Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 280 Remington Max safe velocity?

Damn:

I knew it. You smart lurkers are there in the wood work needing to lure you all out just to pick your brains. At last another good post by a fellow enthusiast.

No mystery...just good fun discussion. Sure, simple google search would answer most questions on here but what fun is there in that? Some of us like the mostly good-natured interactions even if it may be redundant.

There is always somebody who thinks a given question shouldn't have been asked.

Use them and you will like the end results, I know I did.

Yup, I bought 500 each of the 140's and 150's for fire-forming, load work up etc. They do a nice job on game too.

It's not theory. I was trying to be polite.

Take a look at Barnes data for the XLC bullets and compare them to the data for conventional Barnes bullets of the time.The charges were heavier and velocities were higher for the XLC. How come? .But I am working from memory so anyone is free to refresh it for me.

The "slicker" XLC (with the friction reducing coating) allowed heavier powder charges and greater velocity.

Hasn't anyone ever seen different bullets of the same weight, from the same barrel, and same powder charges produce different velocities? Anyone ever wonder "why"?

Charges are the same,bullet weights are the same, barrel is the same. So they should produce the exact same velocity. Right? But some don't. How come?

Well, any effect of coatings aside, bearing surface differences between various bullets is a significant contributor to different pressures / velocities as a certainty.

MM

Being polite is accepted with great appreciation:

This thingie about variations between calibers, bullets, barrels, velocities, ballistics is, as you surely are cognizant very complex.

Best I can say now it that I am thankful that you broach the subject intelligently and with the appropriate decorum.

Another Good Guy to chalk up on this fine leading website.

BobinNH will forget more than you will ever know,wet.

Rick hasn't tossed this WET fool yet?

Repost reshot the 280 again with 140 gr shoot best at max loads with RL 22.

I think the .280 is one of the more interesting cartridges out there, and the fact that raising pressures nearer to .25-06 pressures can wake it up has fed my curiosity and led me down an interesting path over the years. I'm fully aware that SAAMI pressure ammo will do the job...I just see it as a "why not?" and/or "what if?" proposition. Were the subject politicized I think the bumper sticker would say "it's the science, stupid."

I've had four rifles in .280, and have some limited data on three of them. My current rifle, a Model 70 Super Grade (I'm still pinching myself over that acquisition!), seems to have a more generous chamber as the fireformed brass which held 69.0 grain of water when fired in the previous rifle holds 70.4 grains of water when fireformed in the 70.

My old load consisting of a 150-grain Partition over 58.5 grains of H4831SC turned in about 2920 fps in the old rifle, but only 2860 fps in the new one. It's taking from 1.5 to 1.7 grains more of 4831 to get the new rifle to match the old one in terms of velocity. I suppose the more generous chamber in the Model 70 is responsible for at least a part of that.

Since there are some interesting new powders on the block, I am taking the opportunity to try some in the new rifle before I get too far with H4831. Re26 is particularly interesting, and QL suggests I can approach 3000 fps without breaking a sweat (about 54000 psi). I'm not taking that to the bank, though. You don't know until you know.

One thing I like about Re26 in this application is that (again, according to QL) it does not appear to be operating anywhere near dangerous pressure, and small charge weight increments don't seem to produce out-of-proportion pressure and velocity variations. Burn should be near 100% also. Again, I have no deposit slip in my pocket all filled out and ready to go.

I look forward to finding out how it actually pans out.