New Cartridge 6.8 Western

[JemezDave]

If it is the brain child of an American Rifle company then the 6.8 western is a no-go. Them basturds haven't been able to produce rifles with correct twist rates for the 243, 270, 280, 7RM, 7mm-08....... for years now. If they haven't figured out twist rates, why the hell would I want some cartridge they came up with? Nope, they are not very bright. Hornady looks like a frigging marketing and ammo genius just because they put correct twist rates in their ammo specs when they develop their rounds. No, don't want some round created by a mismanaged company that doesn't listen to customers.

You're partially right, but mostly incorrect. All the calibers you're thinking of were designed 70 plus years ago. You can't take an off the shelf .243 and decide you want to shoot 120 grain bullets in it without modifying everything. I had a 600 Remington in .243 that wouldn't stabilize the 105 grain bullets due to slow twist rate, so was stuck with 87-90 grain bullets for it. With the new offerings they can optimize magazines, twist, and chambers but then it's new. I welcome the new offerings because manufacturers are finally giving us more of what we have been asking them to build. Life is good!

 

[clacka6mm]

This ☝☝☝
It killed the original 6mm Remington, denied us a heavier 277, limited the 22 cals...
What's sad too is many faster twist guns will shoot the the lighter bullets very well. It was short sighted and a mistake for gun manufacturers to not put the higher twists out there early on in development. Something in their thinking, either for the "wow" speed factors they could print on their ammo boxes of 3600 fps for a 40 grainer just to sell underweight and under performing ammo to shoot mice with.
I'm glad we can order barrels at a cost we can swallow to multiply the performance with.
We just need the 277 class to step up....
And by the way, 22 cal bullets are deadly on deer with the right shot; even with my junior deer hunters shooting 223 Barnes 55 grainers out of noodle barrels.
Just saying.

U mean. Shots like this one.... from a 223 entry behind eye. 69 gr hollow point
.

 

[MajorSpittle]

You're partially right, but mostly incorrect. All the calibers you're thinking of were designed 70 plus years ago. You can't take an off the shelf .243 and decide you want to shoot 120 grain bullets in it without modifying everything. I had a 600 Remington in .243 that wouldn't stabilize the 105 grain bullets due to slow twist rate, so was stuck with 87-90 grain bullets for it. With the new offerings they can optimize magazines, twist, and chambers but then it's new. I welcome the new offerings because manufacturers are finally giving us more of what we have been asking them to build. Life is good!

So what keeps Winchester from selling rifles with faster twist rates? People rebarrel rifles all the time because of stupidly slow factory twist rates.. Your post makes no sense to me.

 

[ntsqd]

I perceive what they're trying to say in a nice way is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Why would you want to draw down someone else's completed bullet to turn it into something else in the first place? It's just not a compelling idea at all.

I am more than capable of designing and building the tooling necessary to do this process. Production tooling is what I design for a living. What is up for discussion is whether or not the resulting bullets would perform acceptably or not. Obviously having the mfg's make HFC bullets in these two calibers would be the best possible option, but that is not (yet) on the table. So until they decide to make such bullets other means need to be explored. Which is exactly what my posts were doing.

Understanding as much as you can about the desired outcome before you make or buy the tooling is crucial to success. It is clear to me that the currently employed processes are incapable of delivering the desired results, but that doesn't mean that the desired results are impossible to achieve. It just means that a suitable process has yet to be developed.

My next project will be a fast twist .243AI. Blends the old with the new if you want to look at it that way. I don't, but whatever.

btw, your post quoting me is skrewed up.

 

[25WSM]

An 8 twist 243ai is a great round. I shoot one at 1000 yard matches with 115 dtacs. Shoots great.
Shep

 

[Muddyboots]

So to bring this hi-jacked thread back a bit. The real issue that is always associated with new releases is the availability of brass. Bullets, powder, and primers are never the ongoing issue. There are a lot of choices relative to .277 but none have the availability of brass like the .270 Win does and if ALL that needs to be done is better twist for higher weighted BC bullets, then it still gets my vote for the "Easy" button to launch the new bullets. It is extremely easy to load with the neck it has and also provides nice neck stability to stretch out the COAL for the longer bullets with barrels with associated throats to do so. Seems like there is always a desire to improve the .277 bullet performance with new cartridges instead of just improving the .270 Win itself. If you want more zip the .270 Wby still gets it done and the 27 Nosler is out there too but brass for both is a joke both in availability and cost. I like to shoot a lot and availability of components is a primary decision for any cartridge I shoot. I have an old flat top Savage 110 .270 that is going to get a 1:8 and 26-27" barrel after first of year once I budget it out. I bet it will not be far off the 6.8 Western for 175 velocity. I know there are a lot of LRH guys that have already done this and have real world data to share. I know the .270 Win is not sexy, doesn't have a gotcha name tag, doesn't have T-Rex kills on FB like the 6.5CM but what it does have is reloadability that is not so common on a lot of cartridges. What I mean by that is that it is tough not to get a .270 Win shoot well even for a novice reloader. And now with RL26 pixie dust, the performance of the .270 Win is boosted significantly over previous powder choices. So my last question is the .270 Win and different than the 300 WM in changing twist to accommodate higher BC bullets? We jump all over that bandwagon but cannot see the same potential for the .270 Win?

 

[25WSM]

No it doesn't have the potential to generate a big sales push. Like you already stated "it's not sexy". The new cartridge will probably be faster than the 270 because of case capacity. It will be closer to the 270wby I think. Yes the pixie dust makes the 270 a faster cartridge but you can also put pixie dust in the new one. The only real advantage to the straight up 270 is ammo availability and cost of ammo. Plus there are probably a gazillion 270s out there.
Shep

 

[Muddyboots]

25WSM - spot on capacity. I used the 270WSM as parent and adjusted dimensions for the 6.8 Western and come up with 76.5 gr H2O slightly better than 270Wby and 7.5 grains more than old girl .270 Win. Kind of a nice comparison to actually see differences. I still don't see why when the 270WSM can do more with twist and throat. My feeling is still the .270 Win for us old folk has the soft spot and with better twist, throat and barrel length revitalizes it and although blasphemy, may I not be struck with lightening performs as well or better than 6.5 CM since heavier bullets will always win me over.

 

[vancewalker007]

Have you had trouble the ABLR throwing a round when you shoot 3 or 4 shot groups? I can't get a consistent grouping from the Nosler's long range bullets and afraid to use them while hunting. Shooting them on the range isn't a big deal but I don't want to lose an animal in the field.

I've had similar results from a 7mm LRM (175gr) and my 6.5 PRC (142gr). I think Nosler's definition of long range is 500 yards. I was able to get a little better results by weight sorting the bullets but boy that gets pricey.

 

[Rifleman97]

I don't blame them for not calling it a WSM, the fad of "short mag" is well over

I mean they had to call it something. If they call it WSM it would be too confusing. And what else would they call it? 270 Winchester! Already taken as well. 270 magnum? Not really very magnum compared to a weatherby or nosler round. 6.8 Winchester? I don't think that would be confusing but 6.8 western isn't a bad name by any means.

All I can hope for is that they have an adequate twist rate for the heaviest bullets possible. Preferably 175-190gr, and then sell a 175-190 grain bullet or work with a manufacturer that will like nosler or Berger. If .284 can have a 195 grain, having 190 for only a .007 difference is pretty reasonable and should have a great BC.

 

[Overkill338]

If your late for the bus you get left behind. 257 and 277 wasn't just late for the bus but they were at the wrong bus stop too. If Winchester would have done the 270wsm with an 8 twist at the very start it would have had a chance. To try and fix it now with a new cartridge that's almost identical seems silly to me. But they are trying to bring it back from the dead. Look at the new and shiney. I don't really see it beating the 6.5prc in sales.
Shep

Well the Crapmoor proved marketing is everything. Throw it on a few magazine covers, call it the latest and greatest, and all the Tacticool kiddies will run grab one to be back yard snipers.

 

[25WSM]

Well the 6.5 Creed just happened to live up to the hype. I resisted for yrs until I started building a bunch of them. Then when I started shooting them I became a believer. If the 6.5 Creed was a turd it wouldn't of mattered how much marketing it got it would of failed. But it's still increasing in popularity for a reason. It just works very good and does everything it was supposed to do. I use it as my main 1000 yard bench gun and it does very good. Everything about it is modern design. Nice neck length, 30 degree shoulder and little body taper. And the all important 8 twist designation so it could shoot long heavies. Marketing can get you off the ground but if your product isn't great then it will still fail.
Shep

 

[Jud96]

Well the 6.5 Creed just happened to live up to the hype. I resisted for yrs until I started building a bunch of them. Then when I started shooting them I became a believer. If the 6.5 Creed was a turd it wouldn't of mattered how much marketing it got it would of failed. But it's still increasing in popularity for a reason. It just works very good and does everything it was supposed to do. I use it as my main 1000 yard bench gun and it does very good. Everything about it is modern design. Nice neck length, 30 degree shoulder and little body taper. And the all important 8 twist designation so it could shoot long heavies. Marketing can get you off the ground but if your product isn't great then it will still fail.
Shep

This right here. Most people say the 6.5 Creedmoor is overrated and nothing but hype. The fact is, you buy a 6.5 Creedmoor rifle and it has the right twist, the right chamber design, and the right dimensions to fit, feed, and function in a short action with high BC, long range bullets. Every 6.5 Creedmoor I've seen shoots sub MOA and you can buy ammo for them at Walmart now. The Creedmoors are the new 243 and 308 but they're designed right from the get go for accuracy and long range shooting.

 

[25WSM]

Almost every 6.5 Creed I've built has shot under 1/2 moa with Hornady factory ammo. If your creed won't shoot one of the 140, 143 or 147 factory loads great then something is wrong with it. Even though it's not a speed demon it still outruns lots of faster cartridges at long range. Especially the 147 load. I think the new western round will do good too as long as the ammo is on par with what it's supposed to do. A friend of mine has a 270 saum with an 8 twist and loves it. This new one should be close to that.
Shep