280 Remington

[old heeler]

That has not been my experience with the .280AI and 7RM. The .280's a great round, but even blown out, it doesn't have anywhere near the capacity as the 7RM.

Maybe if you compared a 26" .280AI to an 18" or 20" 7RM? I owned 24" 700's in both at one point, while the difference might not have meant much of anything in the field, there certainly was a difference. One eats more powder, barks louder, flies faster, and punches harder.

I'm considering doing another 280AI on one of my .30-06 Ruger M77MkII's, but I'm leaning more towards another 6.5-06 Imp instead right now.

I shot 7mag with 63gr/IMR-4831 @ 2991fps and I could push it, get little over 3000fps with 160gr Partition and I killed my first bull elk with that rifle when I moved Co 1977. I took 9 bulls with that rifle and my back-up rifle was 7 Wby. I'd also loaded Hornady 154gr and shot few with that.

I have two load for my spec 280AI one is with R-17/160gr AB, started at 53gr @ 2834fps and worked up to 56gr @ 3046 fps and if I used mag primer like I did in 7mag that same load would be 3111fps. Other one was with IMR-7828ssc and was load out of Nosler manual, I started 56.5gr/IMR-7828ssc @ 2828fps and max @ 60.5gr/IMR-7828ssc @ 3058fps and if I used mag primer it would be 3094fps. I'm sure if I was to build 7mag today, I could do better than one I shot 1977 and my 280AI is 1" long than 7mag.

I like 7mag case and I neck that up to 30cal and makes for nice elk rifle. Hornady has loading data for 280AI with 24" barrel and he's got few loads with162gr @ 2900fps and 7mag is 3000fps and that has 24" barrel.

Why don't you post loading data, let everyone see what your post about.

 

[salt&battery]

I shot 7mag with 63gr/IMR-4831 @ 2991fps and I could push it, get little over 3000fps with 160gr Partition and I killed my first bull elk with that rifle when I moved Co 1977. I took 9 bulls with that rifle and my back-up rifle was 7 Wby. I'd also loaded Hornady 154gr and shot few with that.

I have two load for my spec 280AI one is with R-17/160gr AB, started at 53gr @ 2834fps and worked up to 56gr @ 3046 fps and if I used mag primer like I did in 7mag that same load would be 3111fps. Other one was with IMR-7828ssc and was load out of Nosler manual, I started 56.5gr/IMR-7828ssc @ 2828fps and max @ 60.5gr/IMR-7828ssc @ 3058fps and if I used mag primer it would be 3094fps. I'm sure if I was to build 7mag today, I could do better than one I shot 1977 and my 280AI is 1" long than 7mag.

I like 7mag case and I neck that up to 30cal and makes for nice elk rifle. Hornady has loading data for 280AI with 24" barrel and he's got few loads with162gr @ 2900fps and 7mag is 3000fps and that has 24" barrel.

Why don't you post loading data, let everyone see what your post about.

in most manuals I see the 7MM rem mag going a little over 100 fps faster the 280 AI

 

[Captcurt]

280? Possibly the best round that I have never owned. It has it all and the best bullet selection second only to it's parent.

 

[salt&battery]

280? Possibly the best round that I have never owned. It has it all and the best bullet selection second only to it's parent.

it is amazing such a fine round never got as popular as it deserved all because it had the name Remington attached to it

 

[MistWolf]

It's speculated that the 280 got off to a bad start because Remington kept pressures (and thus velocities) conservative in a market where velocity was king. The 280 was seen by shooters as inferior to the slightly faster 270. It was also rumored that Remington kept velocities low to keep the 280 from encroaching on sales of the 7mm Remington Magnum.

Ah, those were the days!

 

[salt&battery]

It's speculated that the 280 got off to a bad start because Remington kept pressures (and thus velocities) conservative in a market where velocity was king. The 280 was seen by shooters as inferior to the slightly faster 270. It was also rumored that Remington kept velocities low to keep the 280 from encroaching on sales of the 7mm Remington Magnum.

Ah, those were the days!

with the right length barrel and slow powder the 280 does come close to the 7mm mag. maybe rem didn't trust their auto and pump rifles the 280 was chambered in kept pressure low

 

[MistWolf]

maybe rem didn't trust their auto and pump rifles the 280 was chambered in kept pressure low

That's the claim. But, those same rifles were also available in 270 Winchester

 

[salt&battery]

That's the claim. But, those same rifles were also available in 270 Winchester

and also in 30-06 I think. some one told me the 280 first came out in their auto before they thought of putting it in the 700 bolt gun

 

[DRYHUMOR]

I use IMR4831, BR2, and 162 AMAX in an old Tikka .280. Works like a charm, it's a very accurate rifle. I have another built one in an 8 twist, that all I've done so far is a bit of barrel break in. It shows a lot of potential.

 

[flashhole]

Also a 233

Add the 25-06 to the mix. Outstanding cartridge.

 

[MachIVshooter]

My 7x57 is a 98 commercial Mauser action, and it is instrumented for measuring pressure.

Ackley was right: Case capacity beyond that of the 308 adds diminishing velocity advantage in a bullet this size. The case may have more capacity, but efficiency is less and the gains are small. The 7mm Mag burns a huge gob of powder to get its muzzle velocity. It may be very effective, but it is also very inefficient: 40% more powder for 5% more muzzle velocity.

The muzzle velocity advantage of the 280 over the 7x57 (loaded to more modern pressure) is just about nil. Here are a couple of 7x57 loads for comparison.

150 grain bullet, 56.6 KPSI, 2864 FPS
162 grain bullet, 56.1 KPSI, 2762 FPS
(Note that these loads could accept more powder, for 75-100 additional FPS)

.

Your math is a little off. 2750 FPS to 3150 FPS is a wee bit more than 5%. Efficiency will always drop as powder capacity increases. If all you care about is efficiency, then why not go to a 7mm BR? 7-30 Waters? How about a straight walled case holding just 10 or 15 grains? Oh, because they're not as powerful as the 7x57.

It's the same reason that people opt for .280, 7mm Rem Mag, 7mm STW, 7mm Ultra.

The .280 will push any bullet 150-200 FPS faster than 7x57 or 7mm-08. Likewise, the 7mm RM will add another 150-200. And another 150 for the 7mm STW. Above the 7 STW is where you get so far over bore capacity that it truly isn't worth throwing more powder at a 7mm bullet unless you have 30"+ of barrel to burn it.

I like all the 7mm rounds, and I have a couple of 7x57s, but the .280 really is the best balanced of them.

 

[mshootnit]

I prefer the 24" length; not just for the .280 but for all rifles of its ilk. I've never found an extra couple of inches longer to be that much of a hinderance in most of the terrain that I hunt in and I like the extra velocity and less muzzle blast afforded by the slightly longer barrel. When I do hunt deer in the cedar swamps of Michigan and similar habitat where the cover is heavy and visibility is limited, I use a carbine like the Winchester Model 94, chambered in .30-30, with an 18" barrel or a Savage Model 99, chambered in .358 Winchester, with a 20" barrel; both having Williams receiver sights.

As ants opined, "you determine your needs and go with the best choice".

OK, but I'm liking the 22" Ruger. Whose making a good 24"?

 

[denton]

Your math is a little off. 2750 FPS to 3150 FPS is a wee bit more than 5%. Efficiency will always drop as powder capacity increases. If all you care about is efficiency, then why not go to a 7mm BR? 7-30 Waters? How about a straight walled case holding just 10 or 15 grains? Oh, because they're not as powerful as the 7x57.

It's the same reason that people opt for .280, 7mm Rem Mag, 7mm STW, 7mm Ultra.

The .280 will push any bullet 150-200 FPS faster than 7x57 or 7mm-08. Likewise, the 7mm RM will add another 150-200. And another 150 for the 7mm STW. Above the 7 STW is where you get so far over bore capacity that it truly isn't worth throwing more powder at a 7mm bullet unless you have 30"+ of barrel to burn it.

I like all the 7mm rounds, and I have a couple of 7x57s, but the .280 really is the best balanced of them.

LOL... is this going to become one of those 270 vs. 30-06 threads that go on for 18 pages?

I have no intent to try to make anyone defend their choice of chamberings. I think that there are many excellent choices, and denigrate none of them. But we really do need to revisit your math and assumptions.

If you'll go back to my reference post, I tried to make the point that 7mm-08, 7x57, and 280 are more similar that most people think. The 7x57 will slightly beat the 7-08, and the 280 will slightly beat the 7x57. But not by much.

The chambering that I've done test work on is the 7x57, which, when loaded to modern pressures, does better than most people expect. So to keep things simple, let me address just 7x57 vs. 280.

My measured 7x57 load is a 150 grain bullet at 2864 FPS out of a 24" barrel, at a measured 56.6 KPSI.

For an apples to apples comparison, I found three sources of 280 data with 24" barrels. Choosing the fastest load out of those listed from each source, I found:

Ramshot, 54.5 grains, 2850 FPS, 57,500 PSI
Hodgdon/IMR 7977, 61.0 grains, 2822 FPS, 55,600 PSI
Norma MRP, 58 grains, 2920 FPS, unlisted pressure.

So if you want to believe those sources, the best you could claim as the advantage of 280 over 7x57 is 2920 - 2864 = 56 FPS.

Now as far as the 7mm Mag comparison is concerned, I simply skimmed down the Hodgdon list of loads for the 150 grain bullet and noted that they were running about 70 grains and 3000 FPS. But if you want a better answer, the best 24" 7mm Mag load I found was Magpro, 73.2 grains, for 3093 FPS. (3093 - 2864)/2864 = 8% increase in MV vs. my 7x57 load. My 7x57 load uses 50.5 grains of powder. So (73.2 - 50.5)/50.5 = 44.9% more powder. That's really not so far off my quick and dirty mental estimate of 40% more powder for 5% more MV.

Nobody is seriously suggesting that cartridge efficiency should be the main determining factor in chambering choice. It simply gives the physical reason why there isn't as much difference as some people expect.

 

[old heeler]

[QUOTE="denton,

My measured 7x57 load is a 150 grain bullet at 2864 FPS out of a 24" barrel, at a measured 56.6 KPSI.

For an apples to apples comparison, I found three sources of 280 data with 24" barrels. Choosing the fastest load out of those listed from each source, I found:

Ramshot, 54.5 grains, 2850 FPS, 57,500 PSI
Hodgdon/IMR 7977, 61.0 grains, 2822 FPS, 55,600 PSI
Norma MRP, 58 grains, 2920 FPS, unlisted pressure.

So if you want to believe those sources, the best you could claim as the advantage of 280 over 7x57 is 2920 - 2864 = 56 FPS.

Now as far as the 7mm Mag comparison is concerned, I simply skimmed down the Hodgdon list of loads for the 150 grain bullet and noted that they were running about 70 grains and 3000 FPS. But if you want a better answer, the best 24" 7mm Mag load I found was Magpro, 73.2 grains, for 3093 FPS. (3093 - 2864)/2864 = 8% increase in MV vs. my 7x57 load. My 7x57 load uses 50.5 grains of powder. So (73.2 - 50.5)/50.5 = 44.9% more powder. That's really not so far off my quick and dirty mental estimate of 40% more powder for 5% more MV.

Nobody is seriously suggesting that cartridge efficiency should be the main determining factor in chambering choice. It simply gives the physical reason why there isn't as much difference as some people expect.[/QUOTE]

In fairness wouldn't it be better to use your pressure test on 280 then compare the two? Loads you post are under SAAMI Spec @ 60K for the 280. Nolser used 2" more barrel for 280 and their max with 150gr bullet is 3020fps and their max for 7x57 with 150gr bullet is 2831fps and that's from 22 barrel.

 

[Corn-Picker]

To further pick nits, if we're discussing efficiency, we should talk about the muzzle energy (not velocity) to powder ratio. A 5% increase in muzzle velocity is more than a 10% increase in muzzle energy, because energy is proportional to velocity squared.

 

[MachIVshooter]

LOL... is this going to become one of those 270 vs. 30-06 threads that go on for 18 pages?

Nowhere in this thread have I mentioned cartridges other than .284" caliber. Don't try to obfuscate.

My measured 7x57 load is a 150 grain bullet at 2864 FPS out of a 24" barrel, at a measured 56.6 KPSI.

For an apples to apples comparison, I found three sources of 280 data with 24" barrels. Choosing the fastest load out of those listed from each source, I found:

Ramshot, 54.5 grains, 2850 FPS, 57,500 PSI
Hodgdon/IMR 7977, 61.0 grains, 2822 FPS, 55,600 PSI
Norma MRP, 58 grains, 2920 FPS, unlisted pressure.

So if you want to believe those sources, the best you could claim as the advantage of 280 over 7x57 is 2920 - 2864 = 56 FPS.

Meanwhile, our actual measured average velocity with a 150 gr. Sierra BTSP and 54.6 grs. IMR-4350 out of a 22" Ruger M77 Mk II, my sister's rifle, averaged 3,054 FPS. That's right in the 150-200 FPS range of increase I stated previously. 58.5 grs. IMR-4831 gave us 3005 FPS.

I don't think your "apples to apples" comparisons are as similar a fruit as you think. Be sure to pay attention to barrel lengths when you're plucking data. For example, my Sierra 5th edition, my go-to manual for starting out, lists most .280 loads with only a 100 FPS advantage over 7x57. But their test rifle for 7x57 was a 26" Savage model 12, while the rifle used for working up .280 Rem data was a Remington 700 with a 22" tube. 4" of barrel with full power bottleneck cartridges is a 100+ FPS variable.

 

[salt&battery]

Nowhere in this thread have I mentioned cartridges other than .284" caliber. Don't try to obfuscate.



Meanwhile, our actual measured average velocity with a 150 gr. Sierra BTSP and 54.6 grs. IMR-4350 out of a 22" Ruger M77 Mk II, my sister's rifle, averaged 3,054 FPS. That's right in the 150-200 FPS range of increase I stated previously. 58.5 grs. IMR-4831 gave us 3005 FPS.

I don't think your "apples to apples" comparisons are as similar a fruit as you think. Be sure to pay attention to barrel lengths when you're plucking data. For example, my Sierra 5th edition, my go-to manual for starting out, lists most .280 loads with only a 100 FPS advantage over 7x57. But their test rifle for 7x57 was a 26" Savage model 12, while the rifle used for working up .280 Rem data was a Remington 700 with a 22" tube. 4" of barrel with full power bottleneck cartridges is a 100+ FPS variable.

with certain powders 4" extra barrel can mean more then 100 fps. not that it matters much

 

[MachIVshooter]

with certain powders 4" extra barrel can mean more then 100 fps. not that it matters much

Ergo the "+" in "100+ FPS variable"

 

[salt&battery]

Ergo the "+" in "100+ FPS variable"

lol missed that

 

[Jim Watson]

I would think the .280 would have a great appeal to the long range crowd, pushing the high BC 7mm bullets faster than the 7mm-08 can.

I understand that target shooters of that ilk are going with the .284 Winchester, many in the Shehane version.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I understand that target shooters of that ilk are going with the .284 Winchester, many in the Shehane version.

Makes perfect sense. .280 Rem performance in a short action when you want a little more oomph than 7mm-08 but don't wish to tolerate a blasty short mag.

 

[salt&battery]

Makes perfect sense. .280 Rem performance in a short action when you want a little more oomph than 7mm-08 but don't wish to tolerate a blasty short mag.

I think on the first or second page I had said my friend in Montana wanted a long distance rifle .told him to get a savage with a 26" barrel or rebarrel one where he could launch a .625 BC 162 grain hornady at almost 3000 fps. he loves the rifle

 

[Jim Watson]

Back in the 1980s, there were a number of very nice custom rifles built on the nicely made 1909 Mauser.
A lot of them were in .280 because "it is just as good as a 7mm magnum with bullets up to 150 grains" and because it did not require changing the bolt face and magazine.
It got to where the .280 was being loaded so hot that there were recommendations to use Winchester brand .270 brass because it was the strongest then on the market. That is really crowding the safety margin.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Back in the 1980s, there were a number of very nice custom rifles built on the nicely made 1909 Mauser.
A lot of them were in .280 because "it is just as good as a 7mm magnum with bullets up to 150 grains" and because it did not require changing the bolt face and magazine.
It got to where the .280 was being loaded so hot that there were recommendations to use Winchester brand .270 brass because it was the strongest then on the market. That is really crowding the safety margin.

Why weren't they just going AI? That little bit of extra capacity really does have it nipping at the heels of the 7mm RM, closes the gap to 100 FPS or less with lighter pills.

 

[denton]

54.6 grs IMR-4350 out of a 22" Ruger M77 Mk II, my sister's rifle, averaged 3,054 FPS.

58.5 grs. IMR-4831 gave us 3005 FPS.

Yeah, I'll bet they did. The question is for how long.

Hodgdon/IMR does not list 150 grain IMR loads for the 280, but it does list the similar "H" loads. Max for H4350 is 49.7 grains, and max for H4831 is 53.7 grains. Those are not perfectly equivalent powders, but they are going to be reasonably close. You're only 4.9 grains over book max with your IMR 4350 load and 4.8 grains over on your IMR4831 load. Hodgdon lists them as 2700 and 2709 FPS at "book max", nothing close to what you are getting.

Speed is a pressure sign. With a given case and powder, if you're getting more speed, you're getting more pressure. There is no magic, only physics. You're more than 300 FPS over "book max" muzzle velocity.

Your loads are ridiculously hot. As nearly as I can estimate from your data, you're pushing pretty hard toward 70 KPSI.

So I've given my 7x57 loads, which were temperature controlled, pressure measured, and from a 24" barrel. I have also posted the best of 280 loads from Hodgdon, Ramshot, and Norma, all of which were temperature controlled, pressure measured, and from a 24" barrel.

And with a straight face, you want me to believe that your uninstrumented, sky-high pressure 280 loads are the apples to apples comparison we should make?

Maybe, but I don't think so.

Edited to add: QuickLoad estimates that in order to get 3046 FPS (10 FPS slower than your load, but that's how the math conveniently worked out) out of a 150 grain Sierra HPBT using IMR4350, using a 22" barrel, you need a pressure of 70,820 PSI. It also estimates that your charge of 54.6 grains will produce 2929 FPS and 62,013 PSI. It's practically spot on in its prediction of MV and pressure for my 7x57 load.