Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 6.8 Western

Evidently I didn't activate the Campfire "irony font."

Oh, you did, it’s just that Ad block pro blocks it.

Of the new micro slot cartridges I remain more interested in the 6.5 RPM, but I think both chamberings face some stiff headwinds.

I think the irony font was activated in both posts

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

Wouldn’t a fast twist 270 Weatherby out run the 6.8 western by quite a bit? I know that extra action length would really drag a guy down but....

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.

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?

MAC,

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."

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.

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?

Here's what I predict will happen now.

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."

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.

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.

But that’s just my opinion.

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.

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.