What are max safe velocity,s in a 24" Rem 700 in 280. With 140-160 gr bullets. Thanks

If I would have found this thread earlier would not have posted my ?
280 pet load thread.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/5015944/1


Thanks for the input, my velocity seemed high going to back off a little.

I reached 3010 FPS using Nosler's data for the 150 gr. Accubond. I was shooting the Accubond Long Range, day for which bullet hasn't been published yet, AFAIK. Max with the IMR7828 is 2990. I used 7828SSC and the ABLR has less bearing surface than the AB. Now I have to play with the seating depth to find acceptable accuracy. Primers still nice and round, case head and pressure ring measurements were good.
I haven't tried any other bullets yet but have a supply of 160 gr. Speer Grand Slams, both the old style two core bullet and the newer cup and core version. Just have to wait until I;m done with the ABLRs.
Paul B.

PJ, How long is your barrel on that 280?

Noslers velocities for the 280 load data are done from a 26 inch barrel... Wich to me is a little misleading.

Most 280 rem chambered rifles sold sport 22 inch and a few 24 inch tubes.

I have found it near impossible to match noslers velicities with a 22 inch barrel, gets better with a 24" and seems fairly close with 26 inchers.... Have exceeded there velocity data with a 28 inch tube 300 win mag.

In mine, 140 at 3000, 150 at 2900, 160 at 2800. You may be able to squeeze an extra 25-50 if you lean on it a bit more than I but my face is worth more than 25-50 ft/sec.

That sounds about right to me.

Sorry kk alaska

The top SAFE loads and functions fine loads velocity average from my .280 and threw my chronograph are just as everybody has stated... give or take 20-50 fps

140 gr= 3000 fps
150 gr= 2900 fps
160 gr= 2800 fps
175 gr= 2700 fps

Was at the range today with my .280, several different loads, and chronograph:

Federal Vital Shok, 140 gr. Accubond, MV 3007 fps, 74 degrees

140 gr. TTSX, 56.5 gr. RL19, 3032 fps

140 gr. TSX, 55.0 gr. IMR4350, 3115 fps

All three loads sub-MOA accurate out of the PacNor 22" Super Match Grade barrel.

Most of my previous velocity testing has been at much cooler temps, hence lower velocities. No pressure signs, hard bolt lift, etc. at all with any of these loadings.

I really wish Federal was still loading the 140 gr. Accubond. I'm down to my last 60 rounds!

I've got a 280 in a M70 Featherweight push feed in the factory McMillan stock. It's something to behold, accuracy-wise, for all the [bleep] you hear about push feed M70's.

Those winlites are really nice rifles. Had one in 30-06 that shot very well and just picked up one in 270.

Ironically, you can usually buy them for less than what the stock would cost you.

I would imagine if a guy took the newest Nosler manual and looked up 270 velocities for the most similar SD value with the same bullet, you come pretty close.

Working up is a given. One barrel doing what another barrel did, is not.

In other words just shoot a .270

Be careful according to the fire you are within .007" of gayness!!

Mike

With the .280, gayness is beneath you. Or, perhaps, you are above gayness.

My barrel is 24". The bullet in question is the 150 gr. ABLR which has a somewhat shorter bearing length than the standard Nosler AB. Also, Nosler's data may be at SAAMI standard pressures. I did stop at what Nosler stated was the max load carefully monitors velocity and case head and pressure ring measurements.
I'm hearing that the ABLR bullets are very finicky regarding sating depth and based on results with that bullet so far with the .280 Rem. and two 7x57 Mausers, they ain't kidding. I do agree that Nosler using a 26" barrel for their data ain't quite cheating fair.
Paul B.

PJGunner,

I finally gave up trying to get the 150 gr. ABLR to shoot in my .280. This rifle likes almost any bullet/powder combo EXCEPT that darned ABLR.

Paul, how far off the lands did you end up with the 7x57?

some more 150s in process, for tomorrow...

The difference with the .270 is you don't have to guess. We have plenty of full house load data for the .270.

I dunno for sure. Used what worked with the 140 gr. Ballistic tip for the first try and haven't had either time or cooperative weather to go any further. Same with the .280.
Paul B.

Yes Sir!

.270 has been the right choice for a long, long time!

Mike

Yeah, my intentions are good but timing lags a year or so...we will have to compare notes sometime down the road on the 7x...

Yes I agree, a 26 inch tube is not cheating fairly

I have been hearing similar news with the ABLR. I have not shot any ABLR bullets yet and have no proof myself.

I did dip back into my 150 gr Btips, man what a shoot'n bullet those B tips are. With a charge of H4831 you will not find in any load manual and proved safe in my rifle along with a whole heard of 280 here on the 'fire 270 data does makes a good starting point for 280 rem load recipes, up to 150 grain bullets that is.....

Been shooting 160-162 gr. bullets for a long while, then I worked up a couple good, accurate 175 gr partition loads for hunting. But that 150 gr Btip load takes the cake for speed and accuracy. And with first hand accounts from other hunters I know and reports from here on the 'fire on how the newer Btips work on larger game like elk, I'm really tempted to just use the Btips this fall

Another comparison for "maximum safe" is to take a look at the Nosler 26" velocities for the 280 and apply them as 24". Puts you in the 270 data for similar SD bullets, which should be a bit less pressure in the 280 by rights, as boomwack alluded to.

And then you could go beyond the 150g 270 pill...:)

Or maybe, if you are math savvy, a guy could take MD's 4-1 ratio and work down from a 280AI...

Between .270 and .280 AI data, you can pretty well guess what a .280 loaded to similar pressures can do. Just don't get greedy...

If you can't guess, then you probably shouldn't be experimenting.

I'd type the velocity recorded for N560 behind a 160 partition, but folks would get their undies in a twist, for sure.

Ah hell, 3025 fps with no moly and no pressure signs on the brass, and tight primer pockets. Lucky I'm still alive.

This conversation goes back a few decades. Anyone interested can go back to Rifle Magazine #69 and see an article where the author used three different rifles with 22 to 24" barrel lengths,and various throat lengths.

With a 24" barrel and "long throat"several powders broke 3000 fps with 160 gr bullets. MRP was among those powders. The rifles with 22" barrels gave in the 2900's with top loads.

When RL22 came out I loaded it with the 140 gr bullets in the 280. In a Shilen barreled custom it was no problem (I thought) to break 3100 with a 140 gr bullet.I backed the load off to 3050 and felt more comfortable.

But another G33/40 Mauser blew a primer with the same load of RL22,and gave the same velocity with less powder.A M70 FW in 280 Rem gave over 3100 with RL22 with no ill effects,while doing load development, but I did not trust the load.

Eventually I got tired of fire walling the 280,and I figured that, if I was going to carry a 30/06 length action, and a 24" barrel, the 7 Rem Mag was a far better bet,since it easily out paced the 280 in the same barrel length at the expense of a few grains more powder.

These double based powders will give some sensational velocity figures but despite manufacturers claims I have yet to find a substitute for powder capacity and would rather have a 7 Rem Mag if my objective were a 160 gr bullet at over 3000 fps.

IMHO I'd draw the line at 3050 with a 140 gr bullet. I don't need the cartridge for use with 160+ gr bullets. The 7 mags handle those much better and with the potential for less drama.

Remingtons 140 CL claims 3,000 fps. I wonder what it actually does? It seems to be a good accurate load and I can't wait to try it on deer in late November.

Good post Bob. Couldn't agree more. I am currently using a .280AI that gets 2940fps(24"barrel) or so with the 160gr Nos.Part. If I wanted more speed I'd use a 7RM. There is no substitute for case capacity if more velocity is the goal.

Flipping back threw my .280 load note book I had chronoed the 140 gr. core-lokt load and got 2800 fps for an average. This was back when the boxes stated, "New Core-Lokt" with the 7mm 140 "core-lokt" bullet being new at the time....

The load killed deer very well for me, 30 yards or 300. I killed a 140 lb. mountain lion with one of the "new" core-lokt bullets also

Bob, spot on as usual!

Thank you boomwhack.

That's interesting. I get 2830 FPS from my .280 with the Remington 150 gr. Coreloct.
Paul B.

You bet moosemike.

The 165 CLSP grain load I chronoed got 2680, 140 fps less than advertised velocity. I chronoed that load around the same time as 140 load. That's typically what I get from factory fodder is from 150-200 fps less than stated velocity. I've not chronoed the 150 grain load.

The 165 grain factory load put a good 2" exit hole with a broadside shot in a 200 lb black bear from about 25 yards that another hunter spooked toward me... The bear veered to my right as I brought the 280 to my shoulder to give him one head on At the shot, he collapsed and tumbled. Quite the rush i tell ya...

Pretty much spot on re: the 280, Bob......& I really like the 280, but a 7 Mag it will never be.

But a magnum guy, I am not, at least not for mid-sized game.

I've never been able to make myself push 150's past 2950'ish in various 280's, about 3050'ish for 140's & 2850 for 160's with either RL-22 or MRP.

I think pushing harder is to push too hard.

Much as I like the 280, it really doesn't do anything that the 270 doesn't........I get the same velocity with 150's as the 280 & more with the 270 & 130's than the 280 with 140's.

MM

MM: I always liked the 280 a lot and still do. 7 mags become useful for heavy 7mm bullets.

I always thought the 280 was a very good killer. I mostly used 140's in mine. Sometimes I wish I still had one

I got my 1st 280 in the '60's. It was my only deer rifle for many years. Been without one for a while and I miss it!

I have a M70 Shot Show Special in 280 on order.

Thanks to the "enablers" on this site, I have bought some 120gr BTips for it. Thinking I should be able to get 3100+ with them without a problem. Does that sound reasonable?

You can get close to 3300 & the 120 NBT is one deer killin' sumbeetch..............used it in both the 7-08 & the 280.

Also, don't forget about the 120 TSX.

MM

That's odd--I recently wrote about how well the 120 Ballistic Tip and TTSX work in the 7mm-08 in my handloading column for GUNS magazine, and a reader wrote in who said no 7mm bullet under 140 grains was suitable for anything except varmints. Apparently Barnes and Nosler are mistaken in listing their 120's as big game bullets.

"Safe" pressures are always something of a debate, because some handloaders feel safe at any pressure that doesn't require a crowbar to open the bolt. But when the .280's loaded to the same 65,000 PSI as SAAMI lists for the .270 Winchester, according to the laws of internal ballistics it's capable of about 1.5% higher velocity than the .270 with the same bullet weights, eveything else being equal. This amounts to a gain of 45 fps in a load that would get 3000 fps in the .270.

SuperT: I got tired of chasing my ass around a chronograph...

Why do we buy cartridges and try to make them go faster than they should? Must be a hand loader thing....not everyone does this of course but a lot of hand loaders do.


southtexas if I bumped into the right rifle, Id get another 280.

I'm getting 3000 fps w/ 140 Accubonds in a Rem 700 with a 24" barrel using H4831. I could probably push it a little more but that velocity seems fine to me.

The 7mm08 and 120 grain ballistic tip has been my combination of choice for the last ten or so years. After shooting 150+ deer with it I'm inclined to think they work rather well.

Classic. I'm going to use this with appropriate reference.

M16,

Yeah, that's basically what I told the guy who was convinced any 7mm bullet under 140 grain is a "varmint" load. Both the 120 BT and TSX are pretty popular here in Montana, and not just for deer. Quite a few elk have died from their application.

Apparently quite a few hunters are still wandering around in 1911 following George Gray on his fatal lion hunt in Kenya, when the thin-jacketed 140's from his .280 Ross came apart on a charging lion, which killed Grey. Even read an interview with an "expert" Montana elk hunter who uses a .30-06 who said no bullet under 180 grains is adequate. Apparently many people still think all bullets are thin-jacketed cup-and-cores, 67 years after Nosler Partitions appeared on the market.

22" tube. 3050-140. 2940-150. Nothing heavier needed, just use a bullet with different construction.

Velocities spot on. If anyone would know what you can do with a 140-150 gr 7mm,it would be Rick...

These sorts of threads tend to remind me of all the big game animals killed BEFORE handloaders owned chronographs.

John: Sshhhhh! You and i remember those days but we are aging ourselves!

You're right though. Killed one of my biggest bucks with the JOC load;a 270-130-60H4831. Later I got a chronograph and discovered that rifle gave 2950 fps, instead of the "3100" it was supposed to get.

Ruined the whole rifle for me.

That's just about what my first .270 got with 60 grains and 130's too! Killed a few animals, though, before the load was ruined forever.

My favorite pre-chronograph story, however, came from my friend asnd fellow writer John Haviland. In the 1970's he worked in the local paper mill, where as John jokes, "they issued every worker a hard hat and a 7mm Remington Magnum." John loaded his own "Big Seven" with 160-grain Speers, using a load the then-current Speer manual listed at over 3000 fps, and took a pile of game with it, including black bears, deer and elk.

His magic magnum killed like lightning, but John lives in western Montana and none of the shots were much over 250 yards. When he finally got a chronograph it turned out his magic load wasn't getting 3000+ fps but right around 2700. Essentially it was a warmly loaded 7x57....

My first custom rifle was a 25-06 built by Mickey Coleman I picked up second hand here. To this day it might be the most accurate rifle I've had. It shot 100gr btips tsx's and game kings into tiny tiny groups and all to the same poi. When we finally started using a chronograph I found out my gun only shot 3150 and all the other 25-06's on the internet were much faster. I ended up going AI then rebarrel then changed to 6.5-284. Would still be shooting that same gun had I not found out how bad it was ....lol

what about superperformance in the .280??

The reason I asked the question was my 24" Rem 700 KS, custom shop LH 280 velocity's seemed fast. And wanted to know what others were seeing for velocity.

Original loads accuracy has fallen off, probably changes in powder burn.

My rifle velocitys, 140,s at 3070 FPS, 150,s at 2950 FPS, 162 at 2875 FPS. going to back off loads and work up for accuracy.

Rifle has a very short throat.

John but think about how many rifles, cartridges and components got sold because of chronographs showing anemic loads and shattering preconceived notions.

Kind of a boost to the industry.

Hello,

In my Mannlicher-Schoenauer GK 7x64 with 60 cm barrel lenght (a little less than 24") I NEVER got more than 2850 f/s with any 160 grs, nor 2750 f/s with any 175 grs bullets without going into pressures I didn't like. I used these bullet weights exclusively and R22 and IMR 7828 as my only powders.
The European barrels for 7x64 has one of the longest free travel neck chamber lenghts...
In my Mauser 1935 7x57 also 60 cm barrel lenght, with a generous .350" so-called free bore and a .30-06 magazine lenght, I load the cartridges with an OAL of 3.3". Can get easely 2750 f/s with 160 grs Nosler P, and 2650 f/s with the 175 Nosler P.
These figures for the 7x64/.280 Rem and for the 7x57 I think are safe maximum loads with the apropiate powders.

Best regards

PH

I found the best cure for a slow chronograph reading is using it in direct, bright sunlight. That usually supercharges any load. Imagine my delight when my 7x57 hit 3000 fps with 150's.

I was initially frustrated by my .280 (Ruger #1B) that I could only find consistenly accurate loads with 140's and 175's (150-160 were like a shotgun pattern) and found they were not getting any more velocity than a fast 7x57. Reality set in though as I looked at trajectories within the ranges I am comfortable shooting and realized it just didn't matter. So I now happily hunt with that gun and don't care! It is accurate and anything shot right with it will die.

Not exactly on topic, but I find it interesting that these velocity/bullet weights closely match my handlloads for a Brno 21H 7x64 Brenneke with 23.5" barrel

castnblast: That's because they are almost identical cartridges.

Good thread as my buddy just bought an older (NIB) Tika 280 a few weeks ago and called me tonight about loading for it. He wants 160 NPT's fast, but doesn't have any idea what that is. I have been loading for my old FN 93 7x57 for about 55 years now and figure that 160's @ 2700 fps in the .280 Tika should kill most anything in NW WA. BTW another friend in a wheelchair is hunting cow Moose w/his 30-06 BAR and old yellow/Brass 200gr. NPT semiptds. starting today SW of town which I loaded to about 2400 w/I4350 for him. Great to vicariously (SP?) hunt Mooses!-Muddy

_____________________________________________________

Just curious:

I met a rep from CermaLube last week.

https://www.cermastore.com/lube/

They manufacture a product that combines with metal and forms a hard, slick crust in gun barrels and on receivers and triggers. There are very impressive claims of velocity improvement.

I checked some of the many references that were provided and they DID substantiate the claims.

Does anyone have any experience with this product.

Is there an impressive pressure improvement along with?

Bill

The claims aren't impressive - they are at best evidence of someone too stupid to know how to use a chronograph and at worse outright fraud. Go sell your snake oil some place else. Nobody is buying it here.

David

The answer is definitely YES with conditions that are extensive and need to be understood. This is NOT a lubricant, it is a friction reducer. There are sound engineering, scientific and ballistic principles that apply as to sliding friction..

That seems like the Islamic State not being Islamic.

Well, I'm not real smart, but it seems to me that if you reduce the friction, you reduce pressure...and the velocity.

hmmmm Merriam Webster say this

Full Definition of LUBRICANT

1
: a substance (as grease) capable of reducing friction, heat, and wear when introduced as a film between solid surfaces

_____________________________________________________

David:

Why do you have so much trouble understanding the English language?

I asked a Question. A question is a query to obtain a response.

I never heard of this stuff. How could you stretch your imagination into encompassing my "selling" it ?

There isn't anyone here at all in this vast pool of world experience and wisdom that actually knows anything about it at all.

Great Scott I feel bad. I've conditioned you into a Pavlonian reflex. I never intended to. Sorry for that.

Tom:

You may be a Hellava lot smarter than you give yourself credit.

If you want to pursue it I will work with you.

Here's some on friction:

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-sliding-friction.html

To reduce it to more simple terms take this example:

You have a sofa in the living room on a rug. You want to push to some other location in accordance with your wife's directions to hubby. It doesn't push.

You go to Lowes or Home Depot and buy those little round discs
with slick bottoms. Place one under each leg and - voila, it moves faster with one hand. Less kinetic energy, more velocity.

No thanks.

LOL

I met a rep from Cermalube too. His name was WET

________________________________________________________

Yetti:

It's not a lubricant or grease. Please don't be confused. It is in liquid or paste form, only for azpplication, but it actually recombines with metals to transform the surface into a hard, slick surface.

It's a complex scientific development that I supposed could be compared to heat treatment, case hardening or cryogenic procedure.

Once it reacts and transforms it is permanent. You can wash off everything and the hard crust doesn't wash off. It is there to stay.

Please understand that I don't know anything about this product. I'm only searching for someone, here on the forum, with experience. I already have tons of authentic users who already verified in abundance indisputably, it simply does work.

I'm going to attempt to make this as simple as possible for you Will.

Newtonian kinetic energy is defined, mathematically, as KE= .5mv^2, where m is mass and v is the velocity. Thus, if mass remains constant (as in your simple example of the couch) and you increase the velocity, then you subsequently increase the kinetic energy of the particle/object. The kinetic energy does not decrease as you claim. A simple and straightforward concept but requires understanding of the correct definitions and principles involved.

The fact of the matter is people with knowledge on this subject have spoken up and you have continually rejected their knowledge. Instead, favoring to propose factually incorrect information and play the part of the martyr.

My advice to you is to listen. However, you will probably not heed this advice.

Just like you

Jcubed:

I'm happy to say that you are totally wrong in thinking that I will not listen. I'm all open ears. Thank God that I have unmasked yet another of the majority of sincere, knowledgeable an experienced lurkers ? that I am was certainly were here.

I'd call that "smart"....you'd also allow the use of heavier powder charges to come back up to the same pressures,meaning in theory, more velocity as the bullet encounters less resistance passing down the bore.

Anyone who has used the (now discontinued) Barnes XLC,which had a very slick, hard coating,knows that charges were heavier at max for this bullet than a conventional one. At max it also gave higher velocity.We can look in some older Barnes manuals to see this. Van Zwoll mentioned this in an older article on the XLC bullets he did based on Barnes work in its lab. I've seen some stuff with the 130 XLC shooting it in the 300 Win Mag,using their data, that would make you scratch your noodle.

Some esteemed members here use moly on their bullets which has a similar effect. Da Schtik does this regularly though the reason may have passed over some heads....


And makers like Northfork,Barnes,and the Federal TBBC put grooves on their bullets,the purpose of which is to reduce bearing surface of those long copper shanks ,hence the friction the bullet encounters traveling down the bore is reduced.

Also, we used to deliberately build barrels with oversized groove diameter,which had a similar effect of cutting friction encountered by the bullet. These barrels would take heavier charges as well.

The concept is not all that far fetched if we think about it.Just another way to reduce friction encountered by the bullet in its trip down the barrel.

Nice hijack William Tibbe. This thread is about the .280 Remington.

Amen

What's the mystery about .280 velocities? Some of you guys act as if it were a wildcat.

Even without looking at the many sources of data for it, I would predict that for same-weight bullets, speeds are going to be lower than the .30-06, and slightly higher than the .270 Win.

Indeed--theory.

I'll pass.

Luckily my 700 BDL .280 likes 140 grain Core Lokts because my reloading stuff is in my grandparents basement back in PA and I won't get it until Christmas. Whatever speed those Core Lokts are hitting will be more than sufficient here in the piney woods.

Damn:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MM

Being polite is accepted with great appreciation:

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

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

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

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

Rick hasn't tossed this WET fool yet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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