"New and Improved" round that makes sense

[ligonierbill]

I am definitely an old fashioned type when it comes to rifles. I will argue that no one has really improved on the 6.5x55. But reading the article in American Rifleman on the 6.8mm Western, it just sounded right to me. They actually reduced the case capacity of the 270 WSM slightly to accommodate longer, heavier bullets, and chambered it in rifles with a twist rate fast enough to stabilize them. I have more rifles than I need, but if I were starting out and looking to be a one rifle hunter, I'd be looking at this one.

[stagpanther]

They made a barrel with faster twist. Yay.

[jmr40]

The 6.5 CM and 7-08 basically duplicate 6.5X55 and 7X57 performance, but only if you handload for the 6.5X55 and 7X57 and shoot those loads in custom rifles.

There have been a lot of advancements in bullets and powders in the last 100+ years. The newer rifles in more modern cartridges are designed to work with modern bullets. The advantages are subtle and may not be noticed by many people. The ability to buy rifles and ammo off the shelf at reasonable prices is a big part of it too.

I haven't looked too closely at the 6.8 Westerner, but it appears they have made the same tweaks to it to achieve the same goals as the 6.5 CM vs 260, or 6mm CM vs 243.

I understand the principle behind the 6.8 Westerner, but it seems to me the 7mm WSM does exactly the same thing. Good 7mm bullets are readily available and I don't understand why going to the trouble to make a 27 caliber do what the 26's and 28's already do. There just isn't that much difference between 6.5, 6.8mm and 7mm. The 7mm WSM was probably the best of the WSM rounds, too bad it was one of the least popular.

[bamaranger]

I've always been a cartridge guy, and read the "Rifleman" article with some interest as well. The Western seems to offer a very versatile and powerful cartridge with wide application. But, being a conservative rifleman type, I view new cartridges with a great deal of skepticism. The alphabet soup of cartridges introduced not that long ago, the WSM, WSSM, SPC's, the Ultramags, all have played out to be little more than flash in the pans. They sold some new rifles, but they did not stick, and I do not see any in the field in my area. The The 6.5CM seems here to stay, time will tell about its brethren offspring CM's, as well as the ARC's, the Valkyrie, the Legend, and others I suppose.

Simply put, I cannot use what the 6.8Western offers. Primarily because I am a (south) Eastern hunter. Being of average middle class status at best, I will not be booking hunts across the country or around the globe to shoot beasts larger and more exotic than a whitetail, and if I'm lucky, some hogs. I suspect ( and everyday chaps just like me) represent 75% (or more) of the hunting and shooting fraternity. For us everyday folks, we shoot deer and hogs at distances well under 200 yds, typically well under 100, and just do not need to take advantage of the flat trajectory and heavy bullet the Western offers. The old guard rifles we already have serve just fine.

I say none of this to discredit the 6.8Western. I just suspect that what it offers will only truly benefit a small percentage of shooters. Whether the appeal of a new cartridge will offset that niche and allow the Western to thrive remains to be seen.

[RC20]

If we want a good all around cartridge added it would be to make the 7.5 Swiss in a mid action rifle.

All developed, bazillion bullet for it (.308) and it was a short magnum before there were short magnums.

I have to laugh at flat shooting cartridges. At 600 yards, does it matter it drops 35 inches vs 42?

The biggest advance has been to short and squat (can you say 7.5 Swiss) and that allows a medium action vs a long action.

The 6.8 is going to be the latest rage because that what the Army is moving to (Marines not so much yet)

Dang, I always knew 270 was the future!

[Shadow9mm]

the 6.8 western has me interested. But I expect it will fail, just like the WSSM series I had such high hopes for. There is not great leap in technology, just small tweaks and refinements on cartridges and bullet. I think it has a lot of potential. The question is are people going to go out and buy one. And are peoples current rifles going to start collecting dust, because the are actually choosing and using the 6.8 more?

[T. O'Heir]

"New and Improved" is usually about some ammo or firearms company reinventing a cartridge to ensure their market share. Think Norma and all their rehashed proprietary stuff.
6.8mm Western sounds a lot like the .270 Shooting Times Western, .270 WSM, et al.
The 7.5 Swiss is a .308" cartridge. So is the 7.5 French.

[TOU]

"New and Improved" is usually about some ammo or firearms company reinventing a cartridge to ensure their market share."

I.E. .204R, 17 FB, 17 HH, 6.5 CM, 6.5G, 6mm ARC etc. & a host of others.

Now caliber that is truly new and improved...is the 22 TCM. I know, oddball but it is truly a NEW caliber. It makes sense to me with a higher-performing capability than the 5.7x28 which it was designed to compete within a pistol. It performs spectacularly with little to no recoil, accurate and fast. It is much easier reloadable compared to the 5.7x28 (The 5.7x28 is only reliably reloadable for a bolt action rifle.) I wished it was available in a PCC. With limited availability in ammo and firearms, it will sadly not likely take off more than it has. I also have it in a custom CZ 527 rifle in a fast twist...it has become my favorite walkabout sub 200-yard rifle.

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

They made a barrel with faster twist. Yay. 

My thoughts exactly! I'm glad they did too, instead of stuffing those bullets that need a faster twist rate into existing cartridges. Can you imagine all those PO shooters that would be keyholing targets with their .270 Win, WSM, and Weatherby? They did the right thing by making a new cartridge with new SAAMI specifications.

[stagpanther]

My thoughts exactly! I'm glad they did too, instead of stuffing those bullets that need a faster twist rate into existing cartridges. Can you imagine all those PO shooters that would be keyholing targets with their .270 Win, WSM, and Weatherby? They did the right thing by making a new cartridge with new SAAMI specifications.

Call me crazy--but why not just order a 270 WSM barrel with faster twist and longer throat (if necessary)?? I don't see anything compelling about this.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

Call me crazy--but why not just order a 270 WSM barrel with faster twist and longer throat (if necessary)?? I don't see anything compelling about this.

How many average hunters are going to build a custom rifle, or buy a new rifle, take it to the gun smith, and have the factory barrel tossed and put on a custom barrel?

Its a great idea for us reloaders with some miles on our barrels, but not great for the average hunter just trying to put meat in the freezer.

Either that or you create the 270LR (long range, or some other acronym) and re spec it for the longer throat and faster barrel twist.

But your right back where you started, with a new cartridge.... and you don't get the advantages of the more effecient powder burn in the shorter wider casings, or the reduce throat erosion from the newer shoulder angles.

For me, I'm still on my first big bore, a budget 30-06 that I have not been able to finish getting my loads worked up for.... I think the 6.8 western most likely another revamp of another revamp. The questions is, is it a good cartridge, and will the small advantages it has be enough to keep it around and replaced older ones going forwards.

[TOU]

How many average hunters are going to build a custom rifle, or buy a new rifle, take it to the gun smith, and have the factory barrel tossed and put on a custom barrel?

Not sure I would call them average hunters but happens on regular basis over on www.Saubier.com

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

Call me crazy--but why not just order a 270 WSM barrel with faster twist and longer throat (if necessary)?? I don't see anything compelling about this.

I thought I'd made it clear what a mistake it would be to run the high BC bullets in factory ammo for existing cartridges. There are plenty of guys running fast twist .277 caliber rifles, and reload appropriate bullets for their rifle. However, that doesn't help a company with new rifle and ammunition sales. The right approach was to design a new cartridge, if it's successful or not I think it was the right decision.

[RaySendero]

So what bullet weight and length is this new and improved 270 going to shoot?

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by RaySendero

So what bullet weight and length is this new and improved 270 going to shoot?

from what I have been seeing, really long and heavy (for caliber) ones. The current factory loadings I am seeing are 165g(bc .620) and 175g(bc .617) at around 2850-2950fps.

To me it seems like they are trying to reformat the 30-06. Similar hunting bullet weights. Similar velocities. But with the bullet diameter being smaller they get a a much better bullet weight to BC ratio, which is a pretty big advantage at longer ranges.

[RC20]

The 7.5 Swiss is a .308" cartridge. So is the 7.5 French.

Clearly you do not know or understand the 7.5 Swiss.

Its 30-06 class with a smaller payload as its the original short magnum (squat with a sharp shoulder).

Well ahead of its time as was the GP-11 bullet (and still is) Short Magnum 100 years before anyone coined that term. It would be a killer 6.8/270 cartridge necked down as well.

The 7.5 Swiss will do anything the 06 can with less recoil and less powder which means its even easier on barrels (and the 06 is easy on barrels)

I love the 06, but the 7.5 Swiss is simply never come ashore in number of mil surplus that got it the place it deserves.

[Scorch]

I don't see anything compelling about this.

Me neither. And FWIW, the 270 Westerner is basically a 270 Winchester performance in a short fat case. Not much to see there!

Now caliber that is truly new and improved...is the 22 TCM

22 TCM has been around for almost a decade. It's not new. Cute, yes. Impressive? No. Basically a 22 Spitfire reworked. Didn't work then because there were no rifles chambered for it. Same thing with the 22 TCM.

The 7.5 Swiss is a .308" cartridge. So is the 7.5 French.

Yep. Same .308 bullet going out at 2,600 fps. Just harder to find ammo for.

If they want to launch a new cartridge, it will have to offer something a current cartridge doesn't. Can't talk people out of their 270s with a new 270. Face it, if there is going to be anything replacing a current popular cartridge, it will have to offer something the older version doesn't.

[Nathan]

This round highlights the current problems with new cartridge development. It seems somebody takes a current case head, draws up some dimensions on it, gets a reamer and brass, and then develops a load.

First, ammunition gets locked in by twist rate. For example if a round gets a 1:14 twist initially, everything develops that way....ammo, bullets, load data. If a 1:7 makes a new round, it is almost easier to modify the case than make another set of guns and ammo!

Second, designers learn about things like tighter neck, tighter throats, freebore, etc. They have to make a new round aka Creedmoor to make up for their failures....aka 260 Rem.

Worse is if a prehistoric military round like 6.5x55 gets new love. How do you make 60ksi ammo when there are millions of prehistoric rifles that are safe to like 48ksi.

Last, when you make new and market it as new, the forums(customers) blow up with negative response....say things like, “same as my custom reamed 270 Win!”

[stagpanther]

They have to make a new round aka Creedmoor to make up for their failures....aka 260 Rem.

That's the very first comparison that popped into my mind, though a continued presence of the 260 rem might argue that.

When new miracle long range cruise missiles of death cartridges come out, the first thing I do is look at the claimed ballistics versus what is already out there. Rarely are there true apples-to-apples comparisons. One article suggests that the 6.8 W pastes the 270 WSM both velocity and energy, I ran the numbers on a 160 partition that can go 3000 fps in the existing 270 WSM and also leave the muzzle with much more energy, albeit maybe not out to rarified ranges that most hunters probably wouldn't chance. Eyebrow automatically goes up with claims of magnum-like kinetic energy vs a larger capacity case cartridge. One article suggest that the 6.8 western can perform toe-to-toe with larger magnums, shades of the "30-30 killer" 350 legend roll-out.

Like the .224 valkyrie, I see this a narrow-niche cartridge you're going to have trouble finding stuff to feed it. It appears to be designed around a couple of new bullets you can't even find on the market. The marketing appears to be mostly directed at the new breed of hunters that prowl the high-altitude plains with lightweight rifles and are taking shots at live animals that demand accuracy that you might expect from competition match shooters at ranges that most other .270 cartridges won't venture out to; the 500 - 1000 yd range where the higher SD bullets deliver their "magic." What happens to these bullets at closer ranges and higher velocities? I looked at their long range energy numbers and my conclusion was you better the heck know what you're doing.

My gun safes are full of new cartridge rollout rifles that I was sucked into by the marketing hype when they were first introduced and now very rarely use, I learned the hard way--including a rifle that blew up on me-- to take a much more critical look at new miracle cartridges; and above all wait out the initial "scrambled eggs period" while the shooting public figures out what the final specs should be.

All that said, if Bryan Litz's eye is caught by this cartridge and he develops a suite of match bullets (and Hornady rolls out an eld) that start placing well at 1000 yd matches, I might take a serious look at it (just like the creedmoor) even though I don't shoot at those ranges.

[ligonierbill]

To be clear, I do not have any of the current crop of rifle rounds. My newest was introduced in 1988, and that is a special purpose cartridge. In fact, I have only one 21st century round. 480 Ruger. I'm also old fashioned in that I don't care a wit about action length; short, standard, "magnum" makes no never mind to me. But I wanted to flag this round, as it seems tweaked toward usefulness, rather than touted as the biggest, baddest, fastest. Carry on.

[stagpanther]

It does look great on the surface--just like the .224 valk did, but I have my suspicions as to real practicality--just like the valk. But by all means I favor innovation, and I look forward to this prevailing as the new uber .270--but I'll have some beers and popcorn while others do the proving.

[RaySendero]

stagpanther Wrote:

.....

When new miracle long range cruise missiles of death cartridges come out, the first thing I do is look at the claimed ballistics versus what is already out there. Rarely are there true apples-to-apples comparisons.

Still not sure what you mean by "true apples-to-apples comparisons".

I look at it in a different way:
I think in terms of overlaps and voids in my hunting rifles.
And I do make comparisons to what I already have:

I especially look for new cartridges that can produce either,

1) the same velocity at a 50% increase in bullet weight
or
2) a 500 fps increase in velocity at the same bullet weight.

[Jim Watson]

Something to sell. Guns are Durable Goods and they have to convince you your old one is obsolete to get you to buy a new one.

I think it goes back to the 6.8 SPC. If the Army hadn't "discovered" the caliber, would there be the present interest? Or would we be trundling along with the various perfectly satisfactory 6.5 and 7mms?

[stagpanther]

Still not sure what you mean by "true apples-to-apples comparisons".

These are usually easy to pick out--usually there significant differences in bullet weight/velocities/barrel lengths that mask the rather small potential differences between the cartridges that the new one is "slaughtering with numbers to make it virtually obsolete." Hard to think of a new cartridge developer in the last few years that does not use this trickery--other than Hornady which seems to take the reverse conservative approach and underplay the earth-shattering potential of a new cartridge they develop.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by RaySendero

Still not sure what you mean by "true apples-to-apples comparisons".

I look at it in a different way:
I think in terms of overlaps and voids in my hunting rifles.
And I do make comparisons to what I already have:

I especially look for new cartridges that can produce either,

1) the same velocity at a 50% increase in bullet weight
or
2) a 500 fps increase in velocity at the same bullet weight.

I would add the caveat that it does not burn the throat out excessively rapidly....