/

Alf,
The 8mms never really caught on here (like the 6.5s). The .300s and .338s hold sway in that niche, and 8mmRemMag was never promoted as a viable alternative.
Had Remington offered numerous loads with high-quality name-brand bullets, it might have had a chance, but it seems Remington couldn't bail on the round fast enough!
CTB is about the only writer who took a shine to it.

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

Alf,

I had one of the first 8mm Rem mags in my state, and I can tell you with certainty that there were no really good bullets available in the US for a fast 8mm. The .323's that were available were designed for the 8x57, and they did not hold up well at the higher speeds (I am sure that some of the European bullets would have been more effective). By the time that better bullets were available many people had already dismissed the 8mm mag for serious big game hunting. Another strike against this cartridge was the early anticipation that even greater speed should be possible with the large powder capacity. I wonder if the 8 mag might do better now with some of the newer powders. I considered trying again, but I have not gotten around to it.

The US bullets did do an impressive job on turtles though . They were much more impressive performers than typical varmint bullets in small calibers. Aim a few inches below a floating turtle, and you could launch him several feet in the air. The fish in my pond were very appreciative !!! The 375 H&H did a credible job with 235 Speers as well, by the way. (For the safety conscious, I did have a heavily treed area on the other side of the pond, and a couple of miles of forrest behind it.)

Jim

I understand that Remington introduced it at one of their "shows" for gunwriters. Elmer Keith was there and voiced aloud to his hosts the thought that was on everyone else's mind, "What the hell's it good for?"

Given that the .338 Win. Mag. already existed and had become such a huge hit, what would the 8mm Rem. Mag. do that the .338 didn't do just as well? Besides, there were already all those .338 rifles, cartridges, and bullets out there.

Possibly the shortage of good 8mm bullets or the American aversion to all things metric. On a more practical note, the 8 Rem kicks more than the 338 Win Mag... it's more in the neighborhood of the 340 Weatherby. The already established 338 Win Mag was an enormous stretch in most people's minds... the 8 Rem never had a chance.

Brad

[This message has been edited by Brad (edited 01-20-2002).]

My Pa bought a Big Eight in the late '70's for moose hunting. It really is one helluva cartridge, and he sure has killed a whack of game with it. At the time the only really decent bullet was the 220gr Hornady. Out of the box, his Remington 700 shoots little dime sized groups with it. I love it. The fact that it didn't catch on is a shame.

Canuck

Hunter's don't care too much for compromise cartridges. Its too big to be a .300, and too small to be a .338. ~~~Suluuq

My understanding is that Remington brought it out because they didn't have a .300 mag to call their own and hoped to use the big 8 as competition to both Winchester and Weatherby. If they had brought it out in what became their Safari grade ammunition with either Nosler Partition, Swift A-Frame or Trophy Bonded Bullets, it might have worked. Unfortunately, Big Green, in it's own inimitable way, was very badly stuck on the "not invented here, take ours and shut up" syndrome. Typical! A potentially good cartridge thrown away by stupid corporate decisions.

Sarge

[This message has been edited by Oldsarge (edited 01-20-2002).]

Here is is a question for you: I have a Persian Mauser m29/98 in 8x57. Would it be feasible to rechamber the military barrel and open the mag box to accept the 8mm Rem? I had read before one of the Canadian gunsmiths had done this and it worked fine for them.
With the long 29.1 inch (739.1mm) barrel velocities would be all one could hope for and then some.

Alf,

The 8mm RM was the first American cartridge chambered for an 8mm bullet -- that should tell you something about market acceptance in the US of A of 8mm cartridges.

The only gun writer who favored the 8mm bore was Col. Charles Askins. He wrote about a flock of 8mm wildcats he had made up and hunted with. He was also left-handed, maybe that was related to the love of the 8mm.

Then there was the confusion among American gun owners over the 8mm bore standard: .318" vs .323" -- which did not help.

Remington's market success has been best when they took a popular wildcat and introduced it. Their were 8 mm wildcats, but they weren't popular either. The .338s can do anything the .323s can do, and they are popular.

The final nail was the absence of good hunting bullets as the other posters have noted.

I always wanted to try the 8X60S, but just never found the right rifle here.

jim dodd

------------------
"if you are to busy to
hunt, you are too busy."

/

It was introduced by Remington.

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
It was introduced by Remington.

---

Leo,

I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest. If you're trying to say that the fact that it was introduced by Remington was the reason for the failure of the 8mm Rem. Mag., then there are numerous examples to refute the claim that being introduced by Remington was the problem. Remington introduced the highly successful 7mm Rem. Mag. and the .222 Remington. It also commercialized the 22-250. So I do not think that Remingtonitis is the curse.

True, Remington did come up with three winners. However, when you look at the extended lineup of flops (.244, .222 Rem Mag, .350 Rem Mag, 6.5mm Rem Mag, etc., etc.) you have to admit that leo's sarcasm isn't exactly misplaced.

Sarge

[This message has been edited by Oldsarge (edited 01-21-2002).]