Oldbloke wrote:7mm-08 (since 1958) 308-270
A good example of splitting straws, or is it marketing bigrich? Lol.
7mm-08 is .284/.308 though
So much better than .308!
Oldbloke wrote:7mm-08 (since 1958) 308-270
A good example of splitting straws, or is it marketing bigrich? Lol.
bigrich wrote:Yeah blade, I agree. 277 is out in the cold for high BC projectiles. That’s why they’ve invented this new round according to wikapedia. The case will take long projectiles apparently. As a hunting round I think 270 win is the bees knees.
Funny you should mention a 308-270 wildcat. I was thinking the same thing recently. I found making 358 brass from 308 really easy, and thought about making my own custom rifle on 270 caliber. The main reason is the inexhaustible supply of free 308 brass. But 270 Winchester is that well catered for I probably won’t bother
bladeracer wrote:bigrich wrote:Yeah blade, I agree. 277 is out in the cold for high BC projectiles. That’s why they’ve invented this new round according to wikapedia. The case will take long projectiles apparently. As a hunting round I think 270 win is the bees knees.
Funny you should mention a 308-270 wildcat. I was thinking the same thing recently. I found making 358 brass from 308 really easy, and thought about making my own custom rifle on 270 caliber. The main reason is the inexhaustible supply of free 308 brass. But 270 Winchester is that well catered for I probably won’t bother
Exactly, any short-action based on the 12mm-bolt-face 2.800" cartridge (.243, .260, 6.5Creedmoor, 7mm-08, .308, etc) can be fitted with a .277" barrel cut with a .308 chamber, with no magazine or feed problems, very easy. Cheap or free .308Win brass is formed by running it into a shortened .270Win sizing die, or modify a .308 neck-die with a .270Win insert. If you wanted to form it in two steps you can use a readily available 7mm-08 die (I size .303 and .30-06 down to 6.5mm with no problems). If you wanted a little more efficiency go to an AI chamber.
And if you get bored with it, just swap the .308/7mm-08/.243 barrel back in and you have the original rifle again.
As this could be easily retrofitted to any AR10/SR25 platform with existing mags it makes no sense to me to invent a new cartridge for the military either.
JimTom wrote:I have had a look into this cartridge and I like it. There are a few interesting YouTube clips on it. I can’t see the problem with something shooting .277 high BC projectiles. If I were in the market Id buy one before a .270 provided brass and dies were available here.
JimTom wrote:Yeah mate, I am guessing the supply of brass and dies for the 6.8 Western could be an issue in the first instance. No doubt in a few years they will be more available.
I like the sound of the new project, 308-270 Sounds super. Be sure to let us know if you proceed with it mate.
ZaineB wrote:JimTom wrote:Yeah mate, I am guessing the supply of brass and dies for the 6.8 Western could be an issue in the first instance. No doubt in a few years they will be more available.
I like the sound of the new project, 308-270 Sounds super. Be sure to let us know if you proceed with it mate.
277 Fury
bigrich wrote:ZaineB wrote:JimTom wrote:Yeah mate, I am guessing the supply of brass and dies for the 6.8 Western could be an issue in the first instance. No doubt in a few years they will be more available.
I like the sound of the new project, 308-270 Sounds super. Be sure to let us know if you proceed with it mate.
277 Fury
ya wanna name it after brad pitt's tank ?
ZaineB wrote:bigrich wrote:ZaineB wrote:JimTom wrote:Yeah mate, I am guessing the supply of brass and dies for the 6.8 Western could be an issue in the first instance. No doubt in a few years they will be more available.
I like the sound of the new project, 308-270 Sounds super. Be sure to let us know if you proceed with it mate.
277 Fury
ya wanna name it after brad pitt's tank ?
its already been done and named that, that is why I wrote it.
JohnV wrote:A potential problem with some of these newer specialised cartridges is while they do have some ballistic advantages if they don't capture a big enough slice of the sales market they can suddenly disappear . To get those better down range ballistics you are needing a faster twist barrel and more expensive higher BC bullets to gain anything .
bigrich wrote:JohnV wrote:A potential problem with some of these newer specialised cartridges is while they do have some ballistic advantages if they don't capture a big enough slice of the sales market they can suddenly disappear . To get those better down range ballistics you are needing a faster twist barrel and more expensive higher BC bullets to gain anything .
i suppose if your a silhoette or F class shooter this would have appeal regardless , but as a recreational hunter it doesn't appeal to me for the reasons you've given johnv
JohnV wrote:bigrich wrote:JohnV wrote:A potential problem with some of these newer specialised cartridges is while they do have some ballistic advantages if they don't capture a big enough slice of the sales market they can suddenly disappear . To get those better down range ballistics you are needing a faster twist barrel and more expensive higher BC bullets to gain anything .
i suppose if your a silhoette or F class shooter this would have appeal regardless , but as a recreational hunter it doesn't appeal to me for the reasons you've given johnv
Exactly . Competition shooters chasing performance will go to all kinds of expensive lengths but for the average hunter it's not really required unless you are chasing longer range varmint type hunting then there is some justification if you can afford it.
bigrich wrote:deye243 wrote:Just yet another ho-hum Calibre that will be impossible to get brass for in three or four years I'll stick the 7mm REM Mag and 300 WIN MAG and 260 REM covers the lot for where I live
Yeah, that’s capitalism. Invent new products just to sell something when the old products work just fine.
In that caliber area I have a 270 win that works just fine. Anyone remember the Winchester short magnums? Brass for them isn’t that easy to find at times
I don’t want to rain on your parade harrynsw, but I am a little sceptical of the firearms industry at times
bigrich wrote:JimTom wrote:I have had a look into this cartridge and I like it. There are a few interesting YouTube clips on it. I can’t see the problem with something shooting .277 high BC projectiles. If I were in the market Id buy one before a .270 provided brass and dies were available here.
It does sound like a ballistically good thing JT . The only grievance I have with this sort of thing is unique hard to get brass and dies. Thanks to bladeracer I might have another project in mind. 308-270 . I’ll make my own brass for free from giveaway stuff from tacti-cool shooters at the range. I’m looking into it......
animalpest wrote:Dropped some camels at 450+ with my 26/06 last week in 30-35km/hr winds. Does that equate to long range bigrich?
bladeracer wrote:I took photos of the. 270/.308 and the Improved version page in the Handloaders Guide to Cartridge Conversions yesterday, but didn't get a chance to post them today.
simmo wrote:Is that the civi/marketing name for the new US Military 6.8x51 cartridge?
bigrich wrote:thanks for the info blade , very interesting caliber
Communism_Is_Cancer wrote:I hate change. I adapted to the 338lapua because of the fire power but I am still living in the mid 20 century and earlier with my choice of calibres.
bigrich wrote:Communism_Is_Cancer wrote:I hate change. I adapted to the 338lapua because of the fire power but I am still living in the mid 20 century and earlier with my choice of calibres.
One of the greatest old school calibers, 8x57 deserves more attention than it gets
JimTom wrote:For those who are interested, this article compares .277 cartridges including the 277 Fury, the new 6.8 Western, and others, against the .270 Win.
https://youtu.be/M2jJLbIJQpA