Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: .280 Remington barrel length

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    324

    Default .280 Remington barrel length

    I am just curious if anyone knows of an American Rifle Manufacturing company that makes a .280 with a longer barrel than 22 inches. I have not been able to find one. With that being said, would the increase in barrel length make up for the minute velocity difference between my .280 and a 7mm magnum if I found one. I hand load all my own ammo if that helps determine your answer.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    69

    Default You handload?

    Then I would definitely buy a used Remington 700 in .30-06 or .270 and get a new 26" barrel (#5 fluted) put on it, cut for .280 Ackley Improved. You could still shoot factory .280 ammo if needed (and be fireforming cases at the same time) and your handloads will easily meet 7mm Mag ballistics.

    Plus you have the added benefit of an extra round in the magazine vs. the belted mag cases.

  3. #3

    Default

    A friend had one in Ruger #1, but I can't recall if it was factory or a rebarrel or a rechamber from some other 7 mag. All I can say is that it really shot well. LOA wasn't any bigger than a 7 mag bolt gun due to the short action, but weight was similar. The extra 4" of barrel and careful reloading let him come closer to 7 mag ballistics, as he wanted, but utlimately he got rid of it because he didn't like single shots. Having owned several 26" bolt guns myself over the years, I'd be more inclined to go with the #1 simply to hold down LOA. I found such long barrels unwieldy in many situations, plus I'm perfectly happy with a single shot rather than a bolt. As I recall his favorite powder was H4831, but that was before the advent of the slower RL powders. Those look really interesting to me for the 280, but I haven't tried them.

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bethel, Cantwell, Fort Yukon, Skagway, Chevak and Point Hope
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Well if you were a single shot rifle kind of person, T?C makes one in 24 and 28 inch length for their Encore. I have the 24 inch version for mine.

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Yes. Ruger's No. 1B has a 26" barrel and other than Dakota or some custom that's about it.

    I've owned several of them and as for velocity equal to the 7 Mag, that proabably won't ever happen given same bullet weight and barrel length. Maybe with a 26" on the 280 and a 22" on the 7 mag.

    I'm with you though, I prefer 24" of barrel on the '06 size calibers.
    The 280 will perform it's best with RL-22 powder and 150-160 grain bullets. I have never got a 160 grain to 3000 fps in the 280 even with a 26" barrel. The case cannot be filled with any but the very slowest of powders, neither can the 7 mag, but the 7 mag will hold more at operating pressure and will always have a slight edge in velocity. I have a little experience with the AI version and it will pretty much equal the 7 mag and as has been pointed out factory or new 280 brass can be used in them when properly chambered.

    I've owned several of the European 7x64 and that seems to be a more efficient caliber than the 280. They perform very well and seem to like a wider variety of powders.

    The 280 is another of those unfortunate few calibers that just didn't set the world on fire. It was up against the long popular 270 from the start and Remingtons devotion to the autoloader and pump kept the 280 in the minor leagues. It is a good cartridge and in a good bolt gun, or Ruger #1, it can be loaded to it's full potential. To me, for a hunting rifle it was neither fish nor fowl. Not the flat shooter of the 25 or 6.5-06 and not the heavier bullet capable 30 caliber. Sort of a middle of a wide road cartridge. I have always pushed for the underdog but this one a little too far under even for me..
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    134

    Default 24" Barreled Rifles by US Companies

    Weatherby
    http://www.weatherby.com/products/ammo.asp?prd_id=25

    Montana Rifle Company
    http://www.montanarifleman.com/index.html

    Cooper
    http://www.cooperfirearms.com/order.html

    I'm sure I missed several, but these were the first to come mind. I have a 6.5-284 by Montana Rifle Company and after some work by my gunsmith I think it's going to be a good shooter. Pricewise the Weatherby is probably the best choice. If you can afford it the Cooper would be nice.

  7. #7

    Default

    I fail to see the advantage of trying to "soup up" a .280 to 7mag velocities. Especially in a single shot! Why not just buy the 7mag??? You won't have the pressure issues, you won't have to fire form brass, and you can buy ammo right off the shelf that will meet your specs. I enjoy handloading as much as the next guy, but practicality rules in my book.

  8. #8
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akav8r View Post
    I fail to see the advantage of trying to "soup up" a .280 to 7mag velocities. Especially in a single shot! Why not just buy the 7mag??? You won't have the pressure issues, you won't have to fire form brass, and you can buy ammo right off the shelf that will meet your specs. I enjoy handloading as much as the next guy, but practicality rules in my book.

    No argument here from a practical stand point but we don't want to be too practical, how much fan is that. If I were always practical i would have never tried all those wildcats or developed all those new ones.

    But your point is well taken, we already have a 7 mag Remington and it is well established and has very few problems. I don't think he was interested in hot rodding the 280 just wanted a 24" barrel to realize it's full potential. It is beltless and will have a little less recoil than the mag. Sometimes we just want a certain caliber and then go through all kinds of moves to justify it from a practical view point. I've done it a zillion times. I think that is the mark of a true gun nut.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  9. #9

    Default

    I own 2 .280's now, and it is my very favorite caliber. It will out-perform the .270 and shoots flatter than the .30-06, with excellent down range ballistics very, very close to the 06. The main difference between the .280 and 7MM Mag, (besides the belt) is the .280 is very tame in recoil and the 7Mag is fierce!!! I do not like shooting 2 calibers because of their sharp, violent recoil; the 7MM Magnum and .300 Magnum. I regularly shoot and hunt with a .338 WM and my .375 H&H, and their recoil is much easier to handle.
    The .280 is so close in performance to a 7Mag, why would you want to even try to make it do what it wasn't designed to anyway? There is NOTHING walking that a 7 MM Mag will take that a .280 can't.
    I have shot moose, a grizzly, black bear, caribou, blacktail deer, white tail deer and other various animals, and none knew the difference, but all ended up very dead. A 7 MM Mag would not have been one bit better for any of these shots.
    My main load is a 160 grain Nosler Partition pushed by IMR 4350 powder.
    Now just why in the hell do I have to press "1" for English???

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,802

    Default

    ARKY:
    Rather than buy a new boomstick, why not have the barrel on your 280 replaced with a longer one. My 280 now has a 26 inch barrel, up from the original 20 inches. The new barrel is SS, and looks pretty snazzy. (To me anyway.)

    That should give you a velocity that is closer to the 7mm RM, but itís not gonna equal it. It stands to reason that the 280 AI wonít either without very high pressure loads.

    I agree with Akav8r, in that, if you want 7 Mag performance get one of those, and by pass any pressure issues. I did that too. I have both a 7mm RM and a 7mm Wby Mag. The Mags need a long barrel more than a 280 does, IMO.

    In either case long barrels are a lot easier on the ear-balls, and Iíve not found the extra length to be any hindrance whatever.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    324

    Default

    I am not looking to buy a 7mm Mag. I am partial to the .280, I have shot the 7mm Mag and think it recoils a lot more than my .280. I might as well stick with the lighter recoiling gun when its giving me just about the same performance. I just started hand loading for my .280 and saw how small the difference between the two rounds are velocity wise and pondered how much of that difference a longer barrel would make. Right now I have a H&R handi rifle in .280. I like my single shot rifle just fine, for a cheaper gun it shoots great, but I would feel a bit better hunting up here in AK if I had a few more shots in reserve. lol, dont know why I think that being most of my big game hunting is with a bow. Keep the advice coming!!! I really appreciate all extra knowledge.

  12. #12

    Default

    I like the .280 also. I have a Rem. Mtn Rifle chambered in that particular round. If I wanted to get a touch more velocity out of it without spending a lot of extra money or going up to a 7RM I'd agree with Deathray and ream it out to .280 Ackley Improved. That would probably net you about the same velocity that a couple extra inches of barrel would. If you're willing to spend a bit of extra money then I guess you could choose whatever used 30-06 length action you prefer and stick whatever barrel on it wish.

    I'm considering "Alaskifying" my mountain rifle by ditching the factory stock (as much as I love the dimensions) and adding an HS Precision stock. A nice coat of matte hard chrome would round out the package. I hesitate only because the action is butter smooth right now and I don't want to screw that up. Dang it, it's a nice rifle just like it is!

  13. #13
    Member Ripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    165

    Default Remington 280 with 24"

    Remington has a 50th anniversary limited edition 280 out right now. It has a grey laminated stock and stainless 24" barrel. Prices seemed pretty reasonable too. I might be getting one myself. Here is the link.

    http://www.remington.com/products/fi...el_700_LSS.asp

    Good shootin'

    Ripper

  14. #14
    Member shphtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    1,376

    Default optimal barrel length

    Several years ago (now prob 10 or 15) one of the major gun mags wrote a lengthy article about the myth and reality of barrel length and velocity. Most of their findings pretty much followed conventional "wisdom" but I was taken back by one of their findings. On one particular rifle - don't remember the make which prob isn't germane anyway - they started with a 24" barrel, chronographed several loads, averaged the result, then cut the barrel 1" and recrowned and repeated their measurements with the same load. Contrary to what one would normally expect there was actually a small increase (yes, increase) with each inch of shortening from 24" to 21", and then the velocity began to drop off as expected with continued shortening of the barrel. The caliber - 280. Their conclusions: the change in vel with barrel length is highly variable and dependent on the caliber under consideration. Also many of the touted velocity changes with barrel length changes are generalized extrapolations from from data and do not apply to all calibers to the same degree. I know of a gunsmith that started with a 375 H&H and did the same experiment chronographing data with each successive inch of shortening of the barrel. He started with a 28" barrel and from 28" to 20" he was able to measure a TOTAL loss of only 19 fps. From 20" to 19" he lost another measured 25 fps. Bottom line: it depends. People that I know (myself included) recommend getting a chronograph and using it. It will prod a world of information if you care to utilize it. Some have even gone so far as to state that you will have to relearn much of what you have taken as gospel regarding reloading. They do have a point.

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    419

    Default 280

    In my expierience the 22" 280's have been underachievers in the velocity category. My Mtn Rifle is more of a 7X57 improved. I like 24" on all 30-06 size cases. The Mtn Rifle is a nice little handy package so I doubt I will change anything. The remmy anniv. rifle is a nice rifle with the 24" tube. Might be a better than re-barreling.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    134

    Default

    The anniversary edition Rem .280 looks nice. I have a Browning A-Bolt in .280 Rem and one of the main reasons I would like a 24" barrel is pointability. It helps me to hold steady on target with some forward weight. With light weight or short barrels rifles I have trouble holding steady. I realize there is some trade-offs too, light weight rifles are a godsend when sheep hunting or such. But, too light are tough to shoot accurately, at least for me.

    Woody

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •