I am wondering what people thought are on the 284 Winchester. I had read someplace that NULA makes more 284's than all other calibers. I would be interested in your personal thoughts or experiences. Why did it fail? Another marketing flop because the choice of rifle it was brought out in?

Thanks,

ddj

My buddy, Chub Eastman, has killed a slew of critters with a NULA (actually, an ULA) in .284 Winchester. Don't remember him ever shooting twice.

Great rifle and excellent cartrige. Brass is presumeably better now that the 6.5-284 is a fad ... or you could always neck up the 6.5 if it isn't.

Basically, a good 139- or 140-grain bullet would handle all American game from speed goats to moose. That's all Chub uses and it works wonderfully.

Steve

I have owned a bunch, and still own a few, but I think that the 284 was pretty much eclipsed as a bolt action rifle hunting cartridge the day that the 7mm SAUM, 270 WSM, and 7mm WSM were launched. From that POV, the best use for the 284 case is to use them for making 25-284 cases. Winchester/Olin 284 brass has always treated me right and I've probably used 6K of it over the past 30 years.

I think that the 25-284 fits into short actions with all bullet weights a little better than the parent 284 or the larger caliber wildcats. If longer shots and higher velocity are critical to your type of shooting, I doubt that you could design a better short action dual purpose varmint-medium game cartridge than the 25-284.

The most common factory produced 284s were probably the Savage 99 and Winchester 88 and 100, but none of them are particularly common today. IIRC, the only larger manufacturers that cataloged a bolt action rifle in 284 were Browning and Ruger. I don't believe that Remington or Savage ever chambered their bolt action rifles for the 284 and the only Winchester/USRA 70 that I recall being chambered in 284 was a very uncommon DM style.

The concept has merit, 270/280 performance in a short action bolt, lever, or semi-auto rifle, however, Winchester/Olin's current 150 grain factory load has approximately the same velocity as the much easier to find 308. The only 2 Winchester/Olin factory loads that I recall are the discontinued 125 grain PP and the current 150 grain PP. The 125 grain factory load had a good reputation as being a quick killer on medium game, sort of like the 270 and 130 grain combination.

I don't know if the 284 would have been much more successful if it had been chambered in the Winchester 70, since its introduction coincided with the 1964 design change and post-'64 Winchester 70 were not huge sellers, plus they were all long actions at the time. I haven't looked it up, but I doubt that the 284 survived a factory offering for more than 10 years, 1974, except in the on and off again Ruger 77 production.

The 284 is 1 of those cult cartridges that has had "magic" qualities attributed to it, rather like the 250-3000 and 257 Roberts.

Jeff

260Remguy,

Thanks for the information. I really appreciate hearing the personal experience with this cartridge. What is the recoil compareable to?

ddj

I toted around a Browning BLR in .284 Win for a number of years. Shooting factory 150gr Power Points, it left a slew of dead deer and elk in its wake...none of which required more than one shot.

I let that rifle go after my shooting shoulder gave out. Now that the shoulder has been rebuilt, I rather regret that little transaction.

Great and underrated, I've always thought of it as the perfect "mountain rifle" cartridge. It's a shame it didn't catch on, especially since the 7mm-08 seems to have now secured its place. Maybe if it had been introduced in a new bolt action it may have become popular. Who knows?

All other things being equal, I'd say that the 284's recoil is about the same as a 308 with the same weight bullet and same weight rifle. Since it has a 55mm case, it might be a RCH too long to be a great fit in a short action. I think that the 7mm-08 fit into a short action with all bullet weights a little better than the 284 and the difference in performance is probably more impressive on paper then in the field.

As Mule Deer has pointed out a time or 2, the 7mm SAUM has the same case capacity as the highly touted 280AI, so why go 284 when you could go 284 Improved?

Jeff

I'd forgotten about the 284 being chambered in the BLR!

Jeff

Well Trout, I happen to have a custom .284 Win from Rifles Inc. and with a Zeiss Conq 3.5-10 on in Talleys it weighs in at the Bantam weight range--6.25 lbs, that you are more than welcome to inspect. It's not a NULA but a competitor's same concept. But more than that, I have actually been almost flabbergasted at the performance with R17--try 3150 with a 140-gr bullet with button hole groups. Believe me, I have looked for all the traditional pressure signs and they are not there. It could be because I twisted up my mouth and squinted just the right way while eating a lot of fiber but there it is. I'm tickled.

It's no wonder cartridge-none are-but it was ahead of its time and is perfect for big game light mountain rifle concept and yes even in such a light rifle the recoil is pretty benign.

You know I wanted Lex Webernick to do it in 7mm SAUM but he wouldn't. I don't think I'm disappointed as the recoil is "enough" and what would I gain over 3100 fps...that would make a difference?

I've had several of the WSM's and a 7mm SAUM and never really liked them. I never had a problem feeding one, they shot ok (not great), they just never grew on me.

I appreciate the idea.

ddj

It makes an outstanding woods rifle!

I have a 284 in a Browning Micro-Medallion.

Its a great little gun!! loaded with a 139 Gr. Hornady it has proved to be the perfect medicine for P.A. whitetails!!

I have a Pre-64 Model 100 in 284 and think it's the cats meow. It is light and handy and plenty accurate enough for the hunting I do. Recoil is very negligible with 150gr Power Points that came with the rifle, I suppose the gas action helps with that. It's the rifle I go to when still-hunting timber. Never run into a deer yet that cared if the bullet took up a little powder space.

I have a pair of Winchester M88 rifles, both equiped with Leupold 3-9x40 VX-II scopes (one rifle is equipped with Redfield bases and rings, the other has a Weaver base and Weaver Grand Slam rings). I shoot a handload using the Speer 145 grain Hot Core in the .284 WIN, and Remington factory 150 grain CoreLokt's in the .308 WIN. I can tell no difference at all between the two in recoil. I killed three deer with the M88 in .308 WIN last season, this season I plan to hunt with the M88 in .284 WIN.

The .284 Win and the NULA go together like butter and toast. Melvin Forbes designed his short action receivers a tad longer than the others. Thus, the .284, which really is a little too long for a short action, nestles just fine in Mel's rifles.

Now, is it a better round than a 280 Rem or a 7-08? Well, not really. BUT, it shoots around 100 fps faster than the 7-08 in all bullet weights. And the 280 REQUIRES a long action, whereas the .284 doesn't.

My .284 likes IMR4350, R-19, and the defunct H205 with 140 bullets: Nosler PTs and BTs. Three-shot accuracy in the NULA (mine is an ULA) is 1 MOA, but the slender barrel heats up quickly and groups will open up, but who shoots more than 3 rounds at big game?

I had a Browning Micro-Medallion and a tang safety Ruger in .284. Like the big dummy I am I traded both of them for something new and shiny. I kick myself continually doing that.

Given the trend to short actions and light rifles, if it were introduced today I expect it would do better than it has;the WSM's give it some competition,but the 284 is a "standard" cartridge and can work well in a lighter rifle with a 22" barrel than the WSM's,which are magnum capacity cases,so most have a 24" tube, burn more powder ,and kick more.

With a few exceptions in rifles like a Kimber,a lot of WSM rifles are really not that "light".The 284,like the 270 and 280, works well with a shorter tube,and is still ample for about anything.

Just bought one today, Winchester Model 100, post 64 (1969) in 284. It has not had the firing pin replaced and has never been shot. Guess I will do the firing pin replacement myself since Winchester requires it be fired after replacement by gunsmith. I also looked at a strange pre 64 model 100 carbine 284 with barrel band, 19 inch barrel, but it had cut checkered stock. I thought Winchester 88's and 100 carbines all had smooth stocks? It this a bubbed rifle. I know Winchester only made the pre 64 in 284 in 1963. Any ideas on this rifle? Tom

Tom, I have a 1968 Shooters Bible that shows the Winchester 100 carbine that you describe. IIRC it was only made a couple years and had the barrel band for some reason I don't understand. Ward

What I am trying to point out is that carbines should not have Cut checkered stocks. I may be wrong since this rifle (Winchester Model 100 in 284 cal) Has cut checkering, the barrel length is correct for carbine (19")etc. The cut checkering indicates pre 64 so this rifle must have been made in 1963, the first year for caliber 284 in winchester model 100. Bottom line is correct barrel length and band but stock should be smooth, no checkering at all. Tom

I have a Savage 99DL in .284 Win. It is reasonably accurate (1-1/4" 3 shot groups with several different loads). I keep my loads a couple of grains below max to ease extraction and keep headspace problems from developing, so I am getting approx. 7-08 ballistics. Recoil is relatively mild. Due to mag length restrictions, I found that only a few bullets work well, the main two I use are the Hornady 154gr RN and the Speer 130gr SPBT. The 99DL is not as "slick" in operation as my 99EG in .250 Sav. Some of it is probably due to post-1960 guns not being as well fitted, but I believe the lack of taper in the .284 case also plays a part. For my part, I would say that the 7-08 would be a better cartridge for the 99.

My Ruger 77 in 284 is a "go to" gun. And now with the R17 giving the round some added zip -- Wow.
Since there aren't many bad 7mm rounds, just hanging on forever is good.

Really like my 6.5x284 too.

That case needs a little more than a short action (as noted above) to perform best.
JMHO

Why was the 284 so popular in the ULA 20? IT seems like the times that Ruger and Browning brought it out, it didn't make it.

ddj

Back in '84 I shot out my M77's 6mm rem barrel. I happened to talk to Harry Lawson and he suggested the 284. He had several new Rem takeoffs in 7 Rem mag. The barrel was rechambered with approx 1" of the old chamber removed for a final length of 23". That old rifle is on barrel #3 now. It was my only rifle for over a dozen years. It has killed 6 elk, 12 coues wt, at least 10 javelina and hundreds of jackrabbits and a few dozen coyotes.

This old tang safety M77 is in a McMillan ultralight stock. A few years ago when a buddy showed me his NULA I had my gunsmith make the M77's magazine longer. It is now 3.1" just like the NULA. I have read that some rifles have feeding issues. This particular rifle feeds them fast or slow perfectly.

Until the recent marketing of RL-17, IMR 4350, H4350 and Win 760 were used. Bullet weights from the 100 gr original X bullet to 175 mag tips were used.



I have only tried two bullet weights with RL-17 at this point. Both bullets are moly coated Nosler Ballistic tips. The 150 seated out just shy of the lands handled 59 gr of the powder for a velocity of 3200 but accuracy wasn't that good. It does shoot well with 57 grs for a velocity of 3100. Today with temps of 82-90 degrees I tested the 120 Nos bt. The 120 used the same seating depth as the 150. I worked up to 60 grs with no signs of pressure. 60 gr yielded 3375 fps. Accuracy once again was best with a bit less powder. 58 grs was 3250 and 59 was 3310. These two loads might tighten with some bullet seating changes.

Soon I intend to try a moly coated 140 TSX. Based on the two loads above it will most likely shoot best with 58 grs for an estimated velocity of 3175 or a bit more. I'll post the results here in a day or so.

I also tried RL-17 in a 7 Rem Mag with a 24" SS barrel. Used the moly 150 Nos bt and the new 150 E-tip. Both shot very well with 67 gr for a vel of 3280 and 3285 respectively and this was in temps from 85-90 degrees! Used the same seating depth for both bullets. The E-tip's ogive is different and it was a .100" jump, the bt less which I can't recall at the moment. (they recommend .050" to /100" jump for the E-tip) My impression with this larger case is that RL-17 is not as effective in increasing velocities compared to the smaller 284.

I hope this sheds more light on your questions.

Tom, I forgot to include the fact the 1968 Shooters Bible says that was the year the carbine was introduced. It sure isn't there in the 1966 Shooters Bible but those are all I have of that era as my book collection is rather slim. There was no checkering on the stock so I'm thinking someone checkered that one. Sorry about the earlier omission. Ward

It is possible that this is an Model 88 which had a checkered stock in 1963 and was the first year for the 284 cal. If so it is rare but Still not sure if that rifle came with a barrel band. (Carbine) Got to get a little smarter on these guns I guess but love the caliber. Tom.

I'm probably not the best guy to address this question to, but my best guess would be the difference in markets. ULA/NULA are semi (some would say full) customs aimed at the ultra high performance crowd (rifle loonies and handloaders). Rugers and Brownings are more of a mass market item. It is possible that Ruger/Browning have sold more .284 rifles than NULA, it's just that compared to their sales of of rifles in standard chamberings, the sales of .284's didn't account for a big enough percentage to justify further production.

The carbine with the barrel band was introduced in 1968 with no checkering. There was no carbine before this.

That is exactly what I thought. Yet the rifle I saw was a model 100 in 284 cal with checkering and barrel band with 19 inch barrel. Is it possible someone had the checkering cut at a later date to give the appearance of it being a pre 64? Got to find out serial # and that should explain alot. Tom

One of my 99s is in 284, and the thing is amazing. The 140 grain Partition shoots right at one minute and the velocitys are scary enough but no signs of pressure or difficulty in extraction or re-chambering reloads from maximum loads. Because the OAL of the 99 is restrictive, I havent tried the 160 and 175 stuff, but as a deer and sheep rifle it's dandy with the 140s.

Wayne

Makes sense. Thanks

ddj

AZ: Have you tried R17 with non-moly bullets to see what it does?

Wondering out loud how that stuff does in the 280 Rem?

Hi Bob,

No data, I use moly with those rem takeoffs so never tried without moly. I think you will see significant velocity increases even without moly. As you know the 280 and 284 have very similar internal capacities.

Bob Jensen and German Salazar did some serious testing with a strain gauge and their remarks made me go buy some RL-17. I am not disappointed. http://www.6mmbr.com/reloder17.html

Passed up a Browning Micro Medallion in 284 years back. That is one of the sweetest light production pieces ever made---- IMHO
I should not have passed that one up.

I got 2900 fps with 19 1/2" barrel using RL17 and Nosler 160 Part. --and no pressure signs.
Tim

I have had 2 284 Win. at one time! The first I found at a gun show in San Diego, CA. It was a SAKO L61R action heavy barrel, it was a custom built by Art Alpine! I got it for a song! Later I found a custom FN Mauser in 284 Win. I kept the Mauser in 284, rebarreled the SAKO to 338/06 AI. When I go out west to hunt, I always take the 284 WIN. I shoot it with IMR 4350, Hornady 154 gr. Interlock. I have never shot it with lighter bullets, the heavier ones work so well!

284 win and RL-17 update. Just got back from the range. Temperature was in the low 80s.

Moly coated 140 TSX seated .050" off rifling. Shot 4 rounds per charge, cooling to ambient temp between every pair of shots.

57 gr ave 3117
58 gr ave 3172
59 gr ave 3231

No signs of pressure with the highest load.
First two shots with 59 gr touched. After cooling next two shots made the group 3/4".


This RL-17 sure is interesting.

AZshooter,

With that load I can't see any advantage going to the saum.

What is your barrel length?

Have you tried any 168 grain bullets yet?

The .284 is an outstanding cartridge for what it was designed for and that is short lever action actions like the Sav. 99, Browning BLR, Win. 88. It shines in the right house, and is argueably a better round than the popular .308 Win..

Why anyone would opt for it over a 280 Rem, .270 Win., or even a 7x57, in a bolt action rifle is beyond me, but it's a personal choice and you won't go wrong either way.

Because you can shoot it in a short action Ray.
That may not be excuse enough for you but it's reason enough for me.

I'm one of those you refer too. Sold my .280 and bought a Rem Ti in 7mm/08, rechambered it to .284. I went from a club of a rifle to a svelte, sub 6 pound rifle with the same ballistics. My thinking was to move to a lighter rifle while still having the .280 ballistics. The short action doesn't save that much weight but it does save some and makes the rifle a tad shorter. Probably would have been happy with the 7mm/08 but for the $130 rechambering I didn't think I could go wrong. I also swapped the steel trigger guard for one of aluminum and made the same swap on the bolt housing - probably two other changes you may question the value of. Like you state, it's a personal choice, and all the calibers you listed are winners.

The archaic and obsolete case design of the 7x57 makes it an easy choice

The 6.5-284 and 284 make good sense to me on the medium length actions that allow for OAL's of 3.1 to 3.4 inches. The user should be able to work with the high-BC projectiles and not fret ogives dipping into case mouths. I could see doing an LR-style rifle on a Ruger action, with its 3.35" mag box.

I think so too.

My .284 has a scant 2.8 mag box yet still delivers excellent accuracy with 140 gr. TSX bullets. I don't have a reason to move to a heavier bullet and am very happy with this set up. I've killed a handfull of elk with the 140 TSX and all but one bullet has passed completely through.

The kindly people at Berger gave me a sample of their 140 VLDs and they load with the oligive below the case mouth and shoot even more accurately than the TSX.

I agree it would be nice to have a 3.1" mag box but it doesn't seem necessary... in my rifle.

I added a Wyatts box to my Remington. It works just fine with
Berger 140 VLD's loaded out to 2.970

I'm beginning to think the "long" boxes for short action cartridges are a long run for a very short slide, maybe not for 1000 yard competitors but for sporting rifles. Considering that you get what, at most several grains additional case volume at the 4-to-one rule, gives you very little more velocity.

And R17 looks like it can get you there without the trouble. My box mag is 2.95"; my cartridge OAL is 2.92".

A few more tenths on a mag box may let a fella run the long-nose bullets if need be, without having to have a super-short throat that eats powder capacity when combined with the long projectiles. Flexibility ain't a bad thing. I'd pull back another .4" on a bolt handle for the ability to run the gamut.

It's not at all about speed.

It's all about ogive.

SU and JPro-

..which is why I mentioned long range competition where the extreme BCs matter.

Gottcha.

I got in here kinda late I guess. The 284 Win and its offspring have always had a big place in my life.
I also have a Win 100 Carbine in 284 Win. The stock has NO checkering. I suspect, someone just liked checkering and had it added.
I have a couple of 284 children. One is a 6mm-284,another is the 6.5-284 and my favorite, the 35-284. All will shoot MOA groups, at least mine do.
I think one of the biggest reasons the 284 failed to get any respect was ALL the authors in the rags always had to comment with "the 284 seems like a great cartridge, BUT, it has a rebated head" Back then there was ALWAYS some comment about a rebated head as though it was a BAD thing. I think magazines somehow convinced folks that a rebated head was something to fear or be leary of. No one EVER explained what a rebated head was about, how much more brass there is in the head and why it was a bad thing. They simply left it up to the public to decide, and they did, the 284 was doomed.
It was a cartridge we had that was available long before the rebated head ones we have today. It could give 06 length ballistics out of a "short" cartridge.
A quick example: I was test firing my 35-284 at a now closed range in Tucson next to a guy that had a chronograph. He was shooting a boomer too. When it was time to check targets, he asked what I was shooting, I told him and he was interested as he was shooting a 35 Whelen Imp. Later on, he asked if I had chronoed the loads, I said no, I didn't have a chrono. He offered me the chance to shoot over his. I shot and read the tape from his Oheler, I was getting 2700 fps with 225 gr bullets. I was amazed and pleased. Oh ya, the guy was Gary Sitton. That was the beginning of a friendship until he was taken from us. RIP Bear

To me if I wanted more speed, I would have got a 7mm Remington Mag. over the 284 WIN. I agree thats its all about the BC and sectional densinty! I will always use a heavier bullet over a light one! The extra throating in my Mauser lets me seat bullets out "til Tuesday, and the magazine in my rifle accomadates the long cartridges! I have been shooting this round when everyone else said get a 7mm Remington Mag. I started out with a 93 Mauser in 7x57, loaded it like it should have been, and slayed deer!

Having been there at the time I can comment on the rebated rim issue. It got attention because of the history of rebated rim designs on some of the English cartridges, in particular the .425 Westley-Richards. This cartridge-rifle combination was known to be a poor feeder, and contemporary authors did not differentiate between the cartridge design and the lower quality rifles frequently used.

The rebated rim .284 Win got the same knock without a lot of evidence originally, although I saw some examples that would only feed if everything went just so. Sort of like the .300 WSM and its early teething pains with gunsmiths learning how to ensure feeding. Only with the .284 the damage was done and there was insufficient good news (or sales) to reverse things.

jim

I've owned and loaded for 7-08s, 7 wsms, and the 284 win. For me, the 284 win is just about perfect. Plenty of gas to not feel marginally gunned for elk, and light and handy with very little recoil. Mine is a Win 70 (3.1" box) that started life as a 7-08, and still has the factory barrel (24"). I've added an Edge stock and with a nice new Nikon 2-8X32 scope and Talleys it weighs 7-6. I am using 56 gr I-4350 and getting 3070ish fps with 140 gr TTSX consistently under MOA. I used that load to take a nice 9 pointer here in MO at 225 yds last fall and will be using the same load this fall for a NM elk hunt. I really like the cartridge, does all I think I'll ever ask one to do. It would have been nice if it had made it as a bolt action factory offering.

I think nowadays the 284 Win will most likely die a slow painful death before too long. I love the cartridge, but it was lambasted when it was young and never got past the rumors and slander.
I have read many articles and statements that a 7mm-08 will do anything a 284 can. Well, unchallenged, many believe that. All I can say is that if you know much about guns you would probably tend to agree that the 284 with a powder capacity of the 30-06 certainly ought to do a little better than a cartridge of the same diameter based on a 308.
Anyhow, it really doesn't matter any longer as no one is chambering the round other than custom or semi custom.
There are LOTS of great cartridges that fall into the same area, in fact the list is almost endless.
I guess I am most amazed the 45-70 is still around LOL

This thread sure grew since yesterday!

SU35: the barrel is 23". It is a 7 Rem Mag takeoff rechambered to 284.

Yes I tried the 168 Berger VLD and also the 162 A-max.

Max velocity with H4350 for these two was 2840 and 2900 respectively.

With RL-17:

168 VLD
53 gr 2816
54 gr 2867
55 gr 2940
56 gr 2984
57 gr 3018
58 gr 3078

The best accuracy, which wasn't that good, was with 56 and 56.5 gr.

162 A-max:

56 gr 3038
57 gr 3070
58 gr 3120
59 gr 3150

This bullet didn't shoot well either. Best accuracy was with 58 grs.

------------------------
Other bullets:

150 Nos BT:


57 gr 3100 most accurate
57.5 gr 3120
58 gr 3145
58.5 gr 3175


140 Nos BT:
58 gr 3250
58.5 gr 3275
59 gr 3300
59.5 showed pressure

-----------

I disagree with your assessment Clif on the death of 284 brass. The 6.5-284 helped AND now that the unaltered 284 is beginning to shine in the 1000 yd game it should be around for our lifetime.

Here are a couple:
http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek088.html
http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek053.html

----------------------------

Have not heard it mentioned yet. I sectioned a 284 and a 300 win mag, both were win brass. The web of the 284 was thicker.

-----------

A friend of mine just put together a 28" heavy 284 on a long action Rem. He is still in the process of dialing in the 180 Berger VLDs (non moly) with RL-17. 53 grs is max in this package. He is working with 52 grs and changing seating depths. Velocities are running just below 2900 fps.

Pic from Thursday. This rifle is loving max loads of H4350 under a 140 accubond. Action length and throat allow me to seat out to 2.975. Target was shot by my son and he called the 3rd shot low. Still a .65 group. The 284 is about perfect in this ULA for high country hunting.

I like that dark, muted color scheme on that NULA.

The .284 isn't magic but when you can give it a package that weighs under 6 lbs. (minus cartridges in the mag and a sling) and that will boot a 140 to 3100 or a 150 to 3000 it is what it is which is pretty good. The fact that you can do the same with a handful of other cartridges is besides the point.





If I draw a sheep tag next year and if I can convince my then 61 year-old body (Lord-willing) it can live on side hills and thin air, this will be my rifle.

Very nice rifles.

Weighing less than 6 lbs and shooting 160's to 3,000 out of
23" barrels.

I find the 284 an amazing round. Probably the perfect mountain rifle.

I'm done with 270's and 280's.

AZshooter, What twist are you running?

If Winchester would make one based on their new Model 70, it would be great! Not holding my breath though.
bludog

Bluedog, no kidding!

Produce one in the FW and offer loaded ammo using Noslers 150 grain partition.

I would be a buyer.

i have a custom 284win wiyh a 26inch er shaw barrel and it shoot 1 inch or a little under with 52.4 gr of imr 4350 and 150 gr nbt and 56gr of imr 4350 and 120gr nbt could not get good groups with rl 19 and 139gr btsp hornady

Hi Ross, I certainly hope of the 2 of us, you are the one right. I'd sorely hate to see the 284 go away. I just feel with almost noone but target shooters employing the round how long will Winchester and whoelse continue to make the brass.
Several years ago I too sectioned a 284 and I used a 7mm Rem mag. As you found out, the 284's web was thicker by a "seeable" amount.
Take care Amigo.

If I ever buy a NULA it will be a 284. Sure like hearing of others having one.

SU35: the twist is what Rem uses for their 7 Rem mag, 1 in 9 1/4 I believe. This SS barrel has just under 1000 rounds through it.

Clif: if the 284 win case goes out of production there will still be the 6.5-284 norma and Nosler.

I've had two 284's--one was a lightly used ULA (pre-NULA) that I bought really, really cheap....it was not particularly accurate. I know, I know, I'm probably the only guy alive who had a Forbes rifle that wasn't super accurate.

When I first started lusting after a lightweight mountain rifle in the 70's, the choices were few--and the custom gun choices were out of my reach. Back then common wisdom said a lightweight rifle needed to be a short action to save wieght. I figured the 284 was the perfect choice.

But the rebated fat case did present some feeding problems, and even my 284 ULA didn't feed as slick as other ULA's/NULA's chambered in other cartridges I've tried. My M700 I had built into a 284 didn't feed well--of course, altering rails and the ramp is one of the most difficult things to get right, but some rifles/cartridge combos just ain't made for one another.

In the end, a 270 does a bit better in velocity, and can be made as light as I prefer in a mountain rifle, so I consider my 270's to be "improved" 284's

Then there is the 7-08.....a simplified 284.

I know, I know, there IS a cool factor to the 284 to consider, and the two 284's I sold I actually made a profit on them......



Casey

This is a very good thread with mucho good things being said here.
25 years ago I had a 284 built on a shot out 257 Roberts barrel, a heavy Buhmiller barrel that was my Step Dad's. The Barrel was opened up to 7mm and rifled with a 1-9 twist. It's my beanfield rifle now, and shoots extremely with with RL-15 powder.
I debated for about a month on getting either a 280, or the 284; the 284 came out on top for me because of the case design.

I'm not sure the 270 does a bit better in velocity, but I do agree they are very similar ballistically, and the weight difference is really negligible. The 270 is definitely more practical, especially for a non-handloader, but, personally, I'd take a good feeding 284 Winchester over a 270, 280 or 30-06. It seems to be all the gun one would need for anything you can hunt in the lower 48, and if you really like a SA better (which I do for no really good reason) it is a very versatile round.

I am late to join the party but am another proud owner of a Savage 99 in 284. I don't chase the last fps in the Svage but with 150 Win PP and 150 Nosler Partitions it shoots very well and quite flat. The rotary magazine is a hoot, solves any feeding issues, and I get a kick out of out-shooting most bolt guns at the range with an archaic looking lever gun.

The .284 is quite a package and I might even keep the 358 Norma at home during Moose season and give it a whirl this fall.

I probaly have the least high tech 284 that I know of. It's Remington 7600 that has been rechambered from 7-08. 120 B'Tips, 154 Hornady spire points as well as 154 Hornady roundnoses can be seated out to 3.040 by using a 30-06 clips.

Shoots very well and the above bullets do the trick nicely.

I have read and listened to all the various reasoning behind choosing the 284 over the .280 or .270, and it all boils down to the shorter action and weight, which in my mind is approaching anal..If one thinks that couple of ounces makes a bit of difference then that is anal, it doesn't. If one thinks he must have that less than a quarter of an inch difference in bolt throw then again that is getting pretty anal, and that person cannot chew gum and walk at the same time! Balistically the .284 is a bit behind the .280 for instance and heavy bullets normally take up powder space in a short case unless the caliber is modified to take longer bullets then you just modified your reasoning for owning a short case!

The only legit reasoning I can see is the .284 is an awesome caliber for Savage Lever action, The Browning Lever action, the Win. 100 and 88, it fits a need in this catagory and its a fine caliber. I don't like a rebated rim as it has caused problems in the past and has caused problems in some custom rifles for whatever reason.

Yes, I know that Browning makes the lever action in the longer and larger calibers but those guns are an abomination in clunkery and length of action etc. I would prefer the .284 over the .280 in a Browning Lever gun.

What is the real and not imagined reason for the .284 in a bolt gun is the fact that those who own them must be protective of them and they feel a need to justify thier expendature rather than just saying I love my gun which is about all the real justification one needs, that one holds water!

This has been my honest assessment and opinnion and not submitted to anger anyone that owns and likes the .284, it is the other side of the story or the other option to consider. It is my personal reasoning for my decision making..So before making your decision, take all the options and give all of them your consideration and follow your heart, and that is the reason for my post..

I have owned several Savage 99s in .284 caliber and they were my all time favorite caliber in the 99s for use on anything larger than deer, where my old 250-3000 Sav. 99 still gets the bid. I love the Sav. 99 284, 308 and 250 for saddle guns.

They have their place and that's for sure, but like most things I believe they can be misplaced.

The real reason for me is that whatever the 708 does good the 284 does better.

Toss out all the 08's Ray because they use a short action and only anal people use them?

Your logic eludes me.

btw, I have a 284 bolt rifle in the works as we speak.

FN SPR action
Rock SS 5R 1/9 Light Palma
Manners MCS-T

168 VLD'S at 2,900 spark the fire for me.

OK Ray, I'll say it. I have a 284 win Model 70 and I love my gun. Don't know if that's anal or not, but I prefer a SA over a LA and the 284 does it for me. To each his own and it's great to have choices.

I have had a 284 for 20 years.

Mine is a 700 Rem that came into the world as a 7mm08 but was re-chambered. I just like something a bit different.

I had pushed it to the back of the closet for several years, but it got used last fall. I had forgotten how it killed so effectively for me. It has been a rather "lucky" gun.

I have had only one 270 and traded it off because the stock did not fit me. I seemed to have found deals on 30.06 so that was what I used.

I like the idea of having a 284! May it live a long life!

I came to the .284 from the .270. I wanted a higher sectional density bullet than the 150 gr .270 and the .284 can take the 175. I wanted to keep the velocity of the 150 in a .270, about 2800-2850 fps; my 7 mag gives 2850-2900 with 175s in a 26" barrel. Melvin made me a NULA Model 20 in .284 (he said, "short and fat's where its at" [for accuracy and efficiency] when I asked about the .284 vs. .280 Rem. I got a 28" Douglas stainless barrel and all I have shot in it are 175 Hornadys, getting around 2850 fps.

In my way of thinking would not do another .284 on the Rem stock SA limited to 2.8" OAL the 3.1" length allows better bullet selection, and more options.

That's one STOMPIN' load you got there. I shoot those Hornady 175s in my 7x57s. They ROCK!

-

Let me see if I got this straight you had a NULA made with a 28" tube in 284...?

Dober

If I can say, with no malice or ill will, that is the most convoluted, circuitous and complicated route to a simple end I've likely seen posted on the campfire. You get the mental gymnastics gold medal award in the rifle looney category...

I salute you

Nicely put there Dale...

Dober

Well, it was an awesome amount of effort and reasoning in achieving a simple end!

I'm for thinking that the 28" NULA should be called the Johhny C Holmes rifle...


Dober

OK, had to google Johnny Holmes... now I get it

Well........we have dolly scopes so why not....

Dober

Don't even WANT to know what you Googled up on that one!

"Dolly Scope" on top no doubt... to extend the metaphor further

LOL, posting at the same time and same thought...

So... That 30-06 that JJHack lets everyone use on his Safari's is the Jenna Jamison rifle?

Azshooter,

I also have an old tang safety M77 in 284-caliber. McMillan's website only shows the regular-weight "Ruger R" stock for this rifle. How does one get the ultralight stock for the tang-safety M77?

PJF

Only way now would be to find a used one for sale.

PM sent

My friend's recently assembled 284 showed its stuff yesterday. It is was a 30" 1 in 7 twist 3 groove Lilja that WAS a 7 STW for just over 200 rnds. It is a long story as to why a 7 twist. It destroyed the 180 VLDs at the 190 rnd mark. It also ruined 175 matchkings. Accubonds survived the trip. So he removed it and made another 7 STW with a 6 groove 1 in 9 twist which is still in the break in stages.

The barrel sat around and it just begged to be put on something. So a donor rifle was purchased and built around the barrel! The barrel was shortened 1 1/2 inches to rechamber. It shot a ragged 4 shot hole with the 180 Bergers using 51.5 grs of RL-17 yesterday. (virgin win brass, Fed 210 match primer, neck tension .002") Velocity was 2875. This load will be verified at the next session. The donor is a 30-06 so there is ample room for seating depth. A reamer was made by Pacific Tool and Gauge to his specs for the 180 VLD. The most interesting thing is that it didn't respond with seating depths until he hit .030" INTO the rifling. Deeper works as well and even .040" into the rifling won't remove the bullet from the case if removed without firing.

For what it is worth my 7 rem mag shoots the 180s into the rifling .035". Those VLDs are strange sometimes.

That's wicked.
Who needs an STW when you already have that.

What barrel contour?

Can't argue with you Ray; in fact I agree with you but then you've also described what's true of about everyone here with whatever cartridge they've chosen..and why.

SU35,
It is a close to a #5 Lilja. It was a 7 STW that was custom profiled to fit an existing barrel channel in a custom rifle. The 3 groove plus the faster than needed 1 in 7 twist caused bullets to come apart at STW speeds. My friend just couldn't look at that barrel sitting there with no use so he built that rifle around the barrel. I would have done the same thing. We will be going out tomorrow to see if the load repeats, which I think will be the case.

Thanks, keep us updated.

SU 35,

Here is the update:

Finally got around to reporting on Dan's rifle. The 28" lilja 1 in 7 twist 3 groove 284 win has finally shown what it likes. The load has been fired four times on different days.

I had previously stated it was 51.5 gr. I was wrong it IS
51 gr of RL-17, fed 210 match, 284 win wincherster brass neck turned enough to skim 80% of neck, 180 Berger VLD .030" into the lands, .002 neck tension, velocity 2875

His next experiment is to increase neck tension from .002" to .0025 and .003". (tension is based on difference between the measurement of neck OD after sizing and a seated bullet)

Greatly appreciate it. I'm tracking this.

Do you think a 1/9 twist would work with 180's?

Also, do you think you could get 2,800 mv with a 26" barrel?

Thanks for the report.

Hi SU 35,

Yes to 1 in 9, as for 2800 fps it would be close with RL-17 maybe 2750? 50 fps isn't much with a 180 when you compare downrange performance.

I understand where Ray is coming from...these three cartridges are so close (270,280,and 284)that even a talent like Jack O'Connor had to lump all three in one chapter

Course, today,we have betta boolits.....sometimes.

I kind of like these popcorn threads.. Lots of good stuff surfaces.

I've had a .284 fetish for some time now and I'm not sure why as I shoot larger and smaller cartridges as well. I currently have 2 Winchester 100 rifles, 2 100 carbines, 1 88 rifle, 1 Ruger 77, and 1 Browning 81 BLR and a new can of R-17 to start working up .284 loads. The 88 lever-action has been a tack driver with 160 Partitions so I'll be interested in what the R-17 will do with that same bullet.

I've been neglecting the .284s and hunting with a .300WSM the past few years just because my wife won it at a Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation drawing; and it has been very effective on several elk/deer/antelope over the last 5 years. The license draws were not kind to me this year but I was able to get several antelope and deer doe tags in Montana and a Wyoming cow tag for some fun meat hunts so I might as well make it a .284 year with some new R-17 loads. I have all the points I need for a Wyoming bull tag next year and I think I'd like to harvest one with a .284 as I haven't done that since 1986 in Utah.

SU 35,

Some more 284 gack:

I have been talking to a friend of mine who is a 1000 yd benchrest guy. He has set several Three Points (Tucson) range records and has one world record.

He made a 284 Shehane recently using a Broughton 5C barrel.
The twist is 1 in 9. He has concluded that 1 in 9 isn't enough twist, in HIS rifle, for the accuracy he demands when shooting the 175 Sierra and 180 Berger VLD.

He sent me some details on a comparison of the 162 A-max and
the Sierra 175:



Test of 7mm 162 Amax vs 175SMK‏


I did some compartive tests today at 500 meters. From my 1-9 twist Broughton the 162's were clearly the winner. I shot both bullet weights seated .010 into the lands over 57gr of 4831sc and BR2 primers. At 80-85 degrees the 162's go out about 2,940fps and the 175's at about 2,850. 57gr is about max for the 175's in my chamber. I've tested different charge weights and seating depths before.

Three 5 shot groups of the 175's averaged 3.90" with average vertical spread of 2.73".

Three 5 shot groups of the 162's averaged 2.08" with average vertical spread of 1.60".

Best group with the 162's was 1.68" (4 rnds into .97") with vertical spread of .88".

My conclusion is the the 1-9 is just too slow to shoot either 175's or 180's as well as the lighter bullets. I'll bet the 175's will work much better in Dan's 1-7 barrel.

Next week I'm going to compare the best 7mm 162 Amax load against my best 6.5-284 load (142SMK 51.3 H4831sc BR2 jammed .060 (no typo! it's a weird chamber) and decide which I'm going to shoot at the Nationals. As things stand now I'd be pretty comfortable shooting the 7mm, particularly if there is much wind.

The fun never stops...nor does the expense. I thought you might be interested.

Bruce

Bruce,

Thanks! I am very interested.

After reading your post,

If you were to build a 284 win for shooting 168's and 180's would you go 1-8 OR?

I am not Bruce...I only forwarded what he said. He and I talked and he says that perhaps more twist is needed for the slower 284 and 180s compared to a 7 STW or 7 RUM case. I got the impression from him that a 1 in 8.5 would be minimum. On the other hand if you read the details on some of the rifles featured on 6mmBR.com's site you will see that at leastone guy guy is using 1 in 9 twist for hhis 284 and doing quite well. http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek088.html

Another friend of mine, Dan, has just put together a 30" 7 STW with a 1 in 9 twist. It has no stabilization issues with the 180 Berger VLDs BUT it doesn't shoot them very accurately. He just moved on to the 175 SMK and it looks very promising.

I have a 1 in 9 1/4 remington barrel rechambered from 7 Rem mag to 284 as I mentioned before. It will not shoot the 180s, 175s or even the 162 A-max to my satisfaction. The first two are a twist issue the last perhaps a throat/bullet shape compatibility issue. It does shoot the 150 nos bt very well with RL-17 @ 3100 fps.

It is hard to answer your question. If I was going to build a 284 to shoot 180s I would get at least a 1 in 8.5 twist.

Hi Azshooter,

I've just sent my barreled action 284 with Canjar trigger to McMillan to have it bedded to a Ruger Ultralight stock. This is going to set me back a bit and will take several months. I'm learning archery while waiting for my rifle to return next year.

Thanks for letting me know that McMillan used to produce an ultralight stock for a tang-safety Ruger. There is still one left if anyone is interested (http://www.mcmfamily.com/mcmillan-specials-ruger.php).

Bringing this back out of the mothballs

Besides the Winchester 150 PP, what are you guys using in the Savage 99, Win 88 and 100? I have a Savage 99C in a 284.

On the hand loads, can you share your bullets and load data?

Thanks!

Wow this in an oldie. I started off both of my sons with .284's. Both were Renington 700 bolt guns with Shilen barrels, 1-9 twist. Both rifles stated life as .243's. I loaded 55 grains of RL-19 behind 145 Speer Hot Cores and it bagged many deer and prong horns for the boys. They never had a chance to take an Elk with this cartridge. Both graduated to larger calibers later.

The 145 Speer is a great choice for the .284 because it is so blunt that it can be seated well out.

Thanks!

The 139 grain Hornadys are great deer bullets in the 284 case.
jmho
Tim

Anyone know what the oal of the factory Win 150 grain PP's?

Just measured some - 2.790".
(assume you meant OAL)

lol, yes I meant OAL.

Thanks for the info.

I just measured some at 2.775" oal.

Thanks!!

Trout

I ran mine using Nosler 6.5-284 necked to take a .284" 120 grain NBT over 52 grains of RL-15 primed with a WLR.

I'm getting 3260 fps with that combo.
This from a 23" PAC NOR Barrel screwed into a Win Model 70 FWT PF.
Using a WSM magazine with some tweaking to insure flawless feeding, it allows me slightly over 3.00" of COAL.

It put 5 deer in the freezer last season without issue

Like the thread, just bought a 284 built on a Rem 660 action, douglas 22" tube. Waiting for it to get here and plan on running 140 Nosler Partitions. It was a very good deal and a cartridge I have often read about but never had. Plus Im a 7mm nut so that didn't hurt either

ttt for any more info.

Also looking to buy 284 loaded ammo.

I had a semi-custom built on a Rem 700 SA by Rifles Inc. It is one of my favorite rifles; it's about 6 lb 4 oz with a Swarov Z3 3--10x on it. There is nothing magical about the cartridge of course, giving 270-280-30/06-type power and trajectory which has simply proven to be adequate for perhaps 98% of NA hunting. That's even more true now perhaps due to the advent of the mono-metal bullets like the TTSX which is also usually very accurate. It is in mine.

I don't think the design was recognized for what it was--very good--when it first came out and of course the rifles so chambered had a major impact on a cartridges popularity too. There was no cottage industry back then for REAL lightweight, bolt action rifles on short actions back then. Nor were there the choice in powders now available such as R17 which seems, at least in mine, to be perfectly suited for the 284.

I had originally envisioned the 7 mm SAUM in this rifle but the gunsmith refused citing the feeding problems he had experienced with this cartridge while never having had the same with the 284. At first I was disappointed with that but now that 100-150 fps extra with increased recoil of the SAUM is a complete non-factor.

Which brings up another point. Back when the 284 Was introduced the only way to be more sure of a long range hit was more velocity for a flatter trajectory. Now LRFs, ballistic reticles and turrets have negated the advantage of magnums with their flatter trajectory out to, say, 500-600 yards, much further than most of us shoot 90% of the time anyway. Last fall I took a very nice whitetail buck in the Sandhills at a couple of steps short five hundred yards. A magnum wouldn't have made it any easier; in fact, in this light rifle, perhaps more difficult.

Ok, iv'e now repeated myself and other points in this thread. I wonder of there is a gun-shot related dementia. You know, too many jolts to the head and neck with fractured hair cells in the inner ear. If this is combined with vocal worrying about regular bowel movements, I know things are getting serious.

Thanks for the info.

On the Savage 99, is anything longer than 2.81 to long?

I'm not sure you would get a consistent max length on Savage 99 magazines that would be the same down to 0.01". I know I tested mine and it came out just a tad over SAAMI spec, something like 2.84". Didn't put the bullet anywhere near the lands, that was just the max the magazine would hold. Decided to stick with 2.8" for length.

Love my 284's!

Going to try and test some in a week or so out of the Savage 99