Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Can anyone she'd some light on the .8mm rem mag

Yep...they seem to do this to all of us...if it were me I would get a 340 Weatherby...it can be loaded with heavy charges to equal a 375 H&H...if I am not mistaken a 275 Swift A Frame can be pushed to something like 2750 from a 24 inch bbl....a 250 to 2900....plenty of power ..then you can use your 257 Wby for less critters...

my 300 rum usta be an 8mm mag.

recoil was wayyy too abusive for me.

first rifle i ever had a muzzle brake put on.

my 300 rum is a pussy cat compared to it.

Yeah, I think the .340 Weatherby is a very useful cartridge too, and I haven't seen an 8mm RM rifle in years (of course I am not looking either). YOu have to look to Europe for more power in 8mm cartridges, I always liked the 8X64 and the 8X68S but never enough to actually build one of either.

jim

No....Thor was a 375AI

I had a heck of a time cleaning my keyboard and flat panel this morning. I will need to be more careful with my morning coffee.

bult one in 87 or 88 forget whitch mauser action douglas barrel lots of punch for any thing in north america would like to see ruger build a no1 in this cal.

I don't have one... but I think it is an underrated cartridge.

In the market it is too close to the 338s and the 30s.

It has plenty of power in its own right.

It is the parent of the 358 STA� that should tell you something.

8mm mag is a excellent round I have owned a couple. It outperforms the 338 win mag by a fair margin,and is right on the ultra mags heals. It would be a excellent round for a custom long range round with some punch.Mine had great accuracy with RL22.

I agree..and the bunk about little bullet choice is just that, bunk....many bullets. The 220 Sierra is one very good one.

I'll try to address the original poster here....not make a case for or against the 8mm Magnum.

I tried the 8mm Magnum when it was fairly new on the market. Like Elmer Keith (and I do remember his original statements about the 8mm)....I was underimpressed to say the least.

It's not that the big 8 won't do any of the things that are claimed for, it's just that I already owned rifles in .300 Wby, .338 Mag. and .340 Wby......as well as .375 H&H and .378 WBY. Nothing "wrong" with the 8mm......I just already had rifles to fill the needs it was developed for. As I recall, that was Elmer Keith's feeling. Not negative but "What's it good for?"......or as I said...."Why?"

The 8mm Magnum is more a gun for the true "rifle looney" because it is "different" (which is a good enough reason for gun nuts like me). It shoots flat enough to be usefull at any reasonable range, but with more punishment to the shooter than a .300 Magnum. It is a medium bore rifle that with proper bullets will likely be "perfect" for elk/moose size game......but no better than existing .338 or .340 rifles. It can be used on really big game such as the big bears with great effect.....but it will still be behind the .375 class rifles as a dedicated stopping-type rifle.

The 8mm Magnum is a very, very good round.....just not unique enough to justify picking it over a more common .338 Magnum. Because of it's length a typical 8 Mag will be heavier than a .338 and require some thought as to a proper action.

However, if you already have a proper action and barrel......and WANT (not "need") a rifle in this caliber.....you will be pleased. It will perform great.....just don't expect to be "amazed" by it. For a "gun nut" just "wanting" something a bit different is reason enough......you won't be disapointed.

Got to witness how well a buddy's M700 worked on whitetails, stoked with 150gr Sierras. 500 yard one shot kills from a Harris bipod, became fairly normal occurrences over the years.

Although, it did once root about half the ham off'n a running buck, at a much closer distance. The only blemish on a stellar record compiled by man and machine. ;O)

And had he chosen to head off in search of large, nasty critters elsewheres, it would've handled those chores too, with the right bullet.

Every blue moon I bump into a used Remington 700BDL in
8RM.

I had one, shot it 5 rounds at the rifle range...traded it off.
Recoil was so heavy, it set the ear muffs off sideways on my head, and screwed my hat sideways.

Yes, my shoulder was quite Thor after I shot one off the bench.

Thanks for asking.

John

The facts are that the 8mm in any cartridge has never been popular in the USA; The 8mm Rem Mag. really hasn't got a thing over a .338 in the field and any difference is in the head of the shooter; The bullet thing wasn't bunk, it blew up a lot of bullets on big heavy animals in the beginning and got a bad reputation thanks to poor planning on Remingtons part, and Nosler came out with a good bullet too late to save it perhaps; It got some bad press over these things plus it was only available in the Rem 700 rifle, perhaps the big bore guys preferred control feed, I know many of them did..Add to this the recoil as compared to the .338 win and you have the answer to your question.

You may agree or disagree, but this is the story as too why the 8mm failed in the market place..American hunters did not accept it.

I suppose that I am one of the masses that failed to accept it, although I realize its a good enough round, I happen to believe the .338 Win. is the best North American magnum cartridge, all things considered..

For those that have to have something different its probably a great choice, much like a wildcat round, lots of good ones out there and it they bring joy to your heart then have at it..:)

The 8mm Remington Magnum may have sold better if it had been sent onto the field as, say, the ".325 Remington Magnum."

But Remington, in its minuscule wisdom, decided that the market that year was lusting for a metric magnum.

Remington has long been driven by sales superficies rather than by what's field-practical.

Pity.

Remington was possibly trying to recapture the magic that made the 7mm Remington Magnum one of the most successful cartridges introduced in the second half of the 20th century.

Of course they were � but were nevertheless too spot-visioned to realize that field performance was far, far more attractive and persuasive to shooters than cartridge designation, sales gimmickry, or ad propaganda.

I'll never forget how long, vociferously, and enthusiastically the Remington big shots bragged to us how much time, money, and "thought" they had put into market research to determine whether their stuff would sell better in yellow boxes with green lettering or in green boxes with yellow lettering. But I don't remember what they introduced at that particular shindig.

All that, I hasten to add, was the old Remington. I've never been surprised that they had to acquire new owners, and I fervently hope (and assume) that the new owners' new management team has a lot more practical sense.

I'm with Ken, the Remington bean counters rate right up there with the Obama administration and the far left, they talk the talk, but none of them have walked the walk..I don't think they shoot guns or hunt animals, and that also includes the Obama administration! at least that has been my take on Remington!

When it finally dawned on Remington to come up with a control feed, they just made a deal with a well known but poor quality Mauser maker..If they were smart they would have given the old Rem 700 a long extractor, a M-70 safety etc. and made it a controll feed rifle IMO..

Winchester was right up there with Remington for awhile with the post 64 junk, but after Lord knows how many years and changes in ownership they came around a bit and after years of failure they reinvented the wheel and brought out a new pre 64 type rifle, that was a big move, and may have put them back on track but perhaps too little too late, I don't know. I still buy pre 64s.

I think Ruger has been the most progressive and has made an honest effort to give us what we want..

Just my personal opine, and I wouldn't swear to any of it..

It was a pretty decent round that suffered from bad press and a lack of decent 8mm bullets at that time.