quote:

Originally posted by fredj338:

What rifle is that being built on?

fredj, being the Sako maniac I am, it is on a M-75 action with a McMillan stock, Wiseman barrel, and Wiseman 'printing' of the action. Hoping to see it before our annual pilgramage to Kansas....

quote:

I have been told the .280 is not as inherently accurate as the .270, 06 and .308..Anyone want to comment on this?

i never bought the idea that ANY caliber was inherently accurate. but i suppose with the right lab someone could test the theory.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I have been told the .280 is not as inherently accurate as the .270, 06 and .308..Anyone want to comment on this?

I will Someone lied to you, Ray! roger

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Atkinson:
I have been told the .280 is not as inherently accurate as the .270, 06 and .308..Anyone want to comment on this?

I guess when you can shoot the balls off a gnat , then that's pretty inherently accurate !!!

ACCURACY is a term that better relates to the shooter, as we should be referring to PRECISION made rifles and precision made bullets. These aspects (the rifle and the bullets) deal with a host of variables that puts a shooter in a position to shoot better. The term "inherently accurate" is a misnomer. Not even 2 of the same rifles from a given manufacturer shoots the same. One of my friends have a 300 Win Mag and he won several shooting competitions with it, whilst one of his friends again who bought the same rifle on his recommendation ended up with a dud.

So once you have a well put together (precision made) rifle, using precision bullets (some rifles do not like certain bullets), fine-tuning the load (finding your rifle's sweetspot) that your rifle likes, the shooter is then able to place shots accurately if he does his part ( no buck-fever, pulled-shots, being recoil shy etc.)

Warrior

I just had another 7x57 mm Custom (Oberndorf K98 Mauser action) built and fitted a new scope (Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40) to see how the rifle shoots before I took delivery. I tried it out in a 100 meter under-ground shooting range. The first shots (A and B) were shot fairly fast just to see where it would print on the target - so only 2 bullets were fired each time. Every time I would adjusted the scope to bring it nearer to the bull. I took a bit more time when I fired the 3 rd salvo (C) with the 140 gr Nosler Partitions and obtained a more respectable 3-shot grouping. I then adjusted the scope again and repeated a similar grouping (as in D) than before. I then fired one last 170 gr PMP bullet which was not too far off. In both cases I used standard factory ammo and that demonstrated to me that the rifle has the capabilty to group well even without handloads.

I guess the rifle came nicely together (precision made) and it seems to like the 140 gr Nosler bullet and that allowed me to place the bullet fairly accurately to where they were intended. All I had to do was not to keep as still as possible. I am very happy with the end result and would be happy to take headshots at longer distances with this rifle with its low recoil.



Warrior

quote:

ATKINSON - "I have been told the .280 is not as inherently accurate as the .270, 06 and .308..Anyone want to comment on this?"

Ray, I think that there are too many relative factors to truly answer that question, but...

My old Rem. 725 with Remington 22" factory barrel, consistently shoots MY HANDLOADS into 1 1/4" at 200 (two hundred) yards, 3x9 Nikon Monarch 'scope. (Got the same with an older 2x7 Redfield.) That's with both a 160 grains Nosler Partition and a 139 grains Hornady Interlock, IMR 4350 powder for each. Of course, that's off-the-bench.

I get the same with my Pachmayr Custom on a 1909 DWM Argentine Mauser, Canjar trigger, 22" Apex barrel, 2x7 Leupold 'scope.

I've not got that good accuracy with either my pre-64 Win. 70 in .30-06, nor my Rem. 700 .30-06, even with several handloads. BUT... the accuracy for these two was more than sufficient for any hunting anyone would ever do. Just not quite as good as my two .280s.

I've got so close to that .280 accuracy with my Rem. 700 in .308 Win., again, with my handloads, 150 grains & 165 grains, that on any given day, I could barely tell any difference.

I've not owned a .270 although have shot several belonging to friends. So, can't commment on that caliber in comparison.

Just my limited experience.

L.W.

I feel that the 7x57 is well complimented with a 7MM RM. Thats why I have both. I just never liked the moniker .280 Remington, sounds dull.

I have discussed this with a lot of Benchresters and they are of one accord and that is some calibers are more accurate than others...

I believe the .222 to be more inherently accurate than most other factory 22s on average. and nobody can argue some of the benchrest records set by certain calibers over and over again.

I wouldn't think this could apply to big game cartridges, but have been told by some gun makers that the .280 is not known for accuracty, thus the question.

However, the answers posted seem to be of one accord.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I have discussed this with a lot of Benchresters and they are of one accord and that is some calibers are more accurate than others...

I believe the .222 to be more inherently accurate than most other factory 22s on average. and nobody can argue some of the benchrest records set by certain calibers over and over again.

I wouldn't think this could apply to big game cartridges, but have been told by some gun makers that the .280 is not known for accuracty, thus the question.

However, the answers posted seem to be of one accord.

ray, do you mean the caliber or the .280 remington/ 7mm express round?

i would say there are some rounds that people shoot more accuratly and there are rounds that due to popularity have been refined in factory ammo to a higher level of accuracy, but i have a hard time understanding exactly what variable about a design that would cause it to be inherently inaccurate.
same case as a 270 and 30-06. are they inherently inaccurate?
same caliber as 7 mauser, 7x64 and 7mm-08 (to name a few). are they inherently inaccurate as well?
whay the conbination of a specific bullet size and a specific case that throws things loopy.
my guess would be that because the limited amount of factory ammo avail. and the majority of rifles chambered for the caliber being not known for accuracy that theres an "idea" that it was the fault of the round.
seeing the similarity between that round and the 7x64 why is it not known for being inaccurate.

Surely with everything being equal, the .280 has a theoretical advantage. Does it make any difference whatsoever on game? I very much doubt it. I have used the 7x57 everywhere on game up to elk size, they are still dead to this day. As a matter of fact, to get a noticeable difference in killing power on big game, I think you have to step up to a .338, not a .280. Hunt with whatever you want, I'll keep the 7x57. If I want to use something bigger, it'll be a .338 bore.

I might get a 7X57 if I could .275 Rigby written on it. Otherwise I would compromise and get a .270 Win.

The versatility of the 7x57 is a gem for the handloader and it is not finicky to reload.
7 mm bullets are available from 130 to 175 grains - this is quite a spread, unlike with the 270 Win.
You can load for almost all game species that you wish to shoot - from Springbuck to Kudu.

Warrior

The 7 x 57 mm is perhaps one of the most under-rated calibers.
I was quite surprised to read Harald Wolf's article on the 7 x 57 some time back and I quote ...

"For today's African hunting I would not use the 7 x 57 Mauser for any game bigger than Blesbuck or Nyala."

It seems to suggest that it is only fit for the very small game species, which I cannot agree with.
I have used it a lot of Kudu and Blue Wildebeest.

Then he goes further on and say ...

"Nowadays the 7 x 64 Brenneke is more and more replaced by the 7 mm Rem Mag, which is a stupid thing to do as there is no need for an ultra high velocity 7 mm cartridge in Europe."

Now this makes more sense as the issue is a MATTER OF RANGE ... short to medium, .... medium to long ... or long to very long-range - perhaps something like 0 - 200 yds, then 200 - 350 yds and then 350 and beyond. In Europe most hunters hunt from a Hochsitz or they wait for the game to be driven into an ambush.

The 7 x 57 is well applied at the short to medium range out to 200 yds, as its bullet performance is generally better than its faster rivals. Ultimately it is the IMPACT velocity that determines how the bullet will perform, and that is the most critical element in the whole equation. If hunting is done 90% of the time under 200 yards, then the choice is clear cut, go for the 7 mm Mauser.

Warrior

Warrior

I'm with you, the guy is foolish if a 7x57 is too small, but a 7Rem Mag is too big. I have killed virtually all my plains game with a 7x57 and 160 Noslers at 2780 fps. I would have no problem shooting as far as I can reasonably hit game, I normally have no problem getting within 300 yards or so and that is not a difficult shot.

The Nosler bullet has proven itself over and over on game here in South Africa. It is a well finished bullet and it shoots very well in just about all the rifles that I know of. However, it is the minimum bullet that I would be happy with, as it still loses its front core like a conventional bullet, whereas it relies on deeper penetration with its protected rear portion that is shielded with a partition, as can be seen in the picture below - the second bullet from the left:



The Nosler will retain around 60% of its weight in the 7 mm version with about a 1.6x epansion of petals as the thin petals gets folded close to the shank of the bullet. The Barnes will retain 100 % of its weight at 7x57 velocities and expand to 2x its diameter. The Rhino bullet with its bonded front core, in turn will retain around 98% of its weight and expand to 17 millimeters to make a nice big hole. And that is why the 160 gr Rhino bullet is my choice in this caliber. It puts game down within 30 yards every time given good shot placement.

The Claw bullet, the 3 rd one, is also good at 7x57 velocities, but will over expand at 7 mm Rem Mag velocities and so impair deep penetration. As can be seen the Sierra Gameking bullet lost ist entire lead core and penetration was shallow, and not a bullet I would pick. So what I am really saying is that it is not all CALIBER, but that a BULLET can make or break a particular caliber.

Warrior

I would´nt go for the 7x57 even it´s a REAL good Round...
MY choice would be the 7x64....
Loading 168grs Sierra MK´S will give you a great Target-Shooter, and toped with some of the Premium Hunting Pills....just go hunting...

Best

2RECON

kstepens

There are definitely some rounds that are more inherently accurate than others. That is why there are only a handful of benchrest calibers and a handful of 1000- yard calibers. If there was no advantage, trust me on this, they would not be sticking to the preferred few. I would also say that this is relatively unimportant in a hunting rifle, you just don't have the platform that is accurate enough to conduct a test. IMO, the 7x57 itself doesn't TEND to be as accurate as a .270, although individual rifles can be very good. I also haven't had any problem getting one to shoot 1-1.25 MOA, any of them. Some rifle caibers also tend to be more finicky about finding a load that shoots well, while some like the .308, .222, .220 Swift, and the .300 Win shoot about any powder and bullet combo well.

/

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Atkinson:
I have been told the .280 is not as inherently accurate as the .270, 06 and .308..Anyone want to comment on this?

well im having a 280 ackley built, actually it will be back in my possesion in under a week. im certainly hopeing i can keep it under half inch at 100yards with handloads. if i cant ill be blaming the scope and me first, not the cartridge

still no kills on my 7x64 w/ the 173 SPCE.
the 308 steyr is stacking them up like cordwood though.

quote:

What makes for accuracy is the shooting platform ie rifle barrel, action, bedding, trigger etc and most of all the shooter.

No doubt that precision comes at a price, every step of the way.

The barrel is probably the most critical component, when it comes to long-range precision shooting and that is why a good benchrest rifle will have a precision custom made barrel. Its uniformity of its groove diameter and twist rate, its perfect square cut crown and its precision cut chamber are all factors that distinguish itself from mass produced factory barrels. The throat is just as important - the line-up of the bullet in the chamber must be perfect with the bore. Just as a case should have a good fit with the chamber, a bullet should have a good fit with the free-bore. Al concentricity issues. To get the best from an action it must be blueprinted - that is what besnchrest shooters demand. Actions on hunting guns do vary a lot from type to type. K98 actions were designed for the military with its loose fit as it had to work in all weather conditions even in dirt trenches and dusty desserts. Target shooters pay close attention to bedding and select the best custom triggers that money can buy like Jewell and some others. Some factory triggers are atrocious and does give rise in pulled shots or lateral movement if they are too heavy.

Warrior

I am on my 2nd 280. My 1st was a Winchester Feather Wt that I let a friend talk me out of. It was a great shooter right out of the box. It loved 140gr Partions that I pushed within 150fps of a 7mm Rem Mag. It was a pure dream to carry in the mtns. when pursuing Aoudad.
My latest 280 is a new limited run Remington LSS. It just came back from being pillar bedded and a trigger job. Mounted a Zeiss 4.5x14x44 on it. Just need some time and decent weather to test some loads of 140gr Accubonds. I really have high expectations out of this rig. It is pretty light even with the laminated stock.

All things equal and in the field, and not on paper I doubt if you can tell any difference in trajectory or killing effect between the two. For that matter you could toss in the .30-06, 270, 308, 284, and a host of other calibers up to the 300s and not tell much difference but that would probably break some hearts here so I will keep that secret to myself, well maybe not.

Hey Warrior,
Those are some nice groups you shot with your new 7x57. I will trade my 308 for a 7x57 any day but I cannot find any takers. Which 100m tunnel range did you use?

To some of you that are of the opine that case design has no bearing on accuracy I would like to inform you that the best bench rest shooters disagree and all are of a mind that the short fat 22s and 6mms of today are inherently more accurate that the older rounds like the .222 and 223, and the bench rest records that have been shot are living proof of this.

Now like I said I have no clue if this applies to hunting rounds, but I do belive the .308 is probably more inherently accurate than say a 280 or 7x57, and the bench resters tell me that is so...

But the bottom line is I dont care because I have a .284 LW barrel and I intend to make a 7x57 or a 280 on my G33-40 action..thus the question..I may try the .280 as I have used the 7x57 on everything from duiker to Cape buffalo and thats the reason I may try something else..I love the 30-06 but I have shot so much with it that I felt the need to move on and have not used that great caliber for many years now, and its still gathering dust in my gun cabinet but it has a home forever...

Ray,

The matter is indeed puzzling, but the Benchrest shooters certainly prefer the 6mm PPC over other small-bores over 300 meters. Here are some aspects that may vary from one rifle/calicer set-up to another:

· Capacity and shape of the case, relative to the chamber and throat dimensions, which will result in a specific operating pressure – different for each cartridge and its bullet/load combinations.

· The relative burning rate of the powder which also differ for each cartridge.

· The amount of powder used and the percentage ‘case fill’ – being inter-active with the above.

· The diameter, weight, and the bearing length of the bullet yielding different resistance.

· Length and interior dimensions of the barrel which refers to precision tolerances, twist rate and its consistency, number and depth of grooves, smoothness of barrel, a square crown and consistent barrel harmonics (i.e. stress-relieved or not).

· Uniformity of primer ignition and intensity relative to the loading density of the powder. If a primer is too hot for a given powder load, it will ignite the powder too fast, which will cause the pressure curve's front end to be steeper. Steep enough to slam the bullet into the rifling too hard. Probably hard enough to significantly upset (deform) the bullet's back end that it won't shoot so accurate.

So, it is not quite so simple to explain, as cartridges do have different lengths, different capacities and they all yield different pressure levels, which contributes to the efficiency of the burning, whereas the shoulder angle has to do with convergence and the neck length to absorb the collision of hundreds of particles. Furthermore, the above need to be brought in line with different throat dimensions that will affect the chamber pressure as well, as it too forms part of the overall combustion volume. Each cartridge uses its own propellant to work optimally and there is no magic formula for that. As burning rates differ, we know that some propellants work better than others in a given cartridge, and in some cases Somchem do not have the equivalent propellant of overseas manufacturers. In Rifle Accuracy Facts by Harold Vaughn, he stated the effects of bullet "cant" and verified that ‘how the bullet enters the rifling’ has a very dramatic and predictable effect on accuracy. He also discusses throat diameter and alignment with the bore and states that nearly every factory chamber he has studied was deficient in this regard.

So, many factors seem to be at work and it seems the jury is still out on explaining exactly the accuracy phenomenon of the 6 mm PPC, rather than solely case design and dimensions. We need a universal truth across a range of cartridges, before we can say the theory works. The real test would be to mimic the dimensions of the 6 mm PPC in other cartridges and see if accuracy improvements will follow. For example, to redesign the 308 Winchester with a 30 degree shoulder and a 69.9 % convergence point in the case's neck, but never can the powder column be as short. Even if it cannot be mimicked, we do know that the 6 mm PPC design has hit a sweetspot. Perhaps the main reason is purely that it has a shorter and wider powder column in relation to its height, so that more powder is instantly ignited by the primer flame for a given depth, which presumably creates a more uniform burning of powder for a smoother pressure curve, which yields a smaller shot to shot variation.

Warrior

/

quote:

Originally posted by Rat Motor:
...I will trade my 308 for a 7x57 any day but I cannot find any takers....

That comes as no surprise, I would not trade GraceKelly for ParisHilton either

Im becoming more of the view that if you cant do it with a 7x57-154IB/160AB@2700+, it becomes time to dust off the 210-225gn.33806...
though if someone wanted more range,they might choose the combo of 280rem/338win. But the recoil of the 338win bothers me in the weight of rifle I like to carry.

I currently have three 7X57mm, and have never found this cartridge wanting. BUT, the .280 is better, almost equalling the 7mm Rem Mag. But I believe the 7X57mm, the 280, and the 7mm Rem Mag., ALL require tailored handloads to get the best out of all three of them. Factory ammo does none of them justice!

Woodjack
I'm like you, if I want more than a 7x57, I have to move to a .33.

Alf
The benchresters and anyone else in severe competition of any kind, use them not because they are in style, but because they are winning matches. It is no different than when a race engine builder starts winning with a particular intake/cylinder head combo. It isn't because it is in style that everyone wants to have one of his,it's because it works. Physics and equations won't explain why his go faster either, it is a combination of so many variables that only common sense applications of science and mechanics yields a combination that works.

quote:

That comes as no surprise, I would not trade GraceKelly for ParisHilton either

I suppose the difference lies in class and not in the mechanics.

Warrior

/

It would be nice to know where that tunnel range is that Warrior uses.

rnovi-

I know this is not related much to the discussion at hand, but have yu considered a 7-08? I have never owned a 280 or 7x57, but I do have 7-08 in a Browning BLR (really my only small bore rifle). I've personally found the accuracy and performance of the cal to be superb. It's big enough for elk and won't cause any meat damage on smaller game. The recoil is relative to shooting a 243. The 7=08 may not shoot as flat as the 270 or 7mm mags, but it's flat and accurate enough with plenty of killing power for anything in the lower 48. Just a suggestion.

jstevens- Physics can explain everything with shooting, no matter how obscure, if one knows all the variables and has the computational power to find a result.

maddenwh

I have no problem with that statement, except that I have never met anyone who knows and has control of all the variables. That is exactly the problem.

Alf

Did I say anything about case design? You said they used them because they were in vogue. I said they were using them because they were winning matches. Most won't question whether it is efficiency or whatever, just that they are winnning.

Its not uncommon for A well put together 7x57 to punch 1/2-3/4" 3 shot groups, without too much trouble. Thats more than enough for the ranges and game Id be pointing it at.

WJ

My not so well put together Ruger will do 3-shot triangles .7-.8 till it becomes boring. I just went with my son for some offhand practice. He broke four clay pigeons in a row at 100 yards offhand, then missed one. I think that will work for a hunting rifle.

Mr.Stevens, Thats what I like to hear

There maywell be some ARmchairEinstein able to tell the difference between a 1/2" 7x57 group and 1/2" sharp shouldered-straight walled .280AI group.
Im definitely not one of them.