Is the 8x57 really that lackluster?

One german is a lawyer
Two germans are a beer garden
Three germans are a war

I have no doubt that a 30-06, 8mm mouser or a .303 will take down a moose with a factory load as it has been done over and over.
I also see no reason to see how much powder you can load into a case in excess of factory specs. The moose won't know the difference between hit at 2400 FPS or 2800FPS
 
I believe this to be true in both 7.92x57mm and 7.62x54R. Do you have a reliable source of European loading specs?

All I find is American loading data, and I can surpass the maximum loads with better results.

I bought a few boxes of this S&B ammo

Bullet type SPCE
14_mrd.jpg

P/N V331812
2945 fps
196gr Bullet
Cartridge weight 27,2g
Cartridge Length 76mm
 
I believe this to be true in both 7.92x57mm and 7.62x54R. Do you have a reliable source of European loading specs?

All I find is American loading data, and I can surpass the maximum loads with better results.

No, I'm sorry I don't. I haven't started reloading yet.

I usually just find the velocity and energy of similar rounds as reported by a company like Prvi Partizan, and then compare them to their American counterparts of Federal, Winchester or Remington.

http://www.prvipartizan.com/

As you know, there is a tremendous difference. Prvi lists several loads for the 7.92x57mm, and it is easy to see which ones were developed for the American market.

I would check with your powder maker though, and ask them if they have any recipes developed for European pressures.
 
Just load the 200 grain Speer bullet with 44 grains of IMR-4064. This produces 2400 fps in my 29" long Mauser barrel.

The maximum load is 46 grains and with this you can expect about 2500 fps from a typical 24" long barrel.

And this load is actually quite soft shooting--believe it or not. A 200 grain bullet at that speed would be a serious hunting proposition.
 
I bought a few boxes of this S&B ammo

Bullet type SPCE
14_mrd.jpg

P/N V331812
2945 fps
196gr Bullet
Cartridge weight 27,2g
Cartridge Length 76mm

No, I'm sorry I don't. I haven't started reloading yet.

I usually just find the velocity and energy of similar rounds as reported by a company like Prvi Partizan, and then compare them to their American counterparts of Federal, Winchester or Remington.

http://www.prvipartizan.com/

As you know, there is a tremendous difference. Prvi lists several loads for the 7.92x57mm, and it is easy to see which ones were developed for the American market.

I would check with your powder maker though, and ask them if they have any recipes developed for European pressures.



I'm finding a huge difference with PRVI and S&B compared to north american ammo makers. When I first started seeing S&B and PRVI coming onto our market, I wrote it off as "cheap foreign ammo", but this has proven to be the opposite. It is extremely good quality ammo for a really fair price. I hope they expand in the Canadian market, American ammunition makers downplay the effectiveness of these calibers as well as drop pressures for both reasons of liability and ignorance. Its time this has changed.

Rounds such as 8mm Mauser are one example of superior calibers, and has been working well in Europe for a hundred years.
 
I'm finding a huge difference with PRVI and S&B compared to north american ammo makers. When I first started seeing S&B and PRVI coming onto our market, I wrote it off as "cheap foreign ammo", but this has proven to be the opposite. It is extremely good quality ammo for a really fair price. I hope they expand in the Canadian market....

I too love the 8x57mm S&B ammo....:evil:...it's fun & good (and hotter ) stuff ! :D
 
I'm finding a huge difference with PRVI and S&B compared to north american ammo makers. When I first started seeing S&B and PRVI coming onto our market, I wrote it off as "cheap foreign ammo", but this has proven to be the opposite. It is extremely good quality ammo for a really fair price. I hope they expand in the Canadian market, American ammunition makers downplay the effectiveness of these calibers as well as drop pressures for both reasons of liability and ignorance. Its time this has changed.

Rounds such as 8mm Mauser are one example of superior calibers, and has been working well in Europe for a hundred years.

I haven't tried the S&B yet, but I am quite fond of the Prvi Partizan. It's very accurate ammo, albeit a little dirty. To be fair though, only Federal ammo seems to be really clean to me, of the brands I've tried.

Here is five shot group from last Fall at 25M, from my Brazilian M1935 Mauser in 7x57mm. Those sights were staked in 1937 and they were dead on for windage. The group was a little high, but then again, I haven't been able to shoot it at 100M yet to see if the ladder sights are calibrated for the 173 gr. Prvi load. The upper left shot was my fault for squirming around. Otherwise, I was really happy with the group.

The load and group at 25M:
IMG_7135.jpg


The range:
IMG_7131ede.jpg


The rifle:
IMG_7126ede.jpg



I agree with you about the ignorance of the 7.92x57mm and similar European calibers on this side of the Atlantic. I have no use for all of the modern short magnum cartridges, when the same results can be accomplished from a rifle chambered in; 6.5x55mm, 7x57mm, .30-06, 7.92x57mm, or 9.3x62mm. Not only that, a lot of those old rifles can be quickly loaded via 5 round stripper clips, and have superb ladder sights that can range from 100M, to well out past a kilometer.

If anything, I'd like to see some modern equivalents made. Especially in left hand configurations.
 
Not surprised to see the sights are high. Not sure about that model, but the German army used a 300 meter zero.

You have to wonder what war they were expecting to fight with those kind of distances! Probably WWI thinking.
 
Actually, the long ranges for the sights were more a result of BOER WAR thinking. Ranges were sometimes very long in that war. The Great War was very different, only the earliest phases requiring long-range shooting..... which the Old Contemptibles did magnificently.

I was told by men who were there, that in the Winter of 1915, you had to keep your voice down, otherwise Fritz would join in the conversation! And you did NOT do anything offensive at ALL, not at 20 or 30 yards' range. I believe my grandfather's longest shot as a 54 B'n sniper was about 400 yards; he did it with a Ross, of course.

BTW, the German Army today does its 100-metre shooting from the HIP, same as their great-grandfathers did at Mons, according to serving friends actually in the Bundeswehr. This is a holdover from the DREYSE, fergawdssakes: the thing would spit gas out the breech at you after about a dozen rounds. But the tradition has survived, even though it is more than a bit counterproductive with the Kar 98k, or with the G-3.
.
 
Last edited:
BTW, the German Army today does its 100-metre shooting from the HIP, same as their great-grandfathers did at Mons, according to serving friends actually in the Bundeswehr. This is a holdover from the DREYSE, fergawdssakes: the thing would spit gas out the breech at you after about a dozen rounds. But the tradition has survived, even though it is more than a bit counterproductive with the Kar 98k, or with the G-3.
.

Shooting a needle from the hip eh? I should try that up in the clinic today ;)
 
The Rifle at one time was considered the main weapon, offensive as well as defensive.

"The machine gun is a vastly over-rated weapon; two per battalion is more than sufficient." It was Kitchener himself who came up with that one.... and he was right, from his own experience with Gardners, Gatlings, Nordenfeldts. The Maxim Gun was a whole different kettle of fish, one might say and the Lewis was yet another. British troops went into the Great War with TWO MGs per battalion, ended the War with a hundred-plus.... but that ALL came about DURING the Great War.

British Army entered the Great War with a peacetime establishment of artillery and not even enough ammunition to run the guns they already had, (being that they had shot off most of their War Reserve in training because the Government wouldn't give them enough money to buy shells), much less train men on the ones they were having made. Artillery ammo ration as late as the Summer of 1916 was TWO ROUNDS per gun per day, even when supporting a major attack. NOW you know why those casualty-lists are so horridly long.

The whole concept of infantry/artillery/machinegun co-operation only came about during the Great War. Regina Trench was the KEY: that was where the Canadians developed the new techniques, largely between October 1, 1916 and November 13,1916. THESE were the techniques used to TAKE Vimy Ridge; they provided the road-map, so to speak, for the rest of the War.

BIG instance of infantry/artillery/machinegun/armour co-operation was at GAZA, late in the War. Bombardment went on for 4 days and nights, increasing from slow fire to rapid, then the MGs opened up, the Tanks went in, the PBI followed...... and Johnny Turk just wasn't there any more. Sgt. Angus Kellie, 380 Siege Bty, 51 Div Arty, PEF, told me that they unloaded and stacked ammunition for the 100-pdrs for two WEEKS, then shot it all off in 4 days. After that, he hitched his Mark VIII How up to his Holt Tractor and chased Johnny Turk all the way to Jerusalem and then on to Damascus.

THAT was co-operation..... but it did not exist, nor did the technology to create it exist, only three years previously.

BTW, one of the engineers who sorted out the Shell Scandal, and then the Aircraft Production mess, was Clifford Hugh Douglas, the man who also designed SOCIAL CREDIT, the ONLY scientifically-designed monetary system in history. Bears reading up on, one would think.

For the "coming year", read what J.F.C. Fuller put together in his "Plan 1919"; he was ready to unleash the Blitzkrieg and knock Germany out of the War in 2 weeks or less. Only guy who took him seriously was a fellow named Guderian...... who taught it to a guy named Rommel....... twenty years later.

But at the outbeak of the War in 1914, the infantry rifle was considered a very important piece of equipment and so was sighted to do any job demanded of it, including half-mile shots when and as required simply because the machine-guns required did not exist.

Hope his helps.
.
 
Smellie I do believe I like reading your posts more than any other person's on here.

If I had a fantasy campfire circle of CGNers sitting around talking you would head the list.

The Rifle at one time was considered the main weapon, offensive as well as defensive.

"The machine gun is a vastly over-rated weapon; two per battalion is more than sufficient." It was Kitchener himself who came up with that one.... and he was right, from his own experience with Gardners, Gatlings, Nordenfeldts. The Maxim Gun was a whole different kettle of fish, one might say and the Lewis was yet another. British troops went into the Great War with TWO MGs per battalion, ended the War with a hundred-plus.... but that ALL came about DURING the Great War.

British Army entered the Great War with a peacetime establishment of artillery and not even enough ammunition to run the guns they already had, (being that they had shot off most of their War Reserve in training because the Government wouldn't give them enough money to buy shells), much less train men on the ones they were having made. Artillery ammo ration as late as the Summer of 1916 was TWO ROUNDS per gun per day, even when supporting a major attack. NOW you know why those casualty-lists are so horridly long.

The whole concept of infantry/artillery/machinegun co-operation only came about during the Great War. Regina Trench was the KEY: that was where the Canadians developed the new techniques, largely between October 1, 1916 and November 13,1916. THESE were the techniques used to TAKE Vimy Ridge; they provided the road-map, so to speak, for the rest of the War.

BIG instance of infantry/artillery/machinegun/armour co-operation was at GAZA, late in the War. Bombardment went on for 4 days and nights, increasing from slow fire to rapid, then the MGs opened up, the Tanks went in, the PBI followed...... and Johnny Turk just wasn't there any more. Sgt. Angus Kellie, 380 Siege Bty, 51 Div Arty, PEF, told me that they unloaded and stacked ammunition for the 100-pdrs for two WEEKS, then shot it all off in 4 days. After that, he hitched his Mark VIII How up to his Holt Tractor and chased Johnny Turk all the way to Jerusalem and then on to Damascus.

THAT was co-operation..... but it did not exist, nor did the technology to create it exist, only three years previously.

BTW, one of the engineers who sorted out the Shell Scandal, and then the Aircraft Production mess, was Clifford Hugh Douglas, the man who also designed SOCIAL CREDIT, the ONLY scientifically-designed monetary system in history. Bears reading up on, one would think.

For the "coming year", read what J.F.C. Fuller put together in his "Plan 1919"; he was ready to unleash the Blitzkrieg and knock Germany out of the War in 2 weeks or less. Only guy who took him seriously was a fellow named Guderian...... who taught it to a guy named Rommel....... twenty years later.

But at the outbeak of the War in 1914, the infantry rifle was considered a very important piece of equipment and so was sighted to do any job demanded of it, including half-mile shots when and as required simply because the machine-guns required did not exist.

Hope his helps.
.
 
I used to push 200 gr Nosler Partitions just shy of 2700 fps in my M98 WWI small ring action, sporter Mauser. Haven't shot the gun for awhile but I think it was 52 grains of IMR4350 and 3.2" overall length.

RWS, Sellier & Bellot and Norma all have proper loadings for the 8x57mm.


M98 Small Ring?


oh... and a 200gr NP at >2650 is awesome.
 
Smellie I do believe I like reading your posts more than any other person's on here.

If I had a fantasy campfire circle of CGNers sitting around talking you would head the list.

I'll second that.

"Smellie's Fireside Chats" :D

How about an article a week Smellie? You've got to get all that insight down on paper sometime!
 
The Rifle at one time was considered the main weapon, offensive as well as defensive.

I remember reading accoutns about the various WWII armed forces' difficulties/differences when it came to deploying the machine-gun inside infantry formations....:yingyang:....I think the German model was the one eventually adopted by the majority of post-WWII armed forces ? ....:confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom