industries.

i have ran a butt load of RL-15 in my .260 silhoutte rifle behind 142MK's and with a 26'" bbl i get 2700fps and very good accurcy i would tell you what kinda groups it shoots even with w badly eroded throat but the 7mm crowd would beat me down on here like a red headed step child Now DO NOT use mk's for a hunting bullet pick yourself a good hunting bullet and get one load for it too two diff loads not too hard to do i personally drop to a 120gr bullets for deer and at that point i have good luck with RL-19

I have shot 37-37.5 grs of H4895 with 139s or 142s. A typical velocity would probably be around 2,700 fps. In my rifles H4895 seems a bit slower than Varget, but not everyone else agrees.

If you want a two bullet load, try 36 to 36.5 grs of Varget with 123 gr bullets and 42 to 42.5 grains of H4350 with Lapua 139 or 144 gr Scenars.

While the 260 is fun to shoot and is more than adequate for deer sized game, Snake is correct that the 7-08 can take "heavy" rams better and, IMO, can use more substantial bullets for heavier/dangerous game such as Moose.

Hey Rick, did you mean to write H4350 or other slow burning powder instead of H4895 for your two load suggestion?

Hey Rick, did you mean to write 42.5 grains of H4350 or other slow burning powder instead of (XX) grains of H4895?[/quote]

Tony,

Yes, thank you for catching that!

I am not sure whether that was my fumble fingers on the small keyboard of the phone, the predictive auto-fill it uses which sometimes does "stuff" or me just not proof reading as well as I should. In any event it was wrong and shows why things should not always be taken at face value, especially if they don't sound right or are not consistent with other things such as the earlier comment about a much smaller charge of the same powder with a similar weight bullet.

I have edited the post to correct it. Could you please edit the quoted message in your post to delete the number...maybe replace it with "(XX)" or something?

Thank you for catching that.

Rick