6xc?

[gbal]

Dogge...indeed,just the kind of choices we are all presented with-me too...just what the effective barrel life will be is a bit uncertain-of course it depends on load heat etc...but also crucially the criteria for 'shot out'-and even that differs within different competitive shooting disciplines-let alone more tolerant (less precise) informal use. My 243 is way way beyond 2000 rounds,but is adequate for moderate sized targets and fig 11s as far as I hope to hit them. Like you I also have good dies,and a lot of Norma brass etc etc-replacing that would not be cheap,so has to be factored into cost differences in barrel life....probably it would be more than the barrel life savings (assuming they are achieved,as should be with less powder).

The issue is also "why not go for a bit more with an Ackley?"-though a hit analysis suggests maybe a 2% improvement only on steel plates at 700y....not worth it for just two more hits in 100 shots!

 

It's a bit like the 6BR conundrum-it would be a lot easier if there were comparable purchase options-but there are not many off the shelf fast twist 243s undercutting customs,nor of course for the 6XC. either! And...bullets fit for purpose?

Still,not all doom and gloom-the 6BR is extending the 243's barrel life even further..... ie I just don't shoot the 243 so much as the 6BR is so good...... :-)

goal

[Laurie]

 

I presume it's not just me that noticed £750 / 1000 rounds is 75p/round, making barrel life probably the most expensive consumable. But that is very short barrel life.

 

As soon as my .243 barrel gives up I will have the same conundrum, do I go for a fast twist 243, no license/conditions faff, I have the dies etc, or do I go for something else? 6XC should be no problem conditions wise and looks a good option, does it really give equivalent velocities to 243 with that much less case capacity?

 

 

Ah ... it's those late night posts, they addle the old thinking bits. Barrel life is the hidden shooting cost that most people never consider.

 

So far as the 6XC goes v .243Win, there is a 4.5 - 5gn difference in water capacity between them, from just under 50gn in the XC to 54-55gn in 243 depending on brass, ie the 243 has around 10% greater case capacity. The rule of thumb is that you divide the % capacity change by 4 to get the % velocity change, all other things (bullet, propellant specific energy levels, PMax, barrel length) being equal. So you use around 10% more powder in the 243 to get ~2.5% higher MVs, or looking at it the other way round, you save 10% powder with the XC at a cost of 2.5% of the velocity available. So if the 243 gives a 100gn bullet 2,960 fps which is the claimed MV for a lot of factory ammo in a 24-inch barrel, you'd expect the XC similarly loaded to produce 2,886 fps.

 

However, as often applies, all other things aren't equal as the XC is allowed a 3,000 psi higher MAP by the CIP compared to the 243 and that offsets some of the lost performance. Equally, the barrel life gain from the smaller charge is partly offset by running the cartridge 'hotter'.

 

This is in fact, very close to the 6.5X47L v .260 Rem debate, and also mirrors it in that both newcomers were developed for match use and have 30-deg shoulder angles and longer necks than their older 308 Win based competitors. They are 'nicer' designs and give a few more bragging rights (alright a lot more - when did you last year anyone boasting that they use a 243?), but in the end likely don't perform all that differently. Over in the USA, John Whidden keeps beating people shooting much more 'attractive' cartridges with the plain old 243, no wildcatting or improving, just used with 7.5 or 8-inch twist barrels with long throats for heavy bullets and loaded very carefully.

 

The Gun Pimp got his XC brass, dies, and a barrel from me as I had one built a few years back for long-range F-Class and some 1,000 yard BR. After a fair bit of experimenting, I decided you cannot beat Alliant Re17, / Elcho 17 / Reload Swiss RS60 in it with 105-107gn bullets for the combination of MV, acceptable pressures, small velocity spreads, and precision. (I never ran my XC at Vince's 3,200 fps MVs though!) The trouble with Re17 / RS60 though is its barrel burning reputation especially when you start producing this sort of performance.

 

There is one theoretical / maybe real plus though for the 6XC, 6mm Super LR (a 243 reformed by simple sizing to the XC's front-end with its long neck and sharper shoulder) and the 6mm CM (Competition Match), and that's the 'turbulence point' or TP issue. Take an accurate cartridge drawing and with a ruler extend the shoulder lines forward towards the case-mouth. If they intersect inside the neck the cartridge is believed to be less hard on the barrel throat than one which sees the TP outside of the case. The classic example to 'prove' this is .243 Win v 6mm Remington the latter claimed to have a usefully better life than the former despite running at slightly higher pressures and with a slightly larger powder charge. In any event, 6mm BR Norma, 6XC, 6.5X47 Lapua, 6.5mm Creedmoor have 'good' TP positions and 243 Win / 260 Rem have 'bad' ones.

 

The more I look at the sixes, the more I'm impressed by the 6BR. With the exception of reliable magazine feed (not an issue for me) it gives most of the performance of its larger competitors, a longer barrel life, and in the right rifle offers fantastic precision, and out to 1,000 yards as the factory Savages are proving (again, most of us having forgotten the BR's adavantages from an earlier era). Its downside in formal competition shot over an extended time period in highly variable conditions such as F-Class is that bigger, faster, louder things with better BC bullets will make you pay less for wind reading errors. As a shoot fast BR tool and as a fair weather plinker, I honestly doubt if you'd better it. It only has one downside - it's so much fun to shoot, you really DO shoot it a lot.

[John MH]

I have been shooting 6XC since 2005, its an easy cartridge to reload and just performs, however, one thing I've never really managed to achieve is some of the quoted high MVs with 115 bullets without trashing the brass.

[Laurie]

I have been shooting 6XC since 2005, its an easy cartridge to reload and just performs,

 

John's post reminds me of one additional ingredient in the mix and issue in 243 v XC comparison. If you shoot rapid like John from a magazine rifle, the XC in its match-ready form is the much better bet. The 243 in optimised competition form as per John Whidden's use sees bullets seated to give much longer COALs than the standard beast making it more of a single-shot number, or else needing a long-action rifle for magazine use..

[gbal]

Laurie,agreed...the standard 243w in standard slower twist barrels isn't a 1000y combo.

But an awful lot of shooters shoot an awful lot of shots at 600y and less....where the souped up 243 cartridge/bullet/twist isn't needed,and the standard 243 magazine feeds very well indeed-one reason it is popular with US "precision'" shooters clanging gongs at such distances....neither is the very last .1 moa needed,compared to reliable functioning,and general ease of use/supply etc, which the standard 243 provides-nor need it be reloaded.

So it remains a serious contender for those 'walking the walk',rather than seeking "bragging rights"-th ough just what these latter are is elusive-'ordinary' shooters probably think exotica are more a recipe for extra complications logistically (with some good reason),and those with the knowledge will be aware of the marginal pros and cons,in paticular applications.

A 1% improvement in velocity,or a .1 moa precision improvement translate as something like a 1% improvement in hits on a ten inch plate at 700yards (ie 79 hits rather than 78 hits per 100 shots-all other factors being held equal and very good). More of the hits will be more central,but a hit is a hit-just as a bull is a bull.....but it is also the case that choosing the right cartridge-6BR rather than (say ) 308 will up the % by very considerably more than just 1%. You could save your 6BR barrels by shooting a 30BR (sub 600y),trusting in the 30BRs much extended barrel life (I hope).

Some decent data on realistic 'can still use the barrel,though not quite as good/competitive at high level as it was in the first 1000/1500/2000 etc rounds" would go a long way to resolving 'when/whether to rebarrel' too-there are many shooters who simply do not aspire to be in the top ten/twenty,but enjoy good performance,adequate to their ambitions/means,and indeed,local facilities.

g

[Laurie]

Yes, we're in general agreement on this George. The 243 is a much underrated cartridge for general target shooting, but it does have two significant drawbacks - the slow rifling twist used by most manufacturers really limits match bullet choice, and this would likely be a key issue for the OP as it's a matter of what Blaser offers. Assuming that Blaser uses the standard 1-10" for 243 and 1-8 for its 6XC swap barrel, that alone makes a straight choice between this pair easy.

 

The other pain is a self-inflicted one, the quasi 'prohibited' legal status of expanding bullets, another triumph of emotion over facts, common sense, logic and anything decent by the gentlemen (Ha bloody ha!) of the red-top press in the aftermath of Dunblane. If you're stuck with a 1-10" twist, Berger's 87gn VLD is the balistically outstanding bullet designed to be and officially described as a dual-purpose hunting and match projectile - as it is in every other country in the world that allows firearms ownership and target shooting. But of course, not here, since it's classed as 'Hunting VLD' and comes in an orange box. That leaves the flat-base 88gn Bergers which are as common as hen's teeth.

[gbal]

Laurie,agreed,but with some reservations-I've already agreed that if the OP wants a Blaser barrel,then that pretty well settles it-it has to be a Blaser barrel-though I think Blaser do the ^XC in 1 in 8,so quite happily on that criterion. A custom barrel otherwise woud open up choice,and not cost any more,maybe a fair bit less,and at least as good. It is probably a market issue that persuades manufacturers not to release 1/8 243s-another reminder that cutting edge precision rifles are not big business,compared to hunting ones.

The OP's brief was 'vermin,occasional deer and longer range plinking',which suggests expanding bullets are OK,though I did comment too on suitable bullet selection-having enjoyed an informative discussion about one lacuna in the 6mm range-a really good long range bunny bullet on another post...

As ever your advice on bullets is spot on,for the dedicated ballistically optimising long range targeteer-Berger all the way,or at least most Bergers-usually the ones hard to come by,and pricey.AS said,orange box should not pose a problem,given the quarry; ' longer range plinking' I took to mean 5 or 6oo yards,and not competitive-hence the reference to gongs etc,rather than tiny x bulls- and the point that extreme performance for those purposes is one of diminishing returns....79 hits ratherthan 80 on the gongs might be the price paid for somewhat lesser ballistic bullets-Sierra/Hornady and so on. Might-that assumes near perfect shooting with both...

 

The absolute returns on 'ballistic' performance from top spec gear are surprisingly asymptotic,as the boundaries are approached,and while important/neccessary for the cutting edge competitor,may well not be so tempting for 'vermin,stalking and plinking',even if 'hen's teeth' availablity were not an issue.Note,of course,I am NOT saying precision etc are unimportant-more that in any non competitive shooting scenario,it is unlikely that state of the art gear will deliver any clear improvement in results ( eg small SD in MV,1/2 moa,100 fps, .1 BC better......all these rather pale into insignificance (within limits) or at least into the "very small hit returns- like 1% at 700 on 10 inch gongs...) and in actual field conditions,probably less,given the big factors are then relatively less controlled (wind,steady rest etc).

 

Whether this is comforting or not might depend on your investment level,but much more likely a realistic look at your actual shooting needs and typical performance or application,and all the relevant factors.It does not mean that 'the best' is not to be appreciated,even desired,and actively pursued by a few,but (within sensible options) it won't ring many more gongs,and performance is anyhow more likely in the 85% range,not 100%,so see a 1% reduction in that context too ( or save up for a 1000y wind-less tunnel!)

Good shooting,and discussing!

 

gbal

See also the thread "243 limits" today,Stacka's solutions in a practical application,with similarities to OP.

[briar]

Again thank you guys for the practical advise, common sense and the technical info. My head is spinning much more slowly now, or it was till I noticed on Macleods website Blaser barrels in 6.5x47 and even 6.5x284! Didn't realise they were even available. Don't see anything on Blasers own website . Believe the x47 is in 1 in 8 twist from other forum. To 6xc or to 6.5x47?

Laurie, Gbal, Bradders and all, you guys are a mine of info, thank you. I owe you a dram.

[Offroad Gary]

I shoot 6.5x47 and have also shot a 6xc quite a lot. Even shot a couple of deer with a 6xc once! Just pick the range of bullet weight you want to shoot, they will be similar in their accuracy. 70-105 is 6xc, 95-130 is 47lap. For a deer gun i'd go 47lap (because i think 123 gn bullets are perfect for ALL uk deer), for an all purpose gun (fox - plinking) i'd go 6xc.

 

As an avid blaser fan, i'm very tempted myself...

[briar]

Cheers. That's what I was originally thinking, bullet weight of 80 to 105+ gr for vermin general plinking and occasional deer to compliment what I already have, hence the original xc query.