280 AI Load Development

[Ridgerunner665]

"Better suited rifle for long range"...

For hunting, even at long range, the Kimber will do just as well as anything else provided it will shoot .75 MOA or so (honestly, 1 MOA is fine for 600 yard big game)...you only need 1 accurate shot (best case), but just about any plain old rifle will give at least 3 good rounds.

If you're wanting to reach beyond 800 yards...you'll need a better rifle shooting a bigger round.

I have a 280 Ackley, a Nosler M48 Custom, 24" magnum contour barrel, shooting 160 Nosler Accubonds at 3,000 fps...its accurate and repeatable....it won't shoot .001" groups, never has, never will...but it will shoot .75 MOA all day, every day.

The load does use Reloder 26...the overall length is 3.34".

No rifle anywhere, of any configuration, for any price, will kill a deer any deader at 800 yards.

 

[IDbound]

I have settled on 162 gr. ELD-x over 60 gr. of RL26. Speed is just over 2900 fps.

 

[Trentcamp]

Yeah that's what I'm thinking. 162 somewhere between 2900-3000 fps. Reloader 22 or 26

 

[PGJPJ]

I wouldn't mind trying the new Berger 175 grain Elite Hunter, probably with RL26. Berger has some load data additions on their web site for the standard 280 and RL26. Could probably use the max load as a starting load for the Ackley.

Might be a bit easier to load than the VLD.

 

[Trentcamp]

Ok so after some input from you guys I ordered a box of 162 ELD-X. But I started looking around and I'm not sure I'm impressed with the on game performance. I'm a 2 hole kinda Hunter and I see these coming apart and not penetrating completely through. Am I missing something or is what I'm seeing true? Now I'm thinking I should go with something like the Accubond. I also notice I don't see more Barnes used. Is there a reason? The 168 LRX looks pretty good in my opinion. I don't think I have the twist though.

 

[PGJPJ]

I think you don't see more Barns fans on this forum because these are mostly long range guys. There will be a point where the Barns just isn't going to expand enough when velocity drops down around 1800 fps (Barns will tell you the LRX is good down to 1600 fps, but that's probably their Marketing department talking). In my 280ai, 1800 fps is right around 600 yards.

But yes, the 168 LRX is going to need a 1:8 twist.

The 160 grain Accubond is going to be a stout bullet. Would be fairly easy to load, and would be plenty fine at the range your are looking for.

 

[ruby76]

This year in my 280 ai I made the switch to 162 eldx. I have a 24" 9.5 twist barrel and worked up to 59 grains of RL22 and have slight ejector marks. Accuracy isn't great but I ran out of time before hunting season. I need to try more seating depths but limited by mag length. I did shoot a mule deer with them at 215 yards, behind the shoulder and passed through. I have some H4831sc to try out next and also want to try out some RL26.

I also tried out the 168 LRX but my first lower charge of RL22 made them keyhole bad. I ended up pulling the rest of my rounds, figured the twist rate wouldn't work.

 

[Engineering101]

So lets talk bullets. I've been hunting since the 1950's and bullets have come a long way since then. The secret to getting DRT with Barnes bullets is to drive them over 3,000 fps. That makes the 168 LRX a bad choice in the 280AI even if you had the twist to use it. I'm not saying it wouldn't kill something at all but wont as good or as quick as light for caliber Barnes bullets. As was already mentioned the BCs tend to suck compared to other choices so I wouldn't use them past 500 yards. A few examples of this light for caliber approach, a friend who hunts moose in Canada every year. This year he hammered a nice bull with his latest setup - a 30-06 running a 130 grain Barnes. I run the 210 TTSX in my 338 RUM. With a double lung shot at 348 yards that load hammered a nice 6X6 bull elk. He hunched up big time when hit and went 20 yards. Same effect on a much smaller Montana whitetail. No meat damage either. I run the 80 grain TTSX in my 6mm Rem. Hopefully that gives you the picture. These bullets are really lethal when traveling 3,200 to 3,500 fps. I use Bergers for practice as they are easy to load for and accurate as anything out there plus have the good BCs - but they suck for hunting as they work really good some of the time. Some of the time isn't good enough for me. The ABLRs are a true long range bullet but are too soft if you happen to be close. So the current best compromise in my opinion are the ELD-Xs. The 162 grainer is a good choice in the 280AI for what you want to do. RL-26 should also work really well. By the way Alliant produces at least three distinct powder families. The original RL-22, RL-25 suck as they drift horribly with temp change. The more stable RL-26, RL-33 family are great powders that provide unmatched performance with moderate temp drift. The third family is the RL-16 and RL-23 which are supposed to be rock solid stable. I favor the RL-26 stuff as the performance is unbeatable and I do load development in the same temps in which the ammo will be used.

 

[ruby76]

Agreed for the lighter Barnes. My go to for many years In my 280 ai is 140, shot many moose and a few deer with them. I'm trying these newer heavier bullets mainly due to higher bc's as I'm trying to make my rifle dual purpose, hunting and long range on steel.

 

[PGJPJ]

Funny, this would bring you back full circle. The 145 grain LRX is probably just fine (like you currently have).

I am using the 168 grain Barns LRX on a cow elk hunt this year. My tag is good from now to the end of March. I'm at 2900 fps at the muzzle. We'll (hopefully) let you know how it does.

 

[Trentcamp]

Yeah I've been around the horn now. One good thing is I now have 140,150,and 160 grain bullets to play with and see what it likes. I'm primarily a whitetail Hunter but shoot premium bullets at them. Like I said earlier I like 2 holes in them and I think you owe it to the animal to make as clean of kill as possible. I wasn't sure if what I'm shooting was adequate for elk. I appreciate the info fellows. Keep it coming.

 

[284saum]

Funny, this would bring you back full circle. The 145 grain LRX is probably just fine (like you currently have).

I am using the 168 grain Barns LRX on a cow elk hunt this year. My tag is good from now to the end of March. I'm at 2900 fps at the muzzle. We'll (hopefully) let you know how it does.

168LRX (BC .550) @ 2900 fps muzzle. 500y = 2150 fps

145LRX (BC .486) @ 3100. 500y = 2230 fps

140TTSX (BC .412) @ 3150. 500y = 2130 fps

120TTSX (BC .373) @ 3350. 500y = 2190 fps

110TTSX (BC .319) @ 3450. 500y = 2090 fps


A lot of guys get hung up on muzzle velocity with Barnes. Look what they do downrange and lighter, isn't always better for expansion. Obviously the 168 LRX requires a fast twist rate to shoot the best and maxmimize its BC. I can't think of a good reason though to pick a 120gr TTSX over a 168LRX for hunting (not that the 120 wont perform)

 

[PGJPJ]

Cool, thanks!

If we all followed "rules and guidelines" we would never learn anything as a shooting community. I enjoy reading about people trying powders and bullets that push the boundaries of what people will tend to do. It's also part of what makes these forums great! A forum to share what we've learned, both successes and failures.

gun)

 

[Trentcamp]

By those numbers the 145 is still the better choice to 500 it seems. I'm going to try to shoot this weekend. The rain may finally hold off long enough to send a few. Where are you guys finding published data for the RL26 for the 280 AI? I can't seem to find it anywhere. I even sent Alliant an email.