Regarding the title: what cartridge results from necking down the 8x57 to 7mm and trimming back to 57mm with no other changes? No, it isn't the standard 7x57mm Mauser, since the shoulder length and angle are different. And it has probably 5% greater capacity than the 7x57 Mauser, and perhaps 13% greater capacity than the 7mm-08.
I am sort of with kenster99 on this one but if you have done the calculations I'll take your word for the extra case capacity. I guess my question would be why? If you want more capacity than the 7x57 just get a .280 Remington and save a lot of messing about.
Assuming speeds in the 2800-2900 fps area for a standard 7X57, 5% greater case capacity should be good for about 1.5% greater velocity, i.e. around 42 to 43 fps more velocity at the same pressures.
Prepare to swoon: An 8x57 necked to 7mm Ackley tight neck fast twist heavy bullet 1000-yard one-holer.
Did I miss any fads?
I am sort of with kenster99 on this one but if you have done the calculations I'll take your word for the extra case capacity. I guess my question would be why? If you want more capacity than the 7x57 just get a .280 Remington and save a lot of messing about.
I could just use my 7x61 S&H. But that is not what I am asking. It would be a 7x57, but not a 7x57 Mauser. Does this cartridge already exist, and if so, what is it called?
You could call it a .280 Mauser...
You could call it a .280 Mauser...
I'll go .323 Mouser.
I am sort of with kenster99 on this one but if you have done the calculations I'll take your word for the extra case capacity. I guess my question would be why? If you want more capacity than the 7x57 just get a .280 Remington and save a lot of messing about.
I could just use my 7x61 S&H. But that is not what I am asking. It would be a 7x57, but not a 7x57 Mauser. Does this cartridge already exist, and if so, what is it called?
Yes it does exist, the 7mm Redundant
Man you can sure tell that hunting season is over. Looks like were in for some doozies this spring. powdr
why bother ... the 7x64 Brenneke the real 280 and well in advance.
Ok, I have a 8x63mm in a pre-war Mauser,barrel is marked that way
I think it would give you similar case capacity to the 284 win, but a little less IIRC.
Let me understand you want to take an 8 x 57 and neck it down to 7mm? Sounds like a hell of a cartridge to me, should perform well, and it might get a good monicker in time. Can wait to see it chambered in rifles!
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm in some of these replies? Nah, couldn't be; it must be my imagination.
By my calculations, the 7mm/8mm Mauser (I just named it!) would have about the same capacity as the 7x57 Ackley Improved, or around 61.4 grs water. Contrast that with the standard 7x57 at 55.5 grs, and the 7mm/08 at 52.2 grs. That represents a 10% increase over the 7x57, and 17% increase over the 7-08.
Regarding the title: what cartridge results from necking down the 8x57 to 7mm and trimming back to 57mm with no other changes? No, it isn't the standard 7x57mm Mauser, since the shoulder length and angle are different. And it has probably 5% greater capacity than the 7x57 Mauser, and perhaps 13% greater capacity than the 7mm-08.
Why is it that a guy asks a simple question and all he gets are questionable replies. Much like the simple question about annealing that was asked on here a few days ago.
Guys, all he is asking is what is the cartridge called. How [bleep] hard is that to understand? He's not saying that should be the next new wonder cartridge that we all can't live without.
I think it would give you similar case capacity to the 284 win, but a little less IIRC.
The .284 has 64.6 grs water vs. appx.61.4 for the 7mm/8x57. So you are very close.
I can be very wrong but I thought the original parent cases back in the 1890's were extremely similar if not the same. But the 7.9 x 57 (8 x 57) case evolved to its present form sometime in the interwar years. As a result of not only projectile diameter difference but also bullet weight and material conservation. Like war effort. The cartridge definitely went thru an evolution period. Think Olson hit on some of this in his Mauser book. Don't remember it all. Have destroyed considerable brain cells since I last read it!
Good luck in your endeavor!
Prepare to swoon: An 8x57 necked to 7mm Ackley tight neck fast twist heavy bullet 1000-yard one-holer.
Did I miss any fads?
The most important. Has to be a 6.5/.264 dia bullet.
Why not a 284win with a capacity of ~66 grains?
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm in some of these replies? Nah, couldn't be; it must be my imagination.
By my calculations, the 7mm/8mm Mauser (I just named it!) would have about the same capacity as the 7x57 Ackley Improved, or around 61.4 grs water. Contrast that with the standard 7x57 at 55.5 grs, and the 7mm/08 at 52.2 grs. That represents a 10% increase over the 7x57, and 17% increase over the 7-08.
Help me out: If what you're proposing is virtually the same as the 7x57AI, then why wouldn't you just chamber a rifle in 7x57AI, use the 8x57 brass for forming (if need be), and be done with it? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to figure out what's new and improved over something virtually identical that already exists?
Necked up to a 327
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm in some of these replies? Nah, couldn't be; it must be my imagination.
By my calculations, the 7mm/8mm Mauser (I just named it!) would have about the same capacity as the 7x57 Ackley Improved, or around 61.4 grs water. Contrast that with the standard 7x57 at 55.5 grs, and the 7mm/08 at 52.2 grs. That represents a 10% increase over the 7x57, and 17% increase over the 7-08.
Help me out: If what you're proposing is virtually the same as the 7x57AI, then why wouldn't you just chamber a rifle in 7x57AI, use the 8x57 brass for forming (if need be), and be done with it? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to figure out what's new and improved over something virtually identical that already exists?
NIH!
I can be very wrong but I thought the original parent cases back in the 1890's were extremely similar if not the same. But the 7.9 x 57 (8 x 57) case evolved to its present form sometime in the interwar years. As a result of not only projectile diameter difference but also bullet weight and material conservation. Like war effort. The cartridge definitely went thru an evolution period. Think Olson hit on some of this in his Mauser book. Don't remember it all. Have destroyed considerable brain cells since I last read it!
Good luck in your endeavor!
I think the case shape of the 8x57 stayed the same from the time of adoption to the present time.
What changed was bullets. It went from a 236-grain round nose, to a 154-grain spitzer in 1905, to the famous 196-grain SS load of WW2. (SS in this case stands for schweres spitzgeschoss which translates to heavy pointed bullet.)
I can be very wrong but I thought the original parent cases back in the 1890's were extremely similar if not the same. But the 7.9 x 57 (8 x 57) case evolved to its present form sometime in the interwar years. As a result of not only projectile diameter difference but also bullet weight and material conservation. Like war effort. The cartridge definitely went thru an evolution period. Think Olson hit on some of this in his Mauser book. Don't remember it all. Have destroyed considerable brain cells since I last read it!
Good luck in your endeavor!
I think the case shape of the 8x57 stayed the same from the time of adoption to the present time.
What changed was bullets. It went from a 236-grain round nose, to a 154-grain spitzer in 1905, to the famous 196-grain SS load of WW2. (SS in this case stands for schweres spitzgeschoss which translates to heavy pointed bullet.)
Bingo! That's it. The heavier bullet gave better performance at the longer ranges for LMG use! I also remember the dura-aluminum experiment for cases to be used on Zeppelins and such. Weren't too successful.
I can be very wrong but I thought the original parent cases back in the 1890's were extremely similar if not the same. But the 7.9 x 57 (8 x 57) case evolved to its present form sometime in the interwar years. As a result of not only projectile diameter difference but also bullet weight and material conservation. Like war effort. The cartridge definitely went thru an evolution period. Think Olson hit on some of this in his Mauser book. Don't remember it all. Have destroyed considerable brain cells since I last read it!
Good luck in your endeavor!
I think the case shape of the 8x57 stayed the same from the time of adoption to the present time.
What changed was bullets. It went from a 236-grain round nose, to a 154-grain spitzer in 1905, to the famous 196-grain SS load of WW2. (SS in this case stands for schweres spitzgeschoss which translates to heavy pointed bullet.)
Bingo! That's it. The heavier bullet gave better performance at the longer ranges for LMG use! I also remember the dura-aluminum experiment for cases to be used on Zeppelins and such. Weren't too successful.
There was also a schweres Spitzgeschoss mit Eisenkern. I.E. Heavy pointed bullet with iron core. I'm not sure if this bullet was manufactured as an armor-piercing round or if Germany was running short on lead, maybe both.
7x8x57
7-8mm
7mm-8mm
7/8mm
7-8x57
7/8x57
It sounds like a great round any way you spell it!
There was also a schweres Spitzgeschoss mit Eisenkern. I.E. Heavy pointed bullet with iron core. I'm not sure if this bullet was manufactured as an armor-piercing round or if Germany was running short on lead, maybe both.
That is an angle I had not considered before, if lead is too toxic to use in projectiles for hunting, why isn't Europe a desert?
Not meaning to HiJack the thread.....What would you call the 7x57 necked up to 8mm ????
Not meaning to HiJack the thread.....What would you call the 7x57 necked up to 8mm ????
8x7x57
8-7mm
8mm-7mm
8/7mm
8-7x57
8/7x57
Reading this thread made me curious. So I measured some case capacities using demineralized water. I didn't have 8x57 and 7x57 that were the same brand so the results don't mean much but are still interesting. I guess if you're looking for small gains in case capacity, case brand might be the place to look instead of changing case shape.
Winchester 8x57mm = 60.8 grains
Remington 7x57mm = 56.6 grains
Privi 7x57mm = 60.3 grains
Measured on Ohaus explorer Pro E2102C
rifle loonies do some strange stuff, just because they want to try it. I don't see the reason to beat 'em up for it though.
Yep! A fellow up here barrelled up a silhouette rifle to 6.5 on the 8x57 case. No changes other than reducing the neck diameter. Spent a lot of dough on the reamer and dies.
A few guys wanted to know why he didn't just use the 6.5x55 case, as the case capacity was almost identical? He told them he did it just because he wanted to.....
He won no small numbers of matches using it, too.
Ted
On the 8mm bullet weights: Years back I used a new surplus MG-34 8x57 barrel on a sporter I was putting together. I had to go over 200 grains to get any accuracy out of it. Even 180 range bullets shot terrible. Anybody know if twist rates were different in those barrels?
There was also a schweres Spitzgeschoss mit Eisenkern. I.E. Heavy pointed bullet with iron core. I'm not sure if this bullet was manufactured as an armor-piercing round or if Germany was running short on lead, maybe both.
That is an angle I had not considered before,
if lead is too toxic to use in projectiles for hunting, why isn't Europe a desert? Because very, very few Europeans think like Californian law makers.
rifle loonies do some strange stuff, just because they want to try it. I don't see the reason to beat 'em up for it though.
Oh, I don't know. Being called a fool because you ask a question isn't really so bad!
The ones adopting that attitude have never stood the two cartridges side by side to discover the considerable difference in shoulder position, and therefore case capacity.
Rather than post a picture, let's let them do it! Participatory learning, as opposed to simple lecture, results in greater understanding and comprehension.
Ted
(With apologies. Haven't had breakfast yet!)
Don't make no dang sense, 7x57 is a long action anyway, just make it 280 Remington.
Don't make no dang sense, 7x57 is a long action anyway, just make it 280 Remington.
Amen
Makes perfect sense to me. I prefer a 7x57 to a 280 Rem every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Exactly. beyond nostalgia, what will a 7x57 do that a 280 won't?
I once used to neck down 8x57 cases to 7x57 because I was short of brass. Works fine. Five pages of what's the big deal?
I know this is an older thread but I took the 8x57 case and opened up on the shoulder like the old Gibbs cartridges with a 40* shoulder so it a bit more that an Ackley. Then I chambered it from 6mm up through .375. in the 7mm version it outshoots my 280 Remington and almost up with my 280 Ackley, all out of an intermediate length Mauser. Couldn't be more happy with it. Call this the HSI (Hileman Super Improved) family. It's a wicked bunch of cartridges.
I have no clue what it is called. But I do know that I can't see from looking at the 7x57 cartridge dimensions and the 8x57 cartridge dimensions I can't agree there's that much difference in capacity. At least there's not enough to make it into anything close to a .280 Remington and especially not a .280 AI. As for my opinion, for any practical purposes the differences between an original 7x57 Mauser and making one out of an 8x57 case can be ignored. it might look great on paper but I bet in the real world they would be ballistic twins.
Regarding the title: what cartridge results from necking down the 8x57 to 7mm and trimming back to 57mm with no other changes? No, it isn't the standard 7x57mm Mauser, since the shoulder length and angle are different. And it has probably 5% greater capacity than the 7x57 Mauser, and perhaps 13% greater capacity than the 7mm-08.
Criminy...
Why not just re-chamber to 7X57 AI and make it easy?
Because we are rifle loonies?
Ted
Naw, the 7x57 isn't a Barsness-Sisk wildcat....
Exactly. beyond nostalgia, what will a 7x57 do that a 280 won't?
Have a slower bullet traveling a higher arch in trajectory.
No replacement for displacement.
A larger powder tank (fuselage) has good usage.
Jerry
The ones adopting that attitude have never stood the two cartridges side by side to discover the considerable difference in shoulder position, and therefore case capacity.
Rather than post a picture, let's let them do it! Participatory learning, as opposed to simple lecture, results in greater understanding and comprehension.
Ted
(With apologies. Haven't had breakfast yet!)
The 7x57 = 1.470" to the beginning of the shoulder.
The 8x57 = 1.500" to the beginning of the shoulder.
Both cartridge cases are 57MM in length.
What was the question again????
Paul B.
I don’t know
Tamiflu is for influenza not stomach flu I think
She was on fam room couch at lunch
The 7x57 = 1.470" to the beginning of the shoulder.
The 8x57 = 1.500" to the beginning of the shoulder.
Both cartridge cases are 57MM in length.
What was the question again????
Paul B.
Compare the O D at the bases and shoulders. UIM the 8mm is larger Around.
Jerry
From Above ^^^^^^^^
"Compare the O D at the bases and shoulders. UIM the 8mm is larger Around."
There is NOT as much diff as I thot. It looks a little larger due to the 8mm neck compared to 7mm neck.
7X57 - Base OD = .471
8X57 - Base OD = .469
7X57 - Shold OD = .431
8X57 - Shold OD = .434
Jerry
Call it the 7mm/8mmx57 Creedmauser.
Might be better to simply stay with the 8mm bore and use 7mm bullets and a sabot. For extreme range, 6.5mm bullets in an appropriate sabot. Larger base area results in higher velocities, no bullet deformation from rifleing means a better and more consistent BC. Regardless of how it's done, there is little doubt this will be an exciting development. Before we jump right into it though, we might want to consider necking up the 6mm Remington instead. Has anyone given any thought to the 7.5x55 Swiss necked down to 7? GD
Using the 8x57 case and resizing it to 7 probably makes as much sense as reducing a 284 bore to 277...............
The only real difference between the 8x57 and 7x57 case is that the shoulder on the 8x57 is further forward by 0.099". It does then have additional case capacity. Enough to be worth the effort? Hard to say.
I like the 7x57 as is. If the 7x57 is built on a standard length action, leade allowing, you can seat bullets out to a longer COAL and thereby increase the case capacity without resorting to any wildcat shenanigans.
But if it scratches an itch you have, have at it!
If I have the need for more capacity, I bust out the .280 AI.
Here are some maximum dimensions for the two cartridges according to CIP, with mm measurements converted to inches:
7x57 8x57
--------------
Rim Thickness: .0453 .0512
Rim Diameter: .4764 .4705
Head diameter: .4728 .4701
Shoulder dia: .4299 .4311
Shoulder length: 1.7260 1.8190
Shoulder angle: 20.90° 19.10°
The 8x57 values were based on the 8x57 IS cartridge data. SAAMI values for the same cartridges differ a bit from CIP values. Most cartridges will have actual measurements less than those listed here.
Using the approximate volume values in Ken Howell's cartridge book, the 8x57 case will have about 6% greater capacity.
Name? Call it the 7mm Bandukwalla, or 280 or .284 Bandukwalla. With a British accent, it might be the 275 Bandukwalla.
--Bob
Call it the 7mm/8mmx57 Creedmauser.
........ Amazing that a "Creed" comment didn't show up until page 7...... While I was thinking Germanic stuff like 7mm Creedenscheutzen.
Darn, it coulda been the parent case for the .270 Ingwe...
Here are some maximum dimensions for the two cartridges according to CIP, with mm measurements converted to inches:
7x57 8x57
--------------
Rim Thickness: .0453 .0512
Rim Diameter: .4764 .4705
Head diameter: .4728 .4701
Shoulder dia: .4299 .4311
Shoulder length: 1.7260 1.8190
Shoulder angle: 20.90° 19.10°
The 8x57 values were based on the 8x57 IS cartridge data. SAAMI values for the same cartridges differ a bit from CIP values. Most cartridges will have actual measurements less than those listed here.
Using the approximate volume values in Ken Howell's cartridge book, the 8x57 case will have about 6% greater capacity.
Name? Call it the 7mm Bandukwalla, or 280 or .284 Bandukwalla. With a British accent, it might be the 275 Bandukwalla.
--Bob
I like the way you think; I'll call it the 275 Bandukwalla
Here are some maximum dimensions for the two cartridges according to CIP, with mm measurements converted to inches:
7x57 8x57
--------------
Rim Thickness: .0453 .0512
Rim Diameter: .4764 .4705
Head diameter: .4728 .4701
Shoulder dia: .4299 .4311
Shoulder length: 1.7260 1.8190
Shoulder angle: 20.90° 19.10°
The 8x57 values were based on the 8x57 IS cartridge data. SAAMI values for the same cartridges differ a bit from CIP values. Most cartridges will have actual measurements less than those listed here.
Using the approximate volume values in Ken Howell's cartridge book, the 8x57 case will have about 6% greater capacity.
Name? Call it the 7mm Bandukwalla, or 280 or .284 Bandukwalla. With a British accent, it might be the 275 Bandukwalla.
--Bob
I like the way you think; I'll call it the 275 Bandukwalla
I like the way you think; I'll call it the 275 Bandukwalla.
B-
Thank you. Thank you very much!
--Bob
Is that you Elvis ?
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm in some of these replies? Nah, couldn't be; it must be my imagination.
By my calculations, the 7mm/8mm Mauser (I just named it!) would have about the same capacity as the 7x57 Ackley Improved, or around 61.4 grs water. Contrast that with the standard 7x57 at 55.5 grs, and the 7mm/08 at 52.2 grs. That represents a 10% increase over the 7x57, and 17% increase over the 7-08.
Help me out: If what you're proposing is virtually the same as the 7x57AI, then why wouldn't you just chamber a rifle in 7x57AI, use the 8x57 brass for forming (if need be), and be done with it? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to figure out what's new and improved over something virtually identical that already exists?
Right, or he could join the 21st Century and just build a 7mm WSM, short action and all. (I'll be here all night, be sure to tip the waitress.)
Prepare to swoon: An 8x57 necked to 7mm Ackley tight neck fast twist heavy bullet 1000-yard one-holer.
Did I miss any fads?
Did you fit Creedmore in there,?
I remember Jon R Sundra doing parallel studies on the 8x57. 8x57 JRS is what it shall be named.
Is that you Elvis ?
jwall-
Probably not. Elvis has left the building.
--Bob
I don't have a 8x57 but I do have three 7x57s. Does anyone know where I may buy Lapua 7x57 ammo or brass? No, well that is why I am thinking about buying 8x57 Lapua brass and running them thru a 7x57 die. That should work, right?
I don't have a 8x57 but I do have three 7x57s. Does anyone know where I may buy Lapua 7x57 ammo or brass? No, well that is why I am thinking about buying 8x57 Lapua brass and running them thru a 7x57 die. That should work, right?
It should work just fine
I have designed a series of cartridges based on the .275 Bandukwallah. They are: 6x57 B; 6.5x57B; .275B (parent); 7.62x57B; .323B; .338x57B; 9x57B; 9.3x57B; 9.5x57B. No home is complete without one or more of these!
I don't have a 8x57 but I do have three 7x57s. Does anyone know where I may buy Lapua 7x57 ammo or brass? No, well that is why I am thinking about buying 8x57 Lapua brass and running them thru a 7x57 die. That should work, right?
Necking 308 Palma Lapua to 260, the necks need to be turned to fit in a chamber made with a standard reamer.
Necking 8x57 Win brass to 7x57 and then to 257 Roberts, the necks do not to be turned for a standard reamer.