Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Custom Rifles & Wildcats 280 ackley do or dont?

Feed work is common on some custom builds.

Now if the work was performed and the cartridge didn't feed that would classify as a problem getting it to feed.

Shod

[/quote]

Huh....Not sure I follow what your saying...Well sure if it won't feed then it is a feeding problem. [/quote]

Here is the issue. The rifle fed as a 30-06 perfectly. When rebarreled to the 280 AI it required work to make it feed properly, but never did feed like the 30-06. I never said it didn't feed. I said it required additional work. There is a difference. And proper feeding, I've found, has very subjective definitions.

I should point out that I hunt coyotes and such with a 243 AI. It feeds fine, but required more work than the standard 243 to do so. I'm sorry if this offends you, but it is what it is. When guys are pushing AI cartridges because you don't need to trim them you have to know they are stretching for reasons to sell their cool aid.

Probably had more to do with smith doing the work!

What action are you having to modify to make the Ackley feed correctly ?

I found a significant defect in the first WSM I bought. It was a Winchester M70 SS with crf in 7mm WSM. The chamber was way out of round!

Winchester overtightened the barrels into the actions on some and that made the chamber sag into the extractor cut they say.

I sold mine as the out of round chamber bothered me and it was not worth the bother. Also the rifle was not that accurate.

The Kimbers are much better actions. Their safeties work well and smooth. Not like those M70's.

It turned out to be true. It's been discussed. For sure there was no significant 270 magnum and the 7mm Remington magnum is big.

I have both a 270 WSM and a 7mm WSM in the Kimber Montanas. Presently the 270 WSM is shooting better than the 7. My heart is with the 7mm WSM but it's not going to go hunting unless I can get it shooting better.

No doubt Rick could elaborate and so could l for that matter. But for those so inclined to go look the topic was pretty well covered back in t he 1980's by Layne Simpson in an as rticle entitled "Long Throating the 7mm Express Remington". The data was pretty comprehensive and included diffrrent barrel lengths and powders as good in the 280 as anything today (MRP for example).Some of the data shows velocities so close t o 280AI it m akes us wonder..

I did some work with the 280 over the tears and maybe half dozen rifles. And talked th o RinB to compare notes since he is an old pal goibg back 30 years. After doing all this it's not hard to understand why l could never get excited over a 280AI. It was just easierto get a 7 RemMag if l wanted more than a 280 offered.

Yes the Kimber Montana outs a slightly new slant on the whole thing with an 06 bllt face.

I read that article and had a M70 throated for 160/175 partitions.

Something to consider today is that VLD bullets have a lot more boattail and they are sleeker--the ogive is set back further--thus, they seat deeper in the case. Long-throating can become more of an issue to favoring particular bullets than it already was.

Another consideration is the Nosler case. I weighed the water capacity of my fired 280AI (nosler) to the mouth - 75.1g. Have had several variations of AI over the years and more AI rifles than is reasonable. The new Nosler case has more capacity. I was supposed to be leaving to go North when sidetracked with this and I did a quick weigh on a standard 280 Remington case at 68.3--a guy should compare the Nosler standard case.

That's was a one time mistake with the early WSM CRF model 70's. All the short fats have chambering issues until the manufacturers figured out what was going on, even Kimber. Once winchester figured it out it was fixed pretty quickly and everyone who sent it to winchester got it fixed. But just because you got one bad apple doesn't mean the whole model 70's suck. Look at all the bad kimbers, most are Russian roulettes, the chances of getting a shooter to lemon is slim. They had a bad problem with 7mm bore barrels for awhile and couldn't find out what was wrong and there was no 7mm-08 made for 3-4 years. Now the model 70 safety being not working well and smooth, I seriously don't know where you got that from because most rifle looney don't complain of that. I've owned a kimber in .223, is it a great gun? Yes. Better than a model 70? I think most wouldn't agree.

Feed work is common on some custom builds.


What action are we talking about that has feeding problems with the 280 Ackley ? Was it something other than a Springfield based round (30/06, 270, 25/05 etc) to begin with ?

Krieger is conservative on their stainless minimum contour per caliber policy. The smallest contour they will turn in .284 is a #4.5 contour, which will measure .900" 6" from the breech and .670" at 26", as Krieger wants a minimum .900" at the neck on a barrel in .284. If you order a fluted .284 #4.5 or #5 contour, they will bump that measurement up to 1.00" at 6" from the breech as they cut their flutes 0.050" deep.

So Bob, seeing how RinB hasn't answered my question and I know you have lots of experience with mag chambered rounds, are you of the same opinion that you can rechamber a skinny short shanked barrel normally seen in say 270's, 280's and 06's in a mag round such as the Mashburn or 300 Win Mag for example ? I've always seen mag chambered barrels to have at least a longer shank area than non-mag rounds. I wonder if my smith would take a Remington Mountain Rifle barrel from a 280 and rechamber it to a 7mm Mashburn, providing I did the bolt face mods first ?

Actually, I think the shank diameter is more of a problem than the length.........but I've seen some pretty light magnum shanked barrels.

MM

There's at least one avid poster here who won't agree with that statement.

Hint......he throws his Kimbers around on the rocks to demonstrate their durability.

MM

I never measured the shank diameter, but it sure looks to be thicker as well. Just take a casual glance at a Rem sporter and a Rem mag sporter and the mag sporter appears to be thicker and has a longer shank as well.

+1

I agree with you on this, but really have nothing to back it up other than having looked at a lot of rifles.

I don't recall ever seeing a magnum rifle with a super light barrel contour.

Comparing new rifles, Kimber blows Winchester out of the water.

Wrong.

+1 No comparison.

If it was so good I wonder why there is such a big thread on the hunting rifle section on how to make a kimber shoot and the rave reviews of the famous kimber roulette. Not just here on the campfire but everywhere else. I have mostly hear of good praises from the new winchesters only and nothing has to be done to it to make it shoot like messing with the kimber mag box, torque settings, bedding, blah blah blah the whole bible written on it, lol.

RD I will try to answer even though I am not a gunsmith....first, no I like a lighter contour in 270/280 and other standard cases in a hunting rifle than for magnum chamberings. But as an example to think about the pre 64 M70 FW came chambered for the 264 Win Mag and I am pretty sure it had exactly the same contour as a 270 FW. Never heard of a single issue with those rifles even though I would not want a FW contour for a magnum chambering. I like a bit more meat around a belted case.

I have played with contours in the 7 Rem Mag since the 80's when I figured out most factory contours were just too heavy for what I wanted. I about drove Butch Searcy nuts with one until a light went on when I finally said...."Make it like a 270... and he said....."I know what you want"...and on my 24" Krieger he radiused (bad word) the barrel just forward of the chamber area sharply downward and transitioned to a light contour for the rest of the barrel.This is what he called at the time a "Burgess Contour" (Tom Burgess) and for years I did not know what he meant until I saw the same thing on some custom rifles on which Tom Burgess did the metal work.

I think that Utah 7/08 on here has a 7 Rem Mag with a very clever contour that is very much like what I had. At any rate the barrel on mine was very accurate and the rifle weighed a bit under 7.5 pounds....for its day it was a very light rifle for that chambering.

The barrel on my 7 Mashburn started as a Krieger #2...Gene Simillion lightened it a bit in the transition from chamber to barrel shank. The rifle weighs about 7.75 pounds scoped. I also have a 7 RM with a 24" Brux #2,also on a M70 Classic....there is a enough difference between the two that you will notice the difference...not a lot but you can notice it when you pick up the rifles. I think the Mashburn is about "perfect" but so was that old Krieger Butch did for me.At least for a barrel to be carried a lot.

Factories will standardize contours to save money so that in 338 they feel fine but in 7 RM they leave a lot of meat. In no particular order the factory 7 Mag contours that I "like" are: The Rem 700 KS Mountain rifle ( n 280 i would want a lighter contour); the contour on the Ruger M77 Hawkeye and original tang safety M77 (not the heavy one because they made two)are also good.The contour on a 7mm WSM Montana is also very light for a 7mm magnum.

Building rifles I notice that,at least to me,guys choose barrel contours that are bit too heavy and then wonder why their rifles end up weighing too much. What you get for a barrel contour depends on how you plan to use the rifles. Mine spend far more time in my hands, unslung, so I don't like a lot of weight. Don't know if this answers your question.

In passing I will mention that The Rickster (RinB) is one of the most knowledgeable metal and custom rifle customers we will bump into....he has literally owned it all from the top makers,and taught me a bunch of stuff ; when building I always talk to him about it and have been for 30+ years.

Is there a Kimber vs Current Winchester discussion going on?