240 Weatherby...
- Thread starter tuffteddyb
- Start date
Weatherby Fan
CGN Regular
- Location
- Maple Ridge,BC,Canada
240 Wby is a great cartridge but you have a 243, as much as I love the Wby cartridges I don’t see enough gains over the 243 or 6mm CM to double up on your 6mm cartridges, in the end if it’s a need for speed the 240 Wby is one of the fastest 6mm cartridges
I see you don’t have a 6.5mm cartridge in your line up, maybe look at Weatherby's new cartridge the 6.5 RPM
I see you don’t have a 6.5mm cartridge in your line up, maybe look at Weatherby's new cartridge the 6.5 RPM
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I like the idea of the .240 Weatherby, but essentially its a 6mm-06 that requires expansive brass. The good news is that it is a departure from the short fat cartridge theory that I don't adhere to very much. To my way of thinking, a .240 Weatherby should feed better than its ballistic twin the 6-284. When considering a hunting rifle that might be used throughout the winter, concerns about good feeding, particularly if short varmint bullets are loaded, is more than a theoretical exercise.
Now the question is do you intend to get a factory MK-V or a custom rifle? For guys who like them, the MK-V has its advantages, but if you happen to have thick fingers, take it from me, there isn't much room in the trigger guard for a gloved finger. Some guys like the 60 degree bolt lift, others not so much. Fly weight #1 or #0 contours don't normally shoot well without a pressure point near the forend of the barrel channel, and unless very long, these tend to have a balance that favors rearward. I keep a bi-pod on mine, not so much to shoot from, but so the rifle balances properly. So unless you specifically want an Ultralight, rifle I'd recommend a barrel with #3 sporter contour.
Now the question is do you intend to get a factory MK-V or a custom rifle? For guys who like them, the MK-V has its advantages, but if you happen to have thick fingers, take it from me, there isn't much room in the trigger guard for a gloved finger. Some guys like the 60 degree bolt lift, others not so much. Fly weight #1 or #0 contours don't normally shoot well without a pressure point near the forend of the barrel channel, and unless very long, these tend to have a balance that favors rearward. I keep a bi-pod on mine, not so much to shoot from, but so the rifle balances properly. So unless you specifically want an Ultralight, rifle I'd recommend a barrel with #3 sporter contour.
Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
I really like the idea of a sizzling fast 6mm. I passed on a .240 Weatherby and picked up a bit of a bubba custom in 6mm-06 that is a tank but shoots like a laser. The Weatherby brass cost being the issue. If I was less of a penny pincher I’d probably skip the .240 Weatherby again and have a 6mm-257 Weatherby done up with some manner of 26+ inch barrel to be honest. But if a guy wants less fuss with reloading wildcats like 6mm-06 or 6mm-257 Weatherby, and doesn’t mind the cost of Weatherby ammo, the .240 Weatherby is a great way to go.
240 Wby is what peeked my interest - as for brass (it is what it is) sight it in - half hour between shots - so barrel cools down - your off to the races - keep your brass and perhaps look into reloading but if your dropping 20 coyotes per box of ammo then I think you do not need to reload
Sask_Hunter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Saskatchewan
I wouldn’t 240 with a 243 and 25-06 in the stable. The 240 doesn’t gain a whole lot over the 243 and I doubt it even gains any thing over the 25-06.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
A half hour between shots to allow the barrel to cool is a bit excessive, but each to their own. I want to be able to fire a cold bore shot that groups with a fast follow up shot, so I tend to shoot 3 shot groups without waiting for the barrel to cool when sighting in, and fast pairs when shooting from field positions at targets that simulates game. You're going to need to know if your rifle groups once it heats up, that doesn't mean you need to abuse it, and 2 or 3 shots at a time is not excessive.
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The 240 is great fun but not a big jump up in velocity from your 243. I have rifles in both cartridges, both have heavy barrels, both are accurate and both produce good velocities but if I had to choose just one it would be the 243 Winchester simply because it's almost as fast and cheaper to shoot. Having said that, I have no regrets buying the 240 though.
I had a 240 Wby. Was a fun little gun. Pacnor barrel on a Tikka. But if I was going to do it again. It would have been a 6mm-06. Ballistic twin and brass is way easier to get.
It's long gone and I have settled on a 6mm rem. Gives up very little to the wby.
My Ruger M77V 6mm loves IMR 4831.
It's long gone and I have settled on a 6mm rem. Gives up very little to the wby.
My Ruger M77V 6mm loves IMR 4831.
nowarningshot
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Echo what's been said. Its between the 25-06 and 243.....actually basically a 25-06 shooting light bullets. If your 25-06 doesnt shoot light bullets, I guess.
just do not roast the barrel
About the same time the .240 Wby was out, I was working at Barotto Sports in Calgary and we were making several rifles on the .280 Improved case. RCBS version.
The 6mm .280 Improved, the 6.5 .280 improved and the .280 improved.
The 6mm .280 improved used the same loading data as the .240 Wby with the same velocities.
One of these 6mm .280 rifles was lent out to several different hunters that first year... it made one shot kills on several deer, a couple of antelope, a goat and many coyotes.
I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the .240 Weatherby capacity as a hotter 6mm cartridge, better than the smaller cases. My preference would be a wildcat on the 06 or .280 case.. just for ease of brass and no dicking with a belted case.
The 6mm .280 Improved, the 6.5 .280 improved and the .280 improved.
The 6mm .280 improved used the same loading data as the .240 Wby with the same velocities.
One of these 6mm .280 rifles was lent out to several different hunters that first year... it made one shot kills on several deer, a couple of antelope, a goat and many coyotes.
I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the .240 Weatherby capacity as a hotter 6mm cartridge, better than the smaller cases. My preference would be a wildcat on the 06 or .280 case.. just for ease of brass and no dicking with a belted case.
As other have said, if you have a 243 and 25-06, you’d be trying to fill a pretty tight gap. I have a 240 in a Mark v ultralight and absolutely love it. I came across many boxes of factory Weatherby loaded 100gr Norma spitzers and they have been very reliable for me. Initial purchase of the ammo is a hard pill to swallow, but once you have the brass, it’s no cheaper or more expensive to hand load for. I have the dies, but have a few years of factory ammo to go through before I start having to handload.
My experience with the factory 100gr Norma spitzers have been favourable. All my hits were in the vitals and rarely have to follow blood for any more than 50yds.
If I was buying another, I’d look at another factory chambered rifle. If I was building, I’d be looking at something like a 6mm-06 or 6.5-06.
My experience with the factory 100gr Norma spitzers have been favourable. All my hits were in the vitals and rarely have to follow blood for any more than 50yds.
If I was buying another, I’d look at another factory chambered rifle. If I was building, I’d be looking at something like a 6mm-06 or 6.5-06.
Ackley improve a 243. Cheap brass and next to no trimming. Any factory 243 rifle can have the chamber modified saving the cost of a new barrel. Plus it can fire 243 loads if need be. In my area of 275 or smaller some counties are adopting even smaller limits. I built a 223 for varmints but have also looked at the 6s as my 2506 is now to large in some areas. 243ai is my choice if building another coyote rifle
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I guess another way of looking at this is by asking, what can I do with a .240 that I can't do with a .243? Sure the .240 has a higher muzzle velocity, but any difference in trajectory is easily compensated for by a few clicks on the elevation turret since the force of gravity is known and unchanging, whereas compensating for wind drift tends to be the one that gets us in trouble. I'd expect a benefit from having a bit more velocity combined with a slippery bullet to reduce the time of flight to the target. If the .240's advantage over the .243 is 200 fps at the muzzle, shooting a slippery bullet like Hornady's 103 gr ELD-X, sighted 2" high at 100 provides a 250 yard zero. At 300 yards the .240 has a 1.8" advantage over the .243 loaded with that same bullet, or about 2 quarter minute clicks on the elevation turret. Again at 300, the .240 has about a half inch windage advantage over the .243 in a full value 10 mph cross wind. The typical quarter minute windage adjustment found on most scopes isn't fine enough to dial in the adjustment.
So if the advantage at 300 yards is mostly theoretical, what about at 500 yards? At 500 yards the difference in drop favors the .240 by 6.6" so an additional 6 clicks of elevation gets us close. Between the two cartridges, we have a 1.6" advantage in windage, again assuming a 10 mph full value cross wind, favoring the .240. A single click of windage adjustment isn't quite enough but 2 clicks is a bit too much, so holding off might be a better solution, particularly if your scope has a long range reticle. So if you still think the .240's advantage over the .243 is one you can exploit in the field, it might be worth the effort, but on a cost vs reward basis, now that I've looked at the numbers, I don't see it, and I doubt the coyote could tell the difference.
If starting from scratch I get the logic behind choosing the .240. For one thing, when long slippery bullets are loaded so the cartridge can be fed from the magazine, the long cartridge's powder capacity is less likely to be impacted than the shorter cartridge's, the degree of which is determined by the bullet and powder selection, and the magazine length of your particular rifle. Since you've already bracketed the .240's performance with a .243 and a .25-06, perhaps you just want a collection of rifles that perform very similarly, and if so, there is nothing wrong with that.
So if the advantage at 300 yards is mostly theoretical, what about at 500 yards? At 500 yards the difference in drop favors the .240 by 6.6" so an additional 6 clicks of elevation gets us close. Between the two cartridges, we have a 1.6" advantage in windage, again assuming a 10 mph full value cross wind, favoring the .240. A single click of windage adjustment isn't quite enough but 2 clicks is a bit too much, so holding off might be a better solution, particularly if your scope has a long range reticle. So if you still think the .240's advantage over the .243 is one you can exploit in the field, it might be worth the effort, but on a cost vs reward basis, now that I've looked at the numbers, I don't see it, and I doubt the coyote could tell the difference.
If starting from scratch I get the logic behind choosing the .240. For one thing, when long slippery bullets are loaded so the cartridge can be fed from the magazine, the long cartridge's powder capacity is less likely to be impacted than the shorter cartridge's, the degree of which is determined by the bullet and powder selection, and the magazine length of your particular rifle. Since you've already bracketed the .240's performance with a .243 and a .25-06, perhaps you just want a collection of rifles that perform very similarly, and if so, there is nothing wrong with that.
