POP, .280 Remington / H1000 / 140-Grain Accubonds?

[RiverRider]

I've seen those printouts you post from time to time. I am assuming you're using Quickload or something to generate those. I have Load From A Disk, and it's okay, but it's not real versatile in terms of powders you can plug in.

I shot some loads today using the components in my title above. One load looked like it may shoot really well. It happened to be the first load, and the first shot out of the semi-clean barrel was about two inches south of the next four rounds, which grouped very nicely in just a hair over half an inch. I intend to shoot the load again when the wind stops blowing around here (I do hope I live that long).

Anyway, I shot these loads over the chronograph, and I was shocked at what I was seeing (3180 fps??? I don't THINK SO!). I think the sunlight must have been messing with the photosensors. I will shade the sensors the next time I shoot also.

Anyway, I got to wondering what your software would predict for my component combination. Would you be so kind as to run this and post it? I'll owe you for two!

Thanks!

 

[FOTIS]

Cartridge : .280 Rem.
Bullet : .284, 140, Nosler AccuBond 59992
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.330 inch or 84.58 mm
Barrel Length : 22.0 inch or 558.8 mm
Powder : Hodgdon H1000

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-20.0 88 48.00 2100 1370 23502 8041 72.6 1.584
-18.0 90 49.20 2159 1449 25121 8432 74.5 1.542
-16.0 93 50.40 2220 1531 26868 8824 76.5 1.500
-14.0 95 51.60 2282 1619 28752 9216 78.4 1.458
-12.0 97 52.80 2346 1710 30787 9606 80.4 1.417
-10.0 99 54.00 2411 1807 32988 9992 82.2 1.377
-08.0 101 55.20 2477 1908 35373 10370 84.1 1.338
-06.0 104 56.40 2545 2014 37961 10740 85.8 1.297
-04.0 106 57.60 2614 2124 40774 11099 87.5 1.253
-02.0 108 58.80 2684 2239 43834 11443 89.2 1.210
+00.0 110 60.00 2755 2360 47178 11772 90.7 1.168
+02.0 112 61.20 2827 2485 50832 12081 92.2 1.127 ! Near Maximum !
+04.0 115 62.40 2900 2615 54839 12368 93.5 1.088 ! Near Maximum !
+06.0 117 63.60 2974 2750 59246 12632 94.8 1.049 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+08.0 119 64.80 3049 2890 64106 12867 95.9 1.012 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+10.0 121 66.00 3125 3035 69480 13072 96.9 0.975 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 110 60.00 2961 2725 57051 12293 97.8 1.068 ! Near Maximum !
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 110 60.00 2508 1956 38546 10452 78.9 1.292

 

[JD338]

RiverRider

I think H1000 is too slow for a 140 gr in your 280 Rem. Try RL 19 and work up to 57.0 grs. This should get you close to 3000 fps and is a proven sub MOA in several different rifles.

JD338

 

[Powerstroke]

RiverRider,

+1 With JD's Statement.

I'm getting ready to play with some 140gr A-bonds out of mine. I've always shot 150gr B-tips with 57.0gr of Viht N-165 with very tight groups. Average velocity on those is about 2830fps with a 24in tube.

 

[buckfever]

RL 19 is my go to powder for the 280 it just flat out works.

 

[RiverRider]

Thanks, POP. I owe you for two, now.

Just what mathematical or physical properties of a .284" bullet make it behave so differently form a .277" bullet when fired from a near identical case holding an identical powder charge?

Some of the limitations imposed on the .280 are purely arbitrary in nature, and I have found that slower powders that work for the .270 Winchester will work just as well for the .280 Remington.

As an example, I found that Reloder 22 worked rather well in the .280 and the only reason I have discontinued its use is its temperature sensitivity. Yet, when looking through the published data, the .280 is hamstrung by data restricted to the faster powders when compared to data published for the .270 Winchester. But Reloder 22 is too slow for the .280, right?

By the way, I would advise anyone who develops hunting handloads that might be used in a wide range of temperatures to AVOID the Alliant powders. At the very least, be willing to try the loads at different temperature extremes. There can be enough difference in performance to matter if loads developed in 90-degree temperatures are used for hunting in sub-freezing temperatures. I have switched over to Ramshot and Hodgdon powders exclusively for this reason.

I know a fellow who started talking about how well Reloder 22 worked in one of his rifles chambered in .30-06. I chimed in with the conventional wisdom that asserts that Reloder 22 is too slow for that application, whereupon I was shown the results and proven to be dead wrong. Conventional wisdom is often not wisdom at all, but groundless hearsay.

As an example of that assertion, maybe someone can tell me why the SAAMI pressure specs for the .280 Remington is are as low as they are...please don't try to tell me that it's because the rifles it was introduced in required milder pressures---those same rifles were offered in .270 Winchester. The only logical explanation I have ever heard is that Remington, in another of its great marketing blunders, wanted to promote the .280 as being capable of doing whatever the .270 does but with lower chamber pressures. It's a wonder the .280 is even still around, given all the TLC Remington has inflicted upon it.

The dirty little secret about the .280 is that it can do considerably more than most reloading manuals suggest. I have long wished that the manufacturers would develop and publish honest 65,000 psi data for it, and maybe call it +P data. If the .270 Winchester is safe at 65k, so is the .280 Rem. Same rifles, same cases, same bullets---except for .007" difference in diameter.

Here's something to ponder: take two rifles, identical in every way except that one is chambered in .270 and the other in .280. Prepare handloads for each with the same powders and charge weights, and top off each with 140-grain bullets that are as identical as can be except for the .007" difference in diameter. Now, is there some reason that the .280 is going to undergo a catastrophic failure? No. Will it develop higher pressure than the .270? No. In fact, if there is any pressure difference at all, the .280 will have the lower number. It's about the sectional density of the two slightly different bullets. The bigger the bore, the lower the sectional density when comparing bullets of the same weight. Lower sectional density translates to lower pressure. When bullet diameters are as close together as .277" and .284," this concept can be quite useful. It won't work in comparing .25-06 to .30-06, though, on account of the great difference in bore & bullet diameter.

So, I am telling the world that I am out here on my own. The truth is, so are each and every one of us.

Next time I shoot this load combo, I'll make sure my chronograph is operating properly and I'll let you all know how well it works. So far, I am encouraged but have reached no conclusion. But I have reached the conclusion that the conventional wisdom that hamstrings the .280 is pure nonsense.

 

[FOTIS]

Area of the bottom of the bullet.

Same deal why the 30-06 win mag will do 3000 + fps with a 150 gr but the 270 win can only do 2900 safely. If the 30-06 can be loaded to 52 cup like the 270 (factories will not do this due to older semi auto '06's etc) the diff is larger.


See below: I loaded the both at 65000 PSI. Do not do this with the 30-06 please. This is a purely academic point. I also added the 280 rem which is not loaded to 65000 due to the early 280 Automatics


Cartridge : .270 Win. (SAAMI)
Bullet : .277, 150, Nosler BalTip 39588
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.340 inch or 84.84 mm
Barrel Length : 22.0 inch or 558.8 mm
Powder : Hodgdon H4831 SC

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-20.0 83 45.60 2239 1670 30802 9536 84.0 1.505
-18.0 85 46.74 2298 1759 32933 9887 85.5 1.463
-16.0 87 47.88 2358 1852 35219 10232 87.0 1.422
-14.0 89 49.02 2418 1947 37673 10571 88.3 1.381
-12.0 91 50.16 2479 2046 40308 10902 89.7 1.337
-10.0 93 51.30 2540 2148 43140 11224 90.9 1.294
-08.0 95 52.44 2601 2253 46187 11534 92.1 1.252
-06.0 98 53.58 2663 2361 49470 11832 93.2 1.213
-04.0 100 54.72 2725 2473 53013 12117 94.3 1.174
-02.0 102 55.86 2787 2587 56838 12387 95.2 1.137 ! Near Maximum !
+00.0 104 57.00 2850 2705 60976 12639 96.1 1.101 ! Near Maximum !
+02.0 106 58.14 2913 2826 65458 12874 96.9 1.066 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.0 108 59.28 2976 2950 70321 13088 97.6 1.033 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+06.0 110 60.42 3039 3076 75608 13281 98.3 1.000 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+08.0 112 61.56 3103 3206 81331 13452 98.8 0.968 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+10.0 114 62.70 3166 3339 87565 13598 99.2 0.938 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 104 57.00 2998 2993 73153 12690 99.6 1.019 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 104 57.00 2659 2356 49789 11970 88.7 1.206



Cartridge : .30-06 Spring.
Bullet : .308, 150, Nosler BalTip 30150
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.340 inch or 84.84 mm
Barrel Length : 22.0 inch or 558.8 mm
Powder : Alliant Reloder-19

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-20.0 91 50.40 2356 1849 30316 8196 80.8 1.373
-18.0 93 51.66 2420 1950 32470 8510 82.4 1.334
-16.0 95 52.92 2484 2055 34789 8819 83.9 1.297
-14.0 97 54.18 2549 2163 37286 9124 85.5 1.260
-12.0 100 55.44 2614 2276 39979 9421 86.9 1.219
-10.0 102 56.70 2680 2392 42880 9711 88.4 1.179
-08.0 104 57.96 2746 2512 46025 9991 89.7 1.141
-06.0 106 59.22 2813 2636 49422 10261 91.0 1.104
-04.0 109 60.48 2881 2764 53106 10518 92.2 1.068
-02.0 111 61.74 2949 2896 57103 10762 93.4 1.034 ! Near Maximum !
+00.0 113 63.00 3017 3032 61454 10990 94.4 1.000 ! Near Maximum !
+02.0 116 64.26 3086 3172 66195 11203 95.4 0.968 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.0 118 65.52 3155 3315 71370 11397 96.3 0.937 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+06.0 120 66.78 3224 3463 77038 11571 97.1 0.906 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+08.0 122 68.04 3294 3615 83259 11724 97.8 0.877 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+10.0 125 69.30 3364 3770 90106 11855 98.5 0.848 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 113 63.00 3188 3384 74153 11154 99.0 0.924 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 113 63.00 2802 2615 50219 10280 86.1 1.097

Cartridge : .280 Rem.
Bullet : .284, 150, Nosler BalTip 39586
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.330 inch or 84.58 mm
Barrel Length : 22.0 inch or 558.8 mm
Powder : Alliant Reloder-22

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-20.0 87 48.00 2330 1808 30704 10147 86.4 1.470
-18.0 89 49.20 2393 1908 32899 10518 87.9 1.429
-16.0 91 50.40 2458 2012 35261 10880 89.4 1.389
-14.0 93 51.60 2522 2119 37807 11230 90.8 1.348
-12.0 96 52.80 2587 2230 40550 11568 92.2 1.303
-10.0 98 54.00 2653 2344 43511 11892 93.4 1.260
-08.0 100 55.20 2719 2462 46710 12199 94.5 1.219
-06.0 102 56.40 2785 2583 50171 12487 95.6 1.179
-04.0 104 57.60 2851 2707 53919 12756 96.5 1.140
-02.0 106 58.80 2917 2835 57983 13003 97.4 1.102 ! Near Maximum !
+00.0 109 60.00 2984 2965 62399 13226 98.1 1.066 ! Near Maximum !
+02.0 111 61.20 3050 3099 67206 13423 98.7 1.031 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.0 113 62.40 3117 3236 72440 13594 99.2 0.997 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+06.0 115 63.60 3183 3375 78115 13736 99.6 0.965 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+08.0 117 64.80 3250 3517 84298 13847 99.8 0.933 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+10.0 120 66.00 3316 3662 91055 13927 100.0 0.903 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 109 60.00 3140 3283 76565 12945 100.0 0.980 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 109 60.00 2772 2560 49775 12706 91.2 1.177

 

[JD338]

RiverRider

What makes the .284" better than the .277" is the simple fact that there is a better selection of bullets available, some of which have great BC's.

My experience with RL 22 is that it really isn't that much different than other powders as far as temperature sensitivity. They all are affected by wide temperature swings. What I have found with RL 22 is Lot to Lot variances can be more than other powders.
As for accuracy, RL 22 has been stellar in both my 280AI with 140 gr and 160 gr AB's and 338 RUM with 200 gr, 210 gr and 225 gr bullets.

RL 22 is a good choice in the 280 Remington with the heavier bullets. With the 140 gr bullets, RL 19, IMR4530, IMR4831, and H4831SC have all given me sub MOA accuracy. The reason I have chosen RL 19 is higher velocity while still maintaining the same level of accuracy.
I personally know of 4 different 280 Remingtons that shoot 57.0 grs of RL 19 with a 140 gr bullet that produces sub MOA accuracy.
When you have a solid performer, its always a good starting point (work up to this load as it is a MAX load) and then you can tweak it with different cases, primers and seating depths that wring out the very best accuracy from your rifle.

As to pressures, you are spot on. The 280 Remington along with the 257 Roberts are both handicapped with factory loadings. I have a 257 Roberts in a standard long action (M700 Classic) and it performs right on the heels of the 25-06.
The Remington excuse of down loading the 280 for the M740 doesn't cut it since the 270 Win, 308 Win and 30-06 were offered and loaded to higher pressures.
The 280 Remington is a terrific cartridge that is greatly misunderstood by the general shooting public. Its the knowledgeable fellas and hand loaders that treat the 280 Rem with the highest of respect. Take a look at the number of custom rifles in 280 Rem, there are a lot of them, and for good reason.

Hope this helps.

JD338

 

[RiverRider]

JD, you're not saying much that I disagree with, but I think that Hodgdon's Extreme powders and Ramshot powders are far more tolerant of temperature variations. To me, that's a point worthy of consideration. A friend of mine has experienced up to 200 fps variation using RL22 in one of the .300 Magnums when ambient temps fell by about 50 degrees F.

I wish I had all my old data, but I was lazy about keeping it organized and updated until I learned how to use a spreadsheet. I do have a few old records, though, and here is an example of the results I got using RL22:

Not bad, huh? Notice the date, however. It could have been 85*F that day or 20*F...around here, it could have been either. If RL22 was as temperature tolerant as H4831, I'd still be using it wearing a big grin.


POP, I wish you had run the same powders for that comparison of .30-06 to .270. In fact, it might be instructive to run .270, .280, and .30-06 with 150-grain bullets and the same powder, like maybe RL22 or H1000.

 

[RiverRider]

Speak of the devil!

Here's my buddy posting just a few minutes ago, on the very subject of .300 Win Mag, RL22, and temperature...

http://www.reloadbench.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/004703.html

BobT has been at it for a long time and knows what he's about.[/url]

 

[DrMike]

The 280 is a great calibre. In fact, it is my "go to" calibre for most hunting. I have had great success with several slower powders. My usual hunting load is using up the last of my WXR powder. Shooting either 139 grain Hornady InterLocks or 140 grain BSTs gives me good velocities and fine groups. Interestingly, when I have used H1000 or VN165, velocities drop dramatically, but accuracy is maintained. Recently, I have been working with 140 grain Partitions and H100V. This could become my hunting load as the groups are all around 1/2 to 3/4 inch and velocity is approaching 3000 fps out of a 22 inch barrel.

QuickLoad projections were right on with H1000 when I experimented with the 140 grain BT.

Consequently, I do shoot in some fairly cold weather, and I have not had a problem with the Alliant powders in any of the cartridges I have loaded for.

 

[RiverRider]

The problem I see when using these slower powders is getting enough of it into the case. During the days I played with RL22, I came to the conclusion that I probably could not get enough of it under a 139- or 140-grain bullet to cause an over-pressure situation without trying real hard (this may or may not be strictly true).

Now, maybe there is some subtlety relating to chamber pressures I have missed all these years...but, is 65,000 psi safe in a modern bolt-action chambered in .270 Winchester? SAAMI seems to think so, or that would not be the spec. Let's see...yup, my double-check confirms it.

I realize that SAAMI specs the .280 at 60,000 psi, but I need a logical explanation as to why a .270 case would only be able to withstand 60,000 psi when necked up to .284." I do not think there IS a logical explanation. What I am saying is that I think it is perfectly safe to load the .280 up to 65,000 psi. Because someone arbitrarily decided to write "60,000 psi" next to ".280 Remington" doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

 

[DrMike]

RiverRider,

You won't get an argument from me. The SAAMI specs are undoubtedly conservative, especially when compared to other contemporary cartridges.

Any of us who handload know that we assume responsibility for what we do. We are responsible to practise safe loading techniques. We are responsible to recognise pressure signs and to work up our loads in a safe manner. We are responsible for our own actions. The published data from reputable bullet and powder manufacturers provide pressure tested loads that fall within the SAAMI guidelines. Even knowing this, we are responsible to recognise that the loads we work up for any given rifle must still be treated as unproven and all rules for safety applied. However, this does not mean that we cannot experiment. The scientist in me delights in such challenges.

As an aside, I note that both the Hodgdon site and the Speer manual are listing pressure as PSI rather than CUP for an increasing number of cartridges. Perhaps this anticipates a standardization of pressure data which would permit SAAMI to revisit their standards. The 270 is a fine cartridge, but the 280 should easily be capable of being loaded to similar pressures. Perhaps at some point in the future, Remington or some other ammunition manufacturer will petition SAAMI to revisit the recommendations for this fine cartridge.

 

[FOTIS]

POP, I wish you had run the same powders for that comparison of .30-06 to .270. In fact, it might be instructive to run .270, .280, and .30-06 with 150-grain bullets and the same powder, like maybe RL22 or H1000.

Got your back.....see above

 

[JD338]

I realize that SAAMI specs the .280 at 60,000 psi, but I need a logical explanation as to why a .270 case would only be able to withstand 60,000 psi when necked up to .284." I do not think there IS a logical explanation. What I am saying is that I think it is perfectly safe to load the .280 up to 65,000 psi. Because someone arbitrarily decided to write "60,000 psi" next to ".280 Remington" doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

There is no logical explanation at to why the factory 280 Rem is down loaded. A modern bolt action rifle will handle 70K psi but will never publish it due to liability.

So I guess it leaves us with the conclusion, if you want more horse power, get a bigger engine. :lol:

JD338

 

[Powerstroke]

I've always attempted to double up on triple up etc on powders vs. firearm ratio's. I've used the RL-19 with 150gr B-tips and was satisfied with the groups. I just don't have anything else I use the RL-19 in and I do with the Viht - N165.
RL-19 @ Book max of 55.0gr & 150gr B-tip = 2860fps
N-165 @ Book max of 57.0gr & 150gr B-tip = 2830fps

I just purchased a pound of N560 that I'm going to try with the 140gr A-bond as well as in my .260.
Hope to have some data in the next couple of weeks or so.....

 

[FOTIS]

I realize that SAAMI specs the .280 at 60,000 psi, but I need a logical explanation as to why a .270 case would only be able to withstand 60,000 psi when necked up to .284." I do not think there IS a logical explanation. What I am saying is that I think it is perfectly safe to load the .280 up to 65,000 psi. Because someone arbitrarily decided to write "60,000 psi" next to ".280 Remington" doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

There is no logical explanation at to why the factory 280 Rem is down loaded. A modern bolt action rifle will handle 70K psi but will never publish it due to liability.

So I guess it leaves us with the conclusion, if you want more horse power, get a bigger engine. :lol:

JD338

As stated in my previous post the 280 was initially chambered in semi auto guns so it was down-loaded and stayed that way since the guns are still around.

 

[RiverRider]

POP, those same pump and semi-autos were chambered in .270 Winchester years before the .280 appeared. Of course, the .270 was rated in cup at the time, 54,000 of them if I am not mistaken. When the .280 came out, it was limited to 50,000 cup. The theory that it was the rifles in which the .280 first was introduced holds no water.

 

[FOTIS]

The 280 is rated 60K psi or 50K cup as opposed to 52000 CUP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_Remington

 

[FOTIS]

The Versatile .280

By Jim Carmichel

From varmints to big game, the .280 Remington can do it all.

Jan 26, 2006



If ever a cartridge was born with an albatross dangling from its neck, it was the .280 Remington. In today's shooting market, any new cartridge, be it good, indifferent or awful, is assured a slavering Pavlovian response from gun writers and the publications in which their bylines reside. But back in 1957, when the .280 first saw light, there were fewer gun magazines and no television shows vying, as they do now, to out-yodel each other for advertiser dollars. Gun writers tended to be even more ornery than they are now and were generally inclined to treat the .280 as something that would go away if ignored. Mention of the cartridge, when it was referenced at all, tended to fall into the "so what?" or "why did they do that?" category of breaking news.

Bad Rumors
The reason shooting soothsayers of that rustic era were asking "why?" was because the new .280 Remington was wedged between two of the most popular big-game calibers of all time: the .270 Winchester and the .30/06. Did the .280 have something to offer that these immensely popular calibers did not? A comparison of ballistic tables certainly doesn't indicate that the .280 had any special magic. Its listed velocity for a 150-grain bullet was 2,810 feet per second, a not-exactly-breathtaking 10 fps faster than the .270 with same weight bullet, and a fairly significant 160 fps slower than the .30/06 with 150-grain factory loading.

As it happened, about the time of the .280's introduction I'd discovered that I could get away with reading gun magazines in my high school classes simply by encasing them in a large notebook and gripping a pencil as if I was diligently taking notes. Thus while Miss Crookshanks waxed romantic about Shelley or Keats, I could immerse myself in the wisdom of an O'Connor or Page. This pursuit made no contribution whatsoever to my grades but it somewhat prepared me for the hardscrabble years that were to follow.

According to what I learned during those classroom studies, the .280 was on the fast road to wherever it is that cartridges go when they die young. In my own innocent judgment it was a wallflower that lacked the glamour of the much-touted .270 or the purposeful dignity of the .30/06, which is to say it never made the Top 20 list of rifles I planned to own when fortune came my way. Similar conclusions were reached by legions of hunters and shooters everywhere.
The .280's prospects were further reduced when word got around that Remington purposely "loaded it down" so the gun could be safely chambered for its recently introduced Model 740 autoloading rifle. This curse dogged the .280 for years and is occasionally repeated even today.

Several years ago I became intrigued by this chapter in the .280's history and checked out the "loaded down" rumor with a few of the older heads at Remington. As with many rumors from the shooting industry, there's a grain of truth to this one, but the real facts I gleaned tell us a lot more.




Unlike earlier autoloaders such as Remington's M81, which were limited to mild cartridges such as the .30 and .35 Remington, the M740, which was introduced in 1955, was designed for rip-snorting calibers such as the .30/06. It was a successful rifle and would have been even more so had it been chambered for the .270 Winchester, but it wasn't. And the word going around at the time was that the M740 couldn't handle the 270's pressures. And here's where the strange saga of the .280 gets particularly interesting.

Not counting some of Remington's interoffice politics, personal opinions and jealousies regarding the .270 during the 1950s, I learned that the M740 and .270 actually did not make a good match. Not necessarily because of the .270's high pressures, but because the M740 tended to be finicky about what it was fed, its gas-operated system being reliable only when adjusted to rather specific pressure levels.

The .270 loads of the day, I was told, tended to develop varying pressure levels, which in turn could have resulted in the M740's erratic operation. Thus the .280 was not so much "loaded down" as loaded to specific pressures compatible with the M740. Apparently, it isn't often noticed that the M740 was also chambered for Remington's new .244, a hot round that, like the .270, generated pressures over 50,000 PSI. In 1960, when the M742 replaced the M740, it too was catalogued sans the .270.

A Handloader's Dream
Just as the future of the .280 seemed at its bleakest, a variety of forces were galloping to its rescue, one being an army of handloaders. The heart and soul of handloading rifle ammo is making a good thing better. And it didn't take long for handloaders to discover that the .280 was a Cinderella waiting to be taken to their ball. By increasing pressures only moderately, velocities increased dramatically. Better yet, bullet makers even then offered a particularly tempting variety of 7mm bullets ranging from 100 to 175 grains. By picking the right bullet for the job, a handloader could hunt everything from woodchucks to moose with his .280.

Some handloaders were so ecstatic about the performance they got from the .280 that they were proclaiming it a ballistic miracle. Such claims were reinforced when DuPont published loading data that indicated that with the same bullet weights and propellant charges, the .280 delivered velocities equal to the .270 but at thousands of pounds less pressure! So it seemed the .280 had some magic after all, and has always remained a favorite with handloaders for this and other reasons. When Winchester began loading the .280, one of its technicians told me it was among the least temperamental calibers they had ever loaded.

Another big boost for the .280 was a wake-up call from hunters to Remington that the grand era of bolt-action rifles had arrived and they'd better get with the program. Remington's bolt rifles of the time, the M721 and shorter-action M722, were strong and accurate but about as sexy as a roadkill possum, especially when compared to Winchester's stylish and popular M70 bolt rifle.

Seeing the writing on the wall, Remington responded in 1958 with the M725, a rifle far more handsome than the M721 and initially chambered for the .280 as well as the .270 and 30/06. This was a major breakthrough for the .280. Although it had been offered in the old 721, its union with the 725 (along with the '06 and .270), cast it in a new and more flattering light, more of a cartridge to be reckoned with. Manufactured for only about four years, M725's are now much sought after by collectors. Particularly in demand is the .280, which is considered a classic union of rifle and cartridge.

Name Changes
This sudden glamorization of the .280 was not lost on the potentates at Remington, who now realized there was life for the caliber well beyond the limitations imposed by autoloading rifles. Something that would give the .280 a new lease on life, they reckoned, was to glamorize it with a new name. Just calling it the .280 sounded so, well, ordinary. After all, it was a 7mm, so why not give it some continental pizzazz by calling it the 7mm/06? This made pretty good merchandising sense because Remington had already done well for itself by adapting two popular wildcats: the .22-250 and .22/05. So why not a 7mm/06? It was also a legitimate claim because wildcatters had, in fact, been necking .30/06 cases down to 7mm for decades.

Accordingly, there was a run of M700 rifles and ammo marked 7mm/06. Problem was, the .280 wasn't a true 7mm/06. During its development the shoulder length had been increased by about five hundredths of an inch as a safety measure so it couldn't be fired in .270-caliber rifles. But now, if an unsuspecting handloader fired necked-down '06 cases in Remington's rifle, there'd be a potentially dangerous headspace situation. So the 7mm/06 name was quickly discontinued and the rifles and ammo were recalled. Some rounds are still in circulation, however-and are considered genuine collector's items.

Still determined that the .280 needed a more glamorous name, Remington rechristened it the 7mm Express. This has a pretty nice ring to it, but again there were unintended consequences. The 7mm Express tended to get confused with Remington's 7mm Magnum, another potentially dangerous situation. So the folks at Remington gave up on the name change and the .280 has been that ever since.

Coming of Age
Such misguided name-change shenanigans would have caused a meltdown for a lesser cartridge, but by then the .280 had earned a loyal following of dedicated fans. I have used the .280 handloaded with 160-grain Grand Slams on a couple of elk and an African bongo, but my go-to load has always been the 140-grain Nosler Partition, which works just as well on elk as the heavier bullet. And the flatter trajectory of my rather warm handloads make it a better choice for smaller game, such as sheep.

When Melvin Forbes announced his revolutionary line of Ultra Light bolt rifles back in the 1980s, I was one of his first customers. My old .280, which had been built around a pre-1964 Model 70 action by ace stock maker Clayton Nelson, had suffered much use and abuse through the years and deserved an honorable retirement.

The .280 rifle Melvin delivered weighs in at a bit less than 7 pounds with scope and has been my most-used hunting rifle in recent years, especially on hunts where I anticipated hard hiking and rough weather.

When Remington introduced its lightweight M700 Mountain rifle back in the early 1990s it was initially offered in .280, along with the .30/06 and .270. Rifles in the .280 chambering outsold the other two combined. So at last the .280 had overcome its dismal beginnings and joined the pantheon of great hunting cartridges.

Is the .280 my favorite hunting caliber? When I look back over my many hunts I'd have to say it is, if only in terms of success and good service. But I've also been in this business far too long to make outrageous claims about any caliber being significantly superior to others. That may make a few readers happy but rankles a lot more, especially when making the inevitable comparison of the .280 with the .270 and '06. So I'll put it this way: When I get mail from readers asking me to help them decide between a new .270 and a new .30/06, I politely suggest that they also consider the .280. I've had lots of them write back, thanking me for opening their eyes to a truly superb caliber.