Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 280 AI......I want one. Tell me all about it.

B U L L E T S

the above could change on a moments notice !

I wonder if different bullets have any bearing on the performance of any given cartridge.? 😉!

Nope. A bullet's a bullet.

I have always wanted a 280 AI. It's one of the few medium caliber's I have never owned. I bet they are fun to shoot.

It could!

I just fired a 280 AI for the first time this week- Rem 70, Jewell trigger, McM M40 stock, Douglass barrel & S&B scope. I borrowed it for a Scottish stag hunt. We did not see any stags on the estate over a four day period (saw one on an adjacent property last night). I did take a feral goat with the AI. The owner had just received it from the gunsmith after rechamberi g and cerakoating. I got in position and touched off the trigger- click. Recockec and squeezed again- 140 BT in goat's shoulder at 175 yards. Goat goes down, but gets back up. Repeat click, recock, bang, shoulder hit sequence. It appears that the standard 280 cases were being pushed forward instead of firing on the initial strike. Owner went home and seated bullets to touch the lands- rifle fired properly on 3 test shots.
I also shot a custom Ruger 1 in 6.5-06 with a heavy Shilen barrel, NF scope and suppressor. It weighed a ton, but was a nice shooter.

Now, I have been an Ackley Improved cartridge fan since before that Armstrong fellow stepped onto the Moon. First one was a Ruger 77 Round Top that came chambered for the .257 Roberts. I had it rechambered by Micro Sight for the Ackley version. That lash-up had no reason to shoot .375" 10 shot groups at 100 yards with a Sierra 75 grain HP, ahead of 48.0 grains of H-380, but it did. First two ground squirrels I shot were complete misses, until I noticed the log they were sitting on was coated with little pink flecks of biological foam, and found a little piece of furry hide about the size of a postage stamp. I was amazed.

I am on my third .257 Roberts Ackley, this one a custom Remington 700 with a Schneider barrel that was worked over by Greg Tannel. It cost more than my first three jalopies and first Honda motorcycle. For some strange reason I still like the .257 Ackley, although the cartridge is way overkill for varmint.

Then I branched out trying a couple of others, with the last one a .22-250 Remington Ackley Improved. Now, for this one I went a different route just to tinker with something new. Obtained a print of the chambering reamer, and gathered up two fired cases and sent them to Hornady's Custom Shop, and they made me a hydraulic case forming die and a chamber matched F.L. sizing die set. The hydraulic forming die expanded new brass with a couple blows of a dead-blow hammer to exactly fit the chamber, so that all that firing did was slightly sharpen the body to shoulder junction, otherwise no more hassle with having to fire form, or backed out primers, or short cases from forming with too light a load. Winchester brass worked best, and Lapua the worst; it's always good when the cheap stuff works best. I was in hog heaven. Thing shot bug holes, killed sage rats with enormous splats. Sounds good so far.

Here's the rub. After all that work, blap-a-doodling up cases, loading and sweating over getting everything just right, I asked myself - why? The truth is that in Ackley's day they didn't have all the powders and cartridges we enjoy today. That and the fact that ever then, the Improved cases weren't producing that much additional velocity gain. The .257 Roberts Ackley being about the most efficient with around an honest 100 -200 fps depending on bullet weight. of course some versions are good for slowing case stretch, such as the .220 Swift Ackley, but loading it to full advantage still is tough on the brass. So, I came to the conclusion that given all the available cartridges today, it just doesn't make much sense or need to dabble with the Improved case thing. They now sit proudly in my safes, unused and forlorn, while the .204 Ruger's; .223 Remingtons; 6mm PPC's; 6mm BR Norma; .243 WSSM; .25-06 Remington; 6.5-284 Norma; and a lesser used 7mm Remington Magnum; and a fantastically accurate .308 Winchester built on a Remington 700 action, do the work. After living long enough to realize that if one selects the bullet first and matches it to the specifications desired, velocity being the important factor, any cartridges that puffs it out at that speed will all shoot the same. All the rest is marketing to create interest and sales, and of course, provide entertainment for those who are bored with things practical and ordinary.

......and that being said, the 24 Hour Campfire is now closed for business.

Suggesting, if you will, that the headspace was not set correctly correct.

Whew! Someone gets it.

SSOO much better than listening to this "ultimate BG cartridge" blather but I guess you have to grapple your way through a lot of rifles and cartridges before it all starts to sink in....

Either that, or the brass had already been fired in a .280 chamber.

New brass has a slight curve between the top of the shoulder and the neck. A good gunsmith will make the chamber "crush fit" this curve when chambering for an improved round.

When brass is fired in a standard chamber this curve disappears, becoming a sharp angle, and the brass won't "crush fit" in the improved chamber.

Have seen this in more than one improved-chambered rifle. Loads in new brass will fire fine, but loads in brass previously fired in a rifle chambered for the standard cartridge often won't.

^^^ Good points.

I guess I would question why a gun would be taken on a hunting trip with ammo that didn't even match the chambering. I know that is supposed to be one of the benefits of the AI chambering, but why have an AI if the intent is to shoot 280 Rem. loads?

It would be like buying a 458 lott, and taking it on Safari with 458 win. mag. ammo only. Actually, that would be better, because it would be guaranteed to fire. But, not the purpose of the gun's chambering, either.

No one seemed to want to take the time to test fire the rifle either, which means that no testing was done with the ammo that was going to be used after coming back from the gunsmith and rechambering. Did he cerakote it with the scope in place or was it removed before placing in the curing oven?...so where was the zero?

Just questions...

I think this oryx was the first ever taken with a 280ai, and a 140 gr ttsx !

I was told that the rifle had been sighted in after rechambering and that it had misfired once or twice. The bolt was taken apart and cleaned and the rifle fired properly. I believe that the brass was previously fired in the same gun prior to the AI work. Needless to say, the owner was not happy and called the gunsmith for resolution.

And the gunsmith hopefully told him to look at the barrel stamp and use the proper ammunition for the rifle next time.

I have a std 280 in the works, NOT improved!

I see lots of used 280AIs for sale and hardly any std 280s. That tells me something.

I don't mind tinkering with loading shells. I find it time well spent or wasted depending on your view. I just don't want to piss away good money trying to get a poor platform something it can't be when I can just buy one for less. I can buy a Montana in 280AI for under $1500 and not have to have it sit at a Smith's for months. I'll have a 280AI one way or another. No offense to the 7 Remington Mag but it's almost as pedestrian as the 06 or 270. Hell of a good cartridge but I want something different. And that is probably the appeal. Something different to play with. The 30-06 and the other standard chamberings I have are just too easy.