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.. .
