243 or 6mm

6mm super-LR
http://www.6mmar.com/site/mobile?url=http://www.6mmar.com/Super_LR.html#2747

243_win_vs_6mm_super_lr_vs_6xc_zwb0.jpg

The 6mm Super LR (center) next to a .243 Win. (left) and a 6XC (right). The 6mm Super LR has the case capacity of a .243 Win. but the long neck and 30 degree shoulder angle of a 6XC
 
If you are going to get funky, build a 6mm BR... I made a pair of rifles in .22 BR and 6 BR and they proved to be tremendously accurate and are peppy little rounds.


images_zpsemtc9r4e.jpg
 
As first posted, 6mmRem if you reload, .243 if you don't.

But ....

If you don't need the juice of a 6mm Rem, then the 6BR is a great round. Super accurate and easier on powder.
 
1899..........you don't need a 1-8 twist in 243/6mm unless you intend to shoot 115 gn bullets. 1-9 will handle anything up to 105 grnrs. For primarily a varmint rig I wouldn't go faster than 1-9 as you give up velocity with sharper twists.

I get that the theory of velocity loss due to fast twists sounds viable, but my observations don't support that the theory extends to reality. My 1:7 .222 with 52 gr match shot to a similar velocity with the same loads as they did with the 1:14 the rifle originally came with. My 28" 1:8 .308 drives a 210 Matrix VLD to just under 2700. My 1:7 5.56 makes good velocity despite a 14.5" barrel. I've ordered 3 other fast twist barrels that will be part of a switch barrel system I'm having built, although with a gain twist, a 24" 1:14-1:7 .243, a 24" 1:16-1:8 .280 AI, and a 22" 1:20-1:10 .375 Scovile. I don't expect the velocities from these barrels to be disappointing, but time will tell.

At extended ranges, faster spinning bullets handle trans-sonic velocities better. At near ranges, faster spinning bullets penetrate better, since their time in precession at impact is shorter. I've proven to my own satisfaction that there is no practical loss of accuracy that can be attributed to a fast twist barrel, in fact my Gaillard 1:7 .222 and my Krieger 1:8 .308 both showed exceptional accuracy. I've been warned that gain twists can come with accuracy issues, but again, time will tell.

Fast twist barrels do require tough bullets that will stay together despite the increased centrifugal force, but an important consideration is that bullet technology seems weighted towards longer and heavier bullets, and the fast twist barrels will shoot them, while the standard twist barrels will not. I have .308/240s that won't shoot in my wife's 1:12, but will shoot in my 1:10. I had a 1:10 .243 that won't shoot 107 gr MKs, the 1:9 probably would, on a warm day, at 4000'. My 1:12 .223 won't shoot Barnes 55 gr MPG, a bit of a surprise until I measured it's length. I haven't found a .224 bullet the 1:7 won't stabilize. Add to this the fact that as air density increases through a drop in temperature, or altitude, the less able a standard twist is able to stabilize a bullet that has a marginal stability factor under "normal" conditions.
 
I get that the theory of velocity loss due to fast twists sounds viable, but my observations don't support that the theory extends to reality.

I have no pony in this race... and I am not refuting your conclusions... however based on your described sample size and the nature of your test subjects, I would say that you are on statistically shaky ground to draw any conclusion... in your process there are many uncontrolled and perhaps unaccounted for contributing factors affecting velocity that are unrelated to twist ratio.
 
It is an impossible thesis to prove either way because there is no way to change just the twist in a barrel and keep everything else identical............however theory says that the sharper the twist the higher the frictional coefficient of the barrel, it is hard to refute pure physics.
 
What's the max overall length the magazine will handle? If you have to deep seat a 6MM bullet to work through the mag, then maybe a .243 might be a better case. If you can handle 2.83 overall go with the 6, if you can only go 2.75 overall then the .243.
 
It is an impossible thesis to prove either way because there is no way to change just the twist in a barrel and keep everything else identical............however theory says that the sharper the twist the higher the frictional coefficient of the barrel, it is hard to refute pure physics.

The real question is does the velocity difference between a normal rate of twist and a fast twist cause a sufficient drop in velocity that the fast twist is a disadvantage. There have been fast barrels and slow barrels since the inception of smokeless powder and the birth of jacketed bullets, and probably earlier than that, but a .30/06 doesn't become a Krag unless something else is going on, and a .257 Weatherby won't start shooting like a .250 Savage due to greater resistance of the fast twist rifling in the bore.
 
Good points Boomer.

I still say a 6mm Lee Navy blown out to AI would be a sweet round, for those that don't know what the Lee Navy is, it's the parent case of the 220 swift. So it's basically a 6mm Swift AI.
 
I have no pony in this race... and I am not refuting your conclusions... however based on your described sample size and the nature of your test subjects, I would say that you are on statistically shaky ground to draw any conclusion... in your process there are many uncontrolled and perhaps unaccounted for contributing factors affecting velocity that are unrelated to twist ratio.

Except that when I ordered those barrels, the 1:7 .222 and the 1:8 .308, 2 predictions were made, first that the fast twist wouldn't shoot light bullets, this I've proven untrue to my satisfaction, and the second prediction was that velocities would be low for bullet weight. While my sample size is indeed too small to make general statements of a statistical nature, the velocities that my Oheler spit out are all I could hope for. Perhaps I've just been fortunate enough to always luck into a fast barrel, but that would be uncharacteristic.
 
Good points Boomer.

I still say a 6mm Lee Navy blown out to AI would be a sweet round, for those that don't know what the Lee Navy is, it's the parent case of the 220 swift. So it's basically a 6mm Swift AI.

I've had a sweet spot for the 6mm Lee Navy for several decades, and your idea of an AI version would be excellent IMHO. Too bad no one makes a 6mm-135 gr bullet.
 
I've had a sweet spot for the 6mm Lee Navy for several decades, and your idea of an AI version would be excellent IMHO. Too bad no one makes a 6mm-135 gr bullet.


Talk to Marshal at matrix balistics, I am betting we could have him make a run of heavy for caliber .243 bullets for just such a project. I would LOVE a heavy bullet 6mm Lee Navy in a rifle built for just such a purpose.
 
Talk to Marshal at matrix balistics, I am betting we could have him make a run of heavy for caliber .243 bullets for just such a project. I would LOVE a heavy bullet 6mm Lee Navy in a rifle built for just such a purpose.

I talked to Marshal about a heavy 6mm and a heavy .257 to push them into 6.5 category, but he didn't believe the sales would cover the cost of tooling up. No hard feelings from me, Marshall has treated me well over the years, and he sits high in my estimation.
 
Well, that settles that then lol.

I still think the 6mm long range shooters would like a 120-130 grain low drag bullet, but Marshal would know better than I.

EDIT: Maybe if we could make a CGN group effort into this it would make the cost effective for us, and worth it for Marshal. I would be in for it, however we would also need a reamer and dies for the project, and that's where I wouldn't know who to talk to.


I can hope and wish can't I? Lol
 
Except that when I ordered those barrels, the 1:7 .222 and the 1:8 .308, 2 predictions were made, first that the fast twist wouldn't shoot light bullets, this I've proven untrue to my satisfaction, and the second prediction was that velocities would be low for bullet weight. While my sample size is indeed too small to make general statements of a statistical nature, the velocities that my Oheler spit out are all I could hope for. Perhaps I've just been fortunate enough to always luck into a fast barrel, but that would be uncharacteristic.

The supposition is relative to twist rate only... since no baseline can be established, you cannot draw the conclusion you are drawing... you may well be right... Although I would tend to agree with Douglas, in that conventional physics wisdom, would suggest that as rotation increases, so does friction, ergo a loss in velocity... however, I suspect that we are talking about very small amounts, and that other applicable factors render the comparison irrelevant.
 
That's not hard to imagine, I know I'll get attacked for this but, I had taken that many by the time I was in my early twenties. I haven't shot more than a dozen in the last 15 years though, hope that helps lol.

I doubt anyone is around that cares anymore, so here goes, when I was young there was several of us that had a competition going every year as to who shot the most. My record is 58 a year. I have since grew up. If the last head of enforcement for this area reads this, he will laugh and we will talk about days gone by. "Hi Dave!" Lol

I have nothing to hide, and admit I want always "moral or legal", but I grew up in a different situation than most. I have since changed my views based upon experience, not what others have said.

Don't judge another until you have walked a mile in their shoes. "That way when they get mad, you are a mile away and have their shoes!!!"
 
Back
Top Bottom