Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Honey Love = 280 Remington??

E - been loading my 280 since before they were fashionable, 1982 to be exact. Coincidently bought my first 7mm mag the same year in the same rifle. You are absolutley correct on your assessment of the 280 vs. 7mm mag statements.

The 280 rem case (at least mine) holds 70.0 grains of water, my 7mm mag case holds 85.0 grains of water. Simple physics - Ideal Gas Law (PV=nRT) - implies the physical impossibility of the two being equal, regardless of the mystical powder stuffed into each respective case. Greater volume equates to a larger volume of gas and stored energy in the case. It is the expansion of the gas produced by igniting the powder that causes the bullet to accelerate down the barrel. In simple terms: More volume (V) = more powder = more velocity - assuming identical pressure. There are no magic powders, cartridges, guns, barrels, etc to make up for a signficant decrease in case capacity - loaded at the same pressure. Obviously, if you are achieving higher than stated velocity with a significantly smaller case, you are running at higher pressure. Period.

From a personal standpoint, I've hot-rodded my 280 into a baby 7 Mag, stuck bolts, blown primers and never reached factory 7Mag velocities. To keep all things in perspective, here is load data from the Remington website for the 7Mag:

140 - 3175 ft/sec
150 - 3110 ft/sec
160 - 2950 ft/sec
175 - 2860 ft/sec

Here is pressure tested 280 loads from the Hodgon website for the 280 Rem

140 - 3010 ft/sec @ 51,000 CUP
150 - 2990 ft/sec @ 51,600 CUP
154 - 2880 ft/sec @51,600 CUP
175 - 2650 ft/sec @ 52,000 CUP

Using a pressure standard, the loads are not close, nor are they capable of being close at the same pressure. Frankly, I thought the 280 SAAMI pressure was 50,000 CUP not the 270 Win standard of 52,000. Maybe it's the 7mm Express moniker that allows higher pressure. As a side note, the 280 Rem loads listed above are likely at higher pressure than the listed 7 Mag factory pressures due to the 7 Mag tendency of pressure spikes, which necesitated decreasing the factory pressure levels a bit.

Barnes and/or Nosler load data may show higher 280 velocities than those listed above, but I've never been able to attain them in my guns, nor any other I've loaded for.

Bottom line: each of us chooses how close we go to the "line" or beyond. A hundred feet per sec ain't worth my life. I may be paranoid but I watched my dad blow up a 06 Husqavarna at the age of 8 from ~ 6 feet away. It's a good thing he shot it from the hip because we never found all the pieces - your face ain't much of a backstop...........

-- BW

E an Bwinters,

280REM said he can duplicate 7mmMag FACTORY velocites or very close with a 280. I concurred with him. When I had my 280, I had a 24" barrel and while working up loads, the maximum powder for IMR 4350 is listed as 57.0gr with 139gr bullets (Hornady 4th ed.) Shooting over a chrono I got 3154FPS as an average with 57gr. No pressure signs at all and this was in the summer in southern Louisiana. Where is the "unsafe, kidding himself" stuff. It is IN THE MANUAL. And yes, I worked up to it slowly. Hornady uses a REM 700 with a 22" barrel for there numbers.

HANDLOADING a 280 is very similar to a FACTORY 7mm MAG. No one - including me - thinks they can match a handloaded 7mm MAG. Your physics is correct but your assumption that 280 and I thought we could match a HANDLOADED 7mm MAG is incorrect.

RH

himmelrr,

First, I pointed out strickly facts - I'm not going to tell you or anyone else how to load, it's your responsibility and anatomy that gets impacted if you are wrong in your assumptions.

Second, you have not stated that you used pressure equipment to test your loads. Much has been learned here at the 'Fire from actual pressure testing by our own Mule Deer and Charlie Sisk using actual pressure testing equipment. They even produced an article a while back comparing traditional pressure signs we've all used for years vs. actual pressure testing. Hopefully, John or Charlie will jump in to explain their findings. The findings will be eye opening as they were to the rest of us.

Thirdly, take a gander at the Horn 139 vs. other standard 140 grain offerrings. The Horn 139 gr has a shorter bearing surface than standard 140 grain pills. This allows them to be run a little faster - both in the 7 Mag and the 280. It's not exactly apples to apples by comparing two different bullets.

Lastly, my goal in this thread was to correct some erroneous thoughts implied by this thread. There are alot of much less experienced people on this board searching for advice from those with experience. I don't want them leaving with the impression that it's ok to drive their 280 to 7 mag velocities - factory or otherwise. Note I have carefully avoided insults, flames, and personal attacks. I greatly prefer laying facts on the table and letting the dust settle where it may. I sincerely hope you look up the traditional pressure signs vs. measured pressure article mentioned above - I'll even send it to you if you shoot me a PM.

-- BW

bwinters,

I have read virutally very manual there is on load data for the .280 and 7mmRM. I have both chamberings. I am not the only reloader here that purports to be able do duplicate 7mmRM FACTORY LOADS with .280 handloads. However, there does seem to be a consensus of those that want to compare the loading capabilities of each round. I NEVER disputed that the 7mmRM has more case capacity. IF you will re READ my posts, you will see that I clearly state that I can and more importantly WILL exced factory 7mmRM performance with my .280 handloads. A concept not lost on everyone, but it seems lost on a couple here. Can the factories exceed what I do? YES! Do they and will they? Appearently not, as I have a chrony to prove it.

My ONLY contention is that I as a handloader WILL, not CAN, but WILL IF HE SO CHOSES exceed the performance of the 7mmRM factory loads WITH .280 HANDLOADS...YET that seems to be a concept and comparison lost to all but those with terminal physics degrees and a couple of other handloaders willing to read the post in their entirety. Is my typing not coming through loud and clear? Is anything I type not crystal clear?

bwwinters,

Is there something about factory load versus handloads that you can't grasp?

Seriously! Im not arguing potetial, but reaility. What about my posts do you not get?

7mmRM has it all over .280 in physical capacity. What a handloader will do with the .280 versus the CURRENT .7mmRM factory loads...is that really such a hard concept to wrap your brain around?

280 Rem - I don't doubt you are attaining 7 Mag factory velocities with your 280 handloads. The matter of fact as I've conveyed is simple: Is it a good idea? I'm sure there are alot of people talking on cell phones and driving to. I'm equally sure many of those are convinced that they are not driving distracted as well.

I've seen this exact discussion occur for the 45-70, 25-06 and every AI chambering ever created. I'll convey the facts and let the chips fall where they may.

I've got my point across, it's in black and white. It matters not if you believe or accept it. My intent was not to incite a pissing match but provide the facts based on most of the variables involved. At this point, the information is contained in this thread and I do not wish to continue to debate the issue. I've loaded for both cartridges for 20+ years and know the boundaries of each. People reading this thread can decide for themselves what they want to do. Good luck to you.

-- BW

Just get one....you'll never regret it

bwinters,

I guess I will look at it this way...I may be on the edge or even over on actual measured pressure. I have no way to measure it. All I have is the common signs to look for. If there are no signs at all, then I assume Im ok. Afterall, pressure is one of those things that will eventually show a sign if it exists. If I am over the "book pressures" but showing no ill effects, this seems to me to be analagous to the proverbial tree falling in the woods making no sound if there is nobody to hear it. If Im over pressure, but not having ill effects or any notice of it at all...am I really "over pressure"?

You know...the 45 long colt was designed to shoot in old west guns. Yet we have load data for the real 45 long colt, and those for modern guns such as the Ruger handguns. In modern firearms the 45LC is much more potent. Load data for most cartridges like the .280 are set at standards for the lowest common denomenator, like some guy that is reloading for a 40 year old Rem. semi auto is what they are set at. Modern bolt guns, and rolling blocks single shots such as the Win's, and Rem's, Ruger M77s and #1's, and Steyr's, etc, can tolerate more pressure safely. In my 15 years of reloading I have never had an incident related to excess pressure, yet EVERY gun and load I currently shoot exceeds some loading manual's max load by a grain or 2.

No dog in this hunt, but I'd suggest you might want to read some of John Barsness aka MuleDeer here at the campfire regarding "Pressure Signs". Seems according to John's extensive studies the "typical" pressure signs you're referring to may not be all that trustworthy. He'll also point out that the sign you may wind up with may be real sudden and real unpleasant when it demonstrates itself. Personally do what ya want as I don't think you'll be anywhere near a range I frequent, but ya might wanna take a gander at some of John's findings.

Not long ago Mr. Barsness wrote an article "Handloads that work". He said that in the 280 around 58 gns of H4831 and a 150 grain pill will get you around 2900fps out of a 22-24" barrel. That, to me, is not quite at the 7mm level.

However neither I nor a buddy have been able to duplicate these velocities but we are shooting 22" barrels. Best I can get, at least with my chrony, is 2850fps. And that with a 140 grain bullet. It seems that the 58 grains of H4831 with a 150 is a very hot load (to me) but I am sure that Mr. Barsness would not have used it as an example if it did not pass a pressure test (which he in a later article talks about).

But whether it shoots 2850 or 3000 I would highly recommend the 280 in what ever form you choose as it is my favorite caliber.

Long

58 gr H-4831 has given me between 2800-2840 fps out of 2 different .280s with 22" barrel depending on bullet type.

-Lou

longwinters,

I am shooting 59gr of H4831 with 154s. 3020fps from a 24" tube. I have shot 60grs at 3050fps, but backed off just for some margin.

That is plenty fine whitetail medicine.

Like others have said, the .280 is a handloaders dream, and really you can't fully enjoy it unless you handload IMO.

The 280 is a terrific deer rifle as is the parent '06 and the 7 Mag. If you need to launch a 150gr bullet at 3400'/sec then get a 7MM STW. This is great for those who shoot 400-500-600 yards at deer. Otherwise, the '06, 7mag or 280 is just fine. We shouldn't be quibling over 50'/sec here......but it sure is fun! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Monkey Love = .30-06 Springfield!

Whew! Thanks for all the replies. I do want to snag myself a 280, and I do want to handload for it. It will be a whitetail rig for hunting the mountains and clear cuts in Virginia. I am looking for as close to a laser beam as I can get for shots out to 300 yards. I think I will go back and read these posts again...

Dogger,

For what you want, Id definately consider 140s for projectiles.

I have had 280's and never could get the velocities mentioned here w/o serious pressure signs but have been on the Holy Grail hunt for such for years. So, I have always ended up carrying handloads with a 7 Rem Mag for western hunts. I consider 3150 fps with a 140 BT to be the starting point and ideal for long range hunting, out to 500 yards, of mulies and prongorn.
My current 280 in a Rem Mountain rifle maxes out at 3075 fps with 120 Barnes X's, no matter how much RL 19, H4831, IMR 4350, etc. While the Nosler manual shows 3152 fps for the 140 grain with 57 grains of RL 19 and a 26" barrel, mine poops out at 2860 and I have tried different lots of RL 19. 2800 fps is max for 160's with several powders. These figures duplicate another 280 I have. The 150 grains bullets were too slow to mention here and yes, my chrony has been double checked against other known quantities.
I'm envious of these velocities as the barrels are obviously fast barrels even with stated handloading manual figure maximums.
I conclude that maybe Remington 700 S/S runs in 280 were limited as it isn't the most popular round and sometimes those reamers are more precise resulting in a somewhat more custom like chamber although who knows because I received a Pacnor 7 Rem Mag super duper S/S in November and while it hits 3200 fps easily with 140 grain bullets, it will not hit 2950 in 160 grain bullets with several different powders at max nor 3000 fps with 154 Hornadies. My 7 WSM surpasses it in velocity.
I will note the Rem 700 S/S in the 280 as maybe a rifle with fast barrels and hope to run across one but if my luck is true to the past, it will be another anemic 280. The figures discussed here are in 280 Ackley territory and they are why so many 280 Ackleys are built, to get 7 Rem Mag velocities with less recoil and to possess a custom rifle.

slasher,

The velocities I posted are from a 24" bbl. And that extra couple of inches can make a big difference with slower burning powders.

I had a mtn rifle in .280 and 3000fps was about max for 140s in that gun as well.

I said I'd not post again but now that I'm home and have had a chance to look at my data, I feel compelled to write.

Here is the load data posted by 280 Rem:
139 gr Horn, 59.0 gr. RE19, vel = 3150
154 Horn, 59.0 gr. H4831, vel = 3015
162 gr Horn, 60.0 gr. RE 22, vel = 3020

Here is what Hornady and Alliant have to say about their powder and the bullets listed:

139 gr. Horn - 57.0 gr. RE 19, 57000 psi, 3000 ft/sec
154 Horn - 53.7 H4831, 49500 CUP, 2709 ft/sec
162 Horn - 55.7 gr. RE 22, 58000 psi, 2795 ft/sec

All bullets are identical to those stated except the Hodgdon data which used a 150 gr. Nos. Part.

Most of the data is on the south side of (50,000 CUP) 60,000 psi - the 280 Rem SAAMI pressure. I wholeheartedly agree with loading it to 270 Win standards - 65,000 psi (52,000 CUP). The real issue is not the absolute grains of powder but the velocities acheived by your loads.

A quick look at the velocities aceived by all the major powder manufactures reveals the following:
140 gr pills - 3152 (3070), 2900, 2839, 3127, 3000, 2975
150 gr. - 2990, 2900, 2825, 2892, 2900, N/A
160 gr - 2942 (2888), 2700, N/A, 2878, 2800, 2755

The source material in order as it appears above: Nosler, Sierra, AA, Barnes, Horn, Speer. The paranthesis in for the two Nosler cites is the the second highest velocity acheived and is more in line with the rest of the data. The Barnes data is from XLC data sources, which typically reach higher velocity by reducing pressure from the coating which allows more powder to be used.

I have no problem with using a grain or two more powder IF the velocity says it's so, but when you have more powder and more velocity by 100+ ft/sec - that is dangerous, regardless of the "classic" pressure signs.

It is obvious from looking at the various data sources that some manufactureres load the 280 to 270 Win pressures and some stick with the 60,000 psi 280 SAAMI standard. Any way you look at it your not approaching the line - it's behind you waiting to bite you. I sincerely hope you re-evaluate your loads, for your sake and others around you.

-- BW

bwinters,

The SAMMI recommendations are just that. The powder/bullet manufacturers that I read all keep their load data under the 60,000psi SAAMI rec's. By your own words you advocate exceeding that. Here are the velocities you showed (though from where each came, I don't know because you didn't say):
__________________________________________________
A quick look at the velocities aceived by all the major powder manufactures reveals the following:
140 gr pills - 3152 (3070), 2900, 2839, 3127, 3000, 2975
150 gr. - 2990, 2900, 2825, 2892, 2900, N/A
160 gr - 2942 (2888), 2700, N/A, 2878, 2800, 2755
__________________________________________________
My 139 load is equal to that 140 load, and my 154 and 162 bullets exceed those highest velocities by 30fps, and 68fps respectively. My 139gr load with R-19 exceeds Hornady's book max by 1.6 grains, and my 154gr load with H4831 exceeds Hornady's book max by .7grs (less than 1gr).

If you advocate loading to 65,000psi, then I think Im not riding the ragged edge as much as you seem to think. Further most load data I see has pressures in the 58,000psi or less range. That means that by your standard of 65,000psi as a safe average level, that most load data for the .280 is 10-12% short of max. , and my acheived velocities are only 3-5% higher than published velocities.

Just my take. I will continue to use the loads that are well proven in my gun.