Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles learn me about the 280 AI

I'm using pressure tested, published loads and not exceeding the maximum charge to get the speeds I do.
You want me to post the data from Accurate Powders again?
You know very well they show precisely the results I obtained.

You're the one putting impressionable people in jeopardy not me.

You've declared it perfectly acceptable to exceed max published loads for the 7RM if "you've been doing it a long time."
Still, as you said, you don't know what pressures you're running either. At least I stop when I hit the max load. That's a whole lot better guarantor of being within safe pressure limits than blowing right by max loads and going by "pressure signs".
And as Shod said a while back, loading the .280AI to max charge up to it's SAAMI MAP (65K) is deemed to be stomping on it by you but exceeding max loads, and hence the SAAMI MAP (61K) of the 7RM is just fine.

Finally, unlike you Bob, I've owned and loaded for both these cartridges.
What was that about experience?

Ken,
It will take some compression (see LD�s %) to make work towards the lighter end of the bullet weight range.
I suggest the following.
Caliber: .280 Remington Ackley Improved.
Barrel length: 24�
Powder: Accurate - MAGPRO�
Bullet weight: 120 grains
Start load: 62.1 grains (2875- 2975 Fps)
Maximum load: 69.0grains (3200 � 3300 Fps). LD ca 111%
Bullet weight: 140 grains
Start load: 61.0 grains (2800- 2900 Fps)
Maximum load: 67.0grains (3100 � 3200 Fps). LD ca 109%
Bullet weight: 150 grains
Start load: 60.0grains (2700- 2800 Fps)
Maximum load: 66.0grains (2975 � 3075 Fps). LD ca 108%
Bullet weight: 160 grains
Start load: 59.0grains (2600- 2700 Fps)
Maximum load: 65.0grains (2900 � 3000 Fps). LD ca 107%
Bullet weight: 168 grains
Start load: 57.8grains (2500- 2600 Fps)
Maximum load: 64.2grains (2850 � 2950 Fps) LD ca 105%.
NOTES:
It� important to note that SAFETY is our prime concern therefore we strongly recommend.
1. TO ALWAYS BEGIN LOADING AT THE RECOMMENDED MINIMUM �START� LOAD and develop loads in 2% increments towards the MAXIMUM load.
2. If possible, measure the velocity and correlate with our data.


Regards
Johan Loubser
Ballistician
Ramshot.Accurate Powders
Tel: 406.234.0422 email: johanramshot.com
WesternPowdersInc.Miles City.Montana.
COMPANY WEBSITES/PRODUCTS:
www.ramshot.com
www.accuratepowder.com
www.montanaxtreme.com
www.blackhorn209.com

Golly gee Bobin.........So a fella can't even state a simple comparison of two cartridges loaded to Saami specs without getting an ars reaming. I agree 100% that if you want to fill the 7 mag case to capacity it will outrun a 280 AI no question. Not really that difficult to figure ya think! The problem I have with advocating such a proposition to any of the young impressionable minds is the fact that neither you nor I know for a fact why the 7 mag has a lower Saami map. I personally am one of the new to reloading impressionable minds that reads this stuff everyday along with a close friend of mine. I never ever load beyond book max however my close friend does and is constantly telling me about reading pressure signs this and some old-timer said this on the forum. Well guess what!!!! He blew one of his rifles up right in his face! He wasn't hurt however this really is serious schit the impressionable young minds are learning. I think about when my children are older and reloading because it can KILL THEM!!!!!! I will teach them vigorously.....start at minimum book load and work up with caution.NEVER EXCEED MAXIMUM PUBLISHED LOADS!!!!

There's some good advice for our impressionable young minds.

Shod

Fellows I really like my 280 AI and as long as I work within the parameters noted in the manuals I am not stepping on anything. But make no mistake, Nosler #6 clearly shows that in a speed match the 7 rem mag clearly is faster in all bullet weights and it does it with a shorter barrel (why the hell they chose 24" befuddles me).

I hope anybody that is playing outside the known boundaries will proceed with extreme caution. To me its just damn foolish to risk so much for so little.

Randy

Im at work so i dont have any manuals handy. i have No dog in this fight but Noslers online data was easiest to find fast. Surprised what I found.

Nosler actually shows the .280 A.I as fast or faster then the 7RM for 120, 140,and 150's. Pretty much even on the 160's and slight advantage to 7RM in 175's.

Granted the 280 AI data is for a 26" barrel and the 7RM a 24" but the 7RM was using more powder most of the time.

I'm not the smartest man and would have sworn the 7RM would have had a bigger advantage but according to that data and the Saami map they aren't far apart.

As said above I don't have my own pressure barrel but I'm making the assumption that Nosler isn't leaving much on the table when it comes to Saami specs.

I've never went above Max book in any of my rifles and dont see a need to. I typically am shooting close to max if no pressure shows in my rifles, but i wouldnt say i "hotrod" any of them. Some rifles shoot faster then others which is a given but assuming people are hotrodding their .280 AI to get close to 7RM while following Saami is a stretch. The data shows they are very damn close with same barrel length and loads. 100-150 fps isn't much to me when the bullet is well over 3k.

Yes I shoot the 140 TTSX at Barnes posted max but in my gun the primers aren't flattened, bolt lift is easy, no signs of brass stretching or other pressure signs that the common shooter can see. 62 gr of R22 in a 24" tube gets me 3315fps, takes 65 grs IIRC to do that in my 7RM with its 26" tube and it doesn't like that load for accuracy.

I also have owned a .270 which got its 140's to 3050fps with a 24" tube and book max loads which iirc was close to 56 grs. So I'm shooting 6 more grains of powder for 265fps more.

Long way of saying there really isn't that much difference if barrel lengths are same and Saami map is followed.

I'm not sure if Nosler's online data matches the data they publish in their books or not, but they sure do show some goofy powders for the 7RM (I was dickin' around looking at their online data the other day). For instance, they list IMR 4064 for their 7 Rem 160gr data... that's just odd to me. In my short time hand-loading, I've always tried to use the slowest burning powder applicable to the cartridge at hand.

Off topic, but thought that it was interesting anyways.

Oh BTW, being a young impressionable guy, I am hereby vowing to go home this weekend and go on a mission to turn my 7Rem into a 7-378 Weatherby. I'll be damned if I can't get those 162s moving 3500. Ken and Bob, you are to blame!

[bleep] it.... 7 BMG....

Tanner,

I too was surprised at some of their powders for 7RM. Not sure mine has seen anything but R22, And Magpro off the top of my head.

I just found it interesting that Nosler online had the 2 rounds so close even though the .280AI had 2" more barrel the 7RM had more powder.

I do know the 7RM will beat it with equal barrel length but again it can use more powder.

There is simply no replacement for displacement but the race isn't a run away for sure.

Expected barrel/throat life of what > 200 rds???

I just want to watch...

Oh yeah, any shot I'd take with one I'd take with the other, no doubt about that. Both killer rounds!

Pretty sure Pac-Nor lists a 6.5-50 BMG reamer on their site... grin

Side note-gunsmith friend was telling me the other day that a buddy wants him to twist up a 7-378 Bee for real. Telling me this as he is working up loads for the 6.5 STW he just screwed together and pumping 120 TSXs at 3900ish.

Had an 7 STW before I got the RUM. 120's at 3650 sure impressed coyotes.

Keep printing those numbers.....You don't have a clue what pressures you're running to get those speeds in your rifle...all you can do is read about it and "assume" unless the pressures are measured in "your" rifle.

I can tell you don't have that much experience doing this because you keep pointing to printed data like it's gospel, and it isn't...you have a touching and abiding faith in what you read and you believe it....sure sign of someone who doesn't know WTF they are talking about.

Shod, go read some more....come back and talk to me after you've poured over data for another 20+ years and compared it to real life chronograph data in 25-30 7mm barrels...then I'll listen.

nsaqam you're right...I have never owned a 280AI,only two levels above and below it several times over....and I bet I had chronographed and worked up loads for more 7 mags by the time I was 30 than you have in your whole life.Bet you have had exactly "one".

To be blunt, I never could justify the cartridge because a close pal on here(whose forgotten more about 280's and 280AI's than you'll EVER know),always provided me data 25-30 years ago from two versions of Improved 280's...the Ackley and the RCBS.... and we both said..."Well, that thing ain't worth it" LOL!

Fred Huntington (you guys know him don't you? He founded RCBS) tried the cartridge back in the 60's IIRC,and dropped it...not worth it over a standard 280,certainly not worth it in light of the 7 Rem Mag...

Anybody recall Johnny B running 280AI factory ammo with 140AB over a chronograph?I do...it gave a whopping 3040 fps....and the 280AI is their baby!What happened to the 65,000 pressure ceiling with that one LOL!

Besides, I've had Ackley's stuff sitting around since the 70's....I never paid any attention to what he wrote because he didn't hunt.All he did was sit around popping primers and "guessing" with his wildcats anyway.I never considered his inventions worth shidt.

Why would I waste the money on a custom wildcat that gives a 150 gr bullet 3050 fps? I can run to Walmart, pick up a box of CoreLokts for a 7 Rem Mag and have the same thing.

Besides that, I have a 280AI...it's my fireform load for the Mashburn with 140's ...you can bet I ain't running 65,000 psi to get Ackley performance.

Goofiest cartridge comparison and number juggling I ever heard....using a longer barrel,and higher pressures to proclaim a cartridge of smaller capacity as somehow superior to a larger one with a shorter barrel....when you don't even know what pressures you're actually running, and failing to acknowledge that barrels vary enormously in delivered velocities, rifle to rifle....if you ladies haven't figured that out yet, you really don't know shidt.

You still have no explanation for the Nosler Data....you clowns who question Noslers lab,get real.

My problem isn't with the 280AI, even if it is mostly mundane hocus pocus with no real advantage over a 280 or 270...it's with SOME of the idiots who use it and make wild-assed claims for it,thinking it's the second coming.

Stay with it Ladies!

Here's some clues for the witless who take an innocent faith in bunches of printed data:

There is ONLY case volume and pressure.There is no magic in case design as far as velocity is concerned.Pressure is affected by a variety of factors; among them are barrel internal dimensions,finish,smoothness,barrel length,condition,throat and leade length and configuration,groove diameter,and we won't even get into variations in bullets and powders along with powder energy, primers and how you hold your jaw that day.

Just because you are loading to "SAAMI" tested data from another barrel does not mean you are safe and running at the same presures.Conversely, just because you are loading powder charges in excess of manual data does not always mean you are "unsafe" or loading to excessive pressures or in excess of SAMMI spec.

What this means is that unless you box up your rifles and loads and ship them to a ballistic lab(the way that guys like Warren Page, and Bob Chatfield-Taylor used to do in the days before home chronographs),or buy an Oehler or other spressure system for home use, you have no idea at what pressures you are operating,due to the many variable factors cited above.

You are only left with velocity readings,outward signs of presures and traditional pressure signs,a broad range of data,and velocity readings from your chronograph.(Note the language at the bottom of the load data that nsaqam posted: "if possible, measure the velocity and correlate with our data..." what do we suppose he means by that?

BTW in looking at that data,it looks normal and about what I would expect from a 280AI....(not some of the excessive speeds I see listed by some on this forum,which are so clearly off the charts I have to wonder at the stupidity of it all)...a 7 Rem mag with a 24" barrel will easily hit and exceed those velocities.

So, when I see some one get on here and proclaim to the world that velocities for a smaller cartridge equal or exceed those of a larger cartridge and "claim" that their loads are within SAAMI specs because he is using "proven" data, I am not only skeptical; I know for sure something is not equal across the board.

Another thing that anyone with any experience realizes is that with light bullets a slightly smaller cartridge will come "close" to a larger cartridge with the lighter bullets if you kick it in the ass hard enough....but will never come close with the heavy bullets.

So when I see velocities quoted for a 280AI with a 140 gr bullet that equal those of a 7STW,or those for a a 160 gr bullet that I know is about maxed out for a 7 Rem Mag with safe but top end loads(after seeing piles of them at work),and listen to them trot out a bunch of printed data and quote QL as "backup" established in other barrels,I know they are FOS and clueless.

They cannot possibly "know" unless their loads were pressure tested in their rifles with those components.

All people have to do is apply John Barsness 4-1 rule ie...for every 4 percent increase in powder capacity there is a 1 percent increase in velocity.

Uh- oh!

Somebody mentioned 280AI and 7mm mag in the same sentence.

Now ya got Bob all slobberin and worked up

Bobin.....so your basing all of your information on the 280 AI off of what someone told you and printed data from a nosler manual????? When YOU have some real life experience with the 280 AI come back and talk to ME in 20 years or so. How exactly do you feel you are qualified to teach me about the 280AI when in fact YOU have ZERO experience with the 280AI.

Shod

To anyone that wants a .280AI, I say "Go for it." Never mind that I say the same thing to anyone that wants a standard .280 Rem or 7mm Rem Mag. There is nothing "wrong" with any of the choices.

As BobinNH correctly points out, though, they are not the same, nor can they be due to differences in case volume.

To those that suggest never exceeding published maximum loads, I offer this bit of caution - In 31 years of reloading I have come across several instances where published maximums were too much for my rifles. Not "blow 'em up" too much, but very short case life, flattened primers, loose pockets, etc.

My 7mm RM is a case in point. Something in my 7mm RM chamber causes a light 1/2" long scratch on the case every time a case is chambered. As a result I can easily tell how many times a case has been fired, or at least chambered, simply by counting the scratches. Using data available in 1982 I found I was getting 4-5 reloads per case before the case head would separate. Backing off the load enabled me to run 18 reloads before a case head came off. These days I use different powders (primarily H1000 and IMR7828SSC), get velocities I am very happy with and case life is good and long. And yes, my current loads slightly exceed the published maximums.

One of my .308 Win rifles had a similar problem with max loads - very short case life. Although it was extremely accurate with virtually every load I tried in it, it couldn't begin to compete with my .30-06s in the velocity arena due to lower case volume and even the max .308 loads were too much. (I ended up solving the "problem" buy selling my two .308's and buying an AR. )

My .280 Rem is a Ruger #1 and even with its 26" barrel it is no longer than my 7mm RM with its 24" barrel. While the longer barrel helps velocity, that help still doesn't bring velocities up to what I get with the 7mm RM. No worries, says I, as I like the .280 for what it is - a very capable cartridge in a launch platform I had drooled over for many years. That the .280 Rem launches the same weight bullets slower than my 7mm RM is of no concern at all.

To those that want to try to turn a .280 Rem or .280 Rem AI into a 7mm RM, I suggest reading up on Boyle's Law, then getting a 7mm RM. You can always download it to .280 Rem AI or .280 Rem velocities or even 7mm-08 velocities if you wish.

I have no dog in this fight but have read through the whole thread. Personally I am a plain jane 280 fan. This looks like a 270 vs 280 debate, are either really better than the other?

I did go to Nosler#6 to see what all the fuss was about and to be honest can not understand why Nosler uses different barrel lengths between the two. This goes across the board from the 7mm-08, is all I need and an efficient little round to boot, through 7mm RUM. To me if we are going to truly compare cartridge to cartridge then use the same barrel length or at least most common barrel length for each cartridge, really how many 7mm-08's and 280 rem's are out there with 26" barrels. At least they use the same twist rates

Now in their data they are running the 280 AI with a 26" tube and 7mm RM with a 24", safe to assume that the RM is losing 50-75 FPS in barrel length. Quick comparison using the 160 gr partition which to me is the type of bullet the bigger cartridges are used for. Take Rel 22, 7mm RM maxes at 3058, 280AI at 3035, even deducting the 2" of barrel,are we even talkin 100 fps? Nope

Again, all this back and forth and I doubt any animal or shooter for that matter could tell the difference. Recoil effects, the powder difference in the above is 2.5 grs of powder and my guess the 280AI is going to be built into a lighter package, so the recoil advantage is nil.

Me, I can't decide if I have a stronger affection for my 7-08 or 280 rem and now looking at a 7x57. Where and what I hunt, the 7-08 but if I needed more than the 280, I would take a strong look at the 280AI I also think if you really want to compare and argue a strong case could also be made for either of the short mags.

All said and done, you're really arguing apples to apples here

Not really into this squabble, I'll keep my standard 280
But I'm curious, you seem to be quite happy to frown on people that perhaps would exceed published data yet in another quote, you freely acknowledge that same data has been been reduced over the yrs likely because of liability. Do you now consider that old data unsafe?

"Don't be disingenuous Bob. You and I both know that SAAMI has reduced the MAP of the 7RM at least once and probably twice since it's intro."

Like I said...I've had everything 2 levels above and below,several times over.I won't waste the money on one.

Teach you something? Uuhh ....no. I wouldn't bother trying...... I think you're too [bleep] stupid to learn anything.You seem to have all the answers already LOL!

Wanna "learn" about the 280AI? Here's all you need to know from a bunch of rifles averaged across the board:

140's at 3150

150's at 3050

160's at 2950(about what a standard 270 gives with a 150 gr bullet)

Prove me wrong.

The 280AI has been around a long time....mostly a flop(fad cartridge) because it doesn't do anything not already done by far more popular factory offerings.You are capable of absorbing that, right? Maybe? This shidt ain't hard if you have half a brain and know WTF you're talking about,which clearly does not apply to you.

That's it.Nuthin special.

Now, do tell me about all your "experiences" with the 7 Rem Mag and all the other 7mm's...you have had all those, right?