I am using almost the same load as you. 58.5 gr H4831SC with 168 classic hunters. I could push it more but it shoots so nice why bother. If your load works good why change? I did a lot of research before I bought my 280AI and 4831 seemed to be the go tot powder.
cooper 280 ai
- Thread starter bubba41
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I am using almost the same load as you. 58.5 gr H4831SC with 168 classic hunters. I could push it more but it shoots so nice why bother. If your load works good why change? I did a lot of research before I bought my 280AI and 4831 seemed to be the go tot powder.
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
I hear what you are saying but There should be only 2 different chambers. The traditional 280 AI and the new SAMME 280 AI. everything else is a wildcat and should be recognized on the barrel
ID.
The fact that there may be someone changing ether the chamber dimensions or the New 280 AI factory ammo to more closely fit "ALL" 280 AI chambers or ammo bothers me even more.
Most good gunsmiths will not take liberties with a SAMME chamber without changing the ID to match the actual chamber.
In my opinion, the chamber should be one or the other and have ammo that has the proper head space for that chamber. OR Be designated as a wildcat chamber.
I have seen many cartridges that are similar and could be fired in another chamber without catastrophic failures, but they should not be fired in the similar chamber.
There is enough difference in the two chambers according to the reamer manufacture that made the new reamers for Nosler (SAMME) 280 AI, that unless the chambers are somewhere in between, the problems could be bad. if a persons rifle has a chamber that will handle both sizes of ammo, then it is neither the Ackley version or the SAMME version and someone has taken liberties with there chambering or ammo dimensions and created an even worse situation with a chamber that is not to a specific size or ammo that is a "Fit all" that fits neither within normal head space ranges.
I don't have an ax to grind with ether chamber as long as it is fed ammo that is the right size for proper head space in that chamber.
My concern is safety and normal brass life. So know what chamber you have and shoot the proper ammo. Simple
And To make a statement that there is no difference in the two is irresponsible and could be dangerous to those that don't know the difference. In an early post I posted the two SAMME specifications so it would be clear what the difference is. And in the two chamber specifications
the difference is clear.
Note: if you change the shoulder angle, the datum point no longer appliesand the neck shoulder junction becomes the dimension to head space on. The 280 rem has a neck shoulder dimension of 2.1924. The old 280 AI had a neck to shoulder dimension of 2.1884 (.004shorter than the 280 to aide in fire forming. The new SAMME 280 AI has a neck to shoulder dimension of 2.1742 . .018 shorter than the 280 rem and .014 shorter than the Old 280 AI. so if the old AI chamber is "Correct" you will have .014 head space if you use the new 280 AI ammo in it, instead of the normal .001 to .003.
head space. and you should not be able to chamber a new 280 Rem case in the new SAMME 280 AI chamber
After Nosler applied for the SAMME specification, the day It was excepted (04-10-2008) ALL chambers and ammo should be to that spec. anything before that date would be considered a wild cat. Fortunately most gunsmiths used the parent head space gauge (280 Remington)to chamber the 280 AI and fire forming did not create any issues. Now if a reamer maker makes anything other than the SAMME spec. He has to identify the reamer as a special grind by etching the information on the reamer.
Instead of calling the reamer a 280 AI It should be called a 280 Improved, or be given a wildcat name to make clear to all that It is what it is and not an Ackley improved and does not comply with the SAMME Specification.
I don't know what else to say except, " Do what you want and live with the consequences"
J E CUSTOM
The Oregonian
Well-Known Member
There is a good chance I would have a 280AI on order instead of a 30-06 if there was not so much confusion regarding the cartridge. Too bad it has ended up being so confusing.
yawn
Well-Known Member
I have no idea what you are saying here. I have not seen, mentioned or even thought of anything other then the two options. The simple fact is, in my rifle chambered by cooper in 280ai, nosler saami 280ai brass is a neat fit. If fires with no stretch at all and and I can comfortably and safely fire standard 280 rem ammo and brass.This is also the case with the other 5+ 280ai rifles I have been involved with. Im sorry this dosn't fit with your side of the discussion but its what I physically see and measure. It is not based no two different drawings made 22 years apart using different techniques.
Again, what is this third chamber you speak of? I do not see it, and with out giving it much thought Im not sure it would even be possible in this particular case. To repaeat my self my chamber is nothing in between, its a very nice fit for the saami spec.
If you think it irresponsible to claim there is no difference can I suggest you start a dialogue with the guys at gunsmith talk and tell them ( and us) where they went wrong in their demonstration. Keeping in mind these are the same guys that put out the warning in the first place. They went on to the physical test to prove it only to find the physical evidence actually proved the opposite , that there was no difference. Hard hard physical evidence. You can see it , touch it, measure it.
I also have no axe to grind here and I only continue the discussion out of mild curiosity and when I have a little spare time. Why? because there is to much conflicting information for me to be sure either way.
None of this changes the fact that that original chamber was designed to use standard 280rem brass and if the new saami chamber is in fact shorter, then there will be even less chance of case stretch so if the bolt will close on it then it should be fine to use the standard brass and ammo in either chamber as I and many others have been doing long before this fiasco hit the internet.
Always enjoy the discussion thanks.
I think Ill just have to spend some money on some gauges and finally prove it to myself one way or another .
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
I guess I will stop worrying about what ammo to shoot in any 280 AI.
Actually, you agree with the fact that there is a difference in the two chambers so I will stop making recommendations and leave it at that.
Also, to clear up who did the original warning about the difference, It was the reamer maker who warned Nosler and Nosler said they were not going to correct the problem, so the warning fell on deft ears And hear we are.
I did not intend to offend anyone by explaining the problem just clear up the potential for problems.
It has all been said and that is all that is necessary as far as I am concerned.
Again, sorry I may have offended anyone By quoiting them, because that was not my intention. It was to try and answer there quote without altering what they stated.
J E CUSTOM
yawn
Well-Known Member
No offence taken at all on my part , as I said I enjoy the conversation. My suggestion re dialouge with gunsmith talk was to possibly find out why their test results don't fit with the .014 difference theory, ie where they went wrong.
No I don't yet accept there is a difference, Im still looking for something a little more tangible to prove it either way
Heres a response from Nosler
Nosler FAQ - The 280 Ackley Improved ? which version do I have, and is it ok to shoot with factory ammo?
No I don't yet accept there is a difference, Im still looking for something a little more tangible to prove it either way
Heres a response from Nosler
Nosler FAQ - The 280 Ackley Improved ? which version do I have, and is it ok to shoot with factory ammo?
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
Hear are the two SAAME reamer drawings that may help.
Look at the bottom drawing on each cartridge, It is the reamer dimensions (The top drawing is the
Maximum dimensions for the loading of the commercial ammo.
http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Rifle/280 Ackley Improved.pdf
http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Rifle/280 Remington - 7mm Express.pdf.
When you do a comparison of the two you will see what the difference is.
keep in mind the .004 thousandths that most Smiths shorten the 280 Rem to chamber the "old wildcat version) when totaling the dimensions.
If this is still not enough, Call Dave Kiff @ PT&G (He made the reamers for Nosler), and with luck
he will tell the whole story.
Just to clarify, I am Passionate/anal about Head space and its importance for accuracy and safety
so I will chill as much as possible on this subject.
Thanks
J E CUSTOM
Look at the bottom drawing on each cartridge, It is the reamer dimensions (The top drawing is the
Maximum dimensions for the loading of the commercial ammo.
http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Rifle/280 Ackley Improved.pdf
http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Rifle/280 Remington - 7mm Express.pdf.
When you do a comparison of the two you will see what the difference is.
keep in mind the .004 thousandths that most Smiths shorten the 280 Rem to chamber the "old wildcat version) when totaling the dimensions.
If this is still not enough, Call Dave Kiff @ PT&G (He made the reamers for Nosler), and with luck
he will tell the whole story.
Just to clarify, I am Passionate/anal about Head space and its importance for accuracy and safety
so I will chill as much as possible on this subject.
Thanks
J E CUSTOM
yawn
Well-Known Member
Thousands of rounds have told me what I need to know for my personal use so this is just a point of curiosity for me, I'm chilled as a chilled thing
Yes the drawings above seem to show a difference. All the "pro difference: proponents quote this. The counter argument is that the new saami drawing was done with CAD for a CNC machine and used a slightly different datum for the neck/shoulder junction, than the older 280 rem,giving the appearance of a change but in reality they are the same. Gunsmith talks experiment seems to back this up with actual measurable data. No one has yet explained why they are wrong or put up anything tangible to counter it. All we get are more copies of the same drawings.
So who's right and who's wrong? Id kinda like to know and I'm a stubborn bugger.
This is Gunsmith Talks original warning
https://gunsmithtalk.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/280-ackley-improved-alert/
If you read the comments at the bottom , from oct 2010 untill Feb 2012 they also strongly believed there was a difference. They performed the test to prove it . Instead they proved the reverse. It was done with reamer and gauges from PTG.
So Ill ask again , if its wrong, where is their mistake?
Edd mine eats everything I feed it with no problems at all.
