Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: 220 gr. Hawk in 8x57

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29

    Default 220 gr. Hawk in 8x57

    I'm thinking that the 220 gr. Hawk is the moose/bear bullet in 8x57: For that application in that caliber, you want 220 gr. But at the velocities that 8mm Mauser can achieve with a bullet of that weight, you'd need the easily expanding Hawk bullet, right?

    How fast do you think I can get that bullet going out of the Mauser?

  2. #2
    Member 8x57 Mauser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southeast Alaska
    Posts
    513

    Default

    I haven't loaded the 220s. Some online poking suggests IMR 3031 might get you into the low 2300 fps range.

    Slower powders (4350s?) might get you as high as 2500, but that's likely to be pushing it, and with a solidly built bullet like the Hawk, you don't need it.

    I'm not all that familiar with the bullet offerings in 220 grains. Hard to go wrong with Hawk, but anything soft enough to open at an impact velocity of 1800+ should serve you well at moderate ranges.

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29

    Default

    I can get 220 gr. bullets going upwards of 2450 fps.

    Should I go w/Woodleigh or Hawk?

    If you were carrying an 8mm Mauser, and you were charged by a bear, would you rather have hot loads of 220 gr. Woodleighs or hot loads of 220 gr. Hawks?

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    porcupine creek
    Posts
    225

    Default 8mm rifle

    If you really like your 8mm rifle maybe you should consider reaming the chamber out to 8mm/06 , a really simple process that gives you more fps without the hassles of bolt face opening or feeding problems and you'll have an official wildcat cartridge .

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBC View Post
    I can get 220 gr. bullets going upwards of 2450 fps.

    Should I go w/Woodleigh or Hawk?

    If you were carrying an 8mm Mauser, and you were charged by a bear, would you rather have hot loads of 220 gr. Woodleighs or hot loads of 220 gr. Hawks?
    I haven't tried the Hawk in 8mm, but have used them in other calibers. I wouldn't sweat the Hawk on bear or moose in the least.

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Until I get this converted (IOW, as long as it remains 8x57, which may be another year), I'm actually thinking 200 gr. a-frame as a bear load.

    I know that I can get it over 2600 fps. MAYBE over 2650.

    Thoughts?

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29

    Default

    You know, I was doing some thinking, and the meaningful differences between 8x57 and 338-06 are actually marginal.

    Let's compare the 8x57 shooting 200 gr. A-frames to the 338-06 shooting 225 gr. A-frames:

    Caliber: .323 vs. .338 (caliber difference of .015)

    SD: .274 vs. .281 (SD difference of .007)

    MV: 2600-2650 vs. 2650-2700 (fps difference of 50)

    So really, is the .338 going to make a bigger hole? I guess SLIGHTLY.
    Is the SD of .281 going to penetrate deeper? I guess SLIGHTLY.
    Are the 50 extra fps going to make a difference? I guess SLIGHTLY.

    The only significant difference that I can think of is energy. Approx. 500 ft.-lbs. difference.

    So, question is, if the bear doesn't feel any of the other differences, is he going to feel the difference between 3000 ft.-lbs. of energy and 3500 ft.-lbs. of energy?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    1,888

    Default

    You're right, 50 fps isn't a bunch. BUT, that's a gain of 50fps with a 10% heavier bullet, so it becomes more signifigant.... What would the gain be with matching bullet weights, whether 200 gr, or 220 gr? More signifigant no doubt.
    That said, the 8x57 is a good cartridge enough cartridge to stand on it's own merits.
    Vance in AK.

    Matthew 6:33
    "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29

    Default

    yeah, the 338-06 is superior on all counts, no question. I'm just saying that that superiority may not make as big a difference as we're inclined to assume.

    We have to distinguish between external ballistics (the kind that's so much fun to discuss) and terminal ballistics (the only kind that bears care about).

    Bullet weight in and of itself means nothing. It's the relation of bullet weight to caliber that means something: sectional density.
    So, comparing 200 gr. .323 bullets to 200 gr. .338 bullets is comparing apples and oranges. From an SD perspective, 200 gr. and 225 gr. (respectively) is the fair comparison.

    Another reason that it is appropriate to make this comparison is that 200 gr. is weight of choice among many 8x57 big game hunters, and 225 gr. is weight of choice among many 338-06 big game hunters.

    At the end of the day, their SD is very similar, which leaves caliber (primarily) to determine effectiveness; but, caliber is also very similar.

    I conclude that in terms of concrete terminal factors, the superiority of the 338-06 over the 8x57 is slight.

    I will grant, however, that the superiority of the 338-06 in several key areas combines to make an energy difference of approx. 500 ft.-lbs.
    I am of the school of thought that, all other things being equal, the greater the energy, the greater the destruction. That energy is carried, via fluids and tissues, beyond the physical reach of the bullet.

    So, what is the terminal difference between a .323 bullet w/SD of .274 traveling @ 2650 fps and carrying 3,000 ft.-lbs. of energy, and a .338 bullet w/SD of .281 traveling @ 2700 fps and carrying 3,500 ft.-lbs. of energy?
    I guess that only observable tests will tell.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBC View Post
    yeah, the 338-06 is superior on all counts, no question. I'm just saying that that superiority may not make as big a difference as we're inclined to assume.

    We have to distinguish between external ballistics (the kind that's so much fun to discuss) and terminal ballistics (the only kind that bears care about).

    Bullet weight in and of itself means nothing. It's the relation of bullet weight to caliber that means something: sectional density.
    So, comparing 200 gr. .323 bullets to 200 gr. .338 bullets is comparing apples and oranges. From an SD perspective, 200 gr. and 225 gr. (respectively) is the fair comparison.

    Another reason that it is appropriate to make this comparison is that 200 gr. is weight of choice among many 8x57 big game hunters, and 225 gr. is weight of choice among many 338-06 big game hunters.

    At the end of the day, their SD is very similar, which leaves caliber (primarily) to determine effectiveness; but, caliber is also very similar.

    I conclude that in terms of concrete terminal factors, the superiority of the 338-06 over the 8x57 is slight.

    I will grant, however, that the superiority of the 338-06 in several key areas combines to make an energy difference of approx. 500 ft.-lbs.
    I am of the school of thought that, all other things being equal, the greater the energy, the greater the destruction. That energy is carried, via fluids and tissues, beyond the physical reach of the bullet.

    So, what is the terminal difference between a .323 bullet w/SD of .274 traveling @ 2650 fps and carrying 3,000 ft.-lbs. of energy, and a .338 bullet w/SD of .281 traveling @ 2700 fps and carrying 3,500 ft.-lbs. of energy?
    I guess that only observable tests will tell.
    I've got a long, thin history with the 8x57, 8mm-06, 338-06, and briefly with an 8x57 Ackely. If there's a nickel's difference between them on game, I never have been able to spot it. All are good rounds, so you decide which one you believe in and want to dump your bux on.

    By the same token, with both muzzleloaders and handguns I've killed deer with a fair range of calibers or cartridges generating less than 500 foot pounds of energy. The big question for you is whether an added 500 foot pounds kills anything enough deader to make the investment and trouble worthwhile.

    Me, in your shoes? I have no probs using an 8x57 rather than any of the other rounds, provided it was accurate enough for my specs.

  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Thanks for weighing in w/your experience, BB.

    That helps confirm what I was thinking. The 338-06 is great (many ppl call it "sexy"...not sure about that), and I plan to convert to it, eventually.

    But, in the short term, its superiority over the 8x57 seems slight, as I said.


    Hmm...I just got a weird bee in my bonnet to shoot every big game animal in AK w/the 8x57...
    Kinda like that guy who did the African big 5 w/45-70...

    Do we have a name for that? AK grand slam, or something?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •