On Our Mark: Episode 89 - The 240 WBY MAG

240 WBY MAG fans your podcast is here! On this episode, we are doing a deep dive into this legendary cartridge. Luke and Tyler are joined by Jared and Seth from product development to talk ballistics, the invention of the 240, and how it’s one of our most underrated cartridges.
On this episode we discuss:
- Why is it called a 240
- Simple ballistics math
- Speed = killing power
- 6-lug action built around the 240
- Diving into etymology
- The ultimate deer cartridge
Connect with Weatherby!
Instagram: / weatherbyinc
Facebook: / weatherbyinc
Follow our shotgun page!
Instagram: / wbyfieldandflight
Facebook: / wbyfieldandflight

[@timlamb274]

You should have brought up the fact that .240 Wby rifles now have a 1:7.5 twist rate! They will stabilize every 6mm bullet on the planet now with no loss in ballistic coefficient. How about an actual factory varmint load for this round? A 55 gr. zipping along at 4,000 plus fps would be awesome.

[@wheelchairhillbilly]

They only did it in only some versions unfortunately.

[@timlamb274]

@@wheelchairhillbilly From what I see all new 240 WBY rifles have a 1:7.5 twist rate from here on out. The 1:10 is gone or out of production.

[@wheelchairhillbilly]

@@timlamb274 That would be great news. Even in the Vanguards, or are they dropping the cartridge in the Vanguards?

[@timlamb274]

@@wheelchairhillbilly Only 240 Wby Vanguard available on the website is the Vanguard Synthetic. ROT is 1:10 for all Vanguards. The Synthetic Green and Weatherguard Bronze are showing available but sold out on website.

[@lurebenson7722]

I own the 6mm-284 win in a Rem 721 and I did my AR 10 upper in 6mm-284 win using a 26-inch Pac Nor SS supper match barrel that can show chronograph readings for the Hornaday V max 58 grain at 4800 PPS

[@wheelchairhillbilly]

The 240wby is one cool cartridge. I plan on owning one as soon as possible.

[@georgeapostolopoulos2374]

Im glad yall did this one the last round Roy designed. And underrated. Very cool cartridge

[@shawnrose4501]

I bugged them in email for a podcast for last month!! Love it!! Thanks for listening guys!!!

[@weatherby]

What should be our next podcast topic??

[@wheelchairhillbilly]

More vanguard options with the 240, and the tighter twist. My next rifle will be the 240wby I'm quite sure. I'd like it in a deluxe mark v, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to come up with the money. Thanks

[@ckiefner715]

Mine is in a Vanguard S2 purchased this year off of Weatherby’s website

[@coreychilders4970]

I’ve got one. It’s a Weatherby mark v chambered in 7mm Weatherby mag. It was made back in 1976 and it the deluxe edition

[@roycrownover2349]

Have a pair of .257's. Need some time to recover financially but should I get another it will be a 240.

[@MrSavage170]

Added a Vanguard sporter laminate 240 Weatherby to my collection today

[@WHOTEEWHO]

thanks for the video

[@johnlarsen4209]

The word "like" is a pet peeve of mine.

[@JamesRoss-dx7st]

I also have the pet peeve with the word "like". Several years ago, I decided to build a hot 6mm, but due to the cost and general unavailability of 240 Wby brass, I chose the 6mm Rem. I handload and I chose a 25" bbl with a 1:10 twist. Later, I built a 24" bbl with a 1:9 twist. I shoot mostly 75 gr. V-Max bullets at around 3500 fps, but it will go over 4K fps with a 55 gr pill.

[@austinroyer3229]

I considered one of the newer Mark V Hunter Bronze models in the 240 just to play with it! I’d love to have one. Sounds like a perfect whitetail setup.

[@stevencgodden1767]

I bought a 240 about 7-8 yrs ago and handed it over to my grandson. He hunts black tail bucks here in Kalifornia. You say it’s “lights out”, I say that it will “knock the bucks dick in the dirt”. Outstanding caliber.

[@aquamarinedream807]

I wish to very much take exception to several point discussed by the panel in On Our Mark Episode 89, 240 Weatherby Magnum. I'm 70 years old, have been hunting and shooting all my life, have done competitive rifle shooting, and own a number of rifles including two Weatherby's, neither of them in 240 W. Magnum caliber. I also own a Henry .243 Winchester rifle. First i need to point out that the number computed by one panelist that is supposedly the time it takes a .240 WM bullet to transit a 24 inch barrel, a number the panelist supposedly arrive at through what were called complex mathematical calculations, that number being approximately 0.00058 seconds, is way, way off, not even close, and it's off by a factor of about two. No, the time it takes for this bullet to transit such a barrel is about twice that length of time. Why? Real simple, and I'd have to call this, sorry, a real bonehead mistake. There's nothing wrong with the arithmetic, not at all, what's totally wrong is how the calculation was set up to begin with. It takes the bullet's MUZZLE velocity, 3700 fps, I believe, and uses this number to compute the bullet's transit time. No. Wrong. Again, that's the velocity at the MUZZLE after the bullet has transited, and accelerated through, the full length of the barrel. The projectile's velocity at the other end of the barrel, the chamber, starts at ZERO. So the average velocity of the bullet through the barrel, that being the velocity that needs to be used in this computation for it to be correct, is absolutely NOT 3700 fps, no, the average velocity of that projectile through that barrel is something closer to halfway between 0 and 3700 fps, not 3700 fps. Again, that's just the velocity at the MUZZLE, far far greater than the average transit velocity of the projectile through the barrel. Second, and exactly the same type of bonehead mistake, this involved in a comment this time by another panelist, That comment was to the effect that the .240 WM bullet travels so fast, enough though, RIGHT, he said he usually recommends against shots at moving animals, he said that this bullet travels so fast that taking a shot at a moving animal at 325 yards, would supposedly be no problem, the bullet would hit so close to the aim point that it would make no difference. No. Wrong. Let's not talk about a trotting or running animal, just a walking animal. That animals walking would go about the same pace, we can agree, as a person walking, which is about 3 mph. That.s 4.5 feet per second. The average velocity, again, the AVERAGE velocity, that's important, of that bullet over that 325 yards is not 3700 fps, not even close, it's far far less, and I checked some ballistics tables of 75gr 240 WM bullets to verify this, and the transit time of the bullet over that distance is about 0.3 second, and an animal moving at a walking pace, again, we're not talking about an animal running or even trotting, just walking, that animal just walking would cover about 1.35 feet in that 0.3 second, so the bullet would hit about 1.35 feet farther to the rear of the animal than the aim point. That 1.35 feet difference is the difference between an ethical heart/lung shot and sloppy and unethical GUT SHOT. No, it's not the case that the bullet travels so fast that is doesn't matter whether the animal's still or moving, NOT AT ALL. Further, another of your panelists weighed in on the issue of recoil of .243 Win. vs. .240 WM, saying it was "marginal." No, it's not marginal or insignificant at all, .243 Win. recoil is about 12 ft.-lbs. and .240 WM is 18 ft.-lbs, that's not marginal or insignificant at all, in fact it's 50% more than the .243, and in fact is more than a .308 at 17 ft-lbs. No one would call the difference in recoil between a .243 and a .308 insignificant or marginal. What we have here is a .24 caliber rifle that kicks harder than the most popular .30 caliber. One more point, one or more panelists called the .240 WM something to the effect of "like the .243 but better in every way." Ok, yes, but with some qualifiers. In addition to the cost of the rifle and recoil, there's the issue of price and availability of ammo for the .240 WM. The online ammo house I use, who has an absolutely huge inventory of all calibers of ammo, doesn't even carry .240 WM. They sell .243 for about 1.10 per round. I can even get it at my local Wal-Mart for about 1.25 per round. The best price I was able to find, online, for .240 WM is 3.50 per round, that is, if you can manage to find it. That's right, three and half bucks every time you pull the trigger. That's like triple what .243 Win. costs, and that's not insignificant, and for me at least would greatly detract from the pleasure of putting any number of rounds through the gun if I owned a .240 WM. Lastly, more than anything I might say, the market is the final determiner of whether or not a gun or caliber of gun is worth the money, and with all its downsides, it's no surprise that the market has spoken, that market being astute gun buyers who have that kind of money to spend for a gun, and again, no surprise that the .240 Weatherby Magnum is not, and has never been, a very popular cartridge. Too many other guns and calibers out there that can do as good or better a job and be a lot easier on both your shoulder and your wallet.

[@ernstscholz3323]

Why is Weatherby not using the MRR barrels drom Sabatti in Itali!These barrels claim more speed with same loads as other barrels,nearly twice the barrel-live lower preassure.If there would be a family of cartridges that make sense to use these barrels it would be Weatherby.On top they are way accurate!!

[@michaelsites1498]

Why not a 26” barrel?!?! Why not the 55 grain Barnes TTSX?!?! Why not a hinged floor plate(50 years too late on the Mark V) why not make a Mark V variant like the 307 Adventure SD finish?!?! Love love LOVE my 2 Mark V Weatherby’s!!! I have a 1972 W. German Mark V Deluxe .300 WBYMAG and 1992 Mark V Deluxe 30.06 (9-lug 24” barrel) but for some reason they’ve totally spent all their efforts on the 307 instead of focusing on enhancements I’ve asked for for years!!!! I just can not relate to ignoring the flagship model with a known flaw(springy floor plate instead of a clip design like Cooper?!?!) Thanks for the info on the .240…. It’s a real eye opener

[@jeffreywilson690]

I'll stick with the 243 or the 6mm rem

[@beenstork]

Their math is wrong on the barrel dwell time. They’re assuming the bullet is traveling at a constant speed through the barrel but it is accelerating through the bore and only reaching the FPS of 3400 at the very end of the bore. So the dwell time is longer than the simple equation they are using. I know I’m just being nit picky on a unimportant subject but I just thought it’s throw that out there

[@ryankosik18]

1968? Probably a fan of the 340 mopar small block. Or at least new how to advertise numbers to young consumers.