280 AI or .270

Old Roper if you're that worried about it why don't you go ask? I did and wasn't given the info as I already stated. BTW that wildcat didn't live up to the hype from Gary Reeder as well.

I've got manuals that say the .280 AI running around 90% load density has 60-62K pressure, add 10+% load density and I'll bet you your on the edge of 65K if not over depending on the rifle. I have no doubt that the pressures were safe in the Nosler test barrel, but I'm positive as well not all rifles are built equal. IMO a good reloader never blindly believes a reloading manual anyway.

I have a .270 Win that I can push hard and it doesn't show pressure signs. However most reloading manuals agree that 3200+ fps is probably over pressure for the 130 grain bullet in a .270 Win. So I backed it off and now sit around 3060 fps and you know what? It kills game very well, and is pleasing to shoot.

I aplogize if my exerience is different than yours and if I've bad mouthed your favorite cartridge. It is just my opinion that the .280 AI isn't "all that and a bag of chips." I know as well that life changes and you may not always have ammunition laying around for a hunt or a range session and it is nice to be able to swing by the store and pick up 20 to 40 rounds in a pinch.
 
Taylor Force, I have to concur with what you said. Basically in cases of somewhat similar angles, a larger case will have a higher velocity assuming cases are loaded to the same pressure. There just are not any free lunches when it comes to ballistics.
 
No cartridge is "all that and a bag of chips" they are all a compromise between half a dozen variables. I do not own nor have I ever owned a 280 AI I bought a Savage 110 30-06 with every intention of making a 280 AI out of it but turns out the darn thing shoots so well out the box I could not bring myself to tear it down. So I cannot comment on if Nosler or Hodgdon got it right other then to say in general I have found my Nosler manuals to be a more accurate and comprehensive source of information.
I figure 60 fps is a good difference between a 24 and 26" tube for reasonably overbore cartridges like the 280 AI and 270 Win, exact figures vary by your exact load but 25-35fps per inch is the accepted range.
Nobody NEEDS a 280 AI, the 270 Win does everything the other does inside 400 yards, either would make great deer/pronghorn rifle and both are a little on the light side for elk/moose, I have owned two 270s and have been thrilled with them.
 
My comment about the 60 fps was because the accuracy loads were seperated by 85 fps. So if I subtracted the difference that gave a 25-35 fps difference between the two. Which has been my point the whole time, don't expect the .280 AI seriously out perform any other rifle cartridge in the same class it just isn't going to happen.
 
I see the cartridges relative to one another this way:

The 7mm RM is the big brother to the 270 Win; it will drive bullets of the same weight about 200fps faster, or will drive bullets about 15 to 20g heavier to the same speed.

In the case of the latter scenario, the two cartridges will have very similar trajectories. The 7RM will of course have more KE at all ranges. Its up to the practitioner to decide whether the game animal hunted requires the extra bullet weight and energy, and recoil.

Now the 280 AI (to come back to the OP) I see as being somewhere in the middle. But loaded to the same pressures, closer to the 270 end of the spectrum than the 7RM.

To that end, if the 270 Win can be safely loaded to near 3000fps with a 150g bullet (which it can, and there is plenty of official data to that level) then I see the advantage of the 280AI existing only in the fact that all those great 160g .284 bullets can be loaded to about the same speed.

However unless one is shooting game large enough to need those 10 grains extra bullet weight (which lets face it, ain't much) the advantage is trifling.


I apologise there are a few generalisations in my post, but really this is about where the cartridges sit relative to one another.


If all things were equal including pressures, availability, twist rates etc, I would choose the vanilla flavoured 280 Remington (non-AI) and shoot 162g SSTs and 160g Accubonds at a nice, steady 2900fps all day long.

I think such a package is a well balanced big-game proposition.

Regards,
Bob
 
I know this is an old thread...but something isn't mentioned here that matters...SAAMI spec'd the 280 Ackley at 65,000 psi MAP (maximum average pressure)...it's right there on the SAAMI website.

Everybody is talking like loading the Ackley over 55,000 is voodoo or something...lol.
 
Neither.... .280 (regular). But among those, it's a wash; probably .280 AI. If your rifle won't shoot Nosler Trophy Grade well, it won't shoot. Therefore, you always have factory ammo at a decent price with good brass to use afterward.
 
The .280 AI is supposed to be THE AI conversion

I hear a lot of AI talk and most people who opt for an AI go the .280 route.
 
It's pretty had to compare SAAMI spec ammo 280 vs 280AI. One advantage to the Ackley you can fire parent case even factory loaded rd if it's headspaced right. My 280AI is long throated but I can load 280 case same COAL fire it may not use same amt of powder.

I can buy factory 35 Whelen,243,222,223 and shoot in my 35WhelenAI,243AI,222AI and 223AI. When I need new brass for the 222AI/223AI I just use AI load in new brass fireform shooting PD.

My 35 WhelenAI I use for elk and this year on a bear tag I use a new 35 Whelen case don't even use fireformed case. I'll shoot fireform cases for practice.

I like 280AI won't of build it if I didn't same with my other rifles. I think Berger data for the 280 is for 26" barrel and used that for my 280AI with his 180gr VLD hunting bullet.
 
Dont overlook the 25-06 either! I own a 270 and a 25-06 and I have complete confidence in shooting a deer sized animal at 300 yards with the 270 and 400-450 with my 25-06. All calibers listed on this post are great. All personal preference. Dead is dead, right?
 
When you run Nosler load data on QuickLoad with the correct pressure limit set ( QL version 3.8 has it at 65,000 psi)...it matches Noslers data pretty close....bear in mind, no 2 barrels are the same...and powder varies from lot to lot.

Cartridge : .280 Ack Imp
Bullet : .284, 140, Nosler AccuBond 59992
Useable Case Capaci: 66.439 grain H2O = 4.314 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.330 inch = 84.58 mm
Barrel Length : 26.0 inch = 660.4 mm
Powder : IMR 4831

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 0.833% 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

-08.3 94 55.00 2920 2650 47545 9707 99.7 1.328
-07.5 95 55.50 2944 2694 48829 9760 99.8 1.311
-06.7 95 56.00 2968 2738 50147 9810 99.9 1.296
-05.8 96 56.50 2992 2783 51499 9856 99.9 1.280
-05.0 97 57.00 3016 2827 52887 9899 100.0 1.264
-04.2 98 57.50 3039 2872 54311 9940 100.0 1.249
-03.3 99 58.00 3063 2917 55773 9977 100.0 1.234 ! Near Maximum !
-02.5 100 58.50 3087 2962 57274 10013 100.0 1.220 ! Near Maximum !
-01.7 101 59.00 3110 3007 58814 10048 100.0 1.205 ! Near Maximum !
-00.8 101 59.50 3133 3052 60396 10083 100.0 1.191 ! Near Maximum !
+00.0 102 60.00 3156 3097 62020 10118 100.0 1.177 ! Near Maximum !
+00.8 103 60.50 3179 3143 63687 10152 100.0 1.163 ! Near Maximum !
+01.7 104 61.00 3202 3188 65400 10185 100.0 1.150 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+02.5 105 61.50 3225 3234 67160 10218 100.0 1.136 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+03.3 106 62.00 3248 3280 68967 10251 100.0 1.123 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.2 107 62.50 3271 3326 70825 10283 100.0 1.110 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 5% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 5% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 102 60.00 3214 3212 67985 9913 100.0 1.133 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 5% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 102 60.00 3084 2957 56083 10344 99.9 1.228 ! Near Maximum !



Cartridge : .280 Ack Imp
Bullet : .284, 140, Nosler AccuBond 59992
Useable Case Capaci: 66.439 grain H2O = 4.314 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.330 inch = 84.58 mm
Barrel Length : 26.0 inch = 660.4 mm
Powder : Norma MRP

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 0.769% 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

-07.7 94 60.00 2951 2708 43692 11069 97.1 1.352
-06.9 95 60.50 2978 2756 44886 11155 97.4 1.335
-06.2 95 61.00 3004 2805 46113 11238 97.7 1.318
-05.4 96 61.50 3030 2855 47379 11317 98.0 1.302
-04.6 97 62.00 3057 2904 48682 11393 98.3 1.286
-03.8 98 62.50 3083 2955 50025 11465 98.6 1.270
-03.1 99 63.00 3109 3005 51410 11534 98.8 1.254
-02.3 99 63.50 3135 3056 52837 11600 99.0 1.239
-01.5 100 64.00 3162 3107 54309 11661 99.2 1.223
-00.8 101 64.50 3188 3159 55826 11719 99.4 1.208 ! Near Maximum !
+00.0 102 65.00 3214 3211 57390 11773 99.5 1.194 ! Near Maximum !
+00.8 102 65.50 3240 3263 59006 11824 99.6 1.179 ! Near Maximum !
+01.5 103 66.00 3266 3316 60672 11870 99.7 1.164 ! Near Maximum !
+02.3 104 66.50 3292 3369 62392 11912 99.8 1.150 ! Near Maximum !
+03.1 105 67.00 3318 3422 64167 11950 99.9 1.136 ! Near Maximum !
+03.8 106 67.50 3343 3475 66001 11984 100.0 1.122 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 5% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 5% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 102 65.00 3300 3386 64195 11560 100.0 1.141 ! Near Maximum !
Data for burning rate decreased by 5% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 102 65.00 3110 3007 51123 11783 97.5 1.253
 
I have been messing around with QL and Applied Ballistics for weeks now concerning the 280 Ackley, I have a Nosler M48 Custom ordered in that caliber...

So far...the load below is the best I can come up with for trajectory...I have 4 lbs. of MRP powder, just need Nosler to make some 150 grain ABLR's.

Cartridge : .280 Ack Imp
Bullet : .284, 150, Nosler Accubond LR 58734 G7
Useable Case Capaci: 65.523 grain H2O = 4.254 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.330 inch = 84.58 mm
Barrel Length : 24.0 inch = 609.6 mm
Powder : Norma MRP

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 0.769% 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

-07.7 95 60.00 2884 2770 47834 12249 98.1 1.279
-06.9 96 60.50 2910 2820 49171 12335 98.4 1.263
-06.2 97 61.00 2935 2870 50547 12418 98.6 1.247
-05.4 98 61.50 2961 2920 51966 12497 98.9 1.231
-04.6 98 62.00 2986 2971 53428 12571 99.1 1.216
-03.8 99 62.50 3012 3022 54939 12642 99.3 1.201
-03.1 100 63.00 3038 3073 56495 12708 99.4 1.185 ! Near Maximum !
-02.3 101 63.50 3063 3125 58100 12770 99.6 1.171 ! Near Maximum !
-01.5 102 64.00 3088 3177 59757 12828 99.7 1.156 ! Near Maximum !
-00.8 102 64.50 3114 3229 61468 12881 99.8 1.141 ! Near Maximum !
+00.0 103 65.00 3139 3282 63230 12930 99.9 1.127 ! Near Maximum !
+00.8 104 65.50 3164 3335 65041 12975 99.9 1.113 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+01.5 105 66.00 3190 3388 66904 13014 100.0 1.099 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+02.3 106 66.50 3215 3442 68823 13049 100.0 1.085 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+03.1 106 67.00 3240 3496 70801 13080 100.0 1.072 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+03.8 107 67.50 3265 3550 72840 13110 100.0 1.059 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 5% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 5% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 103 65.00 3218 3448 70558 12646 100.0 1.078 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 5% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 103 65.00 3043 3085 56181 13034 98.5 1.183 ! Near Maximum !


Now I love the dear old 270 as much as anybody...but it can't quite compete with this...and this is using the Litz verified BC of the 150 grain ABLR (.295 G7)




140 grain Accubond...again, with a corrected BC.




If thats not solidly into 7mm Rem Mag territory...I'll drink the Rio Grande...the 280 Ackley is essentially a "long" 7mm Remington Short Action Ultra mag...the case capacities are very nearly idectical....and the standard 270 Win isn't even close (~100 fps behind)...now, if you Ackley the 270....things even out a bit.


A lot of folks mention Hodgden's online load data for the 280 Ackley...it appears Hodgden didn't load the 280 Ackley much past 60,000 psi for their testing...leaving 5,000 psi on the table, hence the lower velocities they show...I think they rushed to get data available (a good thing) and didn't quite do all their homework on the pressure limit as set by SAAMI.

One more thing...about the pressure limit of the 7mm Rem Mag...SAAMI set it at 61,000 psi because the 7mm RM is very prone to random pressure spikes which can send it well into unsafe territory if its loaded any hotter with certain load combinations...other rounds suffer this too, the 243 Win for example.

Very few rounds are SAAMI spec'd at 65,000 psi...and of those few...most, but not all, are relatively new rounds using modern case designs.

http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/specifications/Velocity_Pressure_CfR.pdf

Just a few things I felt were worth throwing in here...
 
Last edited:
I thought a couple of days on this one before I posted again. Ridgerunner665, I hope everything works for you as planned. One thing I've learned over the years of reloading and shooting, accuracy is more important than velocity. Trajectory is easy to compensate for with the proper optics or sight choices.

Wind is the big problem, and at 800 yards if you only reach 2800 fps your only going to have to correct 1.4-1.5 MOA more for the wind vs. your 3100 fps load with the 150 AB bullet. So I wouldn't worry about getting into 7mm RM territory as it isn't necessary to reach long range. I'd worry about finding the load with the least amount of vertical dispersion for shooting at 800 yards.
 
No argument there...but I do try to find both accuracy and velocity...doesn't always work, but sometimes it does...the optic is a Zeiss HD5 3-15x42 with lockable turrets (16.5 MOA of adjustment with zero stop installed...enough for 800 yards, only plan on shooting 600 for the most part anyway)

Speed is why I'm going with the MRP powder...it's what Nosler uses in their Ackley ammo...it gives good speed at moderate pressure, and tends to be accurate....Reloder 22 is supposed to be good too.
 
Last edited:
First off, I think you've asked the right *question*. In the past, the answer would have been .280 AI.

But nowadays, Hornady and others have really upped their game in terms of the BC (and consistency) of .277 Bullets, so probably .270 has the edge, all other things being equal. For myself, since I already have other 7mm rifles, and thus a stock of bullets to reload with, it's not 'all other things equal'.... the new high-BC bullets are the game-changer. .270 win was always an excellent long range, all-purpose cartridge. Now it's all that PLUS *very* long range, if you have a rifle that can do it (and skill).
 
Last edited:
The 7mm bullets still have equal to or better BC's than the 270 bullets...Hornady .277 150 SST's are .525, same as the 7mm 150 Interbond and SST...and the 280 Ackley can launch them at higher velocity.

Bryan Litz tested the Nosler Accubond LR bullets...the 150 grain 270 bullet fell short of its advertised BC by 12%....coming in at .543 in a 10 twist, and .569 in a 7 twist...both below the 7mm 150 Accubond LR in a standard 9 twist (.576)

Again, I'm not trying to bad mouth the 270, not at all...

I'm trying to say that the 270 has gotten better through better bullets...and if you Ackley the 270, it is equal to the 280 Ackley in almost every way...but no better.

Both rounds, in Ackley version....just puts them right back where they started...pretty much equal, when loaded to the same pressure with the same bullet weight.

The 280 will always have a slight advantage with heavier bullets, due to the expansion ratio of the powder/gases going through the larger bore.

For about 20 years...I've always thought the 280 Ackley was a very well balanced round...it does about all that can be done in a non-magnum round...many others are maybe just as good, but none any better when all factors are considered...brass life, barrel life, ballistics, magazine capacity, recoil, and cost of ownership.

I don't see why it took so long for it to catch on...except for the fact that Remington made so many bad decisions with the original 280....and that is my sole reason for posting all this....I don't want and will not participate in any arguments about "which is better"...but I will say, as many times as it takes, that the 280 Ackley is worthy, capable, and deserving of success.

I'd just like to see it take its place among the many great rounds out there...and I'm sure it will in time, now that it has finally been standardized....after all, it didn't hang around for 50 years as a popular wildcat just because of its good looks.
 
Last edited:
And the Ackley doesn't necessarily "need" to be pushed hard...though most will, including me.

During the initial break in though, my plan is to shoot 140 grain Accubonds using H4350 powder. I should be able to get them above 3,000 fps easily, and accurately, and that load will kill any whitetail that ever walked the hills of east Tennessee out to about 700 yards, if I wanted it to.

The H4350 will go easier on the barrel because the charge will be smaller...the pressure will still be up around 63,000 psi...but the smaller charge will wear the throat less....and I have several pounds of H4350, my last rifle was a 30-06.

I probably don't even need to worry about barrel wear, I don't shoot much these days...too much work, not enough play...but I've reached a point where I seem to want to account for everything and find the optimal balance...must come from working for a living, lol.

I have worn out a few barrels over the years...a couple of 308's, a 300 Win Mag, and a 25-06...there was a time when I had a lot more time to "play"....then I got married, and had kids, and bought a house, and a truck, several hundred pairs of shoes, etc...well, you know how it goes, lol.
 
Last edited:
The .280 A.I. should be relagated to obsolescence with the arrival of the 7 WSM. When compared to the 7 WSM, I can honestly not think of any reason one would want the .280 AI. A regular .280, I can see. Ammo availibility and price for it are reasonable. For the A.I., you either have to pay out the rear for ammo or you have to fire form brass. One can shoot a regular .280 in the A.I, but that is about pointless as well. The WSM is a short action beating a long action in performance. The 7WSM is one of the most accurate cartridges I have ever seen. It wins a good share of 1k matches.
I understand that we all "like what we like." Having said that, I am building a 7x57 Mauser just because I want one. Cartridge to me is worthless since I have two 7mm-08's, three 7 WSM's, Three 7 Rem mags, and a 7 Rum. My above opinion is based simply on performance and it discounts nostalgia or "wants."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top