280 Remington

[denton]

Here are some QuikLoad estimates of muzzle velocity vs. peak pressure. In my experience, if you use your measured case capacity and actual COL, QLoad produces good estimates even though the author goes to great lengths to say that loads should not be used without testing, as he should.

In this table, I took the defaults for each cartridge. It's reasonable to assume that any error QL makes on one cartridge, it will also make on the others. So the differences between loads and pressures may be a little better than the absolute pressures.

The estimate for 7x57 at 55,000 PSI is right in line with my measured values at 56.6 KPSI.




I think that if you had three rifles, identical except for being correctly chambered in the three cartridges shown, and ran them all with the same bullet and the same pressure, then the wear, probability of a stuck case, and probability of catastrophic failure would be the same for all three.

Does this mean you can run the 280 at 65 KPSI, like the 270? Grown men can make their own decision about that. I wouldn't go nearly that high. Most of the 270 loads I've seen stay respectfully short of the 65 KPSI limit.

 

[mshootnit]

Here are some QuikLoad estimates of muzzle velocity vs. peak pressure. In my experience, if you use your measured case capacity and actual COL, QLoad produces good estimates even though the author goes to great lengths to say that loads should not be used without testing, as he should.

In this table, I took the defaults for each cartridge. It's reasonable to assume that any error QL makes on one cartridge, it will also make on the others. So the differences between loads and pressures may be a little better than the absolute pressures.

The estimate for 7x57 at 55,000 PSI is right in line with my measured values at 56.6 KPSI.


View attachment 586080

I think that if you had three rifles, identical except for being correctly chambered in the three cartridges shown, and ran them all with the same bullet and the same pressure, then the wear, probability of a stuck case, and probability of catastrophic failure would be the same for all three.

Does this mean you can run the 280 at 65 KPSI, like the 270? Grown men can make their own decision about that. I wouldn't go nearly that high. Most of the 270 loads I've seen stay respectfully short of the 65 KPSI limit.

That table seems like a very useful comparison!

 

[denton]

That table seems like a very useful comparison!

Glad you find it useful. That was its purpose.

 

[PabloJ]

I do not own one of these but did see a nice NOS rifle in this caliber the other day. I probably do not need it, but was wondering about ammo and component availability these days, as well as your opinion of this cartridge especially as it pertains to North American game, compared to...say the 270 WSM.

Yeh, it's right up there with picking 7x64mm over the .270 Winchester. Loco.

 

[SwampWolf]

Yeh, it's right up there with picking 7x64mm over the .270 Winchester. Loco.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I did-and that Brenneke cartridge chambered in the Ruger MKII is one of my favorite rifles.

 

[old heeler]

Here are some QuikLoad estimates of muzzle velocity vs. peak pressure. In my experience, if you use your measured case capacity and actual COL, QLoad produces good estimates even though the author goes to great lengths to say that loads should not be used without testing, as he should.

In this table, I took the defaults for each cartridge. It's reasonable to assume that any error QL makes on one cartridge, it will also make on the others. So the differences between loads and pressures may be a little better than the absolute pressures.

The estimate for 7x57 at 55,000 PSI is right in line with my measured values at 56.6 KPSI.


View attachment 586080

I think that if you had three rifles, identical except for being correctly chambered in the three cartridges shown, and ran them all with the same bullet and the same pressure, then the wear, probability of a stuck case, and probability of catastrophic failure would be the same for all three.

Does this mean you can run the 280 at 65 KPSI, like the 270? Grown men can make their own decision about that. I wouldn't go nearly that high. Most of the 270 loads I've seen stay respectfully short of the 65 KPSI limit.

I admit your data is interesting. What is the amount of powder used for each load that you posted. Isn't that part of QL?

QL has warning when near max and they also have loading data that is posted Dangerous Load-Do not use

That load for 7x57 60K/65K are those Near Max/Dangerous Load-Do Not Use according to QL.

I've got QL on my 284 at 53K it's safe load, I'm at Near Max @ 57K and over 61K it's Dangerous Load-Do not use. The 53k load @ 57.24gr/R-26 @ 2962fps but load 58.43gr @ 3020fps it's near max and another 1.5gr is Dangerous load. Bullet I'm using is 160gr AB.

My 284 is one gr less than 280 case. It sure be nice to see what your loading.

 

[denton]

I admit your data is interesting. What is the amount of powder used for each load that you posted. Isn't that part of QL?

Yes, QL does provide that, and it would be interesting. But what I was trying to do is make fair comparisons between the three cartridges, and the powder charges would complicate making that comparison. I'd be happy to run any loads you're curious about, as long as you're not in a hurry.

That load for 7x57 60K/65K are those Near Max/Dangerous Load-Do Not Use according to QL.

Personally, I won't run anything at 65 KPSI, or even 60 KPSI. Once I decided that I would not walk more than 250 yards to pick up a dead animal, my life got much simpler. 2800 FPS is just fine for what I want to do. I was once fascinated with getting every possible FPS out of a load, but I got over that. I can't think of anything that I'm running at more than 58 KPSI.

SAAMI and CIP have to set pressure limits that work with all the possible firearms out there. Since there were some weaker wartime actions, they have to spec the 7x57, 8x57, and 6.5x55 very conservatively. With a modern rifle in good condition, you can make a good case for running them at modern pressures. But, I think not 65 KPSI. I think they got a little over enthusiastic when they spec'd the 270, and I wouldn't run even that round at full spec.

That load for 7x57 60K/65K are those Near Max/Dangerous Load-Do Not Use according to QL.

I agree that those loads are heavy. I'm not suggesting that anyone load to those pressures. You can do experiments in QL that I wouldn't recommend in real life. We had one poster claiming a 280 load with 3056 FPS out of a 22" barrel, and I was trying to point out that excessive pressure is needed to reach that.

My 7x57 load for a 150 grain bullet is 50.5 grains H4350, with 3.23" COL for 2864 FPS. That tests and measures within the CIP pressure limit for the 7x57. That is still a conservative load.

 

[WVRJ]

I have a custom 280 that I had built in 1982.It has a Shilen barrel with a sporter contour,the action was trued and the locking lugs were lapped.Back then,I shot 140 grain Sierra spitzers and Nosler Partitions in it with good results,usually around an inch at 100.The rifle was bedded in an H-S Precision stock,and I sure got a lot of snide remarks about how ugly it was,but even by today's standards,this rifle is still pretty much state of the art.That's how far ahead of its time it was.Back then,a rifle had to have pretty wood and high luster blueing.I killed a good number of deer with it,and the round always did what it was supposed to do.From 1984 until 2012,the turret caps on the Leupold scope never had to be removed.That is stability.It's been kind of a safe queen for the past few years because I have several other hunting rifles and haven't wanted to use it.Last winter I saw that Magpul was making their Hunter 700 stock in a long action version and I bought one and fitted it to the 280.I also put on a VX-3 Leupold 3.5X10X50 scope when it was apart.I had an urge to try some different loads in it to see if the more modern powders and bullets available nowadays would get any more accuracy out of it.IMR 4831 pushing a 145 grain Speer match hollow point gave superb accuracy,and a little over 3000 fps out of the 24" barrel.The new stock,along with a Magpul detachable magazine setup is a very good improvement,although a bit heavy.The 280,in my opinion,is one of the most capable hunting rounds I have in my arsenal.I hope to be able to kill a deer or 6 with it this fall.The Speer hollow points will print nice little cloverleaves at 100,and Nosler Ballistic tips are close behind.I'm going to try some Accubonds in it before hunting season and go from there.It is a superb round,one that I prefer over either the 30-06 or the 270.The deer don't seem to have any preference.

 

[mshootnit]

So with a 22" 280, and 140gr. full power loads, could you use the " 3" high at 100 yds. "Jack O'Connor rule for a hunting zero?

 

[horsey300]

So with a 22" 280, and 140gr. full power loads, could you use the " 3" high at 100 yds. "Jack O'Connor rule for a hunting zero?

With a gameking moving at 2820 you'll be .7" low at 200 and 10.4"ish low at 300

 

[Newtosavage]

I weighed my Remington Mountain Rifle. It come to 7lbs 14 oz with 3x9 Leupold, sling and unloaded

Precisely why I took a pass on the Remington "mountain" rifle even though I had been loading for .280 for some time and it was the same price as my Tikka. My Tikka T3x is 7 lbs. 4 oz. scoped. If it had been available in .280 of course I would have chosen that but '06 will have to do. And it does very nicely. But the recoil from a 180 grain Accubond out of that rifle will certainly get your attention.

 

[Newtosavage]

Here are some QuikLoad estimates of muzzle velocity vs. peak pressure. In my experience, if you use your measured case capacity and actual COL, QLoad produces good estimates even though the author goes to great lengths to say that loads should not be used without testing, as he should.

In this table, I took the defaults for each cartridge. It's reasonable to assume that any error QL makes on one cartridge, it will also make on the others. So the differences between loads and pressures may be a little better than the absolute pressures.

The estimate for 7x57 at 55,000 PSI is right in line with my measured values at 56.6 KPSI.


View attachment 586080

I think that if you had three rifles, identical except for being correctly chambered in the three cartridges shown, and ran them all with the same bullet and the same pressure, then the wear, probability of a stuck case, and probability of catastrophic failure would be the same for all three.

Does this mean you can run the 280 at 65 KPSI, like the 270? Grown men can make their own decision about that. I wouldn't go nearly that high. Most of the 270 loads I've seen stay respectfully short of the 65 KPSI limit.

This makes me want to get another 7x57.

 

[mshootnit]

With a gameking moving at 2820 you'll be .7" low at 200 and 10.4"ish low at 300

Thanks!

 

[MistWolf]

Precisely why I took a pass on the Remington "mountain" rifle even though I had been loading for .280 for some time and it was the same price as my Tikka. My Tikka T3x is 7 lbs. 4 oz. scoped. If it had been available in .280 of course I would have chosen that but '06 will have to do. And it does very nicely. But the recoil from a 180 grain Accubond out of that rifle will certainly get your attention.

Is that weight with or without a sling? Which scope? What mount and rings does it have? How many rounds does the magazine hold? What type of stock? Is the trigger adjustable?

 

[Newtosavage]

Is that weight with or without a sling? Which scope? What mount and rings does it have? How many rounds does the magazine hold? What type of stock? Is the trigger adjustable?

That's without a sling. I have a Nikon Buckmasters 3-9x40 scope on it with the BDC reticle. That reticle works darn near perfectly with my '06 loads for a 100-500 yard hold. It weighs 14 oz. so there are lighter options. I could have put a Leupold 3-9x40 on it and saved nearly 3 oz. if I had wanted, but I like that scope and reticle and I'm not sure I'd want an '06 any lighter.

I am using the Tikka aluminum rings with the stop pin. I also added another stop pin through a hole in the rear ring by turning down a scope screw head to fit precisely in the hole, then screwing it in once the ring was attached. So neither of those rings are going anywhere, and so far I've not had to re-zero that rig once despite a pretty good pounding from max handloads with heavy bullets.

The magazine holds 4 rounds + 1 in the chamber if you want. Stock is plastic factory Tikka stock and I painted it with a textured paint. Most folks think it's an expensive custom stock, and it feels and shoots like one IMO. Trigger is spectacular and is very adjustable with zero creep.

My Tikka T3x is the nicest rifle I've ever owned. It won't out-shoot my Savages, but it will hang right with them which is saying a lot. Sub-MOA to 300 yards is not a problem at all.

 

[Newtosavage]

Still have a bunch of .280 brass that needs a good home. PM me if you want it.