Quote: I have to go along with Fritz here. The 8X57 has always been one of my favorite all around calibers. As a gunsmith, I've talked many a customer into building/barreling rifles in it and they ALL thanked me. It's a very accurate, versatile & forgiving caliber that is very efficient in a properly barreled rifle. (...) Only drawback is limited bullet availability, but there's still plenty to do anything you'll need.
Good to hear all this . So, it may be of interest to you that Prvi Partizan has now finally begon to export its new 8x57 IS hunting cartridge with the modern GROM bullet ( a homogenous deformation projectile). I have been promised a box soon, and will report if possible. Alas, I have no scoped 8x57IS rifle to really test its accuracy...
Best regards, Carcano
Posts: 2452 | Location: Old Europe | Registered: 23 June 2001
Quote: If I plug 60 gr. of Re22, 200 gr., 22", 30-06 into Quickload, I get 2639 fps, 55826 psi, 106.9% case fill.
Then I suggest that you might peel your eyes and attention away from Quickload and do some actual loading and shooting, using a chronograph. 61 gr of RL22 or 63 gr of IMR 7828 (both very heavily compressed loads) behind a Speer 200 gr bullet, in a Winchester case with CCI200 primer, gave me 2800+ f.p.s. from a Mauser-action Browning Safari .30/06 with a 22 inch barrel. There was no heavy bolt lift or flattened primer or other evidence of too-high pressures with the loads I made in the rifle I used.
Posts: 5883 | Location: People's Republic of Maryland | Registered: 11 March 2001
[quoteOriginally posted by Fritz Kraut: <strong> You can do evrything with a .30-06 that you do with a 8 mm Mauser (and vice versa too). ' "(This may come over as being snotty or unpleasant to Fritz. If so, I apologize because it isn't meant that way.)" I believe you and the examples you sited were correct but in the hands of the average hunter either cartridge will do EQUALLY well. The margins of difference of what you speak are terribly small and in a utilitarian sense of little meaning. I took this to be Fritz's meaning but that's only my not tohumble opinion. roger <
Posts: 10226 | Location: Temple City CA | Registered: 29 April 2003
That's why Remington hyped up the numbers on the .300 Ultra Mag, since we all know the 8mm Remington Mag was an ultramagnum before it was fashionable (and Remington's biggest commerical flop since WW2). But they had to show a "reason" that the new was better than the 25 year old cartridge.
If Remington would have came out with a rebated rim 8mm Remington Ultra Mag (with the same ballistics as the 8mm Rem Mag) 5 years ago, and paid a few gun writers to say nice things about it, everyone would be tripping over themselves to get one. Instead I can't mention medium bores without someone talking about the .300 Ultra Mag Do All End All Greatest Cartridge Ever.
Not to mention the 8mm Catch 22. Remington stopped factory chambering rifles in the 8mm Mag in like 1985 (custom shop only after that). Now (I think) only Remington loads ammo, and it was poorly picked up by other companies. Now that we have premium bullets and such, we dont have any 8mm RM guns to shoot them in. If no one is buying the guns to shoot them in, no one is going to commerically load them. Its a vicious cycle.
Posts: 510 | Location: North Carolina, USA | Registered: 27 August 2002
There was an effort by our stupid elites some time ago to make us convert to the metric system -- they tried to put kilometer signs on our highways and km/hour designations on the speedometers of our automobiles, and even sometimes gram and kilogram signs in our supermarkets. It was, thankfully, a more-or-less total failure, and you rarely see those signs here today.
Actually what was "stupid" was the fact that we abandoned this conversion 30yrs ago!
Now our manufacturers have to make "metric" versions of our manufactured goods for export, further crippling our "global" competitivness.
In case you haven't noticed, every industrialized nation in the ENTIRE world except the U.S.A. is on the metric system.
Yes we are used to 12" to the foot, 5280' to a mile, 16oz to a quart, 4qts to a gallon, 128oz to a gallon, 7000grs to an oz, 16oz to a pound etc. etc.
Further more: being a pipefitter by trade, when I must convert dimensions to wet volume and weight I must remember to convert feet back to inches, the I must calculate 231 cu in = 1 gallon and then convert gallons to weight by multipling that answer by 8.4#s to the gallon.
A cubic vessel that measure 12' x 12' x 12' would have (144 x 144 x 144) 2,985,984cu in of volume. Now divide by 231 = 12,926.337 gal x 8.4#s =108,581.23# Now, do that in calculation in you head.
That is what we SHOULD be "gagging" on!
All metric conversions including the calculations from dimension to wet volume to weight (of water) only require the moving of a decimal point.
1 kilometer = 1,000 meter + 1,000,000 mm
1 gram = .001 kilogram
1,000 cc of water = 1 liter = 1 kilogram
A cubic vessel that measures 4 meters x 4 meters contains 64,000,000cc = 64,000 liters = 64,000 kilograms of water.
400cm x 400cm x 400cm =64,000,000cc = 64,000 liters = 64,000 kilo. No need for a calculater unless you want to convert to #s, (64,000 x 2.2 = 140,800#s) just count "0" s
Face it, American conversion to the metric system is inevitable. If we had done it 30 years ago as planned we would now be used to it.
Posts: 2440 | Location: Northern New York, WAY NORTH | Registered: 04 March 2001
Quote: Wildcat, you are right but there are too many ludites like me around. I do have a Rem Classic on order however.
I am expecting a "bonus" check soon for a suggestion @ work. (not that we convert to the metric system General Motors management is far to dense for that)
I think I may have to get one of those 2004 "Classics" on order also. Too bad Winchester doesn't do likewise for the "Featherweight Classic", that would be much closer to a M98.
As a mater of fact, one of the things I believe is a top prriority when "sporterizing" a M98 is the conversion to a M70 type 3 pos. safety.
Posts: 2440 | Location: Northern New York, WAY NORTH | Registered: 04 March 2001
Don't forget my personal favorite measurement of imperial weight, the slug. Speaking as someone who lived through the metrification of Canada back in the 70's, it really does make the math easier. Confuses old guys like me sometimes, though. I still can't make sense of metric mileage figures. At least in my head, I can "see" a gallon, and I can "see" how many miles I can go. Metric works for everything else though. - Dan
Posts: 5285 | Location: Alberta | Registered: 05 October 2001
Quote: Don't forget my personal favorite measurement of imperial weight, the slug. Speaking as someone who lived through the metrification of Canada back in the 70's, it really does make the math easier. Confuses old guys like me sometimes, though. I still can't make sense of metric mileage figures. At least in my head, I can "see" a gallon, and I can "see" how many miles I can go. Metric works for everything else though. - Dan
Slug???????????
Please enlighten me.
Hey Dan, what's this 8x68S A. I. you are working on?
Posts: 2440 | Location: Northern New York, WAY NORTH | Registered: 04 March 2001
This metric vs inches thing is ridiculous. I mean, how could a RATIONAL person dislike the diameter of a projectile soley due to a measuring convention? Would the .45 ACP be any less popular today if it had been asigned a metric designation? As for those who claim US shooters just love the imperial system, why is the 7mm Rem mag about the most popular magnum cartridge to date? Why would Winchester and Remington call their new short magnums(the 7mm shoteries) a name that turns away shooters? Do these same shooters have ANY TROUBLE understanding the contents of their wallets or their wife's checking account (don't answer that!)? After all, it's in that terribly confusing base-10/100 numbering system. Perhaps they prefer to own cars that have 350 and 351 cubic inch V8s rather than 5.7 and 5.8 liter V8s? As for the MPH/KPH thing...Just how long would it take a normal person to learn; once all the speedos emphasized KPH, and all the road signs were in kilometres and kph ? Contending that the metric system is too hard to get used to is like saying you forgot to use your seatbelt, because it was just too hard to remember to buckle-up. In my country of origin, the whole nation changed over to metric in the mid 70s. I learnt both imperial AND metric at school. About the only person I can remember who claimed to be confused after the first year of metrification was my crazy grandmother. Then again, she used to talk about Pounds, Shillings and Pence! Sorry, I'm off on a tangent.
I expect the only good reason the 8x57mm round did not make a huge splash was that, for all intents and purposes, it's the ballistic twin of the 30-06, which already had a LARGE following.
I like tradition and all that, but an "ounce", make that 30 grams, of common sense could go a long way.
Cheeky.
Posts: 40 | Location: Pacific North West U.S.A. | Registered: 27 December 2002
Quote: Comment on 2800 fps with 200 grains: I like RL22 with 180 grainers, simply because it is a very low pressure load... something in the high 40KPSI range. So the next question is, if the manufacturer can get 2750 fps at about 46 KPSI, why would he stop there? The gun is good for a lot more pressure. Why not use the additional pressure margin, to get really spectacular speeds? I suspect the answer is that above that pressure, the load becomes far less predictable.
I suspect the reason is that the 30/06 is one of those cartridges that manufacturers need to be very conservative in loading for and in giving loading recommendations for -- the 7X57 is another, at least in America -- because there are a lot of very old and questionable rifles out there in that caliber, rifles that might not handle higher pressure loads. If a cartridge is commonly uned in autoloaders, factory ammunition and loading recommendations need to be kept relatively mild too.
Posts: 5883 | Location: People's Republic of Maryland | Registered: 11 March 2001
Quote: About the only person I can remember who claimed to be confused after the first year of metrification was my crazy grandmother. Then again, she used to talk about Pounds, Shillings and Pence!
Not guineas and crowns ? C'mon, your grandmother was a modernist ! ;-)
Quote: I expect the only good reason the 8x57mm round did not make a huge splash was that, for all intents and purposes, it's the ballistic twin of the 30-06, which already had a LARGE following.
It is correct to state that the .30-03 (and later the .30-06) were the ballistic copies of the 15 years older 8x57 I and IS. But that would not yet explain the success of the late-comer, in and by itself.
Best regards, Carcano
Posts: 2452 | Location: Old Europe | Registered: 23 June 2001
Quote: What mystical powder pray tell is it that you are accomplishing these majical velocities with?
In addition to the 2800 f.p.s. with 200 gr. bullets described earlier in this thread, I also got 3070+ f.p.s. with 150 gr. Speer boattail bullets and 58.1 gr. of H380, Remington brass, CCI 200 primers, from the same Mauser-action Browning Safari 30/06 with 22 in. barrel. And that was not a max load, at least in this rifle.
Posts: 5883 | Location: People's Republic of Maryland | Registered: 11 March 2001
Quote: ... the .30-03 (and later the .30-06) were the ballistic copies of the 15 years older 8x57 I and IS. But that would not yet explain the success of the late-comer, in and by itself.
No it wouldn't. But the fact that there were hundreds of thousands -- possibly a million or more -- Enfield and Springfield .30-06 rifles left over from American use in WWI with many available for just a few dollars for civilian use, along with millions of rounds of surplus ammunition, and that thousands of American service people had experience of the success of the round in war, does explain its success.
The Springfield and Enfield service rifles may have been inferior to the better Mausers, but the .30-06 caliber of those rifles was definitely superior to the 8X57 caliber of the Mauser. Besides, just after the war the Winchester Model 54 and other sporting bolt action rifles appeared on the scene, and the .30-06 was always one of the calibers offered.
It's like the .223 today. One could argue that it is inferior to some other .22 calibers. But -- given its use as the U.S. service cartridge today -- it is impossible to argue against its ubiquity and the cheapness and wide availability of ammo for it.
Posts: 5883 | Location: People's Republic of Maryland | Registered: 11 March 2001
A slug, ancient imperial measurement of weight, equal to 32 pounds, I believe (or is it 32 ounces, memory fails, yet again). Hi Wildcat, I came across an 8X68S AI reamer and, well, what can I say, it called to me. Sigh. Temptation is so hard to resist some times. So, I had to find another 98 Mauser (1912 Chilean, D & T'ed, $70 CDN), Of course, that led me to yet another (bubba'd 7.62 Israeli), and on it goes. - Dan
Posts: 5285 | Location: Alberta | Registered: 05 October 2001
downwind, I could be wrong, as I said, it's memory from a long time ago. I assume you meant to ask me where I find 8X68S brass? I get mine from Ralf Martini in B.C. he's a hell of a single shot 'smith, and brings in quite a bit of the euorean oddballs (to us, no insult intended to our European brethren). Do a search on here, in gunsmithing especially, his name should come up. - Dan
Posts: 5285 | Location: Alberta | Registered: 05 October 2001
Talk about gifts from heaven. Last week I was looking through my gun cabinet and thought, "I've got it all now, er all but an 8x57." Two days later I found out that the Remington Classic for this year is the 8X57. I really like that cartridge. I have an old German mauser from 1916 in 7.92X57, but after seeing service in two world wars it has about had it. I'm looking forward to this one. I have two Remington Classics from previous years. It's an excellent model. My .17Rem. and 6.5x55 are both very accurate so I'm quite willing to take a chance on this one. Remington, please don't drop the ball on this one. In recent years the quality of Remington is becoming quite "iffy". Best wishes.
Actually, the Gewehr 88 is more of a Mannlicher than anything else!" Not correct. Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher stole a couple of ideas froimthe German M 1888 Commission rifle, just as from the Italians (the 6,5x53R Mannlicher is his cheap copy of the Italian rimmed trial round he was given to work with - but the Italians were smarter than Ferdinand and secretly had already been planning for the - at that time - ultra-modern rimless variant after the German 8x57 and the Swiss 7,5x53,5).
The M 1888 rifle was fathered mostly by Armand Mieg and Louis Schlegelmilch.
"quote:However, I believe the 7,8X57mm I CARTRIDGE is a Mauser design...." The cartridge was a commission design, and a superb one. According to G�tz, the military always used 7,9 mm bores from the start - only the civilian J-bore hunting rifles has their lands tightened in the quest for accuracy.
Carcano
OK! So it ws the reverse?? Mannlicher stole the design of the M88 Commission rifle? Interesting!!
And the Commision folks designed the 57mm rimless case? Learn something new every day!!
.
roger
