280 Remington bullet weights

Why not? said:
I have had a few 280s and 280 AIs. Every one of them shot 160 gr Partitions like they were match bullets. Bonus: the 160 Partition at 28-2900, shoots flat and kills stuff very dead! :D

Kevan, have you tried these in your 280?

Ted
Click to expand...

These will be my last resort in this 280 because my 280 AI seems to work well or at least better than the standard 280 with nearly all bullets tried.
If those don't work then its off with the barrel and on with something else. :)
 
tried enough powder and bullet combos in my .280 and cant get any to shoot...but now like you say, off with that barrel on with a new one

I am putting my future load development costs into a new gaillard barrel, and probably moving up to the 280AI just for kicks. I like the sound of the 160 partition, should be good for anything I want to hunt, either that or the 140tsx which I cant get to shoot in this barrel
 
Why not? said:
I have had a few 280s and 280 AIs. Every one of them shot 160 gr Partitions like they were match bullets. Bonus: the 160 Partition at 28-2900, shoots flat and kills stuff very dead! :D

Kevan, have you tried these in your 280?

Ted
Click to expand...

Just found this thread...I may be buying a .280 chambered rifle soon myself. If I do - I'll be sure to give the 160 Partitions a try, Ted. ;)

Jeff.
 
I have both a .280 and .280 AI. I shoot 140 gr tsx in the .280 and 140 ttsx in the AI. Fast, flat and kill anything that is legal in Alberta.
 
I would load for the game hunted, moose...look for a 160 -175gr. that is most accurate, deer...140-150 gr. whatever shoots best....Nozzzler Bt's always seem most accurate in my guns esp. the 140 gr. in my Sendero 7mm Saum.
 
I just bought this beauty in .280. :)

IMG_0652.jpg
 
Your question, in my estimation, is a question of distance to target (game) for any rifle. For closer shots the 150 gr. is better with its slightly lower velocity and lesser SD for shots out to 100 yards (i.e. fewer pass-throughs and better energy at closer ranges). The 140s would be better for longer shots, with their higher velocity/SD as they have better penetration at greater distances. Don't get me wrong, as both are just about as good in either scenario, but there is a minute difference for what it's worth. Remember to only ever use Barnes TSX or TTSX for game. All the rest are for plinking only. ;)
 
My 280 AI just loves 60 gr. of IMR 4831 using the 140 gr. Nosler Accubonds. Whitetails just hate them. Batting 1000 on one shot kills!
 
woodlotowner said:
Your question, in my estimation, is a question of distance to target (game) for any rifle. For closer shots the 150 gr. is better with its slightly lower velocity and lesser SD for shots out to 100 yards (i.e. fewer pass-throughs and better energy at closer ranges). The 140s would be better for longer shots, with their higher velocity/SD as they have better penetration at greater distances. Don't get me wrong, as both are just about as good in either scenario, but there is a minute difference for what it's worth. Remember to only ever use Barnes TSX or TTSX for game. All the rest are for plinking only. ;)
Click to expand...

You have it wrong. More weight is better for longer distances due to having a better sd, better bc and as such more penetration and retained energy respectivly for a given bullet.
 
bearhunter338-06 said:
What bullet weight do you use in the 280 Remington.
Click to expand...

For years I used rem 165gr RN Cor-Lokts..They worked great on deer, without doing a pile of damage...Since I started hand loading I have been using 150gr Sciroccos, and Nosler Partitions 140,150,160, and 175gr..Depending on which rifle, and what I am hunting.
 
woodlotowner said:
One of us has made an error in ballistics theory. ;)
Click to expand...

I believe it's you, woodlo :S sorry.

A quick look at any bullet manufacturer's website will show that in the same caliber and with the same bullet profile, the heavier bullets have both a higher SD and higher BC. Conventional wisdom also states that with the same caliber, bullet construction, and chamber pressure, the heavier bullet will penetrate deeper.

The only time that a lighter, higher velocity bullet is considered better for long range is when you're talking about maximum point blank range where you're unwilling to adjust point of aim to compensate for range. In this case the higher velocity will give you more range, but it will be shedding energy more quickly at its max PBR than the heavier bullet.

Red
 
woodlotowner said:
One of us has made an error in ballistics theory. ;)
Click to expand...

No, you're both right.

You are speaking from an impact velocity/terminal performance point-of-view, and Cam is speaking from a wind drift perspective. Both are important, and both of you are correct. It really just depends on the BC-to-velocity ratio that you achieve by moving up to the 150gr bullet from the 140. If you gain 0.050 in the BC, and the velocity with the 150 is within 50fps of the 140, then the 150 makes sense, both from a retained velocity standpoint, and wind drift standpoint. If the BC increase on the 150 was 0.001 and the velocity was 200fps faster with the 140gr bullet, then the 140 would be the better LR bullet.

In this case, the 140gr TTSX will work better on game beyond the distance where the 150gr TTSX falls below 1800fps, until the 140 itself falls below 1800fps. The 150 will drift less in the wind, and be less susceptible to mis-judgement in windage corrections. For LR shooting beyond a few hundred yards, the 162gr A-Max takes the ball and runs with it ;)
 
Last edited:
Very well said, Jordan. Thanks. Yes, I did note in my previous comment that there was a minimal difference between the two that was hardly worth considering, but my point was exactly as stated. From a terminal velocity/energy perspective, and the resulting effect on game, I stand by my wildly opinionated opinion. ;) We're splitting hairs here, but since most of my shots in close cover here in Central ON are well under 100 yards, I have actually switched from 140s to 150s in my .270. Barnes TSX naturally. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom