Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 7x57 vs 280

280 Rem 700
Nosler manual #4 load
160-162g
IMR 7828
Fed 210* very, very important for bug hole groups
Rem /Win Cases
2930 fps on a 24" factory barrels, brothers shoot the same load.
No paper between the bullet holes, 3/8" and less

I just sold my Husquavarna Carbine in 7.x57

Have hunted a LOT with both the 7x57 and .280. In the 7x57 I mostly (but not always) have used bullets in the 160-grain range at around 2700 fps, from various 21-22" barrels. In the .280 I've also used 160s a lot, at 2900+ fps.

Just looked at my hunting notes, and the longest kills with both cartridges were 350-400 yards with 160-grain bullets. Both worked fine, because they put a hole all the way through the vitals.

I like IMR-7828SSC with 160gr bullet weights in the 280 Remington as well. Except I've decided that my stock needs some bedding work before resuming accuracy tests

When I started loading for my custom .280 Rem. I was looking for RL22 to try. Checked in a load manual that IMR 7828 SSC was only about 14 FPS slower that RL22 so bought some. Bullet I was working with was the 160 gr. Speer Grand Slam, the older two core version. I got the velocity all right but accuracy sucked big time. I just could not find a happy place with 7828. Decided to try some WMR that I have on hand and hit the jackpot with velocity just shy of 2900 FPS and accuracy in the .50" to .80" depending on how well I'm shooting on any particular day. Never loked any further with any other bullet.
PJ

John, any commonly available cup and core bullets in particular you liked in that 160 grain weight category? I have a 280 project I will be working on this winter. A good C&C in that weight range that covers deer/black bear/average moose (if I can draw a tag) would make life simpler!

Not John but I do like the Speer 160 gr. Grand Slam in my .280. It's the older two core version and it shoots very nicely. I have used the 160 gr. Speer Hot Core in my 7x57 Mauser with excellent results. Last load I worked up for the 7x57 was for the 150 gr. Nosler Partition. Planned on using it on elk. I am considering trying the 160 gr. Hot Cores in the 7x57 which should be excellent if the rifle likes the load. I have used that 160 gr. Speer HC in the .280 and accuracy was good. JMHO, but I think the Speer HC and GS are very good hunting bullets. I also like the Speer 165 gr. HC in the .308. I must have shot better than a dozen deer with that bullet and the only one I ever recovered was from a Mule Deer 250 yards out. Deer was facing me and the bullet traveled all the way through coming to a stop in the rear leg. I like Speer's bullets.
PJ

John: as a follow up to patbrennan's question, aside from the fact that they shoot well in several of your rifles, what is it about 160-gr bullets that you particularly like? I notice that you refer to them a lot in your writings, especially your articles on the 7x57.

I suspect the friend Allen is referring to here is Jim Carmichel.

[/quote] John: as a follow up to patbrennan's question, aside from the fact that they shoot well in several of your rifles, what is it about 160-gr bullets that you particularly like? I notice that you refer to them a lot in your writings, especially your articles on the 7x57.[/quote]

The 7x57 I used for more hunting than any other the Serengeti Rifles custom you now own--on the Montana "short action"--which was really a medium-length action, similar in length to Mauser actions for the 7x57, with a 21" barrel and one of Serengeti's laminated stocks that you can't tell was laminated unless you look REALLY closely.

I was doing a LOT of hunting back then, especially culls in Africa, and wanted to field-test various bullets to find out how they worked on game. As it turned out, the only bullet weight the rifle would shoot to the same point of impact was those around 160 grains, so that's what I used, with enough H4350 to get around 2675-2750 fps, depending on the bullet.

The bullet I used for most hunting was the 160-grain Sierra GameKing, which as mentioned earlier worked fine on "deer-sized" game from up close to 350+ yards. But also used the 160 Barnes TSX, 156 Norma Oryx (which was particularly accurate in that rifle), 160 Nosler Partition, and 160 North Fork softpoint. (May have used others as well, but those I particularly remember.) Didn't have to fiddle with the scope adjustments with any of them, just changed ammo and shot stuff, which ranged in size from African springboks to Canada moose.

Mule Deer,
How did the 160 Gamekings work on elk sized critters out of the 7x57?

Meant to make it plain that I ONLY used the 160 GameKing on deer-sized game, but can see how I failed.

On the other hand, have never recovered one so they might work very well on larger game.....

Thanks for the reply. I’ll just have to do my own testing if the opportunity presents itself.

Someone usually gets pissy about a thread resurrection,
I enjoy them.

Love seeing and reading the words of now missing members.

Have you ever wondered why the .280 Remington was ever developed since Wilhelm Brenneke invented the 7x64 a half century before?

Marketing.

years ago, I had a love affair with the 7x57's. Then a gunsmith friend met me at the rifle range to chronograph his Rem 700 in 280. He had a load right out of the NEW nosler manual #4, with 160g Partition, Rem brass, Fed 210 primer, and IMR 7828, bullet .010 off the lands. He shot clover leaf groups, 2930 fps. DANG! The load is in the Nosler manual #4 for bolt guns only. Family has 3 of these rifles at this time, same load, same powder...160g Sierra BTSP, 160g Partition, 162g ELDX and M, just gets the job done.

Then I put a 8.75T krieger on a 700 and shoot the 180g ELD-M with R#17, holy cow, smig of powder, unreal ballistics on this bullet that has right at a .800 bc, and it has killed hogs very well so far. I made some brass out of the Lapua 30/06 cases that end up with a slightly shorter neck, but you can not kill the primer pockets. This combo is worth building a rifle around. RWS makes 270 brass that is extremely tough also to make 280 and AI brass out of.

What does this even mean?

I'm guessing that the 7x64, back then, sounded "too exotic" for the American Market. The .280 ( loaded down for the Mod 740 Auto), was "marketed" as being better than the 270/30-06. It even "sounds" like its halfway between the two rounds! It wasn't, not with those factory loads, but still a good round!

There are several factors at work here:

1) The 7x57 was never "marketed" as a commercial round until some years after it appeared in the early 1890s as a military round. Even then the "marketing" was confused by Rigby calling it the .275.

2) As the 7x57 was chambered in more commercial hunting rifles, the throat lengths varied. This caused problems with hunting ammunition, especially after lighter spitzers were loaded. Even so, it was considered one of the better "hunting" rounds in the U.S. before WWII--when Winchester chambered it in the Model 70. Many gun writers suggested it as a very good hunting round--especially for the typical "women and kids" category. (Even then they evidently couldn't comprehend how women and kids could kill the same big game with the 7x57, when most men considered at LEAST the .30-06 minimal for the same animals.)

3) After the war, many Americans avoided anything "German."

4) The .280 was indeed marketed more than the 7x57 when it appeared in 1957, but Remington apparently was one of several companies that failed to recognize the trend toward bolt-action rifles, instead "marketing" it as a pump/semiauto round which "approximated" the .270. This is one reason it never became particularly popular. (Then there was the 7mm Express Remington debacle....)

5) Some gun writers claimed the handloaded .280 was superior to the .270 when chambered in a bolt-action, due to a wider "bullet selection" in 7mm--which meant a wider range of bullet weights, back when almost all bullets were cup-and-cores. This mattered a little back then, because heavier 160-175-grain 7mm bullets could (at least theoretically) penetrate deeper than 150-grain cup-and-core .270s.

But in the decades I've been a gun writer, have only met one who used 175s for hunting. All the others (including two of the .280's most famous gun-writer fans) used bullets in the 140-150 grain range. If this made any difference in the "killing power" of the .280 over the .270 I failed to see it, after hunting a LOT with the .280 and various bullets throughout the 1990s.

6) The .280 Ackley Improved became far more popular than the standard .280, especially after it became a factory round--partly because of higher-BC bullets, and the added mystique of the Ackley name. This WAS due to marketing, especially the much-quicker marketing of the Internet, and the 21st-century fascination with higher-BC bullets for longer-range shooting. In fact, today it's far easier to find and purchase .280 AI brass, ammo and rifles these days than standard .280s.

Killed a lot of animals with a 7x57 130, 140 and 154 gr, never thought I
needed a 280 as well as that worked.