Anemic published loads - a tale of two 7's

[Newtosavage]

I've been loading for the well known but seemingly now "historic" 7x57 for about a year now, and immediately learned that many of the published loads for that caliber are intentionally weak because of all the older rifles out there. In modern actions like my Ruger 77, my 7x57 is a whole other beast of course... (thankfully).

Recently I acquired my 7x57's "big brother" so to speak - a beautiful stainless Ruger 77 MkII in .280 Remington. I was suprised to find out that this was also another caliber where the published data was surprisingly weak - apparently due to the initial offering by Remington of the rifle in a pump action. Who knew?

So loading for my .280 I am working well above some (not all) of the published data and seeing not only no pressure signs, but pretty remarkable performance. For example, one load I shot today pushed a 154-grain Hornady Interlock SP over 3000 fps. before it began to show any pressure signs. That equals the published data for the same bullet in the "American Whitetail" factory 7mm Magnum load by Hornady. It even put 5 shots within an inch at that velocity!

I knew the .280 was a sleeper, and like the 7x57 - well coveted and revered by riflemen worldwide. But only after working up loads and using no less than 5 load handbooks did I finally discover the true potential for both of these wonderful calibers.

I am just somewhat amused (if not a touch frustrated) that the two 7mm calibers I've chosen to handload both have a LOT of data out there that turns them into relative wimps. Such a shame... not to mention a lot of extra unnecessary work!

 

[someguy2800]

Some of the load data out there for alot of calibers is just hilariously underloaded. Hodgdons data on there website for most calibers are the worst. Speer and Lyman are pretty good about giving safe yet good performing loads from I have seen. I've always liked that 7x57 round alot. Never really understood why the 7-08 got to be so popular while the better 7x57 fades into extinction.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Even Lyman has some pistol loads listed below the Alliant published data for the same bullet. It comes with the territory I recon. My thought is that they have their reasons and their processes and it's better than mine so I go with it. But it's not to say I disagree at all with the reason for your frustration because it is frustrating to me too at times.

I'm well aware that there are a few calibers out there that have been "Quieted" down by both ammunition manufacturers and Data publishers. Some with less logical reasons than aging milsurps. On the other hand how long have some calibers been out there in production that have 100+ year old guns still shooting ammo that's not been "lightened up"? I'm guessing here but it seems that what they are trying to do is keep "John Q Public" from shooting ammo in guns "in who knows what" condition and "shot how many times" with "lord knows what ammo" and hurting themselves. If so they are erring on the side of caution in their mind.

 

[Bart B.]

Unless all barrels have the same chamber, bore and groove specs and mounted exactly the same when fired, a given load will easily have a 200 fps spread in average muzzle velocity across them. SAAMI tolerances for bullet, bore and groove diameters are a few thousandths. Do we all shoulder rifles with the exact same force and have the same body mass to resist recoil during bullets' barrel time?

How often do we see those details with claimed velocities? Too darned many variables. Powder lots will easily have 25 to 50 fps average velocity spreads across a given charge weight.

All of which is why I've never owned nor used a chronograph working up loads those few times doing that.

Reading case and primer pressure signs is a UDIAG, in my opinion, not a SWAG. There are no set standards nor specs to go by.

 

[entropy]

Almost all published data for older military calibers is beneath the round's potential in a new bolt action-and for good reason. It's so Bubba J. Reloader doesn't wrap the receiver of his Gew98 or Arisaka, (Or Mosin, or Brazilian Mauser, or Argentine, or Lebel or Veterlli, etc.) around his head and his widow sues <Insert data publisher here> .

As for the .280 Remington, the 760 suffers from the same design flaws as the autos it is based on, namely, bolt guide slots in a soft receiver that a hardened steel bolt rides in. Heavy loads trash the guide slots and ruin the gun, (more so in the auto) as does vigorously working the action.

 

[Newtosavage]

Some of the load data out there for alot of calibers is just hilariously underloaded. Hodgdons data on there website for most calibers are the worst. Speer and Lyman are pretty good about giving safe yet good performing loads from I have seen. I've always liked that 7x57 round alot. Never really understood why the 7-08 got to be so popular while the better 7x57 fades into extinction.

Agreed on the Hodgdon's data. Must have been prepared by their lawyer...

I was just explaining to a younger guy at the range yesterday how the 7mm-08 is just the reincarnation of the 100 year old cartridge that started it all... He'd never heard of a 7x57. Crazy huh?

Then he misunderstood me when I told him the other gun was a .280 (he thought I said .260) and went off on what a great round that was and how it was "all the rage now..." I'm like really? That many people are shooting the .280 now? And then he said "oh, I thought you said .260. What's a .280?" LOL.

In my somewhat limited experience with rifles, I can't see how a person could do much better than to own a 7x57 and a .280 Remington. Matching actions and stocks and all... I can't tell which rifle I'm shooting until it goes bang.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I'm no expert but I'm fairly sure by the time you see pressure signs checking the brass you are well above the pressure limits.

 

[Newtosavage]

I'm no expert but I'm fairly sure by the time you see pressure signs checking the brass you are well above the pressure limits.

I think a lot of people would share that opinion, but I also know a lot of experienced handloaders who swear by inspecting the brass. The cases I showed several experienced handloaders at the range passed their inspection, but were too hot for me, so I dialed it down a few grains just to be safe.

I know a flattened primer when I see one and I'm starting to recognize the signs of over pressure loads more consistently now, so my confidence in recognizing a "max" load for my rifle is growing.

 

[horsey300]

I think a lot of people would share that opinion, but I also know a lot of experienced handloaders who swear by inspecting the brass. The cases I showed several experienced handloaders at the range passed their inspection, but were too hot for me, so I dialed it down a few grains just to be safe.

I know a flattened primer when I see one and I'm starting to recognize the signs of over pressure loads more consistently now, so my confidence in recognizing a "max" load for my rifle is growing.

Whatever is stamped on the head, it's a .30-06 case when you chamber that .280. The shoulder is slightly different, but if you see the -06 can push the 150 to 3000, then the 7-06 should be able to come close, exact? Maybe not. But when dealing with the necked down cartridges, I look at daddy case to see what potential may be there. Receiver strength and other tiny details will play a factor in the safety and reality of attainable velocities. Nosler shows a great load of imr 4831 for the 7mm but for similar results in the .30, rl 19 and I4350 were the winners, you're more overbored with the 7mm but those elk bullets (154) should still be on the heels of the 30 155 velocities.

 

[.308 Norma]

I've always liked that 7x57 round alot. Never really understood why the 7-08 got to be so popular while the better 7x57 fades into extinction.

If I could have accurately predicted what products would become popular, I believe I would have gotten into marketing or investing years ago, before I retired. However, I suspect one of the reasons "the 7-08 got to be so popular while the better 7x57 fades into extinction" is because the 7x57 is only "better" to a handloader with a modern rifle. Not that I don't like the 7x57. In my youth, there were still a lot of older hunters using 7x57s for mule deer. And those old guys did just as well as I did with my more modern .308 Winchester.

Then he misunderstood me when I told him the other gun was a .280 (he thought I said .260) and went off on what a great round that was and how it was "all the rage now..." I'm like really? That many people are shooting the .280 now? And then he said "oh, I thought you said .260. What's a .280?" LOL.

Yeppers, that IS funny! Kind of reminds me of the time I was telling a young guy that my wife had just bought herself a new 7mm-08. He asked me, "Now what's the difference between a 7mm-08 and a regular 7mm?"
But talking about that younger guy misunderstanding and telling you how the "great" the .260 is, and how "it's all the rage now" - while both true, I think the reason the .260 (6.5mm-08) is so much more popular than the 7mm-08 right now is because when the 7mm-08 was first commercialized (first factory rifles and ammo became available) the internet hadn't been invented yet. Like I say, I think the .260 (6.5mm-08) is indeed a great little round, but there's a lot of malarkey about the "laser like" trajectories of 6.5mm bullets because of their "high ballistic coefficients" being spread on these internet message forums right now.
As far as the .280 Remington goes, I think it's another great cartridge. And I suspect it will always have a small, but loyal following. But even though Remington changed its name from .280 Remington to 7mm Express, and back again, I doubt it's ever going to be as popular as Remington's own 7mm Magnum. I suspect the word "magnum" means "magic" to a lot of gun buyers, and it always will. Heck, "magnum" meant "magic" to me once upon a time - I call myself ".308 Norma" here, but the word "magnum" following that name is what attracted me the most back when I was 16 years old.

 

[TRX]

> 7x57

I guess if you used its alternate name, ".275 Rigby", he'd ask what a Rigby was...

 

[MZ5]

I think a lot of people would share that opinion, but I also know a lot of experienced handloaders who swear by inspecting the brass. The cases I showed several experienced handloaders at the range passed their inspection, but were too hot for me, so I dialed it down a few grains just to be safe.

I know a flattened primer when I see one and I'm starting to recognize the signs of over pressure loads more consistently now, so my confidence in recognizing a "max" load for my rifle is growing.

If you get the opportunity to use pressure test equipment such as a Pressure Trace, or to send your handloads to a pressure lab for testing, you may be surprised at how high pressures really are once you see 'pressure signs.' I've rarely or never seen 'pressure signs' in a correctly built & assembled modern rifle below 70 - 75k psi, and sometimes not until 80+k psi. I believe Ken Oehler said used to run clinics at a local shop (near him) and found approximately the same thing when testing handloaders' ammo with strain gauge equipment.

Naturally, you may consider these pressures as 'safe.' I do not, but in either case I would hope that you make the decision with eyes open, rather than in ignorance or assumption.

 

[Newtosavage]

If you get the opportunity to use pressure test equipment such as a Pressure Trace, or to send your handloads to a pressure lab for testing, you may be surprised at how high pressures really are once you see 'pressure signs.' I've rarely or never seen 'pressure signs' in a correctly built & assembled modern rifle below 70 - 75k psi, and sometimes not until 80+k psi. I believe Ken Oehler said used to run clinics at a local shop (near him) and found approximately the same thing when testing handloaders' ammo with strain gauge equipment.

Naturally, you may consider these pressures as 'safe.' I do not, but in either case I would hope that you make the decision with eyes open, rather than in ignorance or assumption.

Thanks for the advice. I've only been hand loading for about a year now so I learn a lot every time I read this forum.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I think a lot of people would share that opinion, but I also know a lot of experienced handloaders who swear by inspecting the brass. The cases I showed several experienced handloaders at the range passed their inspection, but were too hot for me, so I dialed it down a few grains just to be safe.

I know a flattened primer when I see one and I'm starting to recognize the signs of over pressure loads more consistently now, so my confidence in recognizing a "max" load for my rifle is growing.

I don't like to blow my own horn but many consider me to be an experienced reloader. Just because they have done it a long time doesn't mean they are right.

Once a few years ago this very discussion came up at the range. There were a handful of "experienced" handloaders who swore they could tell if a round was over pressure by reading the brass. The next week one of the guys brought a handful of cases to the range for those experts to read. He only brought one case that looked to them to be over pressure. The others looked fine to all the "experts." Well, the one that they thought was over pressure was not bad the others were all PROOF LOADS and showed not signs of excessive pressure at all even though they all were loaded to extremely high pressures being proof loads.

Just because they have been doing it for a long time doesn't mean they haven't been wrong for a long time too.

 

[someguy2800]

I'm not a "hot rod" reloader. I check multiple sources for every load and usually err to the data in the middle and will rarely go over that max unless I have reason too. That being said I really don't know why people think that certain older guns need to be treated with kid gloves. An 1898 mauser or a 1903 springfield is as sound today as the day it was made, and it was a damb good action then. If it was designed to handle 55,000 psi then it will handle it today. In fact most of the old military rifles were all proof load tested as part of the manufacturing process. You see countless old mauser action rifles built all over the world in the 1890s-1910's rechambered or rebarelled to much higher intensity modern cartridges and nobody is concerned with the safety of that, but somehow people think when a gun passes 50 years old the metal in the reciever goes into retirement and is on edge with standard pressure rounds.

Oh and as far as reading brass goes, you must consider the strength of the brass and cartridge design when you are trying to determine where you are at pressure wise. A tough case such as a 300 win mag or 30-06 or 308 will not show any pressure signs on the brass until it is way way way over pressure. Lower intensity cases will give you more warning. Any sign that the brass in the head of the case is flowing in any cartrige means its way over pressure though. Thats a warning sign to back way down, not an indication of where to stop

 

[Newtosavage]

I'll see if I can post some examples from my last session (of the brass).

Regardless, I think it's kinda funny that I choose two classic and highly regarded 7mm calibers, and then discover that the reloading data for both of them is rather pitiful. Thank goodness for the Nosler and RL data for the 7x57 is all I can say.

 

[boom boom]

As someone who owns several of the "obsolete" 7x57 Mausers that are over a century old, many of the reloaders shooting this cartridge use them in similar old milsurp rifles and it is not surprising that the reloading data reflects this.

What makes reloading and rifles in general so fascinating is that each one is an individual in its own right that to perform its best, often requires ammunition tailored to that particular rifle. What makes it frustrating also, is that each of these rifles is an individual so it makes it difficult as BartB says above to make precise guidance that applies to all rifles such as case pressure signs, reloading manuals, use of chronograph, recoil, stiffness in opening the bolt, etc. absent having pressure strain gauges attached to your particular rifle when you are firing a load. Reloading then is an exercise in probabilities using rules of thumb unless you have access to some pretty expensive measuring tools such as strain gauges and the like.

Because Europeans often require reproofing firearms when they are sold, you find hotter ammo on that side of the Atlantic because weak ones are weeded out. You might try Norma or Lapua if you want more stoutly loaded 7x57 commercial ammo.

 

[35 Whelen]

I was once heavily into loading both those calibers, and still load for and use the .280 as my go-to hunting rifle, although I own a dozen or so.

I've found there are some general rules of thumb for both in the form of maximum attainable velocities for certain bullet weights for both cartridges. Thsee can vary a little depending on the idiosyncrasies of individual rifles as well as different brands and styles of bullets, but for the most part they work.

7x57- 140 gr.- 2850 fps, 150-154 gr.- 2750-2800 fps, 160 gr. 2650-2700 fps, 175 gr.- 2550 fps.

I have an old '98 Mauser 7x57 that has been sporterized that has an enormously long throat. This allows bullets to be seated out to magazine length which in turn increases case capacity which in turn allows for slightly great powder charges without raising pressures. This rifle will do 2900 fps with a 140 gr. bullet, but it's one of those exceptions.

.280- 140 gr.- 3000, 150-154 gr.- 2900-2950, 160 gr. 2800-2850, 175 gr.- 2700 fps.

So if you're exceeding these velocities, there's no magic or pixie dust involved, you're just likely running high pressures.

A chronograph is the best tool most of us will have for load development.

35W

 

[Newtosavage]

I don't know where I'd be without my chronograph. Running scared I suppose. LOL Thanks for the data.

My .280 is a Ruger 77 MkII stainless with a 22" bbl, and my 7x57 started it's life out as an RSI, but is wearing a synthetic stock now. So it's a 18.5" barrel. Neither are reaching published velocities, I expect because of the shorter barrels. I can accept that just fine though. They are still great rifles in great calibers.

 

[35 Whelen]

My .280 is an old tang safety Ruger 77 that began life as a 7x57. My dad had it rechambered back in the '80's and I've been shooting it since.

I shoot two loads. The first and most used is 55.5 gr. of IMR4350. With a 140 gr. Sierra FB velocity runs a smidge over 2900, with a 140 gr. Nosler Partition, a smidge under 3000. Both loads are very accurate in the ol' girl. This load is over max in most books so it must be approached from well below. However it shows absolutely no pressure signs in my .280.
The second load is 55.5 grs. of IMR-4831 and a 160 gr. Nosler Partition, running just a few fps over 2900. Oddly, this load is under max according to many sources and while showing no immediate pressure signs, primer pockets tend to open after several loadings.
When I developed both loads, I was more interested in accuracy than velocity, but it just so happened that the upper end loads shot better. It's my understanding that this is fairly typical with Nosler Partitions.

35W

 

[Newtosavage]

So far, I've noticed my groups shrinking in both rifles as most loads got hotter. Particularly with anything Nosler. Only excpetion is Sierra GK's - they prefer milder loads.

 

[Bart B.]

There were a handful of "experienced" handloaders who swore they could tell if a round was over pressure by reading the brass. The next week one of the guys brought a handful of cases to the range for those experts to read. He only brought one case that looked to them to be over pressure. The others looked fine to all the "experts." Well, the one that they thought was over pressure was not bad the others were all PROOF LOADS and showed not signs of excessive pressure at all even though they all were loaded to extremely high pressures being proof loads.

That echoed my test with half a dozen fired cases that were proof loads fired in 7.62 NATO chambered Garands. Peak proof pressure was about 67,500 to 70,000 CUP or 83,000 to 89,000 PSI.

 

[Newtosavage]

Fired about 20 more test loads from the .280 at the range last night. Max load was pushing 160 Accubond at 2800 fps. Accuracy and brass was good but the recoil was telling me it was too hot. Just my gut I suppose. I can dial that one down to 2700 and be well within the ballistic parameters I am looking for (400+ yard elk load).

I used to think my 7 lb. 7x57 had a pretty good kick to it until I spent some time behind my .280 with max loads. Now the 7 Mauser seems so tame. LOL

 

[Jim Watson]

A little history:
The .280 Rem is loaded "anemic" (same pressure as .30-06) because it was introduced in the 742 automatic. The 760 pump was already being made in .270 Win at its somewhat higher pressure.
In the 1980s it was a popular choice for some very nice custom Mauser sporters. Unlike 7mm Magnum, it required no alteration to the bolt face and little if any to the magazine. That meant the gunsmith could spend his time and your money making it look nice and operate smoothly without having to do a lot of mechanical work.
It was then commonly said that "properly loaded" the .280 would equal the 7mm Mag with bullets up to 145 grains. Of course that meant overloaded. Hotloading the .280 got to the point that people were reforming WW .270 brass because that was the hardest and strongest standard head diameter brass then available. So it did not "show pressure signs" as readily. But it was still overloaded and was undoubtedly hard on those pretty 1909 Mausers.

 

[Newtosavage]

What's amazing to me is the difference in load data between Hodgdon and the data from Nosler and Alliant. Not even in the same class.

The other day I browsed four different load manuals at Bass Pro, and the 7x57 was loaded light in all of them, and the .280 was all over the map.