New Cartridge 6.8 Western

[del2les]

Maybe we need to make some dies to swage those heavy for caliber 7mm bullets down to .277? And those heavy for caliber 6.5's down to .257?

Maybe that's what it will take to wake up the bullet mfg's!

Swaging is enlarging, drawing is reducing. I am a 40 year bullet swager.
Reducing, drawing, jacketed bullets does not make for the best accuracy, for the jacket tends to spring back ever slightly and may cause a loose jacket to core effect.

 

[25WSM]

A guy at our 1000 yard club does real well shooting a straight 22br with a fast twist and 90 gr bullets.
Shep

 

[ntsqd]

Swaging is enlarging, drawing is reducing. I am a 40 year bullet swager.
Reducing, drawing, jacketed bullets does not make for the best accuracy, for the jacket tends to spring back ever slightly and may cause a loose jacket to core effect.

Anneal the jackets then?

 

[Goldengun]

You can only shoot one bullet at a time, not much need for a large selection you don't use. One good bullet! I agree, the 257 is in need of heavy for caliber good bullets. I prefer the 270 and 257 to the 264 and 284. 150 and 165 ABLR, 160 partition, 170 bergers, what else would you need for the 270? Most long range shooters are not shooting rifles with "off the shelf" twist rates, I imagine. The 270wsm is what it should be, IMO! Get a new barrel, if you need to for HFC bullets. The "off the shelf" shooters have exactly the ammo they need "on the shelf".

 

[25WSM]

Here is a definition. You guys are both right.
Shep

 

[bigngreen]

Anneal the jackets then?

Annealing the jacket melts the lead inside and makes a poor flying bullet.

 

[LVJ76]

Nothing wrong with the good old original .270!

Yes there is, it's not short and fat LOL

 

[del2les]

Anneal the jackets then?

Nope. Copper jackets with lead cores have different "memories" after being drawn. The lead core remains mostly at size while the jacket has more memory and often springs back .0001-.0005". It is this effect that allows a "swaged" lead core in a jacket to remain tight. When a .306 jacket and core is swaged to .3085, the jacket ever slightly springs back to keep the core tight.

 

[Jud96]

I'm really surprised that they're doing this. The market is so saturated with cartridges right now. There's nothing wrong with new things, but sometimes they're just not needed. Winchester already has the .270 WSM so now they have the 6.8 Western. Hornady has the 6.5 PRC and Weatherby the 6.5 RPM. This looks cool, but there's just so many options and it's overwhelming. Between the two newer 6.5s I mentioned, you have the 7mm SAUM, 280 Ackley, 284 Win, 6.5 SAUM, 270 WSM, 300 WSM, the whole new line of Nosler cartridges. There's just so many options right now gaining popularity that I don't think it's necessary for something like this unless it is actually a game changer. The only advantage I see is being able to buy an off the shelf rifle and off the shelf ammo that are designed for optimal performance in the .270 caliber. Similar to the 6.5 Creedmoor and 6.5 PRC idea. For the custom rifle guy and handloader, I see no reason to go with this when you have all the other cartridges out there with support and great brass. Just my thoughts.

Also, I wanted to add. Ammunition manufacturers can't just bring out new lines of ammo based on already established cartridges, like the 270 WSM, and load it with heavy high BC bullets. The 270 WSM was never designed for 165+ grain bullets, thus the entire chamber was never designed with the proper freebore and it was never spec'd with a fast twist barrel. So as easy as it seems to be, you can't load ammunition that doesn't meet SAAMI specs and sell it to anybody with a 270 WSM. If someone buys a box of 270 WSM rounds with 165gr bullets and chambers them in their pre-fast twist barrel, then they will have issues with accuracy, ammo fitting in the chamber properly, and everything else that comes along with ammunition not properly designed for the chamber you have. This is where the 6.8 Western comes into the picture, but I still think it's not needed with the options we have today.

 

[del2les]

Here is a definition. You guys are both right.
Shep

Not in bullet manufacturing.

 

[ntsqd]

So then draw them down to ..2700 or .2500 depending and then swage them up to .277 or .257 This isn't unsolvable, someone made those bullets using the same or similar methods.

 

[Taco John]

 

[del2les]

So then draw them down to ..2700 or .2500 depending and then swage them up to .277 or .257 This isn't unsolvable, someone made those bullets using the same or similar methods.

You are talking about a completed bullet being reduced in size? Correct? There is a big difference in the initial swaging of core to jacket prior to final form than trying to reduce the bullet's size after completion.

 

[ntsqd]

Just because no one has done it doesn't mean that it can't be done and done well. All that it does mean is that enough people have told those who thought about doing it that it couldn't be done that they were believed. Edison is quoted (likely erroneously) as saying that he found 1000 ways to NOT build a light bulb. So far we know how NOT to do this, we just haven't found out how TO do it.

I've no horse in the race, I won't be trying it because I have no need. If I did I'd be looking into it. If I did and based on what has been said here I'd be looking at drawing to below size and then swaging up to size as my starting point.