Curious as to real world 284 performance w/today's propellants.

Assuming using a short action, in 22-24" bbl, does the 284 offer '280' performance in an SA platform?

Figuring a 7/08 gets 120/3100, 140/2900, and 160/2750ish, what can a 284 handloader safely expect with like length bbl?

What about brass quality of say WW 708 brass vs. ??? 284 brass?

Bore life any big difference? Feeding?

I know a few hardcore 284 fans must have some info to chime in on their favorite. Open ears. OH, and JB, I think you mentioned a SAUM recently, if so maybe you want to speak about it vs. the 284...

Thanks.

Yes.
A quick check of a loading manual will tell the difference between a 284 and a 7-08, or a 7x57. Very little performance difference between the 284 and a 280.
I have a 284, a 7-08 and several 7x57's.

In the one 7-08 I owned 140/2900 would have been a pipe dream. With a 22" barrel it had to be pushed hard to get to 2800 and an accuracy load was below this. In spite of this it took a couple of caribou and some small mulies with 140 partitions with no problems.

Jim

I have had both. Now I have a 284 only. Much easier to meet the velocity I want with a variety of loading combinations, some of which are bound to be very accurate.

I dont have anything to add here, I was just wondering if someone could educate me about the 284.
If i understand correctly, the 7-08 comes from a 308 case, and the 280 comes from a 30-06 case, what about the 284?

The 284 is not based on any other cartridge, it was designed by Winchester from the ground up the match 280 ballistics in a short action, so that it would fit in their Model 88 lever and Model 100 autoloading rifles. To accomplish this, the case was made larger in diameter than the cartridge rim (called rebated rimless). It was the first American commercial cartridge to use this form. It could lay claim to be the first short, fat cartridge made in the US - far ahead of the WSM's. SAUM's, etc.

That help?

Flinch, not sure but the 284 is not based on the 308, or '06, or anything else I know of but I am not an expert on the 284. It was designed with a rebated rim, fatter and about the length of a 308 for short actions, designed with a capacity like a 280 according to Wiki in it's inception. I think the case was 'drawn from scratch' but may be wrong, intro'd in 1963 I believe.

Having heard some meaningful gains in performance with new powders like RL17, wondering what real world differences might be there, and received a PM on one gent's performance.

162 at 3070 w/23" tube IIRC. SO, if a 7/08 shooter wanted long distance, a nice gain would be had in the 284, still a short action, but a substantial gain over just doing a say AI version of the 7/08.

I appreciate the replies gang. I love the little 260 and have shot the 7/08s a good bit and like them also, but seeing how alot of long range guys stuff the high bc 162 Amax into the 7/08, figured the 284 might be a logical step up, while having better bore life then the WSM and SAUM, using less powder, blast, and perhaps recoil as well. No doubt in long actions a 280 and 7 RM loaded up do well for their intended use, but I do happen to prefer short actions when possible.

I learned also some hard core users neck up 6.5-284 Lapua brass, others claim WW is as accurate, but less brass life. Also, bore life is said to be much better than the 6.5 version, and offsets the higher cost of bullets. High BC/SD can be had for both, though stuffing long 7 bullets into a short action takes some consideration, i.e. mag box length, etc.

Anyway, I have a better understanding now of where the 284 fits and it's performance envelope. It's been jacked down to 6mm and 6.5mm, and I believe even 22 cal. Up to 338 and likely higher, but the 284 may have never hit it's true potential in terms of commercial success.

I do prefer a std size case like a 7/08 for 2 reasons, you can form brass from other readily found cases if need be, and I believe you can put one extra round in the magazine.

I think if one plans finding WW 284 brass is not much an issue. Smooth proper feeding and setting up a mag box for intended loads might be more critical issues...or concerns.

I can certainly see the place for the 284, even with the 7/08 and fairly popular 270 WSM for short action lovers if one wants to reach out a little farther at times.

Edit: John G, thanks, was typing when you posted

Thanks, it seems I learn something new here everyday.

I've been shooting the 284 for over 30 years and find that it generally gets between 100 and 150 more fps than the 7mm-08 with the same bullets. A larger gap with lighter bullets and a smaller gap with heavier bullets.

My 7mm RSAUM gets about 200 fps more velocity than my 284 with the 140 grain BT, both rifles are Remington 700s with 24" barrels, with the 284 using a rechambered 7mm-08 barrel. I also get about the same velocity with the 270 WSM and 140 grain BTs, but don't have a 7mm WSM to compare to.

My loading goals are to find loads that are the best balance of accuracy, velocity, and bullet penetration for a particular rifle/cartridge/bullet combination, so they are generally not loaded for maximum velocity or pressure.

FWIW, I much prefer the 25-284 and 6.5-284 to all other bore diameters that are possible with the 284 case. In this day of premium bullets, there is little that a 140 grain .284" bore bullet will do that a comperable 130 grain .264" or 120 grain .257" bore bullet won't do equally well, assuming that the shooter does his/her part. I am, of course, talking about loading for hunting, not loading for competative target shooting.

Jeff

Flinch, I have learned alot, forgotten alot, and want to learn more, keeps it fun. ALOT of knowledge on this board, if you can't find it here, well....may not.

Jeff, we have the same goals! Getting there w/no more recoil/blast, etc. than necessary is nice, as well as trying to manage expense of it all

I was looking out of curiosity as much as anything, but esp. if someone's application was a long range arm in a Short Action, and wanting to use the 162-180 high bc bullets.

I don't shoot formal competition, but do listen/learn alot from those who do, and apply their knowledge whether its loads, etc.

Thanks much, appreciate the feedback. Sounds like the 270 WSM may have largely filled that niche for hunters at least. My brother has a Montana mfg. 270 WSM that shoots awful well with factory loads tested at 200 yds, but it is a tad heavy. He has done well using it on deer.

Still wondering when Winchester would do the 270-08 and load 140 Accubombs Might sit real well 'tween' the 260 and 7mm-08!

I can say before the ABs, I sure preferred the looks of the yellow tipped bullets (150 BT in 270 WCF was my 'go to bullet') to the red and brown ones, and the blue ones sure look cool. A 250-3000 someday.... I don't often need to shoot far around here on deer/hogs anyways.

Jeff, just wondering, ever try RL17 in your 284? I might have thought the speed diff would have been inverse what you seen, i.e. More powder, higher spread using heavy bullets?

O.K.
So this discussion has brought up a point that has been bouncing around my gray matter for awhile. The 6.5 and .25 calibers kill better than their balistics can account for. This is the reason we like them. Now taking in the Taylor knockdown factor as good and valid, it does place more emphasis on caliber and weight over velocity. With the composition of the newer bullets being so tough we can increase average veolocities without blowing them up so easily.

I wonder if anyone has looked to see what the combination of velocity, bullet weight, AND sectional density has on penetration. Jeff's last comment brings this up. What can a 140 gr .284 do that a 130 gr .264 or 120 gr. .257 cannot. Velocity seems to be the key for the lighter bullets, assuming bullet composition is good AND sectional density is atleast_____?. SD should increase for the increase in the biomass of the target ie. it takes more penetration for a moose vs a proghorn or deer. As velocity drops bullet weight needs to increase to keep penetration up. Something to consider when we argue the virtues of this cartridge, over that, and so on. If a given cartridge of a given caliber, and sectional density, can acheive the target velocity per species then it works. If we limit any of these factors we risk failure and lost game.

What are your thoughts on this?

I have been shooting the 284 since 1965, I believe. More recently I have also loaded and hunted with a 30-284. I describe the 30-284 as a hot 30-06.

The only long shot I ever made on game was with the 284 shooting Sierra's 140 at 2950 through a 20" pipe on a Browning Micro Medalion. Measured 437 yds. Nice whitetail buck through both front shoulders. Nasty exit wound.

It was loaded with 50g of IMR 4064. I had loaded it with 51g but had cratering flat primers with very short case life. DO NOT BEGIN LOADS WITH THIS MUCH POWDER. Follow reloading manual instructions.

I have since learned that this case likes H4350 best for accuracy but gets the highest velocity from Re17. For me, H4350 is the very best powder for this case.
Love the 284.

Jim

I haven't done anything with the 284 for several years, but IIRC the load that shot the best groups with 140 grain BTs in my Remington 700 was 48.0 grains of H4895. I don't have access to all of my reloading data, it is on a different PC, but I don't recall using any RL-17.

Jeff

Jim in Ontario, I had TWO 700s chopped to 21", BOTH rifles shot 2900-2950 with Varget and IMR4064. IIRC, my load was about one grain over book max, in partial sized RP brass, and Safe in MY rifle. One could back that load down a gr. or 2 and never see much if any difference in the field IMHO with the 7/08.

Rug3, had one in 7/08 very handy rifle and accurate, almost too pretty to hunt.

Jeff, thanks for the f/up.

Hard for me to believe a 30-284 can get more velocity than an 06 when case capacities are almost the same.Fact is unless you have the 30-284 in a long action it aint gonna happen.My opinion Huntz

Back in the late 1980s, I had a 30-284 built on a rechambered Remington 722 in 300 Savage. This rifle had a 24" barrel and did its best work with bullets in the 130 to 165 grain range. It was an OK performer, but nothing to get too excited about, so I pulled the barrel and converted it to 25-284, via a rechambered 257 Roberts barrel.

The problem, if it is a problem, with the 284 in a short action is the OAL issues with longer/heavier bullets. In general, the lighter/shorter for diameter bullets seem to fit the action better. I've never owned a long action 284 or 284 based wildcat, so I can't speak to the merits of a longer action, but have owned several short action Remingtons and 2 Savage 99s.

Jeff

Huntz,

You are probably correct it your estimation. This 30-284 is a Ruger #3, Douglas 24 inch, and throated so that the bullets could be out there. It was throated specifically for Barns 165. L o n g.

My description was it is like a hot 30-06. There are some guys who have posted loads for the '06 at velocities that I couldn't reach safely. This particular 30-284 likes them hot. Compressed H4350 loads. I find the max loads in most manuals for 30-06 are good working loads for it and I can safely go a few more grains before I get pressure signs. Got a little more velocity over my chronograph then the books show for max 30-06.

I found it to do best when loaded to the max.

Good observation.

Thanks

Jim

Jim

The 284 does duplicate 280 performance in a short action. While the 7-08 is a great cartridge, all things being equal it will be 100-200 fps behind the 284 because of case capacity (there can be an inherent difference in vel in rifles similarly chambered;i.e., a "fast" 7-08 may come within a 100 fps of a "slow" 284) . You expect you might be hard pressed to get a 7-08 to hit 2900 fps with a 140-gr without standing on it. On the other hand, my 284 will hit 3100 fps with R17 and a TTSX 140-gr at full stride but without "standing on it."

I've never noticed a meaningful lack of quality in 284 brass. If you're not a handloader I would definitely stay with the 7-08

I've done alot of shooting with the 284, the 7mm-08 and the 7x57. By a fair margine the 284 wins, but really with the heavy weight bullets. The fact is, the light weight is the 154 grain. Those, 162's and the 168 grain MK shine in the 284. My go to powder is H4831sc.

My philosophy is not to use the greater case capacity to push a lighter bullet faster. I get my trajectory advantage by shooting a heavier bullet with a higher B.C. That also gives me an advantage in the wind, and an advantage in terminal ballistics.

It should be noted that both my 284's do not follow standard patterns. One is built on a M70 coyote action and ignors the magazine. The other is built on a M700 long action. In both cases the throating is optimized for long bullets. This load would not fit in a short magazine. In the case of the M70 it is throated so the bottom of the boat tail on a sierra 168gr MK is flush with the bottom of the case neck and touching the lead. Same with the M700 except I used a Hornady sst as the referance.

Fyshbum, a good question. Re: SD, bullet construction is not something that has a 'number' attached to it, i.e. a Barnes monometal bullet is not apples to apples with a cup/core bullet SO comparing SDs is not an 'absolute' indicator if you will on penetration.

I would LOVE to see bullet companies use a standardized ballistic media, and show wound channel and penetration studies at varying speeds, but the tests would take money, and time, and I am not sure all companies would want to participate. In my mind, there may be a correlation in the higher the penetration, the smaller the wound channel (width), as less frontal expansion can enhance penetration, of course weight retention does help also.

No doubt, regardless of what bullet hits game, PENETRATING vital organs and destroying those will accomplish a clean kill, yet if you lack enough penetration, a bad non lethal wound might occur, or likely a mortally wounded shot animal is not recovered as it gets a long run in before expiring.

Crosshair, no doubt, once you get on out a bit, 300-400+ yds, a higher bc heavier slug will usually overtake lighter slugs in speed/energy and maintain that momentum further out.

Can you tell us any chrono speeds for your 284 w/162 and 168s?

Thanks.

o.k. - here's one for the historians.

7mm Express Remington introduced in 1957

.284 Win introdroduced in 1963

7mm Express Remington renamed to 280 Rem when?

Wouldn't the .284 have been originally marketed to compete with the 7mm Express? (as the 280 hadn't been coined yet?)

Ya know us 'Mericans have a severe metric phobia back then.

65BR,

I didn't mean to imply that reaching those velocities was impossible, just that I couldn't get there in the Mountain Rifle I had. Around that time I developed neck problems which took several months to doctor. I was warned I might have to quit shooting and to overcome this I had the rifle magnaported.

I no longer have my reloading notes for that particular gun so maybe I didn't try as hard as I might have if there hadn't been any medical problems.

And maybe my gun just had a "slow" barrel, who knows.

All very interesting.

Jim

Not quite

The 280 came out in 1957(designed to offer 270-like ballistics in pumps and semiautos;it was renamed later to 7mm Express Remington because it was falling on its face due to lack of sales.IIRC this was sometime in the 70's. Competition from the 270 Winchester and the 7 Rem Mag just about killed the 280.Plus at the time its' factory loads were pretty anemic.Remington knew it was a good cartridge,so tried to revive it with a new name,which did not work out so good because factory ammo for the new cartridge was no faster than 280 stuff.I remember the Remington adds at the time.....

The 284 was likewise an attempt to provide 270-like ballistics in a lever action(M88 Winchester) and semi auto(Winchester 100).

Some rifle nuts built bolt guns for both the 280 and 284.Gunwriters wrote of them....Mason Williams did articles on long throat 284's; I knew a guy that had Dale Goens build a long throat 284 on a pre 64 M70 action. The rifle was lovely but I could never figure that out when he coulda had a 280 just as easily....many guys had custom bolt guns built in 280,and it became a cult cartridge among custom builders and their clients during the 80's,with vague and arcane advantages over the 270....I had a few 280's back then and discovered it gave a 140 gr bullet about the same velocity one would get from a 270.

The 270,280,and 284 are kissin' cousins,all good cartridges.

Hi Jim I never misunderstood you, just passing on my experience. I was just glancing over an old article by Ed Matunas, written in Gun Digest or Handloaders Digest or similar. It was on 270 vs. 30-06, comparing how close actual rifles shot factory loads and handloads to published speeds, and he found a big disparity in HIS test rifles, several of each. The 270s consistently came in 'slow' and I have an opinion on that, I think that smaller bores may be more fickle, when you think of it, more powder is burned faster in a bbl with a bigger hole i.e. higher expansion ratio. Any inconsistencies one might expect in mass mfg. bbls might give more issue in a smaller bore all else equal, again, BOTH rounds are about identical in case capacity. Although often smaller bores are more accurate in many guns, when one looks at custom built guns with custom bbls in say a 35 bore like a 358 win or 350 RM, one often sees VERY high accuracy, and I believe it's because they are less 'fickle' in the burn from shot to shot due to that high expansion ratio and have very low E.S. and S.D. (std. deviation, not sect. density).

Point is, absolutely barrels vary in speeds, and in a round like a 7/08, a difference of 100 fps is not surprising given its a factory tube. I had a friend ironically who had a custom 7/08 AI built, and it's speeds were FAR LESS than a NON AI 7mm-08, all I can fathom is a SLOW bbl. He punched it out to 284 btw.

SO, not arguing your results, we can all use the same equipment and things can/do vary often with subtle differences, sometimes more. I admit, I stood on the 7/08s pretty hard in my hunting loads, but they were safe in my rifle. If loading in the future, odds are if I can get better accuracy a gr or two from max, I will use it for better case life.

My 7/08s DID shoot their best when using top loads and bullets into the lands. In my 700V - One hole 5-shot groups with 139 Hornady's and 140 BTs, as well as 150 SMK HP. Putting the OAL down to mag restriction, and they opened up a little, but still shot very well for hunting.

Bobin, I agree, they are all very close. Part of my interest in the 284 may come from data seen from Comp shooters who milk the max out of their rifles, not FL sizing, etc. and standing on their loads, but as much that, knowing many new powders have come out and performance has been enhanced in many rounds whether 50 fps or 100+. I am sure those inclined could take a 280 aptly throated, stuff 162-180s with the best of today's powders and run right with top 284 loads. BTW, one other point, comp shooters often have more bbl than hunters want to carry. That is always something to consider when comparing rounds, etc.

Thanks.

I don't remember exactly, but I believe both ran in the 2800's. Of course the M70 has a 28" bull barrel on it and the M700 has a 26" sporter. I don't pay much attention to velocity. I know the M700 will take deer and elk out to 500 yards, which is beyond my field limit. I shoot the M70 at 1000-1100 yards and it hits point on in good groups, not much else matters.

Fact be known, the M700 was a waste of money. I already had a M700 in 280, and a pump also. If I was going to do it again it would be a 280 IMP.

Interesting thoughts FWIW, here are my thoughts on the matter...I think the premium bullets may help the smaller calibers step up a class or so in terms of penetration,but not necessarily in terms of frontal area(still important)and enough bullet remaining to disrupt tissue and break heavy bone,and overcome the resistance of hide, muscle bone encountered, etc.

When I made the jump from sub 30 calibers to the 300 magnums,(and the 30/06 for that matter as well)I immediately noticed the difference in the amount of tissue destruction and ability to penetrate when the going got tough,and cause more serious wounds. Not only in game I shot, but also digging through quite a few elk carcasses shot (tracing wound channels and recovering what was left of bullets)with stuff from the 250 Savage up through the 338's and 340 Weatherby killed by myself and others.Also large northern whitetail and mule deer killed with the 300's versus, say a 270 Winchester.Te next step up the ladder where I noticed things get really "different" was with the 375 caliber,which really seemed to make big holes in animals.

Now by this I am not suggesting that the smaller calibers did not (or will not)kill efficiently and well,and frequently there was no discernable difference in animal reaction, distance traveled,or anything else to suggest the smaller stuff was somehow "inadequate",but simply that the larger calibers with their broader frontal areas and greater weight bullets seemed, to me, to create a bit more destruction,simply because there was more bullet at work.

I'm also not suggesting you can jump to a 300 magnum or similar and get sloppy with bullet placement either, because I have watched that happen and results were not at all happy.Nevertheless the big 30's and 338's always seemed to me to kill very quickly and well if shots were placed correctly

I think the premiums mostly help the smaller calibers from the standpoint of penetration, which could be a problem with more tender bullets,because unless a bullet reaches the vitals it cannot destroy anything immediately necessary for the animal to stay alive.And yet,bullet weight and frontal area still count for something,and with full knowledge that a 25 caliber of reasonable velocity is capable of killing a wide range of game, I would still give the trump card to a 7mm of some type if selecting an all-round BG rifle.

So I don't think premium bullets turn a 25 cal (say)into a 7mm as an all round BG rifle.

I think that SD figures are important as a guide,but not the last word as SD sort of falls on its' face if bullet construction is not adequate to realize its' full potential.

fyshbum,

While the Taylor Knock-Out formula is often applied to any and all centerfire cartridge, it was designed by John Tayler ONLY as an indication of how a solid (not expanding) bullet might work on elephant. He makes this very clear in his first book, BIG GAME AND BIG GAME CARTRIDGES, but doesn't make it as clear in his second (and more popular) book, AFRICAN RIFLES AND CARTRIDGES.

The formula is supposed to give an indication of how long a certain cartridge will knock out an elephant with a missed brain shot. A great many experienced African hunters think it is misleading, to put it mildly.

It is much more misleading to apply it to expanding bullets in smaller big game rifles, even though this is done all the time.

Personally, I have shot a lot of game with the 7mm-08, 7x57, .280, .270, .280 AI, 7mm Rem. SAUM (a short-action .280 AI) and have yet to notice any difference how they kill. Certainly the bullet chosen would make more difference than the cartridge.

There is some difference in trajectory, but the significant difference lies beyond 300 yards.

JB: for deer-only, couldn't one add the 25/06, 6.5x55, 260, 257 bob(handloaded), and likely some other cartridges to your list?

6.5BR and BobinNH,

Thanks for the thoughts. I too wish the big name companies would publish some comparisons. I do not necessarily think it is the money for the tests that keep them from doing this, but the publics' realization that modern C+C bullets are enough for most of us, most of the time, as long as the shooter is reasonable with is loads and shot angles. Besides, when we need something more than C+C bullets, the good old Nosler Partition, built to the tighter tolerances of modern reloading machines, would do the rest. Sales for the Accubond, E-Tip, etc would diminish or disappear. By not publishing their data in pure emperical form they help us spark debates on sites like this and play to our subjective opinions, thus selling more product so we can "experiment" for ourselves.
I am a middle of the road guy when it comes to the cartridges I shoot. My main rifles are in .308, 7x57, 6.5 Jap, 6.5 x 55 swede, and 30.30. I used to shoot the bigger guns 300 win., 7mm mag, etc. but quickly found that they are alot more than I needed for the areas I hunt. Mostly mid atlantic and southeastern hardwoods and swamps. I can't even see past 50 yards in most places. So, I began to down size. First to the .308, then the 7x57, now the 6.5x55 and 6.5 jap and 30.30. I also found that the shorter lighter rifles were easier to carry and I shot them better. Apparently, I am not alone. atleast here in the east and south. If I hunted larger game at extended ranges ie. Montana and Alaskan species I would probably still be messing around with the larger calibers for their garanteed penetration. (I am definitely more in the Elmer Keith camp on game larger than deer). Even with the 6.5, 7, and .308 I shoot middle to middle heavy bullets weights in these calibers: 140gr. in the 6.5 (accept the JAP), 140-160 in 7mm, and 165-180 in the .308 and 30.30. I can use standard C+C bullets with complete reliability. Cartridges like the .284, 6.5.06, etc. have always caught my attention because of their great looking performance/balistics, but the lack of reloading skill when I had the disposable income, before wife and kids, kept me from participating. Now that I have the time and some money to put back into my rifles and reloading I just don't need the extra horsepower these cartridges provide. That may change when my son or daughter gets old enough to travel out west to hunt. Even then the 7x57, 6.5x55, and .308 can still cover most of that hunting, atleast in the lower 48.
This ofcourse discounts the "Dream Hunt" and "Ultimate" rifle daydreams that ultimately drive us to built the next project. I actualy am looking to a Drilling for some of the hunting I do around here. Multispecies, hike in, three day hunts for deer, bear, and grouse come to mind. Not practical, but unique, which is the allure to the: 6.5/284, 6.5/06, etc.

southtexas,

Yeah, I have never had trouble killing any sort of deer with .25 caliber and 6.5mm rifles, whether they were .257 Bobs and 6.5x55s, or the .257 Weatherby and .264 Winchester. Or the .243 Winchester, for that matter.

Deer just don't take a lot of killing. Well, for that matter neither do elk when the bullet's put in the right place.

fyshbum:Not suggesting they are the only things that work by a long shot,.......but for me a lotta bullet/caliber conundrums have been solved with a Nosler Partition.

They tend to sort of resolve a lot of these "not enough-too much penetration/expansion" dilemmas,even for deer.Old and boring maybe;and trumped by newer stuff in some categories of performance,but they remain consistent, predictable,and reliable.There is virtue in that.....

Mule Deer,
Good to get you in on this. I was refering to the TKF as used "losely" by various american gunwriters.

The actual musing was if the sectional density of the projectile , given that you have a velocity and a defined projectile configuration ie. C+C, Partition, TSX etc., could be used to help project how a certain combination would perform on game. Would it help to explain why certain calibers seem to kill out of proportion to their balistics?

Like how does a 117 gr. 257 rob at 2900 fps compare to say a 140 grain 6.5x55 at 2800fps?

Or why a 60-70 gr. 22-250 can penetrate and cleanly kill three hogs in a row while a 30.30 150gr. cannot get through the first one?

I understand the difference in bullet types and materials, just musing on the elusive formula for prognosticating how a given caliber/cartridge would perform using empirical data from other known rounds performance on game.

BobinNH,
You are not offending me on this. NP's are/have always been good bullets.
The fact that they are so good is one of the reasons I pointed out as to why there is no published data from Nosler on all their bullets, in comparative medium, tests. One could argue, in simple terms, that they could cover most needs with just the one type bullet. That would just ruin it for everyone!!

Excellent posting!
That is perspective+P, based on personal experience.

Crosshair,

I believe your recollections concerning the 162's and 168's should be pretty close.

I chronographed 140 Sierra's at 2950 absolute max in a 20 inch barreled Browning Micro Medallion. In fact I backed them off a full grain and hunted with them with more than satisfactory results.

Jim

I gave up that numbers game a long time ago. Simple question is, does the load and gun do what I want it to? Nothing else matters. I don't do theroretical ranging, I actually shoot the range. People who get into that numbers game end up spending a bunch of money. Changing loads and components for less than 100 fps. 100 fps means nothing in the field, if you are that close to the edge with the load at a given range, you are too close to the edge.

fyshbum, I was agreeing with you......the intent is not to ruin anything, but comment on how simple it can be...

fyshbum and Mule Deer,

Just to back up MD's comments, here are a couple of direct quotes from Taylor's "African Rifles and Cartridges"

On his Knock Out Value:

"They permit of an immediate comparison being made between any two rifles from the point of view of the actual punch delivered by the bullet on heavy massive-boned animals which are almost invariably shot at close quarters... In the case of soft-skinned non-dangerous game such as is generally shot at medium and long ranges, theoretical mathematical energy may possibly prove a more reliable guide, provided a suitable weight of bullet is chosen for the weight of animal against which it is to be used."

He further states:
"I have only worked out the Knock-Out value of certain small bores to show that they cannot be considered safe weapons to take against dangerous game at close quarters in thick cover, altho a few men used them in the past with considerable success."

Reading his book, you can tell that Taylor was something of a "rifle looney" who experimented with many calibers during his many years in the bush, mostly devoted to hunting elephants in heavy cover. He devised his Knock-Out values to reflect his experience in stopping an elephant, rhino or buffalo at close range, in its tracks, even if the shot was a little bit off. As you can see he was careful to state that these numbers are neither designed or intended to be used for comparisons in other circumstances. So unless you are an elephant, rhino or buffalo control hunter in Africa, the usefulness of the Taylor Knock-Out values is moot, by Taylor's own admission.

In response to the OP. Currently own two 7-08s (Rem 700s) and a few years ago, bought a third (this one on a Win M-70 SA) and had it reamed to a 284 win. Had to have the smith tweak the box a little to get it to feed correctly. After that, it has fed flawlessly. I picked the M-70 SA partly due to the 3.100" box length vs about 2.84" with the Rem. With a 24" barrel and what I believe to be very sane loads using RL-17 (based on loads posted in various places) and bullets seated out to about 2.95", velocities are in the range of 150+ fps over what the 7-08s will get when loaded to the max listed. About 3100 fps with 140 gr bullets, about 2980 fps with 150 gr bullets, and about 2880 fps with 160 gr bullets. Both H and I 4350s and W760 work very well in this cartridge as well. Picked up a Mc Edge on the 'fire over a year ago, and that has her weighing 6-6. This year's deer load is a 150 gr NBT going about 2930 fps using W-760. It's a good cartridge IMO and is definitely an equal to the 280 on a SA. But I believe it is important to pick the right SA to build on.

Great info bludog, thanks much sir.

crosshair

Not me.
I'm still into the numbers.
I derive great pleasure comparing the 7-08 to the .284, testing powders, going for that extra .02 grain, recording, chronograph readings, chamber depths, brass preparation, different primers etc. All that I can learn, unlearn, apply, and share with others about reloading, shooting, target design and experiencing in all things shooting is a pleasure to me.

At Age 70 I'm attempting to keep everything going that I enjoy and that even includes shooting. I hope I am hunting and working up loads twenty years from now.

May you too have life abundantly and enjoy the things you enjoy.

Jim