-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Fast Twist 270 Win vs. 6.8 Western
- Thread starter Fallguy
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Starlite
Well-Known Member
maybe I used that. I'm not in the loading room. If I didn't I'll certainly give that powder a try. I have 1-2lbs if that stuff. Had nice low velocity in the 6mm Creedmoor and even better results in the 26 Nosler.
RAGGED EDGE
Well-Known Member
You might look at the 160-grain Partition.
Starlite
Well-Known Member
I'll likely get them at some time as I have limited 150gr RN. An old fella gage them to me. Old Hornady box with brass stitching on the corners. Can't find anymore around here. Mind-you likely these will last me 10-20 years.
vancewalker007
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2013
- Messages
- 994
From what I can find to read on it, its Winchester's effort to get into the off-the-shelf rifle, factory SAAMI cartridge long range market space with a cartridge that can handle the heaviest available 270 cal bullets at reasonable velocities and still fit into most short action off-the-shelf rifles. So, its a 270 WSM refined to shoot long range bullets and fit into the typical 2.955 short action limit mags as a SAAMI cartridge. This will essentially kill the 270 WSM in the off-the-shelf rifle market. Its sort'a like comparing a SAAMI spec'd 300 Win Mag and the 300 PRC.
I would bet it will exhibit decent velocities with shorter barrels like other short-fat cartridges do like 6.5 SAUMs, WSMs, 6.5 PRC etc.
Here is some data on the new cartridge from an American Hunter article:
"What exactly is the new 6.8 Western? Well, my initial suspicions were correct; it is a shortened version of the .270 Winchester Short Magnum, designed to allow proper seating of the longer .277-inch diameter bullets in a short-action magazine. The same 35-degree shoulder is carried forward from the .270 WSM, though the datum line—the distance from the cartridge base to the shoulder—has been reduced from the .270 WSM's 1.664 inches to 1.583 inches, and the case length shortened from 2.100 inches down to 2.020 inches. According to the SAAMI specifications, the maximum cartridge overall length for the 6.8 Western is 2.955 inches"
As far as what will it do that the 7mm Rem will not? From an external ballistics standpoint and effect on game likely there is no real difference, especially in the say 0-600 yard space. It does have some obvious differences,
- Its a short fat cartridge that is SAAMI spec'd to fit nicely in a typical short actions
- It is spec'd to use a fast twist barrel to make the heavies work good
- It will likely fit into a shorter lighter rifles and still give nice external ballistics
I'll stick with my custom 6.5 PRC, but in an off the off-the-shelf rifle with some good hand loading applied this should be a great new long range hunting cartridge shooting say the Berger 170gr EOL or the Nosler 165 ABLR.
I would bet it will exhibit decent velocities with shorter barrels like other short-fat cartridges do like 6.5 SAUMs, WSMs, 6.5 PRC etc.
Here is some data on the new cartridge from an American Hunter article:
"What exactly is the new 6.8 Western? Well, my initial suspicions were correct; it is a shortened version of the .270 Winchester Short Magnum, designed to allow proper seating of the longer .277-inch diameter bullets in a short-action magazine. The same 35-degree shoulder is carried forward from the .270 WSM, though the datum line—the distance from the cartridge base to the shoulder—has been reduced from the .270 WSM's 1.664 inches to 1.583 inches, and the case length shortened from 2.100 inches down to 2.020 inches. According to the SAAMI specifications, the maximum cartridge overall length for the 6.8 Western is 2.955 inches"
As far as what will it do that the 7mm Rem will not? From an external ballistics standpoint and effect on game likely there is no real difference, especially in the say 0-600 yard space. It does have some obvious differences,
- Its a short fat cartridge that is SAAMI spec'd to fit nicely in a typical short actions
- It is spec'd to use a fast twist barrel to make the heavies work good
- It will likely fit into a shorter lighter rifles and still give nice external ballistics
I'll stick with my custom 6.5 PRC, but in an off the off-the-shelf rifle with some good hand loading applied this should be a great new long range hunting cartridge shooting say the Berger 170gr EOL or the Nosler 165 ABLR.
The reason I prefer the .270 versus the 6.8 Western is easy. Components! So if you can't find 6.5PRC brass do you think this 6.8 brass will readily available? There is nothing the 6.8 can do that the .270 won't match. Stop nonsense over barrel length too. Same crap comparing wsm's to belted mags on barrel length. Not fair! Trim barrel down to match the wsm. Whah! If you want a short rifle, go for it! To demand other cartridges to do same is 
. Bigger cases need more burn time and I don't mind longer barrels at all. The 300WM sings with 26+" barrels. The .270 case has the capacity for longer barrel burn time = more velocity.
I've already stated in past posts the 6.8 will be good for those who don't reload and want long range option but to say a .270 cannot do same is wrong IMO. A faster twist barrel will still shoot 130's fine so factory ammo is still on table. So Components, factory ammo, heavier high BC bullets, great new powders, build components from every gun maker still give .270 long range capability that is pretty darn good and for lot of us on LRH a better option.
. Bigger cases need more burn time and I don't mind longer barrels at all. The 300WM sings with 26+" barrels. The .270 case has the capacity for longer barrel burn time = more velocity. I've already stated in past posts the 6.8 will be good for those who don't reload and want long range option but to say a .270 cannot do same is wrong IMO. A faster twist barrel will still shoot 130's fine so factory ammo is still on table. So Components, factory ammo, heavier high BC bullets, great new powders, build components from every gun maker still give .270 long range capability that is pretty darn good and for lot of us on LRH a better option.
Well said...but just another drain on what's available...for a miniscule gain!The reason I prefer the .270 versus the 6.8 Western is easy. Components! So if you can't find 6.5PRC brass do you think this 6.8 brass will readily available? There is nothing the 6.8 can do that the .270 won't match. Stop nonsense over barrel length too. Same crap comparing wsm's to belted mags on barrel length. Not fair! Trim barrel down to match the wsm. Whah! If you want a short rifle, go for it! To demand other cartridges to do same is
I've already stated in past posts the 6.8 will be good for those who don't reload and want long range option but to say a .270 cannot do same is wrong IMO. A faster twist barrel will still shoot 130's fine so factory ammo is still on table. So Components, factory ammo, heavier high BC bullets, great new powders, build components from every gun maker still give .270 long range capability that is pretty darn good and for lot of us on LRH a better option.
The reason I prefer the .270 versus the 6.8 Western is easy. Components! So if you can't find 6.5PRC brass do you think this 6.8 brass will readily available? There is nothing the 6.8 can do that the .270 won't match. Stop nonsense over barrel length too. Same crap comparing wsm's to belted mags on barrel length. Not fair! Trim barrel down to match the wsm. Whah! If you want a short rifle, go for it! To demand other cartridges to do same is
I've already stated in past posts the 6.8 will be good for those who don't reload and want long range option but to say a .270 cannot do same is wrong IMO. A faster twist barrel will still shoot 130's fine so factory ammo is still on table. So Components, factory ammo, heavier high BC bullets, great new powders, build components from every gun maker still give .270 long range capability that is pretty darn good and for lot of us on LRH a better option.
I really doubt that's all true. The 6.8 Western case should hold about 78.0gr water, based on shortening a 270 WSM case by .080". The Federal 270 Win case that I measured holds 70.2gr of water. That give the Western a solid 10% increase in capacity. If you load both cases to the same pressure, with the same bullets, using optimal powders and optimal seating depths for both guns, and shoot them in the same length barrel, the 6.8 Western will win.
I think both the 270 Win and 6.8 Western are too small to really take advantage bullets over 150gr. The best things to come out of all of this are the new heavy 277 bullets to use in cases like the Weatherby and Nosler!
I mean no offense but I personally get so tiered of "Should" and paper facts, I personally do not care how much water it will hold as I've yet to get a good group out of anything loaded with water,
The only reason I can't give solid data is because I don't have the actual guns in my hands. There is a point when a case is so overbore that the extra capacity exceeds the capabilities of current powders. That's not the case here with the 6.8 Western and the 270 Win.
I've yet to see a single scenario where a smaller capacity case exceeds the performance of a larger capacity case when both are tested under the same conditions. Until somebody tests both cases in the same barrel configurations, with the same bullets, and optimized loads at the same pressures, we can only speculate what the performance difference will be. Interesting enough though, that process is exactly what powder manufacturers and SAAMI do.
Once again I mean no offense but how do you know " That's not the case here with the 6.8 Western and the 270 Win." when you have tested Neither, "The only reason I can't give solid data is because . I don't have the actual guns in my hands"........... Whats it gonna be , You do know or you don't know ?????????
I can be confident because both the theoretical and anecdotal data back it up. In your first hand experience, under what circumstances will an 8-10% increase in useable case capacity result in a net loss of performance when cases of moderate capacity are loaded to comparable specs? Can a 7mm SAUM out run a 280 Rem when both are shot with optimized loads at the same pressures in equivalent barrels? How about a 6.5 SAUM and a 6.5-06? How about the 6mm Dasher and a 243 Win?Those are very similar comparisons to make and based on my personal experience with those cases, capacity wins every time in a fair comparison.
The other side of that is the 300 Win compared to the 300 PRC and 30 Nosler. When they're all loaded to the same specs with optimized loads, there isn't a meaningful difference between them. Broz did a lot of hands on work with those cases and came to the same conclusion.
There is a point when additional case capacity won't give a meaningful increase in performance just because you hit the limits of modern powder. That's why cases like the 338 XC and 338 Enablr are able to keep up with the 338 SnipeTac. I've experienced that first hand when working with both the SnipeTac and the XC. That's an extreme example though where even the slowest powders available are too fast for a case of that size when using heavy bullets.
Mike Matteson
Well-Known Member
You got that right!!. Every time a new chambering comes out. They compare theirs with a 26" barrel to a 24" barrel in that caliber. Most are powder burners by 10+ grains more for not much difference in velocity. They are selling firearms, which is their business. Everybody has to kept up with the Jone's. The other problem is newer reloading manuals they don't add newer cartrigde, and their powder selection is limited. The only that's even close is Sierra. Here as of late I have updated my reloading manuals, and was disappointed in most of them. I ever throw out my old reloading manual either. The newer manuals are showing faster twist rates, and leaving off slower twist rates. One for sure is the 220 swift which was 1-14 twist rate now being shown as 1-12. They really slowed down the 55gr bullet down by several hundred fps.
