6.8 Western- has it been abandoned already?

[comfisherman]

I don't think many on a dedicated long range hunting forum would begrudge heavy sleek bullets in our intended hunting situation. Most of our grievance comes from the introduction of a near identical round from a company that also produces its closest competitor. Apparently winchesters parent company thinks it's better to reinvent its own wheel that's for all intents and purpose a negligible difference save one inch of twist and 15-25 grains of Bullet weight.

I'd argue a publicity blitz about new 7.5 or 8 twist 270 wsm rifles and factory ammo would sell less than a new launch of likely 30tc/300rcm orphan guns. But bean counters must know better...

 

[RockyMtnUT]

1st, why does anybody need a heavier bullet? I've shot 85% of all North American game with a 7mm-08 140gr accubond or partition. Second ,the gunsmith that builds my custom rifle's shoots 150 out of the 270wsm and shoots it accurately out to 850 with zero problems and missed fatal shots. The 6.8 will vanish in the near term.

Because, ballistically they are better in general.
My 22-250 with a 55 vmax kills deer just fine.
Or I could use a 22 Creedmoor with 70-80 grainers that will handle wind better for longer shots.

 

[VenatusDominus]

1st, why does anybody need a heavier bullet? I've shot 85% of all North American game with a 7mm-08 140gr accubond or partition. Second ,the gunsmith that builds my custom rifle's shoots 150 out of the 270wsm and shoots it accurately out to 850 with zero problems and missed fatal shots. The 6.8 will vanish in the near term.

Heavier bullets generally have a better ballistic coefficients, retain velocity better at distance and have less wind drift. Inside 300 yards, it doesn't make much difference, but at 1000 yards the difference can be huge. Hunters have been doing fine with fat, short bullets for decades, but as technology improves, the natural progression is to long, heavy for caliber projectiles, especially for long distance. Longer bullets require a higher twist rate to stabilize them. This is not a passing fad, but a result of science and technology improving the sport. I for one have embraced the improved technology and I am happy to get any advantage possible.

 

[Harry Knutz]

Heavier bullets generally have a better ballistic coefficients, retain velocity better at distance and have less wind drift. Inside 300 yards, it doesn't make much difference, but at 1000 yards the difference can be huge.

After all, This is the "Long Range Hunting Forum" !!!!!

 

[RockyMtnUT]

.

 

[Hard rock]

1st, why does anybody need a heavier bullet? I've shot 85% of all North American game with a 7mm-08 140gr accubond or partition. Second ,the gunsmith that builds my custom rifle's shoots 150 out of the 270wsm and shoots it accurately out to 850 with zero problems and missed fatal shots. The 6.8 will vanish in the near term.

I don't but I need a faster twist , for the longer lighter mono bullets too stabilize. If the 260 rem would have been a 1-8 twist or faster the 6.5 creed would not exist.

 

[PredatorSlayer45]

1st, why does anybody need a heavier bullet? I've shot 85% of all North American game with a 7mm-08 140gr accubond or partition. Second ,the gunsmith that builds my custom rifle's shoots 150 out of the 270wsm and shoots it accurately out to 850 with zero problems and missed fatal shots. The 6.8 will vanish in the near term.

I don't but I need a faster twist , for the longer lighter mono bullets too stabilize. If the 260 rem would have been a 1-8 twist or faster the 6.5 creed would not exist.

100%

 

[Starbuck]

That's fair, but is the Creed better over the .260 and the Western better over the .270wsm? I sure don't think so. So my point, is developing and 'new' caliber by reinventing the wheel a good or better choice? Absolutely not, but that's the way hunters and especially handloaders are today.

If you want to shoot bullets that retain more energy and drift less in the wind on long shots, then, yes, you'd most assuredly pick the 6.8 and 6.5 over their progenitors. It's not a reinvention of the wheel, it's an upgrade or tweak; think of it as going from a wood spoked model T wheel to an aluminum rim.

Ballistic coefficients are a numerical representation of a projectile's ability to cleave atmosphere. An argument can be made that many hunters needn't concern themselves too far with which bullet has a higher BC over another because most game is taken under 400yds. However, that doesn't change the unequivocal fact that certain bullets will fly flatter and wonder less off course in the wind than others of the same diameter. Further, it's also a fact that accurately launching higher BC bullets has certain requirements, such as proper twist rate to stabilize and enough COAL to feed longer cartridges. Ultimately, it's not exactly all marketing hype if a certain cartridge does things differently than another. I'd bet that if Big Green execs from back in the day had the opportunity to go back and introduce the 260 with a faster twist, they most certainly would.

 

[Airedale56]

"It's a 270wsm with an 8 twist instead of 10…."

Kind of how I see the 6mm Creedmoor vs the .243 Winchester.
Carry on….

 

[Shortmag11]

You can say that about a lot of cartridges.

the 6.5CM is a short action 6.5x55, or it's a fast twist 260rem. The 6cm is a fast twist 243win.
The 300prc is a fast twist 300wm.
The 6.5prc is a fast twist 264wm.
The 7PRC is a fast twist 7rm.

So I guess they're doing a lot of reinventing the wheel.

When you do the ballistics on 6.8W vs 270wsm in factory offerings, the 6.8W offers a lot more if distances are going to be more than 300yards or so.

Oh and 6.8W is on every shelf here.

You're right and that's exactly why I have only owned 1 of the cartridges you've listed and will probably never own another one.

 

[Northkill]

Not to mention sectional density on the heavies...penetration... And the whole new world of performance potential with the new monos.

Lots of different ways to look at this whole picture, and the differences are evident in this discussion. I'm not the type, though, to get satisfaction from trash-talking. Can we just embrace the reality that different folks have different interests, needs, and wants? It strikes as a bit insipid when someone comes across as if anything outside of their particular perspective or envelope of use & experience is rubbish. Maybe I'm the weirdo, but I'm more philosophical than that...

 

[Muddyboots]

Not to mention sectional density on the heavies...penetration... And the whole new world of performance potential with the new monos.

Lots of different ways to look at this whole picture, and the differences are evident in this discussion. I'm not the type, though, to get satisfaction from trash-talking. Can we just embrace the reality that different folks have different interests, needs, and wants? It strikes as a bit insipid when someone comes across as if anything outside of their particular perspective or envelope of use & experience is rubbish. Maybe I'm the weirdo, but I'm more philosophical than that...

+100

 

[dustbag]

Personally I just like to buy rifles. I have two that I normally grab for hunting the rest are just for fun. If a new one comes out I might bite. They don't all need to be an end all be all.

 

[RockyMtnUT]

1st world problems.
Options are good, Options are bad, too much ammo, not enough ammo.....