6.8 mm

[John O]

Does anyone out there have load data for a 6.8mm, 110 gr. Barnes TSX bullet loaded into a 270 win? Bullet diameter is the same, but can't find load data.

[Diamondbackaz]

Does anyone out there have load data for a 6.8mm, 110 gr. Barnes TSX bullet loaded into a 270 win? Bullet diameter is the same, but can't find load data.

 

 

Barnes has a nice reloading manual for all the bullets they make

[Red Rabbit]

I would use load data for other 110 grain bullets published by other bullet or powder manufacturers. Start 10% low and work up, watching the velocities with the chrongraph till you reach the desired or max vel. With variations between barrels, throat lead, powder lots, primers used and case capacity differences between brass manufacturers, data from Barnes may be as worth as much as Hodgdon or Sierra data.

 

Using the same charge of Ramshot hunter in my 300WSM, the 150 TSX and 150 Accubond gave similar velocities.

 

Seat the TSXs 0.03" to 0.07" off the lands. 0.050" is a good place to start.

[.270]

why do they call it a 6.8mm? do you guys know that the .270 (.277) is actually 7mm, while the 7mm (.284) is actually a little over 7.2mm? so they oughta call the .270 a 7mm and the 7mm somethin' else. there's your math lesson for the day. Lark.

[John O]

I checked your math, and 7mm actually equals .2755 in., .277 in. = 7.0358 mm, 6.8 mm = .2677 in. To answer your question, 6.8 mm is equal to .2677 in. which is pretty close to .270. I think they at least tried to get it right this time.

[.270]

dang, you got it right. a .270 is a whole 3,000 of an inch bigger than true 7mm. which is a lot closer to 7mm than the .284 diameter, or 7.21 mm, 7mm. is that confusing? if it ain't, ya got it. i guess i don't get how calling a bullet that is actually a bit larger than 7mm, a 6.8mm, would be getting it right? we've called .277 diamter a .270 for over 80 years. why start calling 6.8mm? especially when it isn't even very close to being right. all i was trying to do was throw out some real info. i read once that when the guy that developed the .270 did it he wanted a true 7mm diameter bullet but couldn't call it that because of all the european rounds that were actually little larger. there's a lotta other stuff that's real hard to understand about bullet development too. but i'll stand by what i said. .270 bullets are actually 7mm diameter, while 7mm are actually 7.2mm. actually, i don't see where there is enough difference in the .277 and .284 bullets to even have them both. except that the .277 is better. Lark.

[John O]

I think you meant a 3000th of an inch, which is 0.003 in.(equal to 3 mil), as opposed to "3000 of an inch", which, depending on how read, could be either 3000 inches or 3 inches (3000, thousanths of an inch). But in the end, you are right, and you da .270 Man!!! Happy loading.