Reloading for the .280AI

[AJC1]

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.

I figured I may have received the heavier loading to reduce meat damage at close range which was the original idea of the 150 loading in 270. Based on the cost of the brass and the barrel life I did not expect a target crowd but as always with ass-umptions I'm called out.

 

[huntinfool87]

I figured I may have received the heavier loading to reduce meat damage at close range which was the original idea of the 150 loading in 270. Based on the cost of the brass and the barrel life I did not expect a target crowd but as always with ass-umptions I'm called out.

My thoughts are that I have a ton of brass for the .280 so target shooting at long range for fun not for competition is my favorite hobby. Before getting my .280 AI all I had was a Tikka CTR in .260 but I've considered improving that to Ackly or terminator. But have not decided on any of that at this time. I love my standard .280 so I figured the AI would be fun to shoot range with.

 

[AJC1]

My thoughts are that I have a ton of brass for the .280 so target shooting at long range for fun not for competition is my favorite hobby. Before getting my .280 AI all I had was a Tikka CTR in .260 but I've considered improving that to Ackly or terminator. But have not decided on any of that at this time. I love my standard .280 so I figured the AI would be fun to shoot range with.

In an uncompetitive setting the strings of fire could be reduced or slowed considerably making it a much more reasonable idea. Anything can be justified under the idea of fun to me but I look for understanding when possible. In the framework of target work is your loss of velocity with your heavier option giving you advantage with bc over the 165 option. I've not run those numbers.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

In an uncompetitive setting the strings of fire could be reduced or slowed considerably making it a much more reasonable idea. Anything can be justified under the idea of fun to me but I look for understanding when possible. In the framework of target work is your loss of velocity with your heavier option giving you advantage with bc over the 165 option. I've not run those numbers.

I can share those numbers...which comparisons are you curious about?

I have Applied Ballistics with custom drag models for several 7mm bullets which put up some very accurate numbers.

But put simply.... yes... better BC pretty much always works better at long range...wind is the enemy, drop is easy (constant and predictable).... better BC helps with windage.

 

[AJC1]

I can share those numbers...which comparisons are you curious about?

I have Applied Ballistics with custom drag models for several 7mm bullets which put up some very accurate numbers.

But put simply.... yes... better BC pretty much always works better at long range...wind is the enemy, drop is easy (constant and predictable).... better BC helps with windage.

I would be interested in the 160 ab vs the 175 ablr launched at their respective max loads with the same powder just for reasable comparison. Maybe the OP has different intentions so that might not be useful to him....

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I would be interested in the 160 ab vs the 175 ablr launched at their respective max loads with the same powder just for reasable comparison. Maybe the OP has different intentions so that might not be useful to him....

10 mph crosswind at sea level

160 Accubond


175 ABLR

 

[Ridgerunner665]

168 ABLR

 

[Ridgerunner665]

150 Swift Scirocco

 

[AJC1]

168 ABLR
View attachment 1124704

So the 168 shows that sweet spot I was however badly trying to convey. I appreciate it.....