Author Topic: 8mm Remington Magnum... (Read 2001 times)

Lawdog · « **on:** January 21, 2004, 02:38:19 PM »

A friend of mine has one he never shoots. A Rem. M700 BDL that he had the trigger and safety replaced and the extractor redone. Was talking to him about it and that it has been talked about some but what I wonder is this;

What, in your opinion, caused the downfall of this cartridge? Recoil, lack of good bullets or what? Lawdog

Graybeard · « **Reply #1 on:** January 22, 2004, 04:53:47 AM »

Both of those plus the fact that metric bores in general and the 8MM in particular has just never been well accepted here in the US.

GB

lgm270 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2004, 09:07:01 AM »

Lawdog: YOu seemed to imply that you were interested in buying your friend's M-700. If you can get a good price and you have some use for such a powerful round, and if you handload, it's a good one.

There are many good 8mm bullets available to handloaders. Swift, Barnes, Nosler, Woodleigh. It's a hard hitting, flat shooting round.

It suffered from a lack of good bullets when it was first introduced and th fact that the 8mm bore has never been that well accepted by American shooters, except in cheap mil-surplus rifles.

I have never heard of an 8mm chambering by a commercial firearms manufacturer, except for the 8mm Remington Magnum, which was a commercial flop, and the fact that Remington is chambering this year's "Classic" limited edition M-700 in 8x57.

kciH · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2004, 02:22:37 PM »

The rifle requires a magnum length action for one thing. It does absolutley nothing that the .300 Weatherby won't, which isn't exactly an insult by any means. There also seems to have been quite a few of the factory rifles that didn't shoot too well, but that is from reading and not doing. I wanted one for many years and settled for a .340 Weatherby. The only one I ever saw in use was at the rifle range years ago, it seemed the shooter was doing OK accuracy-wise with it, but the recoil looked to be relativley heavy, such as would be the case with any cartridge of this power level. There are plenty of good 8mm bullets available nowadays, but it wasn't the case when this cartridge was introduced.

Graybeard,
I'll have to argue that the old saw about metric cartridges not being accepted is over the hill. 6mm and 7mm rifles are very widespread and accepted, the 7mm Mag is probably one one of the most poplar hunting rounds that exists. Then there is all those 9mm pistols out there. Not saying the 9mm is good for much more than punching paper, in my opinion, but it certainly is WELL accepted. I think the fact that many shooters are at or above their recoil threshold with a 30-06 would certainly make them think twice about one of these mothers, cartridges in this power level take a toll on the shooter off the bench...which is where most hunters practice from.

Graybeard · « **Reply #4 on:** January 22, 2004, 03:44:37 PM »

The 6MM Remington is only chambered in one gun even by Remington and I think two by Ruger. It has hardly been accepted. True the 7MM Bore is an exception but even so it sure doesn't have the acceptance of the .30. There are no other rifle rounds I'm aware of that are MM designated that have any following at all. I don't believe we're discussing handguns on this particular forum.

GB

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #5 on:** January 22, 2004, 04:00:46 PM »

Hey now, I accept and love my 6mm rem and it will do anything your 270 win will do

I agree with metric bores not being accepted theroy. Anytime I read or hear of a rifle in metric I always have to think to myself "now what caliber is that really"

kciH · « **Reply #6 on:** January 22, 2004, 08:29:38 PM »

Since the 9mm is a pistol round in most cases, I'll dismiss it from the evidence in my case. How about the 7.62x39? Seems like they might have sold a few of those round these parts. Two metric numbers, as opposed to one, so they count for double? Not trying to dismiss what you say about the 8mm, just trying to point out that the standard gunwriter line about metric calibers is BS. It reminds me of many other propostitions put forward that can't be supported, by gunwriters that is.

The 7Mag is entrenched, it's part of America. I only wish the hunters who thought they could shoot a .30 cal mag would switch to the 7Mag....they might actually be able to place their shots.

Never said it could replace the .30 cals, but I bet it is THE most popular magnum rifle that exists in the USA.

I've been thinking of a 9.3x62mm in a short rifle to augment my .35 Whelen Imp, just to diversify.

Graybeard · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2004, 05:37:37 AM »

This has nothing to do with magazine writers. I'm NOT a magazine writer.

My point one LAST time is this. Commercially introduced cartridges which are designated by metric names just do not as a group fair well in the US. Yes there are exceptions. I'm not saying the metric designation is always at fault but the result is the same. No the 7.62x39 doesn't count as two or even as one. It is a military round NOT a commercial introduction.

I also have no problems with such rounds. I think the 9.3x62 would be a fine round to have IF I had a need for such. I don't. I love my 7-08. I think the 7x57 is a fine round. I use and like the 7-30 Waters. But none of that changes the fact that taken as a group commercial rounds designated as metrics other than the 7MM bore just haven't ever survived here.

GB

onesonek · « **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:18:29 PM »

I think the 8mm Rem Mag is very good round, ballistically speaking. Even though, it's more or less a marketing flop. I think it would have done better if Rem. had brought it out years earlier, right after the 7 mag. And teamed up with Nosler, loaded a 200 and 220 gr. Partitions. Then it might have been in the running with Win. .300 and .338, also Weatherby's .300 and .340. If I were into belted powder burners, I would be hard pressed into needing more than a 7 & 8mm Rem Mag. I would might opt to have a stoutly loaded 11.63X53.47mm as back up on big bears though.
Ah, Now I know why metric is p i t a, uses alot of space in a sentence

Dennis Andersen · « **Reply #9 on:** April 20, 2004, 04:37:22 PM »

I love my 6 mm Rem. I have taken two mule deer and two antelope with it all one shot kills. Only one ran at all. That only went 30 yds.

Drilling Man · « **Reply #10 on:** April 21, 2004, 05:43:42 AM »

6mm Rem will do anything a 270 Win will do?

You have to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe on small animials there "some" truth in that statement, but when it comes to big deer on up, there's NO comparison!!!!!!!!!

Drilling Man

RaySendero · « **Reply #11 on:** April 21, 2004, 04:37:14 PM »

Lawdog, You can still get 8mm Rem Mag brass. http://www.midwayusa.com/rewriteabrowse/2/7392/9315***652***670***9013***
Plus there really is a good selection of 8mm bullets available!

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #12 on:** April 21, 2004, 08:40:21 PM »

Drilling man,
I have a very close friend that has used my 6mm to cleanly take a BULL ELK in Kentucky, now what do you use your 270 on that is much bigger than that? I mean are you saying the 6mm cant kill anything bigger than a deer? I surely hope thats not what you mean...

Ray,
You are partially correct, my 6mm cant shoot 150 grain slugs, on the other hand, if my 6mm didn't shoot better than 2" groups at 400 yards I would get rid of it immediately if not sooner! I have an old target around here somewhere(if the wife didn't throw it out :lol: ) that has a 5 shot group of 1 1/8" at 500 yards!!
I will post it up if I can find it.
It's from several years ago when I was HEAVILY into varmint hunting, groundhogs in particular. Usually 300 +/- yarders were the soup du jour but 500 +/- yarders were not uncommon

Yukon Jack · « **Reply #13 on:** April 23, 2004, 10:12:07 AM »

I think there are several reasons that Remington's big 8 failed. I don't think it would have failed on any one of the given reasons, but with all at the same time, it was doomed.

I'll start by saying that I did, indeed, have a Remington Custom shop rifle in 8mm Mag several years ago. I also owned a 338 at the time. With factory loaded ammunition, there was really no difference in the ballistics between the two. The 338 had already been around for about 20 years when Remington decided to introduce their medium magnum. If someone was looking for a rifle to fill that niche, the 338 had more loadings available from the factory and better bullets, in more weights, available to the handloader. It was once said that the 8mm Mag wouldn't catch on until Nosler started making a Partition for it, and Nosler would make a Partition for it until it caught on. Nosler did finally relent and make an 8mm Partition bullet, 200 grains, but it was after Remington quit chambering the BDL for it and it was strictly a custom shop venture.

Another reason was that because Remington never had any great sales success with it, no one else would pick it up. If you didn't like Remington, you had to go the custom route. Or you could just buy a 338 from any of the several different manufacturers and get just as powerful a chambering.

For a long time, all the bullets made in the 8mm caliber were designed to perform around the 8mm Mauser velocities and reports kept coming in that, when pushed at the Mags velocity, they weren't penetrating well and coming apart. Remington only loaded 2 bullets weights for at the time, a 185 grain Core-Lokt (which was very explosive at close range) and the 220 grain Core-Lokt. The 185 grain was a deer bullet for an Elk, Moose, Bear rifle and not what most 8mm Mag purchasers were after. The 220 grain load didn't measure up to the 210, 225, or 250 grain loads offered for the 338. Why compromise?

In my opinion, though, Remington's biggest mistake was just slapping a regular BDL stock on it. The stock is not designed well for rifles in this recoil class, not for the shooter or for the rifle. Even the cross-bolted Custom shop stock I had was too thin in the wrist and the cross-bolts were in the wrong location. The recoil lug was insufficient as well.

I think if Remington had been really serious about wanting this to succeed, they should have redesigned an action and stock around it. A more substantial extractor, even brought back something like the M30.

RaySendero · « **Reply #14 on:** April 25, 2004, 12:42:09 PM »

Quote from: DirtyHarry

Ray,
You are partially correct, my 6mm cant shoot 150 grain slugs, on the other hand, if my 6mm didn't shoot better than 2" groups at 400 yards I would get rid of it immediately if not sooner! I have an old target around here somewhere(if the wife didn't throw it out :lol: ) that has a 5 shot group of 1 1/8" at 500 yards!!
I will post it up if I can find it.
It's from several years ago when I was HEAVILY into varmint hunting, groundhogs in particular. Usually 300 +/- yarders were the soup du jour but 500 +/- yarders were not uncommon

DH,

There were actually 2 points to my post: Long range, you need to be able to hit a small target area but also bullet must retain enough energy to do a lot of damage! That .270 load pictured above had over 1,500 ft-lbs of energy left in it at 400 yards. Your .243 winy can't get that much energy to 200 yards. By the time they both get out to 500 yards that 270 will have almost double the bullet energy left compared to most any .243 load. A .243 is good round but IS NOT capable of doing all that a .270 can!

RaySendero · « **Reply #15 on:** April 25, 2004, 12:52:10 PM »

Lawdog,

Sorry, kinda got off your subject.
I'm curious - You going to get that 8mm Mag???

Lawdog · « **Reply #16 on:** April 26, 2004, 11:09:09 AM »

Ray,

I very well may buy it IF we can come to terms. I don't mind paying a fair market value but I refuse to subsidize a retirement fund. Small groups and tight lines to you. Lawdog

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #17 on:** April 26, 2004, 05:04:07 PM »

Ray,
I see and agree with what you are saying, but what I am saying is on medium/large type game such as deer/elk within a reasonable distance say 300 yards and closer, the 6mm will kill anything up to deer/elk size just as quick as the 270,and I don't need very much energy to kill a groundhog at whatever distance. In any case I personally wouldn't consider using anything as small as a 270 on any medium size and up game, Whenever I hunt say deer, where a rifle is allowed, I always use at least a .30 cal minimum anyway...

RaySendero · « **Reply #18 on:** April 27, 2004, 05:07:10 PM »

DH,

Yeah - I like something bigger than a .30 too for shots under 150 yards on deer or hogs. Actually see more of this type hunting - Wooded stand, stalking, or camp shot. However, I do use that 270 for 200 yard plus shots from a stand with a good rest and either know distances or lazer them. Just depends on the situation and the shot you expect to have to make.

We were practicing at the range the other day - that 270 hit 4 of 4 clay pigeons scattered over the 500 yards berm from rest plus hit head/shoulders metal silhoutte on berm 4 times off hand. It is fun to shoot because of the accuracy.

Drilling Man · « **Reply #19 on:** April 28, 2004, 04:13:21 AM »

I am a long time 6mm fan, and have shot quite a few whitetails with it, i also have shot the 270 a bit. In my opinion the 6mm's should NOT be used on anything bigger than average sized deer, "for MOST hunters"!!! It is "NO WHERE NEAR" the cartridge the 270 is!!!

In Alaska, an indian woman killed a HUGE brown bear with a single shot 22lr. She shot the bear in the eye from the loft of her cabin, does this mean the 22lr is a "bear rifle"

?

I've seen quite a few deer also shot with a 22lr and 22win mag when i was a kid, but i don't think they are proper rounds for deer either!!

On the other hand, a 270 is more than enough for deer of "any size" in "anyones" hands!! (assumeing they "at least" an average marksman) You can't say the same for the 6mm and be truthful! A 6mm is for very skilled hands, when it comes to bigger game animials!!

Drilling Man

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #20 on:** April 28, 2004, 05:28:02 PM »

Thats some fine shootin Ray..

supermag 445 · « **Reply #21 on:** June 07, 2004, 09:43:19 AM »

when I get some funds available to me I am goin the custome rouye with a 8mm rem mag.

Even though I lready have a 338 win mag I still want a 8mm rem mag.

a 338 win mag 340 weatherby mag and 8mm rem mag s 6 of one halfdozen of another. But its a want kind of thing.

Brian

dan belisle · « **Reply #22 on:** June 21, 2004, 05:59:17 AM »

I have an 8mm Rem Mag, built with a 26" barrel, and it really is a great rifle/cartridge combo. With that length of barrel, and handloaded with 220 gr bullets (I get 3100 fps in mine), it far surpasses the 338 Win Mag, you just can't buy ammo at the gas station. It neatly splits the difference between the 300 and 340 Wby (which I also have). A very good elk country cartridge. FWIW - Dan

Judson · « **Reply #23 on:** July 02, 2004, 04:35:56 PM »

A six mm or .277 calliber can and does a lot of killing but when it comes to bigger then deer size stuff leave it to the big guys like the 8mms,9.3mm and up!!!!
The 9.3mm I use is flatter shooting and harder hitting at any range then any 7.62, .277 or 6mm. How about 25.4" low at 500 yards and 2971 foot pounds of energy with a 250 grain bullet?