Just got an email ad from Winchester on this new cartridge. It doesn't say much about it, but if any writer has info, what is different about it compared to the .270 WSM?
They're saying on dealer shelves inApril? They can't even supply 30-30 win now. And who has the rifles available?
If Winchester devotes considerable resources to chambering rifles in that caliber and manufacturing ammo, it could help give it a robust launch. If you want to buy a gun and there is only one for which ammo is available...
Missed the earlier thread, but watched Spomer’s video on it last night. He does a good job of explaining why they didn't just update the .270 WSM, pretty much the same as JB has for other new loadings. Part 2 will compare it to the 6.5 PRC.
Impressive numbers, but no compelling reason for me to get one, just some better drift and energy at distances I never shoot to.
Just got an email ad from Winchester on this new cartridge. It doesn't say much about it, but if any writer has info, what is different about it compared to the .270 WSM?
Interested to know case capacity with these long bullets seated, Makes me wonder what a standard 270 WSM with appropriate 8” twist would do in a 3-1/8” magazine IL ?
Starting to think about necking this shorter 6.8 case down to 6.5, or even 25 caliber for some fun
At least finally there is a commercial 270 round from a big manufacturer that has a faster-than-10-twist barrel. Somebody has to take the plunge first.
At least finally there is a commercial 270 round from a big manufacturer that has a faster-than-10-twist barrel. Somebody has to take the plunge first.
I agree, if people want the 25 and 27 caliber fully developed the way other more popular calibers are somebody has to step out and make it happen. If longer bullets become more available there'll be more new .277 rounds coming down the line.
Just got an email ad from Winchester on this new cartridge. It doesn't say much about it, but if any writer has info, what is different about it compared to the .270 WSM?
I'm not a writer but I hope this helps you with specifics on the two rounds. Every dimension on the 6.8 Western case is identical to the 270 WSM case, except the "linear" ones. The distance from base to shoulder, base to shoulder-neck junction, and case OAL, are all reduced by .080", resulting in slightly less case capacity for the 6.8 Western. The necks are the same length (.2765"). All the other angles and diameters are the same. The 6.8 Western should fit right into the chamber of the .270WSM, with just .080" "excess headspace." As to the overall cartridge, the Max OAL spec'ed for the 6.8 Western is 2.955", versus 2.860" for the 270 WSM, so you'd see 0.175" more of the bullet hanging out the neck of the 6.8W if the same bullet were loaded to max OAL in both cartridges, which would tend to make up, some, but not all, the capacity lost by shoving the shoulder back almost a tenth of an inch. The .270WSM would still be slightly more capacious. The big difference is the spec'ed twist, 8" vs 10", and its ability to stabilize longer, better BC bullets. IMO If everything else about the rifle was identical, the .270WSM would be damn near identical to the 6.8 Western, probably slightly "better", to the extent a few more grains capacity is "better."
I just went and watched the video above and I see they do a side-by-side comparison with the WSM at the 9 minute point. One look pretty well covers everything I just wrote.
Reminds me of the 264 Winchester Magnum when it came out in the 1950" Didn't they call the model 70 in that caliber the Westener? All these new cartridges in the last 15 years seem to b e looking for an application that has already been filled for the last 70 to 90 years by perfectly good cartridges. Such as the 270 Winchester. Winchester and Browning are looking to sell more rifles to new hunters and shooters looking for the magic that has been around for decades. Remember cartridges don't kill game, it is bullets and shot placement.. .
So, why not build a 270 wsm on a long action and seat the bullets out? Works with the 284 win. Will probably feed better too. Or a 270 weatherby with 1 IN 8 TWIST.
You fellows are using to much reasoning for gun nuts. If the makers had any sense they would just use the same cartridge and put twist rates on the barrels. I think we could figure out what bullet to use. Edk
Sure, anybody can build a rifle with a fast-twist barrel in long-standardized cartridges. Handloaders do it quite a bit--and of course just about every Campfire member assumes everybody is a handloader.
But rifle and ammo factories have a different problem. They can't just load factory ammo for various estsblished .270 cartridges using longer, high-BC bullets, because too many non-handloaders would assume it will work in their factory .270 Winchester, .270 WSM or .270 Weatherby which have 1-10 twists. And they'd be pretty pissed when they bought the ammo, and the bullets landed sideways on targets.
The only practical way to offer factory ammo loaded with longer, high-BC bullets than typical for the caliber ("caliber" here used in the sense of the bore diameter, not the cartridge) is to introduce a new cartridge, and rifles to fire it. Doing otherwise risks creating dissatisfied customers.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
You can't buy ammo for a 270, 30-06, 308, 7mm Mag, 300 Mag, 243, 12 ga etc... and you also can't even get loading components. Anybody that thinks they will be able to get on of these and actually shoot it is an idiot. Personally I see NO reason for more than half of the new calibers they have come out with in the last 20 years. Look at my list above and tell me what this thing can do that none of those can do?
You get out of life what you are willing to accept. If you ain't happy, do something about it!
Actually, right now quite a few recently introduced cartridges can be found, since most people trying to cope with the "shortage" buy the more popular ones.
I went to a couple of local sporting goods stores a few days ago, mostly out of curiosity about what could and couldn't be found. Two recently introduced cartridges that I found both ammo and new brass for at both stores were the 26 Nosler and 6.5 Weatherby RPM.
Also found quite a bit of .35 Legend and 6mm Creedmoor--but no 6.5 Creedmoor. Also found quite a bit of .260 Remington, a cartridge that's been around for a while, but isn't nearly as popular as the 6.5 Creedmoor these days.
The "lesson" here might be to that rifles chambered for those in one of those newer "useless" cartridges, or an older but not very popular cartridge might be more easily fed during our increasingly frequent "shortages."
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
I am glad they are offering the 1-8 twist barrels. This probably won't catch on as the 270 Win. has such a head start and sort of dominates the caliber. This would also make a good 6.5mm cartridge but there is already too much overlap for another new 6.5 to do well. It will be interesting to see if it takes hold. There are some target wildcats that are similar for the same reasons.
Apparently Winchester is not aware that two rifles of the same chambering could have 2 different twist rates that the customer could choose from.
The could have revived the WSMs a bit by offering guns with faster twists, and heavier bullets in the ammo.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
DLSquide and DINK,
Sure, anybody can build a rifle with a fast-twist barrel in long-standardized cartridges. Handloaders do it quite a bit--and of course just about every Campfire member assumes everybody is a handloader.
But rifle and ammo factories have a different problem. They can't just load factory ammo for various estsblished .270 cartridges using longer, high-BC bullets, because too many non-handloaders would assume it will work in their factory .270 Winchester, .270 WSM or .270 Weatherby which have 1-10 twists. And they'd be pretty pissed when they bought the ammo, and the bullets landed sideways on targets.
The only practical way to offer factory ammo loaded with longer, high-BC bullets than typical for the caliber ("caliber" here used in the sense of the bore diameter, not the cartridge) is to introduce a new cartridge, and rifles to fire it. Doing otherwise risks creating dissatisfied customers.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Apparently Winchester is not aware that two rifles of the same chambering could have 2 different twist rates that the customer could choose from.
The could have revived the WSMs a bit by offering guns with faster twists, and heavier bullets in the ammo.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
DLSquide and DINK,
Sure, anybody can build a rifle with a fast-twist barrel in long-standardized cartridges. Handloaders do it quite a bit--and of course just about every Campfire member assumes everybody is a handloader.
But rifle and ammo factories have a different problem. They can't just load factory ammo for various estsblished .270 cartridges using longer, high-BC bullets, because too many non-handloaders would assume it will work in their factory .270 Winchester, .270 WSM or .270 Weatherby which have 1-10 twists. And they'd be pretty pissed when they bought the ammo, and the bullets landed sideways on targets.
The only practical way to offer factory ammo loaded with longer, high-BC bullets than typical for the caliber ("caliber" here used in the sense of the bore diameter, not the cartridge) is to introduce a new cartridge, and rifles to fire it. Doing otherwise risks creating dissatisfied customers.
What they should have done is start chambering .270s with faster twists but give the ammo with the new heavy bullets a different name. Remember when Remington stared calling .244s 6mm Remington?
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
First, if you have a .270 WSM you lose. They'll stop making ammo for it.
Second a bunch of gun writers, including maybe Spomer, will be invited to a place with semi-tame elk and issued 6.8 Western rifles and ammo. The rifles will go "bang," the elk will fall down, and the gun writers will write articles about the new 6.8 being better than sliced bread. The articles will basically say "gush, gurgle" and, coincidentally, ads for the new 6.8 will appear in the same issues of the magazines. Expect to see it on the covers of magazines.
Winchester will offer clerks at gun stores prizes and incentives for selling the new rifle/caliber. However, in 5 or 10 years, the 6.8 will simply disappear. You'll be up a creek unless you've bought a lifetime supply of brass, and reload. Why? Because there is only so much shelf space. New cartridges that are basically indistinguishable in performance from all the others will not last. Just look at all the .30 caliber cartridges introduced 10 or so years ago which are now as good as dead. Or most of the WSSMs and SAUMs.
Some company which is not Winchester or Remington will start selling .270s and .270 Weatherbys with 1:8 twists. Some other small company will start selling ammo for them with long heavy bullets. The ammo boxes will contain a notice saying, "warning, do not use in rifles with 1:10 twists."
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
Apparently Winchester is not aware that two rifles of the same chambering could have 2 different twist rates that the customer could choose from.
The could have revived the WSMs a bit by offering guns with faster twists, and heavier bullets in the ammo.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
DLSquide and DINK,
Sure, anybody can build a rifle with a fast-twist barrel in long-standardized cartridges. Handloaders do it quite a bit--and of course just about every Campfire member assumes everybody is a handloader.
But rifle and ammo factories have a different problem. They can't just load factory ammo for various estsblished .270 cartridges using longer, high-BC bullets, because too many non-handloaders would assume it will work in their factory .270 Winchester, .270 WSM or .270 Weatherby which have 1-10 twists. And they'd be pretty pissed when they bought the ammo, and the bullets landed sideways on targets.
The only practical way to offer factory ammo loaded with longer, high-BC bullets than typical for the caliber ("caliber" here used in the sense of the bore diameter, not the cartridge) is to introduce a new cartridge, and rifles to fire it. Doing otherwise risks creating dissatisfied customers.
What they should have done is start chambering .270s with faster twists but give the ammo with the new heavy bullets a different name. Remember when Remington stared calling .244s 6mm Remington?
Just like the fiasco that happened when they started selling 68 and 77 grain bullet loads in 223. People rioted because their 1:12 rifles wouldn't shoot that schit. Let's not ever do that again.
Sure, anybody can build a rifle with a fast-twist barrel in long-standardized cartridges. Handloaders do it quite a bit--and of course just about every Campfire member assumes everybody is a handloader.
But rifle and ammo factories have a different problem. They can't just load factory ammo for various estsblished .270 cartridges using longer, high-BC bullets, because too many non-handloaders would assume it will work in their factory .270 Winchester, .270 WSM or .270 Weatherby which have 1-10 twists. And they'd be pretty pissed when they bought the ammo, and the bullets landed sideways on targets.
The only practical way to offer factory ammo loaded with longer, high-BC bullets than typical for the caliber ("caliber" here used in the sense of the bore diameter, not the cartridge) is to introduce a new cartridge, and rifles to fire it. Doing otherwise risks creating dissatisfied customers.
I get why factories have to offer new chamberings with bullets that won’t shoot in the old stuff.
Us weirdo’s on this site though are much different. If a 175 grain .277 bullet is what I want, I don’t have to shoot it in WSM cartridge that’s been shortened. For a $600 re-barrel I can launch it from any cartridge I want to.
I would have thought it would have been better to test the waters by selling the 175 grain .277 bullets and see how many of us buy them before making a new WSSMish cartridge. Since the WSSM’s worked out so well last time.
No one, except maybe a custom outfit, is going to tool up for bullets for rifles that don’t exist. They did the right thing for once; time will tell if it pays off.
When JB did his piece about the modern .270 a while back, i decided a 150gr ABLR could do all I’ll ever need, and more, but I understand why others “need” something a bit better. I’ll never understand why people feel threatened by new stuff that offers better performance when they’re supposedly satisfied with what they already have.
[/quote] Just like the fiasco that happened when they started selling 68 and 77 grain bullet loads in 223. People rioted because their 1:12 rifles wouldn't shoot that schit. Let's not ever do that again. [/quote]
That was essentially the opposite situation: The heavy-bullet .223 ammo was actually a RESPONSE to customer demand, due to more and more faster-twist .223s showing up on the market, mostly AR-15s--not introducing a new cartridge "concept." Many of those new rifles were also marked 5.56--many in combination with .223, such as .223/.5.56 or 5.56/.223.
As a result, more people started shooting heavier-bullet .223 ammo, whether factory or handloads, and demand eventually rose for faster-twist .223 barrels even in bolt-action hunting rifles. And of course lighter-bullet .223 ammo also worked fine in the faster twists.
Can't remember many shooters with 1-12 twist .223's trying the heavier-bullet ammo back then, though no doubt some did. But during that transition most hunters still thought of the .223 as a varmint cartridge, especially for prairie dog shooting--and also still believed that higher muzzle velocity with lighter 50-55 grains bullets (or even 40s) was the answer to longer-range PDs--whether in the .223 or .22-250.
It took a while for some of those guys to discover that a fast-twist .223 with heavier, high-BC bullets worked better than the .22-250 with 50s at longer ranges--though of course quite a few never learned, either because they never heard of the concept, or wouldn't believe it. In fact I have gone on PD shoots with several supposed rifle loonies in the past few years who brought brand-new custom rifles built with 1-12 or even 1-14 twist barrel for the same cartridges their fathers and even grandfathers used, from the .222 to .220 Swift.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
I think it is an answer to a question that nobody ask. I faster twist barrel would be nice but they can not feed the public demand for ammo on things they already have. I watched a video on this round and they had the bullet laying beside the case. It is WAY down in the case and they also had a 270 WSM laying there as well. Less case capacity that the WSM bullet deeper in the case so what is the point, why not just stay with the WSM, put a faster twist barrel on it and use your resources to produce more ammo for existing rounds.
I may not be smart but I can lift heavy objects
I have a shotgun so I have no need for a 30-06.....
I think it is an answer to a question that nobody ask. I faster twist barrel would be nice but they can not feed the public demand for ammo on things they already have. I watched a video on this round and they had the bullet laying beside the case. It is WAY down in the case and they also had a 270 WSM laying there as well. Less case capacity that the WSM bullet deeper in the case so what is the point, why not just stay with the WSM, put a faster twist barrel on it and use your resources to produce more ammo for existing rounds.
Yup, what is the point need more vel just use my 270 weatherby or normal performance a 270 win all of which I have ammo for instead of worrying about buying something there is no ammo for.
" Cheapest velocity in the world comes from a long barrel and I sure do like them. MB "
I know Winchester introduced it and their short actions have a longer magazine box, but I wish they would have made it more user friendly to the R700 short action box length. Semi Custom production rifles like Christensen Arms that use the R700 footprint for their rifles aren't able to take advantage of these new calibers as much as say the Winchester rifles and such. For some reasons these same manufacturers don't chamber any of the Remington short magnums much either. I would love a Christensen Arms in 7mm WSM, but don't see that happening. For these reason I'm looking at the 6.5 PRC in my near future. That being said, I hope the 6.8 Westerner doesn't suffer the same fate as the 7mm WSM did with market timing. No matter what is said, I don't see any loaded ammo or components available in the near future while the press is hot about this new cartridge. I think the 7mm WSM may be the best caliber brought out during the short mag craze and Winchester's stutter with getting it out to the public almost killed it from the start.
In the real world the 270 WSM has no advantage over the standard 270 Win, as the 1:8 twist with heavier bullets will not have ant real world advantage over the 270 WSM or 270 Win. A few inches of drop and wind drift at 1000 yards which is no real advantage at the ranges we hunt. Just another cartridge for the ballistic table readers to ponder on their sleepless nights. We really need a few more chamberings! I think I'll wait for the rush to be over before I try to find a 6.8 Westerner rifle!
I know Winchester introduced it and their short actions have a longer magazine box, but I wish they would have made it more user friendly to the R700 short action box length. Semi Custom production rifles like Christensen Arms that use the R700 footprint for their rifles aren't able to take advantage of these new calibers as much as say the Winchester rifles and such. For some reasons these same manufacturers don't chamber any of the Remington short magnums much either. I would love a Christensen Arms in 7mm WSM, but don't see that happening. For these reason I'm looking at the 6.5 PRC in my near future. That being said, I hope the 6.8 Westerner doesn't suffer the same fate as the 7mm WSM did with market timing. No matter what is said, I don't see any loaded ammo or components available in the near future while the press is hot about this new cartridge. I think the 7mm WSM may be the best caliber brought out during the short mag craze and Winchester's stutter with getting it out to the public almost killed it from the start.
My thoughts exactly. Another question are the 7mm WSM and the 7MM SAUM dead and the 280 AI become so popular?
In the real world the 270 WSM has no advantage over the standard 270 Win, as the 1:8 twist with heavier bullets will not have ant real world advantage over the 270 WSM or 270 Win. A few inches of drop and wind drift at 1000 yards which is no real advantage at the ranges we hunt. Just another cartridge for the ballistic table readers to ponder on their sleepless nights. We really need a few more chamberings! I think I'll wait for the rush to be over before I try to find a 6.8 Westerner rifle!
I guess that depends on what world you consider real.
In the real world the 270 WSM has no advantage over the standard 270 Win, as the 1:8 twist with heavier bullets will not have ant real world advantage over the 270 WSM or 270 Win. A few inches of drop and wind drift at 1000 yards which is no real advantage at the ranges we hunt. Just another cartridge for the ballistic table readers to ponder on their sleepless nights. We really need a few more chamberings! I think I'll wait for the rush to be over before I try to find a 6.8 Westerner rifle!
I guess that depends on what world you consider real.
Yup! A dead Elk is a dead Elk, hard to make any deader! I have had a 270 WSM and a 270 Bee, I just keep the old gay 270 Win.
This was fairly predictable development, imo. Myself, I don't really get the short/fat thing. I do get the how these things capture the interest of a few serious ( nuts & bolts) shooter's. Heck, I would consider fast twisting a .270 WCF or the Weatherby. I actually think that , maybe in a few years the Rocket Scientist that came up with this short /fat concept will recant but It really depends on the marketing people anyways, folks.....and they are succeeding in selling Ice to ( us) Eskimos. Cheers
I know Winchester introduced it and their short actions have a longer magazine box, but I wish they would have made it more user friendly to the R700 short action box length. Semi Custom production rifles like Christensen Arms that use the R700 footprint for their rifles aren't able to take advantage of these new calibers as much as say the Winchester rifles and such. For some reasons these same manufacturers don't chamber any of the Remington short magnums much either. I would love a Christensen Arms in 7mm WSM, but don't see that happening. For these reason I'm looking at the 6.5 PRC in my near future. That being said, I hope the 6.8 Westerner doesn't suffer the same fate as the 7mm WSM did with market timing. No matter what is said, I don't see any loaded ammo or components available in the near future while the press is hot about this new cartridge. I think the 7mm WSM may be the best caliber brought out during the short mag craze and Winchester's stutter with getting it out to the public almost killed it from the start.
Probably not high on their priority list. I seem to recall that 700’s can be modified for a longer mag without futzing up the footprint. Maybe it’s time to abandon the 2.8” magazine.
I know Winchester introduced it and their short actions have a longer magazine box, but I wish they would have made it more user friendly to the R700 short action box length. Semi Custom production rifles like Christensen Arms that use the R700 footprint for their rifles aren't able to take advantage of these new calibers as much as say the Winchester rifles and such. For some reasons these same manufacturers don't chamber any of the Remington short magnums much either. I would love a Christensen Arms in 7mm WSM, but don't see that happening. For these reason I'm looking at the 6.5 PRC in my near future. That being said, I hope the 6.8 Westerner doesn't suffer the same fate as the 7mm WSM did with market timing. No matter what is said, I don't see any loaded ammo or components available in the near future while the press is hot about this new cartridge. I think the 7mm WSM may be the best caliber brought out during the short mag craze and Winchester's stutter with getting it out to the public almost killed it from the start.
Probably not high on their priority list. I seem to recall that 700’s can be modified for a longer mag without futzing up the footprint. Maybe it’s time to abandon the 2.8” magazine.
Max SAAMI OAL is 2.955 just like the PRC.
I'll probably still consider the 6.5 PRC over the 6.8 Westerner unless something drastically changes my mind. I really like my 7mm WSM, but it doesn't seem to get much market support. It appears Hornady approaches these new cartridges with a business minded mindset for product support and supply, whereas Winchester will change directions in the middle of a hurricane without any notice. I worked for Olin for 20 years and their business decisions still baffle me to this day. I see Christensen Arms offers the 6.5 PRC in their Mesa rifle, I'm now wondering if it is the short or long action model. My magazine box for my 6.5 CM in that rifle measures 2.885". I wish they had gone to 3" magazine length in short action like the M70.
This is all just cold weather rumination for me. Ain’t buying either, or maybe any more at all. I am doing some optics upgrades on what I’ve got. That’s fun too.
This is all just cold weather rumination for me. Ain’t buying either, or maybe any more at all. I am doing some optics uogrades on what I’ve got. That’s fun too.
I understand completely. I don't know how many times I've said I don't need another rifle, and here I am again. I know the 6.5 CM is frowned upon here, but this last C-A Mesa I bought has come as close as doing everything in a lightweight, low recoil and accurate rifle as anything I have ever bought. I may not buy anymore either, need to use what I have now more .
I don’t think it’s frowned on at all, just has some very vocal detractors. We won't go into why as that horse has been beaten into a big pile of pink aspic.
This is all just cold weather rumination for me. Ain’t buying either, or maybe any more at all. I am doing some optics uogrades on what I’ve got. That’s fun too.
I understand completely. I don't know how many times I've said I don't need another rifle, and here I am again. I know the 6.5 CM is frowned upon here, but this last C-A Mesa I bought has come as close as doing everything in a lightweight, low recoil and accurate rifle as anything I have ever bought. I may not buy anymore either, need to use what I have now more .
The 6.5 CM isn’t frowned upon here. It’s just the old people who rant the most make it seem that way. Most here understand it’s merits even if we don’t own one. I have a 1-8” 260 so I don’t have one at this time. I have recommended them to tons of family and friends because of the good design in a short action the properly twisted factory rifles and when ammo was available good quality ammunition at a decent price.
So don’t let a few loud mouths make you think the creedmoor chamberings are frowned upon here. Many like them but don’t feel the need to draw so much attention.
Natchez Shooting Supplies has 6.8 Western ammo in stock, 10 box limit!!!! Nothing else I need is in stock, but you can buy 10 boxes of 6.8 ammo!! Go figure.....
The only thing I have a gripe about the CM is that some folks act like it’s the Second Coming.
I agree with that. Those people and the haters are equally annoying and neither make sense. The flat bill don’t tread on me type don’t even really understand what makes the chambering good.....bro(grin). Then the haters just want to jump up and down talking about 6.5x55 260’s and the like saying it isn’t anything new and the others can do the same thing. Yes we all know when twisted and loaded the same they are. Yes most of us handload but not everyone does.
The creedmoor(22,24, or 6.5)is not the miracle cases some make them out to be but far from the foolish unnecessary chamberings others like to go on about.
The only thing I have a gripe about the CM is that some folks act like it’s the Second Coming.
I agree with that. Those people and the haters are equally annoying and neither make sense. The flat bill don’t tread on me type don’t even really understand what makes the chambering good.....bro(grin). Then the haters just want to jump up and down talking about 6.5x55 260’s and the like saying it isn’t anything new and the others can do the same thing. Yes we all know when twisted and loaded the same they are. Yes most of us handload but not everyone does.
The creedmoor(22,24, or 6.5)is not the miracle cases some make them out to be but far from the foolish unnecessary chamberings others like to go on about.
If I were 20 years younger, I’d probably try the CM, 6.5 PRC, or 6.8 Western. But with limited years left to big game hunt, I’ll stay with what I have until I roll back to just using my .257 Roberts and 7x57. After my last Rocky Mountain elk hunt rolls around, all the big Weatherby guns will go down the road. Happy Trails
Last edited by WAM; 01/22/21.
Life Member NRA, RMEF, American Legion, MAGA. Not necessarily in that order.
Mine too, I think if I had a 6.8 Western, I’d be inclined to run a 270 WSM reamer in .080” , to accommodate those 270 WSM loads, and also do whatever magazine mods are necessary.
I’d rather load my own for LR, maybe neck down the 6.8 brass to 257 ?
This is all just cold weather rumination for me. Ain’t buying either, or maybe any more at all. I am doing some optics uogrades on what I’ve got. That’s fun too.
I understand completely. I don't know how many times I've said I don't need another rifle, and here I am again. I know the 6.5 CM is frowned upon here, but this last C-A Mesa I bought has come as close as doing everything in a lightweight, low recoil and accurate rifle as anything I have ever bought. I may not buy anymore either, need to use what I have now more .
The 6.5 CM isn’t frowned upon here. It’s just the old people who rant the most make it seem that way. Most here understand it’s merits even if we don’t own one. I have a 1-8” 260 so I don’t have one at this time. I have recommended them to tons of family and friends because of the good design in a short action the properly twisted factory rifles and when ammo was available good quality ammunition at a decent price.
So don’t let a few loud mouths make you think the creedmoor chamberings are frowned upon here. Many like them but don’t feel the need to draw so much attention.
I started to do some reloading for the 6.5 CM this morning. To be honest, I'm having a hard time beating Hornady Gunner ammo with my reloads when I first started.I have gotten several 3 shot 3/8" groups at 150's with the Gunner ammo during barrel break-in. My rifle doesn't like to loaded on the faster end apparently. I checked the published fps on the Gunner ammo and slowed my reloads down below 2700 fps with 139 Scenars and that seems to be the sweet spot. Guess if I need faster, that's why they make the 6.5 PRC. Kind of amazing how Hornady finds the sweet spot in production ammo that works so well in so many different rifles. I'm no expert at reloading, just plugging along at this time. For what it's worth to anybody, I'm getting extreme spread fps deviation in the mid single digit numbers with Vihtavuori N555. I'm not above using any load data anybody has had luck with if anyone has any they don't care to share.
I am a big 270 fan and have owned 6.8SPC, 270 Win, and 270 WSM. All that is left are the plain old 270WCF's.
I have seriously considered a Weatherby, love the idea of the SIG Fury, but not the case.
My current "LR" 270 is shooting 145gr Hornady ELD-X's much better than I can shoot at 3000fps 1:10 twist. My goto hunting rifle is a Model 70 FWT action sitting in and edge stock chambered for 270WCF.
so.. on to the 6.8 Western. I love the idea, truly modernizing an old round. Just like the Creedmoor case has done.
Will I get one? Probably not, as the old 270 WCF has done everything I have asked for 40 years. If I were starting over, I would seriously consider.
I think the 170 grain does a little better than the wsm out past 600. I’m not sure all weights it would commonly shoot beat the wsm. Another new cartridge with overlap performance where differences are negligible. But hey they got to sell things. Besides short beefy cartridges with steep shoulder angles,burn less powder(efficiency), shoot high BC heavy for caliber bullets,with low twist rates; are all the rage.
This is all just cold weather rumination for me. Ain’t buying either, or maybe any more at all. I am doing some optics upgrades on what I’ve got. That’s fun too.
This is where I'm at in my life cycle. I have 3 new scopes still in the boxes, except don't feel it is prudent to remove existing zeroed scopes from my rifles until the ammo shortage loosens up, like a kid waiting for Christmas.
Just got my first 270 win recently. I will never use a 270 of any sort to shoot any game at 1000+yds so the advantage in winddrift handling long stable missles is wasted on me. Besides, if you need to really reach longer that business should be done with far more mass and weight and startsbwith big 338 brethern.
Locally 270 win ammo is still available. Also, rifle chambered for the old standard length cartridges that archaic in design tend to feed nice and slick. Ballistic abilities may be fine and all but my first priority is reliability of feeding and extraction and its why i chose an old 270 win in an controlled feed rifle. Personally, i dont need any new cartridges but what i need are things like optics upgrades and components and consumables. Those are the real places to spend money, time, and attention. So Winchester wont be seeing any funds from me towards 6.8 Western, ill invest in myself and what i already own
Just got an email ad from Winchester on this new cartridge. It doesn't say much about it, but if any writer has info, what is different about it compared to the .270 WSM?
Spomer ‘splains why, but many won’t listen:
If Spomer had a man bun, it would be a success. He can’t even remember his lines. I really enjoyed his hunting shows though.
FUGK CCP
It’s time to WAKE UP GOD BLESS THE USA WWG1WGA THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES
sound like a good combination. But I am not going to change. I'll keep my old standard 270s. I never have asked any of them to do anything for me that they didn't do well.
To me, this is just another cartridge that will never get off the ground and just muddy the water. One thing that never gets discussed much, is the ridiculous cost of the ammo and components for these new cartridges. It is shocking what one, 20-round box of ammo, or brass, costs for any of these newer set-the-world-on-fire-cure-all cartridges. I guess if you have unlimited money and want to play, then go for it.
I will sit and watch and keep shooting my standards.
You did not "seen" anything, you "saw" it. A "creek" has water in it, a "crick" is what you get in your neck. Liberals with guns are nothing but hypocrites.
