Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting 6XC for long (medium) range hunting

You guys are getting me pumped. I have a 7.5 twist, 6mm Bartlein blank on order. Plans are for a 6XC. Already have a 243, but I like to try different things.

The other important part of the design was to mag feed using ar15 platform magazines that David Tubbs uses in his Tubb 2000 rifle. The mag feed element was an essential part of the design for use in rapid fire strings of
cross course competitions. The 6xc upped the ante over the .223 in bucking wind at the longer distances

I'm doing 243AI right now on LH Sako 591 action and it has been awesome! But just as soon as the tube starts to wobble I am going to give the 6XC a go.

Trying new things is keeps it all so much fun.

did I write all that schitt above? guess I was jonesing for an XC at the time. still makin do with the pedestrian .243 ...

Never had a 243 shoot like a BR, but EVERY 243 shot sub moa by a good margin. In fairness, not had a custom 243. If building, the XC will be less hassle keeping brass trimmed, but no doubt a 243 is a great round as is, not great on bore life, but easy on the shoulder and high on performance.

Twist is key, too bad every 243 does not have a 9 minimum and 8 preferable ROT.

Factory rifles and ammo in XC and perhaps 6 Creedmoor would be nice to see.

Can't see ANY advantage to having an XC over a .243 in a hunting rifle. Brass is hard to come by and expensive, no loaded ammo, dies are frightfully expensive and hard to find and any accuracy advantage it has is going to be hard to notice in a hunting platform. Only thing I can see is the cool factor. Might have one if it were on a varmint rifle but can't see it on a sporter.

You forgot about running long bullets while still having the cartridge fit into a 2.800" magazine...

Spot on.



A 243 fits fine in a short action with hunting bullets.

A 243 (AI) fits fine in a 2.8" box with A-Maxes and BTHPs just fine, too.





243 all the way for me. It's just too damn simple and good.

Tanner

Yep.

105 VLDs and Hybrids work fine in a short action 243 as well.

I've never owned a 6XC, so I can't comment there....

The 243 is my favorite cartridge. Factory 700's and 77's will easily kiss a 105 before you reach mag box limits. They'll spin 'em too. The Ruger American Rifle will also do the same with its detachable box and is a fun, affordable toy.

Throw a SWFA 6x on top of a 243 RAR and buy some 105's. The results will be more impressive than the $700 you have invested in the platform.

My factory Ruger would not stabilize 105 Scenars, let alone 115 Dtacs. There is a reason cartridges like the Creedmoor and XC were developed. They are shorter cases that still perform yet you aren't fighting mag constraints.

You guys are lying to yourselves if you don't think a 6XC -or- Creedmoor offer nothing on a 243.

I'm not saying either cartridge doesn't, I'm just a 243 fan. I know that Ruger of yours would stabilize the 105 A-Max.

I'm a Creedmoor fan. In fact, I'm having a 6.5 screwed together right now. I choose the Creedmoor over the 260 this time because I truly believe it's a better case design.

So how does a Ruger factory barrel not stabilizing certain bullets have anything to do with mag constraints?

Creedmoor case fan here too. But in a hunting rifle, where one might want to use factory ammo.....or not worry about losing 90 cent a piece brass in the snow, a 243 works excellent.

Did you bother reading prior posts?



A. A ruger has a longer mag box than the 700, so you probably can load longer in a 243. That being said, you are assuming the throat is correct, and you still have that pesky factory twist to contend with that won't stabilize 105's. I have tried it, groups go to schit after 100 yds.

B. I am building my 6XC on an M700, not a Ruger, so the magazine is shorter.

C. Find me a 7.5 twist factory 243.

D. What if you can hit the lands yet barely fit the round in your mag and your throat starts backing up? Do you turn your repeater into a single shot?

There is a reason the 6.5 Creedmoor was developed, to allow more latitude than the 260. Same concept with the 243 vs. Creedmoor -or- XC.

Laffin.... I guess all the 105s I stabilized out to 1000 yards with Remington factory 243 and 6mm Remington barrels were imaginary. Oh yeah, the 243 loads all fit in the magazine just fine.

You really need to shoot more and run your mouth less.

Never seen a Ruger not pinhole the 105's thus far cited(A-Max,Hornie HPBT's,Skinners and Berger). I'd be curious to know the powder(s) used and the muzzle velocity,at which stabilization was compromised? New one on me.

A) Never seen a Ruger or Remington not kiss 105's,in their OEM form.

B) An OEM Remington 2.8"-ish box will do it all and easily,especially when throating to one's whim and brandishing that finite control.

C) I'd not care to go 7.5" in a .243"...especially for a [bleep] SMK.

D) Very easy to add COAL or setback,again as per whim. If you are building,a DBM can often be a nice thang for many Blood Sport applications and you can get to 2.98"+ on a S/A 700 very easily there.

I concur that the Creed is yet another Goat [bleep]. The larger vessel will always make greater velocity,at like pressure levels and will reward one with diminished wind drift,which don't hurt equations outside a Tunnel.(grin)

A SAAMI 243Win is a very tough one to whoop,due it's Precision,Fun,Logistics,Ballistics and Pile Driving Ass...in no particular [bleep] order.

She's a Giant Killer.

Funny thing is, I shoot every weekend. Probably why I am not scared to rely on reality, not what I read.

105's will shoot fine out of my 9 twist Ruger at 100, started spraying at 200. 95's shoot tight all the way to 500. Granted, my 243 has been shot a lot, so maybe the throat is touchy. That being said, a fast twist is never a bad idea.

So by your own words, a 243 would work fine in a Ruger due to the extra magazine length.

Try an XC if it excites you, but for a hunting rifle it offers absolutely nothing over a properly built (and even a number of factory) 243s.