6.8 Western

[deadduck357]

Has there been any rumors of Savage chambering the 6.8 Western?

[Robinhood]

We can start one.


Otherwise Jim or Fred might be the source for accurate rumors.

[deadduck357]

We can start one.


Otherwise Jim or Fred might be the source for accurate rumors.
I've no clue who they are.

[Stumpkiller]

Have not heard any. Interesting cartridge. Way more than I need but I can see the attraction. A shorter & more efficient .270 Weatherby.

[Dave Hoback]

I've no clue who they are.


Jim is “J.Baker”. He is owner & Admin. for our wonderful forum. Fred is “sharpshooter” and among the more knowledgeable members. These two know the most about different models offered through history & general “goings on” with Savage Arms.

[deadduck357]

Have not heard any. Interesting cartridge. Way more than I need but I can see the attraction. A shorter & more efficient .270 Weatherby.
I'm interested in both the 6.8 Western and 6.5 PRC. More 6.5 PRC options available.

[deadduck357]

Jim is “J.Baker”. He is owner & Admin. for our wonderful forum. Fred is “sharpshooter” and among the more knowledgeable members. These two know the most about different models offered through history & general “goings on” with Savage Arms.
Will try to remember this.

Savage seems to product some rifles in all he newest cartridges. Looking for a new rifle and new cartridge.

[efm77]

You can always get one chambered in another WSM round and re-barrel it. The thought has crossed my mine for that and also the 27 Nosler. I really don't have a use for it, but I'm intrigued by it. Too many other projects in the works at the moment though.

[Nor Cal Mikie]

You could always build one on a Savage platform.:cool:;)

[yobuck]

Have not heard any. Interesting cartridge. Way more than I need but I can see the attraction. A shorter & more efficient .270 Weatherby.
Well lets remember that the same thing was said when the WSM line of cartridges was introduced now what? 20 years ago?
The 300 WSM has had some influence in long range benchrest, but the facts dont really show all that much improvement even there.
Higher numbers of users for that purpose cant be ignored either.
And as for actual longrange performance, the 300 win mag still rules over the short version.
It could be argued that short action rifles are a bit nicer to look at however.

[deadduck357]

You can always get one chambered in another WSM round and re-barrel it. The thought has crossed my mine for that and also the 27 Nosler. I really don't have a use for it, but I'm intrigued by it. Too many other projects in the works at the moment though.
Yeah I've been weighing the decision on buying factory or building. If I decide to build I may just go with the 284 Win.

[deadduck357]

You could always build one on a Savage platform.:cool:;)
Yeah that's an option I haven't ruled out. From what I've read that both the 6.8 Western and 6.5 PRC are called "short action" cartridges but would be better to build them on long actions. What y'all say about that?

[deadduck357]

Well lets remember that the same thing was said when the WSM line of cartridges was introduced now what? 20 years ago?
The 300 WSM has had some influence in long range benchrest, but the facts dont really show all that much improvement even there.
Higher numbers of users for that purpose cant be ignored either.
And as for actual longrange performance, the 300 win mag still rules over the short version.
It could be argued that short action rifles are a bit nicer to look at however.
The recent push for "reintroduced" cartridges with minor tweaks is to squeeze high BC bullets into existing cases.

[SageRat Shooter]

Yeah that's an option I haven't ruled out. From what I've read that both the 6.8 Western and 6.5 PRC are called "short action" cartridges but would be better to build them on long actions. What y'all say about that?

Absolutely!! I built a .260 Remington on a long action a few years back, so I could take advantage of as much case capacity as possible and still feed from the magazine.

[Dave Hoback]

Well lets remember that the same thing was said when the WSM line of cartridges was introduced now what? 20 years ago?
The 300 WSM has had some influence in long range benchrest, but the facts dont really show all that much improvement even there.
Higher numbers of users for that purpose cant be ignored either.
And as for actual longrange performance, the 300 win mag still rules over the short version.
It could be argued that short action rifles are a bit nicer to look at however.


I agree. This stuff has been done before. Somehow they think a shorter case with less power & heavier bullet equals more velocity. Still people SWEARING they are getting 2950fps with 140gr. from their 6.5CM. Uh-huh.... Oh....and somehow a sharp shoulder gives it some supernatural, better accuracy & performance. Just, not as sharp as an Ackley Improved case. No, no, no, no.... that TOO sharp & just doesn’t work as well. Uhg... we keep seeing these things.


Im not making this stuff up! Look at what these YAHOOS are saying!

“It was the balance of taking a parent case in .270 WSM and actually taking away powder capacity to make it more powerful down range. It seems counterintuitive, but that was exactly what was accomplished.”

And people keep on believing this nonsense! “YEAH! Shorter case & less powder with a HEAVIER bullet... that will DEFINITELY have more power!” Knuckleheads!

[efm77]

To each their own, but I really don't buy in to the whole short action craze that's really ramped up in recent years. I have some short actions and they have their purpose. But I really don't see the so called benefits being that advantageous. I'm more in favor of the way Hornady designed the 300 PRC over most of the new cartridges. If you really want to not lose powder capacity, that's the way you need to go. It's case is slightly shorter than the 300 win mag, but slightly wider so it has a smidgen more powder capacity. But a magnum length action is still needed because the bullets are seated so far out. A longer action in which you can seat the bullets out far without encroaching on the powder capacity makes more sense to me. To my mind, the 6.8 Western is somewhat a compromise to keep it in a short action. What do I mean by that? Well, it's a 270 WSM case that they shortened to give it more head height without encroaching in to the powder capacity too much. But really, by shortening it, you're still reducing case capacity compared to the 270WSM. Seems to me the same bullet seated deeper in the 270WSM case would have similar capacity compared to the shorter 6.8 Western case with the bullet seated further out, since the COAL has to be close in order for them to fit in to the same action length. Maybe doing it the way they did doesn't reduce powder capacity as much as seating it deeper in the 270WSM case? That's the only thing I can think of. To my mind though, it seems I'd have more advantage sticking with the 270WSM case, have a barrel made with an 8" twist, and a longer throat for the longer bullets, and screw it in to a long action.

[Dave Hoback]

Ya know...something else I don’t hear come up. This “new” (not really), way of doing cartridges means they have incredibly long throats. In doing this, it limits the hand loader with various weight pills & oal. Sure...might work great with the heaviest of billets. But what if you want to dry a load with lighter? What if .187” is the LEAST jump that can be used with your chosen bullets? Just a thought. Seems a limiting factor which is never brought up. Fine for non-reloaders. To many of us, who ONLY reload...the very act of working up accuracy, in itself, is a joy.

[yobuck]

Well as for working up an accurate load, again i would encourage you to check the statistics after the world open shoot at Williamsport.
Your going to find the most popular cartridge is the 6 mm Dasher, and you will also find that many of them will have been built by the same gunsmith,
that being Mark King.
And if you dig harder you will find they mostly all use the same load and same custom bullet.
Some of the ammo might even have been furnished by the gunsmith.
Ive personally never had a gunsmith advise me to spend time working up a load.
They will tell me where to start with what powder and bullet, but thats more as a safety factor from the pressure standpoint.
They will tell me the velocity range to be looking for for optimum performance.
Fire just one round over a chronagraph before increasing the powder charge for the next one.
Stop at the first sign of pressure.
When velocity is achieved load 3 and shoot them at 400 yds.
Play with seating depth to tweek for accuracy.
Why even bother looking for accuracy if the performance level isnt there?
But of coarse there is accuracy, then there is accuracy, and each of us need decide which type works well enough for us.

[deadduck357]

To each their own, but I really don't buy in to the whole short action craze that's really ramped up in recent years. I have some short actions and they have their purpose. But I really don't see the so called benefits being that advantageous. I'm more in favor of the way Hornady designed the 300 PRC over most of the new cartridges. If you really want to not lose powder capacity, that's the way you need to go. It's case is slightly shorter than the 300 win mag, but slightly wider so it has a smidgen more powder capacity. But a magnum length action is still needed because the bullets are seated so far out. A longer action in which you can seat the bullets out far without encroaching on the powder capacity makes more sense to me. To my mind, the 6.8 Western is somewhat a compromise to keep it in a short action. What do I mean by that? Well, it's a 270 WSM case that they shortened to give it more head height without encroaching in to the powder capacity too much. But really, by shortening it, you're still reducing case capacity compared to the 270WSM. Seems to me the same bullet seated deeper in the 270WSM case would have similar capacity compared to the shorter 6.8 Western case with the bullet seated further out, since the COAL has to be close in order for them to fit in to the same action length. Maybe doing it the way they did doesn't reduce powder capacity as much as seating it deeper in the 270WSM case? That's the only thing I can think of. To my mind though, it seems I'd have more advantage sticking with the 270WSM case, have a barrel made with an 8" twist, and a longer throat for the longer bullets, and screw it in to a long action.
It seems there is a need for an action in between short and long. With cartridges like the 6.8 Western and 6.5 PRC having a SAAMI max length of 2.955" that exceeds the standards of the short 2.80" but may not feed/function ideally with long actions. ???

[Dave Hoback]

It seems there is a need for an action in between short and long. With cartridges like the 6.8 Western and 6.5 PRC having a SAAMI max length of 2.955" that exceeds the standards of the short 2.80" but may not feed/function ideally with long actions. ???


There already WAS one. The first Gen “short” action, or 110 Medium action. It was not popular. Actually a current thread here about one & troubles locating a scope rail for it.