OP
OP
huntinfool87
Member
Mine has a timney also. From what I've heard that trigger in the xbolt is not great.
Reloading for the .280AI
- Thread starter huntinfool87
- Start date
-
- Tags
- .280ai
- Status
troy fairweather
Member
It was a 7-08, a&b had that weird 1-9.25 back then, even a 1-10 your probably fine with 175 hunting bullets to stabilize.
kalielkslayer
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2021
- Messages
- 930
RL22
OP
OP
huntinfool87
Member
What is your barrel length? Do you know what kind of MV you're getting with reloader 26?
Ridgerunner665
Member
24 inches...3,000 fps.
I'm also a new member of the .280ai fam. I purchased a Kimber Hunter in .280ai this week. The first truly NIB firearm I've ever purchased - it was still sealed in plastic bags and covered in a film of oil. My first loads will be with 120 gr TTSX for whitetail in 2023. This bullet has the same SD as the 100 gr TTSX that I'm shooting in the .25-06 and that bullet drops deer like they were hit by lightning. Second bullet I want to load is the 150 gr ELD-X (because it is relatively high BC, half the price of the TTSX, and it was on the shelf).
So which powders should I try? I have a good amount of several of the powders mentioned so far: H4831, IMR4831, IMR4350, RL22. Other considerations:
1. Barnes shows RL17 as the most accurate powder tested with the 120 TTSX. Nolser also shows RL17 as the most accurate powder with the 120 ballistic tip. Problem is, I only have 1lb. So that's only a little over 100 rounds that I can load and then I have to find RL17 or start over.
2. Barnes and Nosler show good results with Hybrid 100V and I have 3.5 lbs of that. Good velocities and the most accurate powder tested with the 110 TTSX.
So for the 120 TTSX should I try RL17 knowing that if it works well I'll be scrounging to find more? Should I try Hybrid 100V because it looks good on paper, but many people seem to not like it very much? If neither of those, then IMR4350 appears to be the next best that I have on hand.
I don't have the Hornady manual to check what they're showing for the 150 ELD-X. I rarely buy Hornady bullets because it irritates me that they won't publish load data online like Nosler and Barnes do. Nosler indicates best accuracy and good velocity with H4831 and the 150 gr ballistic tip. Should I start there or try one of the other powders listed above?
So which powders should I try? I have a good amount of several of the powders mentioned so far: H4831, IMR4831, IMR4350, RL22. Other considerations:
1. Barnes shows RL17 as the most accurate powder tested with the 120 TTSX. Nolser also shows RL17 as the most accurate powder with the 120 ballistic tip. Problem is, I only have 1lb. So that's only a little over 100 rounds that I can load and then I have to find RL17 or start over.
2. Barnes and Nosler show good results with Hybrid 100V and I have 3.5 lbs of that. Good velocities and the most accurate powder tested with the 110 TTSX.
So for the 120 TTSX should I try RL17 knowing that if it works well I'll be scrounging to find more? Should I try Hybrid 100V because it looks good on paper, but many people seem to not like it very much? If neither of those, then IMR4350 appears to be the next best that I have on hand.
I don't have the Hornady manual to check what they're showing for the 150 ELD-X. I rarely buy Hornady bullets because it irritates me that they won't publish load data online like Nosler and Barnes do. Nosler indicates best accuracy and good velocity with H4831 and the 150 gr ballistic tip. Should I start there or try one of the other powders listed above?
OP
OP
huntinfool87
Member
My Hornaday manual (9th edition) does not even have the .280AI listed in it. I'm curious what your twist rate is in your rifle? Then once you get some load data what bullet shot best.
Ridgerunner665
Member
Another helpful tip.... if a certain manual doesn't have 280 Ackley in it, 7mm Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum data can be used.
Both rounds have virtually identical case capacity and use the same powders/bullets.
Feel free to compare them where they are both available and see for yourself... they'll always be within a grain or so of each other, and perfectly safe in any modern rifle.
Both rounds have virtually identical case capacity and use the same powders/bullets.
Feel free to compare them where they are both available and see for yourself... they'll always be within a grain or so of each other, and perfectly safe in any modern rifle.
Last edited:
OP
OP
huntinfool87
Member
Thats a very helpful tip! Thank you
Twist is 1:9, although I haven’t checked it myself. From what I’ve read, that twist should be okay up to 168 gr for most bullets. After that it’s questionable.
OP
OP
huntinfool87
Member
I would be interested to know how it does with the smaller loads. Mine has a 1:8 twist and im curious how it will do with some smaller bullets.
Ridgerunner665
Member
Mine is a 1 in 9 twist and shoots great with 175 grain bullets... I've never shot anything lighter than 150's in it.... my primary hunting load uses 160 grain Nosler Accubond bullets.
I've laid a good many deer down with it at ranges out to around 800 yards.
My rifle is a Nosler M48 Custom, 24 inch 1 in 9 magnum contour barrel.
I've laid a good many deer down with it at ranges out to around 800 yards.
My rifle is a Nosler M48 Custom, 24 inch 1 in 9 magnum contour barrel.
That's good to know. Hornady recommends a minimum 1:8.5 for their 175 ELD-X. When I enter the data for the Nosler ABLR 175 gr into Berger's stability calculator it results in about stability factor of 1.38 and Berger indicates anything under 1.5 is marginally stable.
OP
OP
huntinfool87
Member
I appreciate all the feedback on this. It's very helpful as there really isn't much information out there.
I have a couple boxes of factory loaded 140gr rem. Core lock bullets for the standard .280. I was thinking about fire forming them to get my hands on some more brass. As of right now I only have 1 box of some nosler loaded ammo for the .280AI I have tons of brass for the standard. 280 but I would like to do my load development with once fired brass only. So fire forming seems like the most feasible option given the times.
I have a couple boxes of factory loaded 140gr rem. Core lock bullets for the standard .280. I was thinking about fire forming them to get my hands on some more brass. As of right now I only have 1 box of some nosler loaded ammo for the .280AI I have tons of brass for the standard. 280 but I would like to do my load development with once fired brass only. So fire forming seems like the most feasible option given the times.
Ridgerunner665
Member
Marginally stable is generally good enough...at least good enough to try and see what it does...I have shot Nosler ABLR's, but not the Hornady ELD-X, none of them... but I think I'm going to give them a try at some point, they look great on paper.
I bought enough 160 Accubonds to last me a lifetime when I got the rifle, not the latest and greatest bullet but they sure do kill deer.... not really enough expansion past 700 yards or so, but most of my shooting is between 300 and 600 anyway... and in that window there's not much room to improve on them.
Ridgerunner665
Member
No idea about current availability... but Peterson brass is what I use... it truly is Lapua quality brass, hard case heads.
I just did the comparison for Nosler load data. This is almost correct. There is a maximum difference of 4.5 grains or 7.5% (with 7 SAUM having higher max charge) in 120 grain bullets. Restricting the comparison to 150 gr or greater, there is a maximum difference of 3.5 grains or 6.3%. Is that close enough? I guess if you are desperate for data and very careful in your load work up.
Ridgerunner665
Member
I've been using it for years... others can make the decision for themselves... but 5 grains of powder in this burn range isn't going to blow up a modern bolt action rifle, may ruin a piece of brass... but it won't blow anything up.
Hornady #10 data has them much closer than Nosler does...as do other sources.
As always.... start low and work up... I've seen serious pressure signs well below max using published 280 Ackley data (Hodgden)... same for 308 Win.
Ridgerunner665
Member
Also... using good hard brass.. a 280 Ackley won't show pressure signs until somewhere well north of 70,000 psi.
When you see ejector marks...it usually takes dropping at least 2 or 3 grains "after they disappear" to get back where it needs to be.
But many just run them at just low enough to not wreck the brass.... which, with good brass, is between 65 and 70k psi.
Won't hurt the rifle... won't even hurt good brass for 2 or 3 firings.
No real point in running that hot though, I did it for years in the 280 Ackley... dropping 50 fps hasn't cost me a thing that I've missed.
With 160 grain bullets a good 24 inch barrel should give you between 2,900 and 3,000 fps and be within pressure limits using RL26, RL22, MRP, IMR7828, etc.... pushing past 3,000 is running them a little warm....2,950 fps is a good place to land with an accurate load.
168 grain bullets....2,850 to 2,900 fps.
175's.....2,750 to 2,800 fps.
When you see ejector marks...it usually takes dropping at least 2 or 3 grains "after they disappear" to get back where it needs to be.
But many just run them at just low enough to not wreck the brass.... which, with good brass, is between 65 and 70k psi.
Won't hurt the rifle... won't even hurt good brass for 2 or 3 firings.
No real point in running that hot though, I did it for years in the 280 Ackley... dropping 50 fps hasn't cost me a thing that I've missed.
With 160 grain bullets a good 24 inch barrel should give you between 2,900 and 3,000 fps and be within pressure limits using RL26, RL22, MRP, IMR7828, etc.... pushing past 3,000 is running them a little warm....2,950 fps is a good place to land with an accurate load.
168 grain bullets....2,850 to 2,900 fps.
175's.....2,750 to 2,800 fps.
rayatphonix
Member
I’m testing 180 grain Hornady bullets in my 1:9 twist rifle. Seems to do fine. I’ll take it out to 600 yards soon.
OP
OP
huntinfool87
Member
I want to try those in my 1:8 twist but I can't seem to fine any
Ridgerunner665
Member
I should put this out there...
I first got a 280 Ackley many years ago (late 80's) I only kept that one a year or so, I reloaded back then but wasn't really in a financial position to support a wildcat round (I was in my early teens, not much money).
I got my current rifle in 2014... and did all the load development in 2014 and 2015, so I'm a little out of date on current bullets... the loads I came up with back then work great, I have the components to make them for years to come, and with finding components being what it has been for so long now... if it ain't broke.
All that is to say... sometimes you have to get data where you can, no data was available to me in the 80's but I got by with pushing 280 Remington data.
In 2014... Nosler was the only published data out at the time, but 7mm RSAUM data was out there, the case capacity, powders used, bullets used, and primers used are all the same...I never "pushed" that data, but I've had no issues using it as published and being careful up towards max loads (as we should be always).
I'm no expert on anything.
I first got a 280 Ackley many years ago (late 80's) I only kept that one a year or so, I reloaded back then but wasn't really in a financial position to support a wildcat round (I was in my early teens, not much money).
I got my current rifle in 2014... and did all the load development in 2014 and 2015, so I'm a little out of date on current bullets... the loads I came up with back then work great, I have the components to make them for years to come, and with finding components being what it has been for so long now... if it ain't broke.
All that is to say... sometimes you have to get data where you can, no data was available to me in the 80's but I got by with pushing 280 Remington data.
In 2014... Nosler was the only published data out at the time, but 7mm RSAUM data was out there, the case capacity, powders used, bullets used, and primers used are all the same...I never "pushed" that data, but I've had no issues using it as published and being careful up towards max loads (as we should be always).
I'm no expert on anything.
AJC1
Member
I did a lot of homework on this cartridge because it was my intent to get one for junior if he establishes himself as an actual hunter. Looking at ballistics the 160 class bullet had the SD and energy numbers to take just about anything minus a trip to Alaska where you could be on the menu. What advantage are we chasing with loadings heavier than 160 class bullets. I don't believe we're target shooting here so my assumption is selecting a bullet with good terminal ballistics and enough velocity to activate the proper expansion characteristics.
OP
OP
huntinfool87
Member
As of right now mine is for target shooting primarily but I haven't ruled out hunting at this time
Ridgerunner665
Member
I agree completely...a run of the mill bonded 150 or 160 gain bullet will serve you well, I wouldn't "hunt" griz with it, but it would certainly kill one... I'm sure many have fallen to 7mm Rem Mag.
By the numbers, for deer and elk use.... the high BC 162 and 168 grain hunting bullets ARE better, at long range.... and they may work OK at close range, but they'll make a mess doing it.
For general hunting at any range the 280 Ackley should be used for (600 and less)...it's dang hard to beat a Nosler 160 Accubond or 150 Swift Scirocco... with the Swift being the slightly better bullet all around (better BC, expands at lower velocity, and holds together at close range).... but they're expensive.
- Status
