Does anyone have any thoughts on the merits of these two cartridges and rechambering Husqvarna 648 (FN 98 action) to one or the other. I know the 8x68S is definitely a step up from the 8x64S, but was curious how much extra work would be involved to rechamber to that cartridge and whether the magazine length was sufficient to take advantage of it. I'm sure some will advocate the 8mm-06, but I was looking for a more classic type European 8mm to fill in the gap between the 6.5x55, 7x65R, and 9.3x62 that I have. Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions.

If you have an 8x57, 8x64 just a matter of reaming the chamber. 8x68 will also require bolt face, extractor, magazine, feed ramp, rails work. It's possible though, I had a standard length FN Deluxe 8x68.

IMHO, the 8x64 doesn't offer enough increase in performance to warrant the effort of rechambering. The 8x57 is very capable as-is. Now, there could be some reasons that change that equation such as excess headspace, eroded throat, etc.

The 8x68 is a substantial boost in performance and well worth the effort if you need the extra HP. At a minimum you are looking at rechambering, opening the botface, altering the extractor, and most likely feedrail & feed ramp modifications. You should replace the magazine but can most likely use a .30-06 length magazine. It will be too narrow for proper stacking but if you are willing to give up some capacity you can most likely get it to work.

I replace the bottom metal when I build an 8x68.

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:
IMHO, the 8x64 doesn't offer enough increase in performance to warrant the effort of rechambering. The 8x57 is very capable as-is. Now, there could be some reasons that change that equation such as excess headspace, eroded throat, etc.

I absolutely adore my 8x64S, but there is a lot of truth in what z1r writes. Yes, the 8x64S does offer more oomph than the 8x57IS, but we are probably talking 1-200 fps with bullets of like weight. The 8x57IS is not exactly the World'd most renowned open range cartridge, and the 8x64S does help in this respect. But whether the difference is worth the effort, only you can tell.

I originally got my first 8x64S because I could not shoot my beloved .30-06 in France. Since then, I have come to appreciate what the increase in bullet diameter brings you. So much, in fact, that I decided to get an additional 8x64S as primary medicine for heavier European game. IMHO, it is a great caliber, but being a bit of an exotic it is not easy to source brass, ammo or dies for.

If you really want to increase performance in .323 cal, the 8x68S is a sensible path to take. However, the caliber is a totally different kettle of fish than either the 8x57IS or the 8x64S in terms of recoil. If you are confident about your ability to deal with this, great. Otherwise shoot one before you make up your mind.

IMHO, for people who can shoot it well, few cartridges other than the 8x68S offer the combination of flat trajectory and "over .308" bullet diameter. The now (almost defunct) 8mm Rem Mag was one. The .338 Win Mag struggles a bit for real world (as opposed to Internet) velocity, so you need to go to a bigger case if your heart is set on that bullet diameter.

- mike

Mike,
Are you still using the 8x64S for the pigs in France, or have you moved to your 9,3x62?

sc.

Ok, Despite all the sensible stuff I wrote. I love my 8x60's and they offer even less gain. However, it is pretty much a handload only affair on this side of the pond as would be the 8x64.

Luckily, sensible never enters into my equations. I use the new math.

I don't have much to add, except that the 8x64 tapers a lot, compared to a broad shouldered cartridge like the 8x63 (I hate the term 8mm-06, as it makes no sense). I'm not even sure all 8x57 chambers will clean up to 8x64, without having to set back the barrel.

The 8x68 would be my choice in a full size rifle, it is the first true 8mm magnum.

I'm just building a '68, and one of the big questions is wether you should go for a larger magazine or remodel the original of the m98.
I've lenghtened the original to accept a cartridge lenght of 90 mm.
Using the good 220 gr bullets I don't want to seat them down deep...
The 220 Woodleigh(PP) at 2800 f/s is good medicine

M

quote:

Originally posted by Stu C:
Mike,
Are you still using the 8x64S for the pigs in France, or have you moved to your 9,3x62?

sc.

I occasionally use the 9.3x62, which I added to my collection after I had acquired my 8x64S. However, the 8x64S just does everything so well, I normally see little reason to use anything but that rifle. If I *knew* I might be dealing with pigs in the 2-300 kg range, I might reconsider that...

- mike

15 years ago I had a FN Mauser action that I thought would be nice in a metric caliber. The choices to me then were Brenneke's 7X64,8X64S or the 8x68. The first two could use state side brass.The 8X68 needed RWS brass--BIG $$$ then.

So I went with the 8X64S. The 7X64 was just too common for me. I found a set of Redding dies and also a few boxes of Sellier & Bellot ammo,which cases are holding up quite well, and plenty of Remington balk 185gr.C-L's.
The 8X64S proved to be more rifle than I imagined. Those 185's at 2880fps.will shoot lengthwise through deer headed in either direction. So I haven't needed to try the Norma Oryx or Alaskas in 196gr yet.
I guess I feel the same way as mho does.

Metric,

You have to use a new magazine if you are going to the 8x68.

I load the 8x68 with North Fork 200 grain bullets at 2,900fps+. Boom flop.

Just out of curiosity, if you are going to use the rifle primarily in North America, have you considered the 325 WSM? I know it isn't a "classic European" cartridge, but it seems to meet most of your other criteria.

It should have as much or more powder capacity than the 8X64, fit in a standard .30-06 length magazine, and brass is easy to get (or at least easy to make from the .300 WSM). Might still require a very little action rail work, unless you start with something like a .300 WSM action........

If I could just convince CZ to chamber rifles in the 8x68S and its' little brother the 6,5x68S I would be a happy man. A very happy man.

Rich

CZ used to make the 602 in 8x68 . I have one but ammunition is hard to find . One of my friends lusts after it . They also did the 602 in 358 Norma .
Mark

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
... the 8x68S and its' little brother the 6,5x68S

Rich, here is a nit for you (hairsplitting on...):

Only 8mm calibers use the "S" cartridge designation. The "S" designation in 8x68S indicates a .323 cal projectile. The 8x68S was ever only made with .323 cal bullets (as opposed to a bunch of other 8mm calibers where both a .318 and a .323 cal version existed), but the "S" designation remains... Although the "S" designation comes at the very end, it refers to the bullet and not to the case, say.

So, there is no such thing as a "6.5x68S". the correct designation for that caliber is 6.5x68 - or 6.5x68R, for the rimmed version.

(hairsplitting off...)

- mike

Cornfield SWO, you will never be sorry if you go the 8x68 route. I have been shooting one for more than 15 years now, I have gone the various 300's route etc and always have came back to 8x68! This cartridge does as well if not better than advertised, mine shoots 220gr bullets all day long sub MOA, Swift A frame at 2840 ft/sec and Sierra Game kings at 2880 ft/sec. I have had 200gr TSX and Accubonds doing better than 3000ft/sec, 180 gr bullets doing 3200 ft+. If you are re barreling the rifle with new one then you will better with the 180 or 220gr bullets. if it is a 8x57 barrel (differant twist rate to 8x68 barrels) then the 200gr bullets will do well at optimum velocity. You would have to open the magazine box a little more, any compitent gunsmith can open it to about 92mm, COL with 220gr bullets mentioned above is around 90mm, RWS ammo is now more readily available than before, I guess easier than 8x64ammo my side of the world? RWS ammo costs about the same as other calibers in American ammo!(safari or bonded bullets), hence who cares about the price? Get a couple of boxes and reload, cases are available in the USA! There is a lot more variaty in bullets available of late, I see Barnes has a new TTSX, Failsafe has a 8mm bullet and Nosler has e new bullet now in 8mm! I personally like the A-frame for heavy game, I shot a big old Eland bull through both shoulder with the bullet under the skin on the other side! 93% weight retension and that from 100yds?? NOT BAD AT ALL! The Game kings due to their inherant accuracy, I use on everything else up to Kudu and Gemsbuck size animals. Out of all of my 20 guns/rifles ranging from .22 to 470NE(including some 300's), the one that travels most is the 8x68! It hits hard and with authority! You will never be sorry once you have shot a 8x68!!!!

Mho,

au contraire, mon ami.

Handloaders Manual of Cartridge Conversions page451: 6,5mm X68mm Shuler after its' creator circa 1938

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by mho:

quote:

Originally posted by Stu C:
Mike,
Are you still using the 8x64S for the pigs in France, or have you moved to your 9,3x62?

sc.

I occasionally use the 9.3x62, which I added to my collection after I had acquired my 8x64S. However, the 8x64S just does everything so well, I normally see little reason to use anything but that rifle. If I *knew* I might be dealing with pigs in the 2-300 kg range, I might reconsider that...

- mike

What bullets do you use for the pigs, Mike?
I'm keen to get the best out of the fairly short 53mm case, so I've tried four brands. So far, though, I have shot very little game I'm sorry to say - the upside being, of course, that the testing continues still!

- Lars/Finland

quote:

Originally posted by Schauckis:
What bullets do you use for the pigs, Mike?
- Lars/Finland

For driven hunting: 196 grs Norma Oryx or 196 grs Woodleigh RNSP. Either bullet is very short.

For general hunting, I use a 200 grs Nosler AccuBond - which is somewhat longer.

- mike

quote:

lawndart: You have to use a new magazine if you are going to the 8x68.

I think that's right, come to think of it my FN which was imported by Continental Arms had a magnum length perch belly magazine.

The 8x68S and the later 6.5x68 were RWS creations and not created by Schuler or his decendents

The designer was Lampel and or ?Fuerth possibly Furth with a umlaut on the U of RWS and the cartridges were created for the then Schuler-Krieghoff.

( the Schuler cartridges were mostly done in Heinrich Krieghoff rifles)

There are two sources for this. Datig and Wiederladen

W. Lampel was connected ? on what way not known to me? to RWS. he Authrored a book Schiesstechnisches Handbuch fur Jager und Schutzen under the RWS logo

These cartridges were designed in 1938 / 1939 and 1940 respectively ? ( this could be debated)

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
The 8x68S and the later 6.5x68 were RWS creations and not created by Schuler or his decendents

There are two sources for this. Datig and Wiederladen

Ah, I was just reading the RWS "Wiederladen" manual, and saw the reference to both 8x68S and 6.5x68 being RWS developments.

- mike

quote:

For driven hunting: 196 grs Norma Oryx or 196 grs Woodleigh RNSP. Either bullet is very short.

For general hunting, I use a 200 grs Nosler AccuBond - which is somewhat longer.

- mike

Very good.
So why not the AB for driven hunt, as well?

As said, I have yet to shoot more game, but based on user experiences and various test the AB is a splendid bullet.
Not to take anything away from the Oryx as its reputation amongst many of my hunting friends is sterling, indeed, in all calibers.

Other ones I have loaded are 220grs Sierra GameKing, 200grs Rhino Solid Shank and 200grs Sako Hammerhead.
The GameKing saw action on light game (roe deer) but what I was really curious about is the performance of the Rhino whose reputation is good but which is also considered quite a tough bullet, maybe too tough for lighter game. Ought to be good on pigs and moose, however.

- Lars/Finland

My apologies, I stand here corrected.

As I have posted before: Knowledge not shared is knowledge lost...

Thanks for the clarification.

Rich

I'd still like one of each, 8mm and 6,5..

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I'd still like one of each, 8mm and 6,5..

An exiting prospect for sure!!

- mike

quote:

Originally posted by Schauckis:
So why not the AB for driven hunt, as well?

As said, I have yet to shoot more game, but based on user experiences and various test the AB is a splendid bullet.
- Lars/Finland

Lars, this is a bit round-about.

I originally got very good results with the 200 grs AccuBond using VV N550. But I decided I did not want to shoot (high-ish) volume rounds for driven hunting with a double based powder. OK, call me fuzzy, but since the gun shot so well, I wanted to get as much barrel life out of it as possible, and I did not need every last fps for driven hunting.

But if I wanted to load a different powder for driven hunting, I also needed a different bullet, to be able to easily distinguish the different types of ammo. The Nosler AccuBond easily shot the best, followed by the Woodleigh (which was hard to source at the time) and the Norma was a viable, available and cost effective alternative. It turned out to work pretty well, in the end.

The way shooters make decisions is sometimes a bit round-about...

These days, my scope for driven hunting stays sighted with the Woodleigh/Norma ammo, and my scope for low light hunting with the AccuBond stuff. I keep little stickers on the scopes telling me which gun and which ammo they are sighted for. Not infallible, but fairly workable.

I personally like the 8x64S very much for pigs and heavier game. I find it a tad much for roe.

- mike

Ah-ha. Very interesting. I get your point.
I was thinking along those lines myself, as well, but then I thought I'll try to find a "one size fits all" load. As, for sure, the 8mm itself is very much an all-round caliber and that's what I use and intend to continue to use (not least since I spent 1000+€ in customizing the gun for this season).
Should I change my mind I will apply your logic and try to have two very different-looking bullets. That's a sound and safe approach.

Thank you for your insight, Mike, this has been an interesting and stimulating discussion, indeed!

- Lars/Finland

quote:

Originally posted by lawndart:
Metric,

You have to use a new magazine if you are going to the 8x68.

I load the 8x68 with North Fork 200 grain bullets at 2,900fps+. Boom flop.

lawndart:

Nope. We took the original mag and lengthened it to accept cartr up to 90 mm. My favourite load in the 8x68S is 220 gr Woodleigh RN atop 75 grs Norma MRP. 2800 f/s pluss and "kadang"!

M

Thank you to everyone for your inputs, information and suggestions. I don't know that it has made the decision any easier, but at least I have some more information to work from. I think the only thing else I can think of is to ask if anyone has case volumes for the 8x57JS, x64S, x68 and for a non-Continental take the 8mm-06/06AI. I know I've seen them posted somewhere, but haven't been able to find them.

Thanks

Cornfield, sorry I don't have the answer to your case volume quetion. But I could not help myself wanting to make the following comment:

If you are willing to go the wildcat route, the 8mm-06 AI would not be a bad idea. 1) it would give you a bit more velocity compared to the 8x64S and (in particular) to the 8x57IS. 2) If it was my gun, I would get a reamer made that allowed me to use Nosler .280 AI brass necked up to .323 cal (would that make the cartridge an 8-280 AI??). That way, I would not have to fireform the brass, although I *might* have to accept doing the neck-up in 2 stages. That would save time, expense and barrel life to get fully formed cases.

FWIW.

- mike