I was thinking of buying 30-06 Lapua brass and sizing it to 280 rem and then fireforming to a 280 ackley is this possible? and or recommended considering there is Nosler brass already formed?
Thanks
Elmer

I can't answer your specific question on whether or not '06 brass can be used to form 280 AI cases, but if you are going to buy high end brass why not just get some with the right headstamp? I haven't used Nosler brass, but can it be that much worse than Lapua to make a real difference?

elmer

'06 brass can be used to make 280 Ackley but it will be about .050" short. If you decide to go that way, size the neck until you get a good crush fit when chambering. No need to FL size first.

Some shooters do exactly what you are contemplating, to get the good LAPUA brass. But, an average shooter with an average rifle won't gain much, if anything.

Ray

The best brass to form either 280 or 280 AI is Euro 9.3x62. The chamber dimensions of the 280 are larger than the 30-06 to facilitate extraction in the 742 and 760 rifles it was designed for. So, true 30-06 brass will swell at the base when loaded to max AI pressures. The 9.3 is larger at the base but not so much it won't chamber.

That's also why the 280 AI outruns the 280 by the margin it does; they have different MAP. The 280 is SAMMI limited to 57,000 and change while the 280 AI is commonly loaded to 270 pressures over 60,000 psi.

tiggergate

I have owned several 280s over the years and currently own and shoot both a 280R and a 280 Ackley. I must admit that I've never heard your arguement before. The SAAMI difference between the 280 and the 30-06 is only .0005". That's hardly enough to make an arguement one way or the other. The CIP for the 9.3x62 is .007" over the 280 R, enough to cause problems.

The 280 Ackley "outruns" the 280R because of increased case capacity, nothing more, nothing less.

IMHO you're making elmer's question much more complicated than it needs to be.

Ray

It's information and it's factual. He can use it or ignore it. Makes me no difference.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
Are you quoting brass dimensions or chamber specs?. . .

Both. Min chamber and max cartridge.

Min case and max chamber are the product of your reamer and case brand, not SAAMI or CIP specs.

My point is that it's not so complicated that an average shooter should concern himself with such small differences.

Ray

Fair enough. The chamber size was established by Remington for the relatively weak extraction of the 760 and 742. The chambers are definitely oversize for this reason. If a reamer is ground to Remington chamber specs and the round loaded to full house a problem can occur. Happened to me.

The easy way out is to spec a 7MM-06 wildcat reamer which matches '06 based brass perfectly and will accept any factory 280 brass. Maybe a complicating small detail, maybe I'm anal. But people come here for information whether they accept it all for use or not.

This horse is down and dying but I'm gonna whip it one more time.

I doubt if Remington uses different reamers for the auto-loaders and the bolt action, but if they do you should not experience the problems you suggest, should you? If they don't you would expect to encounter problems with the bolt actions, but I've not heard of them.

Ray

tiggergate

Just out of curiosity I dug out my two samples of the 9.3x62. An RWS and a Rhino. Both measured .471 across the base. So, your idea would probably work and I agree it would most likely make a better fit in a factory chamber.

I'm sure Elmer is probably rolling his eyes at our discussion. But it's hard to stop two old-timers like us.

Ray

Yeah, he probably is in his reloading room doing something constructive while we banter back and forth.

The negative about my idea is that going from .366 to .284 requires a lot more work than just a simple pass through the FL die. At least one intermediate caliber, possible neck thinning and maybe even annealing after the fact. Guess I could have mentioned that earlier, lol.

I think you can can use the Lapua brass without too much trouble, but I am curious, why would you?

There's plenty of good quality 280 brass, and Nosler sells 280 AI brass already formed (it's very good quality).

If I were going to use 30-06 brass, I'd use mil surplus Lake City brass, both because it's cheap, and because the brass is thick (it lasts forever). After fireforming, I'd anneal the necks of the cases to get them to last longer. Because you're necking down to .284, at some point you'll likely need to neck ream as well.

That's a lot of work.

Garrett

Well I shot a 280AI for a couple of years then my own 280PDK. I would look to 280Norma brass and take advantage of the 3+grs of extra capacity that the Norma brass gave me. The Norma brass holds up just fine at 65,000 and below. I tried some 280AI brass as a check it runs about 3grs less than 280Norma made into 280AI. If you are going to the trouble of an AI for 4grs why not make it 7?

quote:

Originally posted by Cheechako:
tiggergate

Just out of curiosity I dug out my two samples of the 9.3x62. An RWS and a Rhino. Both measured .471 across the base. So, your idea would probably work and I agree it would most likely make a better fit in a factory chamber.

I'm sure Elmer is probably rolling his eyes at our discussion. But it's hard to stop two old-timers like us.

Ray

Thanks for all the feedback gents, I always want to try new things thats why I ask questions like these.I have Nosler brass but was just curious if i could do it with Lapua, but it sounds like the 280 norma brass would be the ticket.
Thanks again
Elmer

Tiggertate,
This is an interesting topic.
Remington chambered the 760 for the 270 and the 6MM Rem. They also chambered the 742 for the 6MM. I am not sure what the 6MM operating pressure is. In my digging through once fired brass I found that the 6MM and the 25-06 Rem are the 2 factory rounds that you are most likely to find blown primers in. I interpret this as the 2 round operate at the highest pressures normally loaded at the factories as opposed to the quoted standards. My IMR data shows the 6MM and 270 max out at 52,000 CUP and the 25-06 is at 53,000 CUP.
I am wondering if the extra taper of the 6MM permitted it to function in the 742 when the 270 could not. I am not so sure the case body taper is significant since both the .243 and the .308 were listed in the 742.
I am not so sure the difference in the .270 and the .280 were much more than theoretical since the IMR data only shows a 4% difference for top pressures.

It may have been an answer to a problem only an engineer would worry about (you know how they can be...). I have an older 760 Carbine in 270 that has gobbled every factory and hand load I could muster for over 30 years now and never had a problem. But the "sloppy" chamber and lower factory MAP of the 280 are pretty well documented. Maybe this was simply the first time they let engineers design a cartidge to the weakest link?

MAP of the 6MM is 65,000 psi

FWIW, the extraction of the 742 is much more robust than the 760 due to the nature of gas operated actions. The problem was directed more to the pump actions.

I guess the .280 is a non-question to me in the 760. The pump tends to be self opening as it bounces forward from your shoulder. While it tends to be self opening it would be much slower opening than a 742. The 742 unlocks faster and would tend to extract with residual pressure in the chamber. It is my guesstimate that the 270s heavier bullet loads might have been loaded to high pressure with a slow burning powder.
I am not sure what the engineers were thinking if the put an oversize chamber in the 760s just for the .280.

quote:

I am not sure what the engineers were thinking if the put an oversize chamber in the 760s just for the .280.

Trying to follow some engineers' logic can be trying, for sure. More like a logic influenced maze.

i dunno if it will make 280 ackley .. but you cut them off and fill them with lead for .475 practice bullets