280 Rem Loads (Error in loading Maunal???)

[dgradinaru]

I was looking through the Hornady 3rd edition reloading manual and found it odd that the loads listed in this manual for 280Rem are very hot. I mean compared to other books of mine its max is listed up to 6gr higher than other books.

Ill give you some examples from the book.

Specs of the rifle:

Remington model 725
barrel: 22inch, 1:10 twist.

Hornady's Max loads below:

139gr with IMR 4350 @ 57grs for 3000fps
154gr with IMR 4350 @ 54.5grs for 2900fps
162gr with IMR 4350 @ 53.6 grs for 2800fps
175gr with IMR 4350 @ 54grs for 2700fps

Now heres an example from the 7th edition

139gr with IMR 4350 @ 53.7grs for 3000fps
154gr with IMR 4350 @ 50.9grs for 2800fps
162gr with IMR 4350 @ 50.4grs for 2800fps
175gr with IMR 4350 @ 48grs for 2600fps

Same thing with the H4831 and other powders listed in the 3rd edition, big difference like the example above.

Even Ken Waters Pet Loads are a lot lower then the 3rd edition which Ken claimed as "Maximum"

Can the 3rd edition be trusted or is this what the 280rem is truly capable? and most modern data is underloading the cartridge?

 

[Ganderite]

The hot loads are just fine.... if you borrow THEIR Remington rifle.

There can be a big difference between rifles. Remington tend to have very deep throats, so they can be loaded hotter than a rifle with a short throat.

Start with the START load and see if it is ok, so you can work up from there. As is usual, your own rifle will have its own limits.

 

[Eagleye]

There are some very interesting twists in Rifledom, and reloading for our pet smokepoles.

I have seen some rifles that would digest a lot more powder than others to achieve similar results.

Case in point. Not long ago, I had two 7mm Remington Magnum rifles, one a 700 Remington, the other a P-H Safari Deluxe.
Loading the 160 Accubond using Norma MRP, I achieved 3050 fps in the 700 at 65.4 grains, accuracy was good, no excess pressure signs.

I started the P-H at 64 grains, and the graph said 2715 avg....pretty soft. So I moved up in 1 grain increments. It took 68 grains in that
P-H to reach 3020 fps. Also accurate, and no excess pressure signs.
Both rifles have 24" barrels, but the P-H appears to have a bit more generous chamber.

I have several rifles chambered in my favorite big 30, the 308 Norma Magnum. One is a custom job, so will leave it out of this discussion.
Two of the other rifles take around 76 grains of Norma MRP to reach my target velocity of 3100 fps with the 180 Partition.

A while back, I acquired a [new to me] 308 Norma, and reasoned that I should be plenty safe starting at 73 grains of the same MRP.
Imagine my surprise to see the graph register 3145 fps with my starting load!! Subsequent graph results verified the speed. Extraction was smooth
and brass shows no expansion across the belt, so I will use this as my hunting load.
I believe it would certainly have been a shock to shoot a 75 grain load, let alone 76.

Many of the early manuals listed loads that were plenty hot, [Speer #8 comes to mind] so it is always good to be careful.
With ready access to pressure transducers, the suppliers have become more cautious with their advertised loads.

Just be careful, folks!! Regards, Dave

 

[Cleftwynd]

And this is why I believe every Handloader that ventures above minimum listed loads NEEDS to use a chronograph.

 

[Ltbull01]

Pffft! Get Quickload and you'll see you can go a bit higher than 'published loads'. I also use Barsness "Loads that Work" as a reference and I've had good luck with that developing some great loads.

 

[Cleftwynd]

Quick load may be handy, but telling people to use it as guide to go over published loads is irresponsible. Let alone dangerous. There are many variables to each rifle that a software program cannot account and adjust for. It also should be calibrated by the end user using.....wait for it..... a chronograph!!!

 

[Eagleye]

And this is why I believe every Handloader that ventures above minimum listed loads NEEDS to use a chronograph.

Absolutely! Without a chronograph, you will actually know little about any specific load in YOUR rifle.

Dave.

 

[leveractionjunkie]

And this is why I believe every Handloader that ventures above minimum listed loads NEEDS to use a chronograph.

^this.

I've also noticed the discrepancy in the Hornady manuals mentioned by the OP. I believe part of the difference in powder charges has to do with the addition of the GMX line of bullets. Pre GMX data was quite a bit higher. In my 280 the max loads in the new manual barely get me to 7x57 velocity levels. I wouldn't know this without a chronograph. Actually I used two different chrony's because I didn't believe the #'s at first.

 

[H4831]

I was looking through the Hornady 3rd edition reloading manual and found it odd that the loads listed in this manual for 280Rem are very hot. I mean compared to other books of mine its max is listed up to 6gr higher than other books.

Ill give you some examples from the book.

Specs of the rifle:

Remington model 725
barrel: 22inch, 1:10 twist.

Hornady's Max loads below:

139gr with IMR 4350 @ 57grs for 3000fps
154gr with IMR 4350 @ 54.5grs for 2900fps
162gr with IMR 4350 @ 53.6 grs for 2800fps
175gr with IMR 4350 @ 54grs for 2700fps

Now heres an example from the 7th edition

139gr with IMR 4350 @ 53.7grs for 3000fps
154gr with IMR 4350 @ 50.9grs for 2800fps
162gr with IMR 4350 @ 50.4grs for 2800fps
175gr with IMR 4350 @ 48grs for 2600fps

Same thing with the H4831 and other powders listed in the 3rd edition, big difference like the example above.

Even Ken Waters Pet Loads are a lot lower then the 3rd edition which Ken claimed as "Maximum"

Can the 3rd edition be trusted or is this what the 280rem is truly capable? and most modern data is underloading the cartridge?

The reloading figures you show simply indicate the changes in loads shown in manuals, as time moves along.
Sixty or more years ago, someone wanting to reload, went to his shooting store and they would give him a single sheet of paper, showing load data for all sporting rifles.
Each bullet weight of each calibre would be shown on one line and would give type of powder, the amount of that powder for the bullet weight, the velocity of the bullet and the pressure generated. No loads under the maximum load were given.
No information about primer, bullet type or length of the cartridge were given.
Most charts would state that the loader should load down a bit when starting, but loaders were expected to use common sense and load the first ones down a bit, to see if all went well.
I think every one of those early charts showed higher loads than shown by modern manuals.
And yes, there is a difference in rifles of the same calibre. In my reloading career I have had sets of rifles in the same calibre, that varied 100 fps in velocity, with identical loads.
Prior to the advent of the chronograph being a tool available to the average shooter, we just had to go by pressure signs, to see what we could load to, or rather, to see if we could load the full given load, as shown in the loading chart, in a particular rifle.
One thing to note about rifles taking different charges, is a rifle that is always slower, with any given charge, can be loaded right up to the full velocity given for that cartridge. In fact, my impression is the "slower velocity rifles," can be loaded to higher velocities than normal. It just takes more powder! And that same load may easily lock up the bolt in another identical looking rifle!
With a chronograph it is easy to safely get the desired velocity.