what caliber for my new sheep rifle

If the data in the manual is the same that is posted on the site,why did you use the R-19 data instead of the R-22 data?After all,you did post that you used the fastest loads from the manual.However the R-22 load listed on the site is faster than the R-19 load that you posted.Either you didn't use the fastest load in the manual as you posted you did,or the data listed on the site is different from that listed in your manual.If the data is different,perhaps the barrel length is as well.

As I already stated, John Jr. stated on 24hrcampfire that all of the testing they have done with the 280 AI has been done with the same Wiseman 26" barrel. Read before you post, I have stated this twice. And the RL22 data isn't in the new manual as far as I see, but if you really need your extra 8fps:rolleyes:

Did he write about killing moose or caribou.Then using your logic,he must never have killed either of those species either.It has been established by Sako Alberta as well as myself, that Bell did work as a professional hunter in the Yukon shooting game to feed the gold rush participants.The main game species in the area were caribou,moose,and dall sheep,so it is only logical that these were the species that he hunted.If he didn't hunt those three species,what did he hunt?

You seriously love putting words in people mouths. I think you may be verging on dense, or your penchant is to apply an over exuberant imagination to everything people post in contention with what you write. I KNNNNOOOWWW that Bell was in the Yukon. I made the point that Bell's fame came from shooting e-l-e-p-h-a-n-t-s. O'Connor's fame came from s-h-e-e-p. And O'Connor used a .270 primarily. Neither used the 280 AI you where originally praising as overshadowing the .270. The facts have been paved that there is a minute difference between the two cartridges, and you seem to feel the need to take all of this down a rabbit trail.


Bell did not just hunt for his own subsistence in the Yukon,he hunted to feed many people,as such,he was a professional hunter,or a market hunter.The species that he hunted has not yet been proven,but only you deny that dall sheep could have been a part of his kill.

Hunting primarily for food is subsistence hunting. Sorry I didn't point out that he was also a market and trophy hunter too. I haven't denied he shot Dalls. I stated he never wrote about pursuing them. Shake your head.

As for O'connor,he was a superb writer,but he killed many of his sheep on guided hunts.Given the same money,and time that he had available,as well as the abundance of sheep and lighter hunting pressure during his peak hunting career,many people could have killed just as many sheep as he did.

To this all I can say is you know very little about the man, and to state, Jack knew many people that killed more and bigger sheep than he did. Did he bite you as a child or something?

This one.

Nice partial quote. I can make just about any book say what I need to if we are going to play that game.

I have given quite a few facts from factual sources that re-enforce my statements. Still waiting on yours.

This is quite similar to the radar discussion had on AO. You refused to prove anything put to you and eventually were forced to admit you where wrong, or stop posting. You stopped posting.
 
I can't beleive people are firing out suggestions exceeding 30 caliber for SHEEP!!

I'll chime in for the 25/06 as I see others have.

I personally run 25/06AI with 115 grain berger bullets grouping sub MOA all day at 3200fps - not hot loaded or anything stupid - all the AI case means to me is FAR LESS TRIMMING and longer case life.

Second choice would be a .243, or .270 win.

Sorry UM boys - I simply can't be talked into beleiving there's a need for 300 grain bullets hitting 2800+ for sheep - seems a bit much of a whiz bang sizzle stick for ANY canadian animal IMO.

Mind you - if the pee pee is small I guess carry a heavy bullet flinging canon to compensate right?
 
And the RL22 data isn't in the new manual as far as I see,

Exactly my point,the R-22 load is on the website as anyone can plainly see.If as you claim,the R-22 load is not in the manual, the data in the manual and the data on the website are not identical as you keep claiming they are.

Look on the site for yourself.

http://www.nosler.com/index.php?p=15&b=7mm&s=172

As I already stated, John Jr. stated on 24hrcampfire that all of the testing they have done with the 280 AI has been done with the same Wiseman 26" barrel.

Then please explain the picture below taken from my Nosler manual.

P7030005.jpg



Read before you post,

I read the barrel length as 24",how about you?

I haven't denied he shot Dalls

Really,what does the statement below plainly state?

Bell didn't kill any Dalls

Or do you now deny posting that statement?


This is quite similar to the radar discussion had on AO. You refused to prove anything put to you and eventually were forced to admit you where wrong, or stop posting. You stopped posting.

I stopped posting after I posted proof positive about the existence of the 22 degree angle used in photo radar,and you still refused to admit that it existed.There was no point pursuing the discussion when you refused to acknowledge evidence that was so clearly stated.

I suppose that you are going to try and call into doubt the credibility of the picture taken from my Nosler manual as well.Personally,I choose to believe my own eyes about the 24" barrel,rather than what someone supposedly posted over on the 24hr campfire.And you did post :
all of the testing they have done with the 280 AI

That "ALL" in your statement is a very important word.If a 24" barrel was used for any testing Nosler ever did with the 280AI,your statement is still proven wrong.
 
Last edited:
That isn't the latest Nosler manual.

I never posted that it was the latest Nosler manual,but it certainly is a Nosler manual.

Did or did not rem338win plainly state:

As I already stated, John Jr. stated on 24hrcampfire that all of the testing they have done with the 280 AI has been done with the same Wiseman 26" barrel.

He doesn't specify that "only the 280AI testing in the latest Nosler manual" used a 26" barrel.He plainly posted:

"ALL" of the testing they have done with the 280AI

My picture from my Nosler manual proves that not "ALL" testing done by Nosler with the 280AI was done with the same 26" barrel.The picture proves that at least some of Nolsers data was derived using a 24" barrel.Unless Nosler stretched that same 24" barrel to 26",they did not use the same barrel,let alone the same barrel length, for all, of their 280AI data.

He also stated that the R-22 load is not in his manual.If it isn't in his manual,then the data on the Nosler site,and in his manual is not the exact same data.If the data is not the same,then there is no reason to believe that the barrel length is the same,especially since it has been established that Nosler did use a 24" barrel for at least some of it's 280AI data.
 
Last edited:
I can't beleive people are firing out suggestions exceeding 30 caliber for SHEEP!!

Hmmmm....I am honestly still debating taking my 7lb .280 Rem or my 8lb 300 RUM rig this fall. I had a season of a lifetime with my new RUM in 2008, and would love to take it for sheep this fall - not too many downsides to it in the mtns, other than the extra pound or so, with a few notable advantages.
 
The information on their website for the 280 AI matches what is in their latest manual.

Not according to rem338win who posted:

the RL22 data isn't in the new manual as far as I see,

Or is rem338win wrong about that too?

And even if the same R-22 data listed on the Nosler site is listed in the latest Nosler manual,my picture still proves that Nosler did not use the same 26" barrel for "ALL" of their 280 AI testing contrary to what rem338win posted.
 
Not according to rem338win who posted:



Or is rem338win wrong about that too?

And even if the same R-22 data listed on the Nosler site is listed in the latest Nosler manual,my picture still proves that Nosler did not use the same 26" barrel for "ALL" of their 280 AI testing contrary to what rem338win posted.

I wish I cared.

If you don't believe me go pick up Nosler #6 yourself. You're two manuals behind.
 
If you don't believe me go pick up Nosler #6 yourself. You're two manuals behind.

I don't need to see the Nosler #6 manual.If you are correct about that same R-22 load being in the latest Nosler manual,you are proving rem338win wrong yet again,so I don't even need to see the latest manual myself.And it still doesn't change the fact that Nosler did use 24" barrels for some of their 280AI data now does it?

You're two manuals behind.

I wish I cared.
 
Not according to rem338win who posted:



Or is rem338win wrong about that too?

And even if the same R-22 data listed on the Nosler site is listed in the latest Nosler manual,my picture still proves that Nosler did not use the same 26" barrel for "ALL" of their 280 AI testing contrary to what rem338win posted.

I don't need to see the Nosler #6 manual.If you are correct about that same R-22 load being in the latest Nosler manual,you are proving rem338win wrong yet again,so I don't even need to see the latest manual myself.And it still doesn't change the fact that Nosler did use 24" barrels for some of their 280AI data now does it?



I wish I cared.

Seriously is it still cold up there, or does it always hurt that bad when you get the heat. You should take up a job with the media, cause your something great at screwing up the facts. The manual you took a picture of is over 10 years old:rolleyes:. You keep posting the one sentence made in a post making a point about how many sheep have been shot with the .270 over your 280AI.

This dicussing has been particularily one sided when it comes to the facts, and really has become pointless. Your pathetic attempts so far have been laughable.

The 280AI, as cool as it is, at most beats the 270 by 100fps with all bullet weights comparible in the ranges you specified and you have done everything but admit that. The newest, and I say that for your sake so you don't start quoting Speer manuals from the 70's, Nosler data for the AI is with a 26" barrel where the 270's is with a 24". The .270 due to age and popularity has shot a hell of a lot more rams that the AI. SJ really really wants to be W. Bell's personal pepper grinder, and apparently the only powder that anyone north of Edmonton can use in their AI is RL22.

You haven't proved anything, and the fact that at least three knowledgable people have disagreed with you intellegently, and none of your responses have been in kind says a lot. Keep proving me wrong there SJ, you're sure doing good work there:bsFlag:
 
You should take up a job with the media, cause your something great at screwing up the facts.

I am not the one that posted that "ALL" of Noslers Data for the 280AI is based on a 26" barrel.Rather,I am the one that positively proved that this in fact is not the case.

The manual you took a picture of is over 10 years old

It is a Nosler manual,and it proves your statement to be incorrect.

This dicussing has been particularily one sided when it comes to the facts, and really has become pointless.

Yes it has been one sided where facts are concerned,you made bold statements that you haven't proven,and I posted proof positive in the form of a picture that at least one of your statements is in fact incorrect.Chuck posted that the data in the new manual is identical to that on the Nosler site,yet you posted that the R-22 data does not appear in the latest manual.Either the R-22 data is in the latest manual or it isn't,either you or Chuck is wrong,but neither of you will respond to this,because neither of you wants to admit that the other is wrong.

You haven't proved anything, and the fact that at least three knowledgable people have disagreed with you intellegently, and none of your responses have been in kind says a lot.

I posted a link to the Nosler site,and an actual picture from a Nosler manual.It doesn't take a genius to look at the picture,and see that Nosler does indeed have 280AI data with a 24" barrel,contrary to what you posted previously.Any intelligent person can plainly see that for themself.And you proved yourself wrong by first posting that Bell killed no rams,then later denying that you posted no such a statement.

Keep proving me wrong there SJ, you're sure doing good work there

I have proven you wrong,it's not my fault that you can't realize it for yourself.Pictures don't lie.
But then again you don't need me to prove you wrong when you have done it yourself.
Remember posting the statement below?

Bell didn't kill any Dalls

Then you later posted.

I haven't denied he shot Dalls

Both are pretty plain statements,and both are direct contradictions.

I will be nice and assume that your memory is failing rather than just accuse you of blatantly posting lies.

I actually find this entire thread very entertaining.It's funny to watch someone make statements,then refuse to admit that their statements were wrong even after positive proof is posted.It is even funnier to watch someone resort to contradicting themself(a polite way of not accusing someone of outright lying)instead of admitting that they have been proven wrong.
Are you sure that you weren't involved in the Vancouver taser incident?LOL.
 
Last edited:
so..you guys been to the range lately?:runaway:

Exactly!

I use the reloading manuals simply as a guide, and NEVER put faith in them for max powder charge and velocity estimates regardless of caliber - they are invariably generous with the velocities and conservative in the charges. I certainly would not make an voluminous argument based on data in a reloading manual - kind of like arguing from an arm chair.

I let observed pressure and a chronograph tell me how my handloads perform, and if required, then validating my ballistics with exbal until I am satisified. If the 5th Nosler manual was accurate (I have the 6th too;)), my .280 would be pushing my 140's at 3050 fps, but alas, it's barely over 2800 fps. But she's killed rams with that load, that's for sure, and will have another go at one this fall.
 
I
Yes it has been one sided where facts are concerned,you made bold statements that you haven't proven,and I posted proof positive in the form of a picture that at least one of your statements is in fact incorrect.Chuck posted that the data in the new manual is identical to that on the Nosler site,yet you posted that the R-22 data does not appear in the latest manual.Either the R-22 data is in the latest manual or it isn't,either you or Chuck is wrong,but neither of you will respond to this,because neither of you wants to admit that the other is wrong.

What do you mean neither of us will respond to it? I've told you, now three times, that the information for your 140 gr bullet on their website is the same information that is in Nosler manual #6. Now prove me wrong.
 
What do you mean neither of us will respond to it? I've told you, now three times, that the information for your 140 gr bullet on their website is the same information that is in Nosler manual #6. Now prove me wrong.

You did previously state the information is the same,but you you did not specifically mention that the R-22 data for the 140gr bullet listed on the Nosler site was present in the latest manual.If you post that this R-22 data is present in the latest manual,I won't doubt you at all,since I give any posting made by you much more credibility than rem338win posting that the R-22 data is not in the latest manual.
 
You did previously state the information is the same,but you you did not specifically mention that the R-22 data for the 140gr bullet listed on the Nosler site was present in the latest manual.If you post that this R-22 data is present in the latest manual,I won't doubt you at all,since I give any posting made by you much more credibility than rem338win posting that the R-22 data is not in the latest manual.

It is the same and therefore there is RL 22 data in the latest manual for the 140gr bullet.
 
Back
Top Bottom