Lack of hot .280 Rem. loads???
11-20-2011, 08:12 PM
#1
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northeast Texas
Posts: 442
Lack of hot .280 Rem. loads???
Ok, so I've been posting a ton of random stuff about which caliber to pick for my NULA rifle.
In digging through factory and handload ballistics (I love that stuff for some damn reason), I started comparing the .270 Win., .280 Rem., and the .30-06.
One thing really jumped out at me....I've found hot/speedy loads for the .270 and 06', but the "hot" loads for the .280 Rem. seem kinda' mild.
Example....I was looking at Alliant Powders website. They have a load for the .270 Win. with a 130gr. bullet at ALMOST 3150fps. with RL 17. They show a load for the 06' with a 150gr. bullet at about 3025fps. also with RL 17.
So I check out a load for the .280 Rem. with a 140gr. bullet with RL 17.....the fastest one was around 2950fps.
I hopped over to IMR/Hogdons site and found pretty much the same thing.
Checked out the Hornady SuperPerformance factory loads. Again....a 130gr. .270 Win. at 3200fps. A 150gr. 06' over 3000fps. In the .280 Rem., the "revolutionary" SuperPerformance load just barely got the 140gr. bullet over 3000fps.
I know that the .280 Rem. was originally loaded to lower pressures for the semi auto rifles they were common in. But in a modern bolt action rifle, I would think someone could load a 140gr. bullet at around 3100fps with the right powder and a 24" barrel. (with no excessive pressure signs).
I'm a newby at reloading, so I'm going by what the powder companies are showing.
Does anyone have a .280 Rem. load that is hovering around the 3100fps. mark?
I'll take accuracy over 100fps. any day, but I thought it was strange that so many sources had hot loads for the .270 and 06' but the .280 Rem. seemed to be lacking them.
Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places.....
Any input would be appreciated
In digging through factory and handload ballistics (I love that stuff for some damn reason), I started comparing the .270 Win., .280 Rem., and the .30-06.
One thing really jumped out at me....I've found hot/speedy loads for the .270 and 06', but the "hot" loads for the .280 Rem. seem kinda' mild.
Example....I was looking at Alliant Powders website. They have a load for the .270 Win. with a 130gr. bullet at ALMOST 3150fps. with RL 17. They show a load for the 06' with a 150gr. bullet at about 3025fps. also with RL 17.
So I check out a load for the .280 Rem. with a 140gr. bullet with RL 17.....the fastest one was around 2950fps.
I hopped over to IMR/Hogdons site and found pretty much the same thing.
Checked out the Hornady SuperPerformance factory loads. Again....a 130gr. .270 Win. at 3200fps. A 150gr. 06' over 3000fps. In the .280 Rem., the "revolutionary" SuperPerformance load just barely got the 140gr. bullet over 3000fps.
I know that the .280 Rem. was originally loaded to lower pressures for the semi auto rifles they were common in. But in a modern bolt action rifle, I would think someone could load a 140gr. bullet at around 3100fps with the right powder and a 24" barrel. (with no excessive pressure signs).
I'm a newby at reloading, so I'm going by what the powder companies are showing.
Does anyone have a .280 Rem. load that is hovering around the 3100fps. mark?
I'll take accuracy over 100fps. any day, but I thought it was strange that so many sources had hot loads for the .270 and 06' but the .280 Rem. seemed to be lacking them.
Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places.....
Any input would be appreciated
11-21-2011, 02:50 PM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: West NE
Posts: 1,455
I often seat bullets out so there's just a hint of rifling contact marked and regularly exceed "max" charges, and I find myself getting great-shooting loads over and over again. If you are comfortable being independent from the books, and taking the risk of experimentation, you will probably find yourself able to do the same. I always approach and exceed maximums very carefully, and finish with accuracy as the deciding factor. You need to pay the most attention to the bullets you use, as a high BC will get you further than some speed. In my 7mmRM, I've become a fan of 154gr SSTs...they're affordable and offer me a good BC:velocity and great accuracy. For me, it's a dandy choice.
SSTs offer the same in 277s. 30 cals are still a bit lacking...but this is just me. If you prefer a different bullet manufacturer (like barnes for example), the 30 could certainly be your choice.
Think bullets first, then decide what's gonna throw them.
SSTs offer the same in 277s. 30 cals are still a bit lacking...but this is just me. If you prefer a different bullet manufacturer (like barnes for example), the 30 could certainly be your choice.
Think bullets first, then decide what's gonna throw them.
11-21-2011, 06:26 PM
#7
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Slippery Rock, Pa.
Posts: 393
+1, I tested my 280AI with a 140 gr bullet and 60.0grs of imr 4831 and nosler listed it to get 3222fps which was about 100fps than a 7mm rem mag. The nice thing about the 280AI if you use up, lose your ammo or forget it at home you can use standard 280s. Of course a 280 AI only works if you reload or buy Nosler ammo.
11-21-2011, 08:10 PM
#8
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northeast Texas
Posts: 442
Don't currently reload, but would sure like to get back into it!
I don't think I'm an AI kinda' guy. I'm happy with the standard long action calibers. Just easier to get factory ammo if I wanted or needed to.
Ridge,
I understand a little about chamber pressure and how it effects velocity. Notice I said a "little".
If a .270 Win. has a higher rated chamber pressure, giving it more velocity in a 130gr. than a .280 in a 140gr., does that mean that it's not safe to load the .280 to equal velocity?
I'm not sure if I'm asking that question the right way.......
Looking at all the #'s out there, a 140gr. in a .270 Win. can be pushed at about the same velocity as a 140gr. in a .280 Rem.
That SEEMS like it would give the .270 Win. a small advantage with bullet weights of 130, 140, and 150grs. over the .280 Rem.
(Better BC in a 130gr. .277 than a 130gr. .284.)
Right or wrong?
I don't think I'm an AI kinda' guy. I'm happy with the standard long action calibers. Just easier to get factory ammo if I wanted or needed to.
Ridge,
I understand a little about chamber pressure and how it effects velocity. Notice I said a "little".
If a .270 Win. has a higher rated chamber pressure, giving it more velocity in a 130gr. than a .280 in a 140gr., does that mean that it's not safe to load the .280 to equal velocity?
I'm not sure if I'm asking that question the right way.......
Looking at all the #'s out there, a 140gr. in a .270 Win. can be pushed at about the same velocity as a 140gr. in a .280 Rem.
That SEEMS like it would give the .270 Win. a small advantage with bullet weights of 130, 140, and 150grs. over the .280 Rem.
(Better BC in a 130gr. .277 than a 130gr. .284.)
Right or wrong?
11-23-2011, 04:48 AM
#9
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,056
I'm feeling like the "chart antichrist" again...
I could at one time in my life almost recite the data from the entire Remington ammunition catalog. I think I was so focused on OPD (Other Peoples' Data) that I overlooked something more important - my own data. Probably not a big surprise, as just about every firearm I own has attached to it a different length barrel than Remington tested with, shooting with different environmentals than Remington's tests were conducted under, but my own data was always different - and sometimes SIGNIFICANTLY different - than Remington's.
Long ago, I remember reading quite a few comparisons between the .270 and the .280. Mind you, the .280 was primarily intended by Remington to be chambered in their slide-action and semi-auto rifles, which apparently resulted in some concern over chamber pressures and, IIRC, was suggested as the reason the .280 Remington wasn't performing to the same level the .270 Winchester was. Fast forward to the early 1980s and Remington's rebadging of the .280 as the "7mm Remington Express", which also included chambering it in the M700 line. From the data I remember then, the 7mm Express was a considerably better performer than the old version .280. But, Americans don't seem too interested in anything metric (save the 7mm Remington Magnum), and the name was changed back to .280, liability lawyers made money, and the loadings were once again tamed.
I don't own one, though I know a couple guys who do. I think it's fairly well accepted now that to wring out what the .280 is capable of, one must reload. If you're not committed to reloading, you'd probably be wise to dismiss the .280 and go with either the .270 or the .30-06.
But stop paying so much attention to those charts! Until you know what velocity those factory loads are leaving your rifle barrel at, you really don't know anything for certain. They should have "Performance in YOUR rifle WILL vary" in fine print at the bottom of each page.
I could at one time in my life almost recite the data from the entire Remington ammunition catalog. I think I was so focused on OPD (Other Peoples' Data) that I overlooked something more important - my own data. Probably not a big surprise, as just about every firearm I own has attached to it a different length barrel than Remington tested with, shooting with different environmentals than Remington's tests were conducted under, but my own data was always different - and sometimes SIGNIFICANTLY different - than Remington's.
Long ago, I remember reading quite a few comparisons between the .270 and the .280. Mind you, the .280 was primarily intended by Remington to be chambered in their slide-action and semi-auto rifles, which apparently resulted in some concern over chamber pressures and, IIRC, was suggested as the reason the .280 Remington wasn't performing to the same level the .270 Winchester was. Fast forward to the early 1980s and Remington's rebadging of the .280 as the "7mm Remington Express", which also included chambering it in the M700 line. From the data I remember then, the 7mm Express was a considerably better performer than the old version .280. But, Americans don't seem too interested in anything metric (save the 7mm Remington Magnum), and the name was changed back to .280, liability lawyers made money, and the loadings were once again tamed.
I don't own one, though I know a couple guys who do. I think it's fairly well accepted now that to wring out what the .280 is capable of, one must reload. If you're not committed to reloading, you'd probably be wise to dismiss the .280 and go with either the .270 or the .30-06.
But stop paying so much attention to those charts! Until you know what velocity those factory loads are leaving your rifle barrel at, you really don't know anything for certain. They should have "Performance in YOUR rifle WILL vary" in fine print at the bottom of each page.
