7MM Express load data

[EOD3]

Hi Guys, anyone have load data for the 7MM Express?

I have a boat load of data for the 280 Remington but the Express was typically loaded to higher pressures because it was a bolt-gun cartridge. An help appreciated.

EOD3

[Mtnfolk75]

I believe the Remington 7mm Express and the .280 Remington are the same cartridge. Remington changed the name for marketing purposes, just like they did with the .244 Remington/6mm Remington. I always heard the 7mm Express/.280 name change was because people were getting data and ammunition confused with 7mm Remington Magnum.

[EOD3]

The confusion is certainly true. The issue, as I understand it, is that Remington legitimized the 7MM/06 as the 280 Remington and offered it in their semi-auto rifle (with lower pressures). When they re-branded the cartridge as the 7MM Express, it was offered only in bolt guns with correspondingly higher pressures.

I don't have reloading data old enough to verify the charge weights for these cartridges which is why I'm here in the first place.

[runfiverun]

they originally called it the express then just about dropped the round then brought it back as the 280 remington.
the rounds story pretty closely mirrors the 6mm remington originally called the 244 only with a slower twist rate which made it an over sized varmint rifle.

[Uncle R.]

It was first called .280 - then called 7mm Express - then back to .280 again.
I always thought 7mm Express was the better name - but then I'm not a marketing guy. Whatever you call it it's an excellent cartridge and has some advantages over the .270, especially if you load your own ammo. Unfortunately my only specimen in that caliber was a Ruger rifle and it shot about as good as all of my other Ruger rifles - which is to say "Not very." It's long since gone down the road. One of these days I ought to put my brass and dies up for sale, but I guess I keep thinking maybe some day I'll stumble across another .280 to try out.
<
Uncle R.

[Hardcast416taylor]

I once bought a custom 98 Mauser chambered for the 7mm Express. Along with it came a bunch of loaded rounds and quite a few new cases all marked 7mm Express. The loaded rounds were loaded with Speer 145 gr sp bullets and shot very accurately from that Mauser.Robert

[Mk42gunner]

The .280 Remington is not quite the same as a 7mm-'06, due to Remington pushing the shoulder forward by 0.050" (IIRC). This was supposedly done so the round would not fully chamber and lock in a .270 Winchester. Truth or rumor, strange things happen and once a story is told, it doesn't get untold.

Big Green renamed the round 7mm Express in the late 1970's and it stuck around for a few years, I don't know if they loaded the factory rounds to any higher pressure or not.

I remember reading that the reason it was re-renamed .280 Remington was because Darwin Award candidates were buying Remington 7mm Express ammo to use in their 7mm Remington Magnum rifles. 'But, but, what do you mean I can't use 7mm Remington ammo in my 7mm Remington rifle???'

I don't remember for sure if the name was 7mm Express Remington or 7mm Remington Express, I can see how somebody that isn't real familiar with guns could get confused; especially since Express and Magnum are both terms used for heavier than normal shotgun shells.

Too bad they didn't just legitimatize the 7mm-'06 back in the fifties and let the chips fall where they may.

Robert

[claude]

The issue, as I understand it, is that Remington legitimized the 7MM/06 as the 280 Remington and offered it in their semi-auto rifle (with lower pressures)

None of the other pumps, or semi's require lower pressure rounds, logic would dictate the the .280/7mm express in either pump or semi would be no different. Additionally, there are no warnings in any reloading books dictating lower pressure loads for the 7mm express. The Remington series of semis were not built to a lesser standard, they are built to sustain sammi pressures, 60,000 psi in the case of the .280/7mm express.

[Motor]

None of the other pumps, or semi's require lower pressure rounds, logic would dictate the the .280/7mm express in either pump or semi would be no different. Additionally, there are no warnings in any reloading books dictating lower pressure loads for the 7mm express. The Remington series of semis were not built to a lesser standard, they are built to sustain sammi pressures, 60,000 psi in the case of the .280/7mm express.

claude. You are absolutely correct. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2 THERE NEVER WAS only the name was changed.

I used to compete with a Ruger M77V (heavy barrel varmint) in high power rifle silhouette. That rifle was stamped 7mm Express. Yeah it was a Ruger and yeah it was super accurate and maintained that accuracy after receiving a new factory installed replacement barrel.

What a versatile caliber. The thing was deadly with everything from 120gr HP to 175gr big game bullets. I still have one. Its a Remington .280 Mountain Rifle. I got it new back in the early 90s.

Motor

[Hardcast416taylor]

I found that my Mauser built 7 Express liked AA-4350 powder near max by manual listing for 280 Rem along with Winch. primers and the Speer 7 mm 145 spitzer BT, it absolutely made shotgun patterns if plated brass was used.Robert

[white eagle]

Eo
like the others have already told you
these two are the very same cartridge
I do believe that you may be under the impression that the
7mm express has lower pressure is because when Remington introduced the round they mated it with a pump and semi auto
this info is from memory but I believe that is the way it happened
if you really want a hoot rechamber your barrel to 280 Ackley Improved
there is however nothing at all lacking about the 280 Remington no matter what you call it

[GabbyM]

Since any data was listed as 7mm Express. Use of electronic strain gages to accurately measure p.s.i. instead of copper crush units has come into use. Many of the old loads have been shown to be on the high side of psi. Our best load data is the newer data and that would be for 280 Rem. any loads on the high end would have to be determined with your individual firearm. How tight your bore and chamber are makes a huge difference.

For instance. Last time I re barreled one of my 243's. The new barrel would not shoot my left over ammo. Had to about bruise my palm banging the bolt handle up. Old barrel had lost 300 fps so I started charging it up with a book max load of WW760. Brand new barrel was a hand cut chamber with snug throat and bore just on size. Not under size. No matter book listed max loads were way to hot. That's why the book states to reduce by 10% then work up. Lucky for me I only had about one hundred eighty rounds to knock apart.

[dh2]

my speer manual from the 80's show that the .280Rem. and the 7mm Express are one in the same

[Motor]

my speer manual from the 80's show that the .280Rem. and the 7mm Express are one in the same
I happened to be looking through my Hodgdon manual printed in 1988 tonight. It has "280 REM. OR 7MM REM. EXPRESS" also. As does my other manuals from that era.

Motor

[dh2]

www.saami.org/.../280 Remington - 7mm Express.pdf
saami is also showing them one in the same

[jsizemore]

The story goes that Remington slowed the twist rate of the 280 to be competitive with the 270 Win and rebadged it the 7mm Express. Nowdays they's the same thing.

[crash87]

Load data for the 280 listed at lower pressure in difference to being loaded in pumps/autos?
I can see your confusion and insight, but most, if not all data, will let you know such things. for instance,
Hornady's manual lists it as 280 Remington/7mm express, one in the same and the load I use is spot on with their data, IMR 4831/ 139 gr, SP at 3000 fps. That also would be with a 22" barrel.
Hodgdon, lists pressures with their data, compare it to the 270 Win. You can, as there is no reason not to.
I've used the 280 since my purchase of a Remington Mountain Rifle the 1st year of introduction, 1986 I believe. Hornady 139gr SP, both flat base and BT. Noslers 1st production run of Ballistic tips ,150gr, took a fine mule deer. A 160 gr. Partition took my 1st and best elk, the rest of the whitetail. mule deer, antelope, coyotes have fallen to the hornady. Downloaded data, pressures taken from manuals intended for pumps and autos? Not according to my Chronograph, Oehlers fine model 35P which has been double checked for accuracy with my model 33, spot on btw.
Use your boatload of data you have for the 280, your already there.
crash87

[UBER7MM]

they originally called it the express then just about dropped the round then brought it back as the 280 remington.
the rounds story pretty closely mirrors the 6mm remington originally called the 244 only with a slower twist rate which made it an over sized varmint rifle.

For bolt rifles the original 280 Rem had a 1:10 barrel. The 7mm Express Rem was specified for a tighter twist either a 1:9" or 1:9.25" barrel. Dimension wise, only the head stamp on the ammo is different. 7mm Express might be rated for a higher pressure and meant for bolt actions only. I just don't remember. If you have any 7mm Express Rem brass, it'll be rare by now.

[376Steyr]

Checked my copy of "Pet Loads" by Ken Waters and found he did a write up when the 7mm Express was introduced. Per Waters:
1. The 280 Rem was initially loaded to lower pressures in consideration of the 740 autoloader.
2. 7mm Express was supposed to be loaded hotter for use in bolt actions
3. The sample 7mm Express ammo he tested was barely faster than the lot of older 280 ammo he had.

Waters did do a table of his experimental loads, which pepped up the 7mm Express velocities a little over the factory 280 levels, including one that got a 145 grain going 150 fps faster than the factory equivalent.

My 2 cents (and pure speculation): As they were going into production the Remington managers realized that "hot" 7mm Express ammo would fit into 280 autoloaders, got worried about liability, and so the ammo that was shipped was just 280 ammo with a new headstamp.

Looking back, Remington should have domesticated the 280 Ackley Improved, which wouldn't chamber in the old autoloaders, put it into a lighter M700 Mountain Rifle version (something that was also still in the future), and then watched them sell like hotcakes.

[EOD3]

Thanks 376Steyr, I don't have a copy of Waters' Pet Loads. Any chance you could pass-on some of the load data?

[Geraldo]

Hi Guys, anyone have load data for the 7MM Express?

I have a boat load of data for the 280 Remington but the Express was typically loaded to higher pressures because it was a bolt-gun cartridge. An help appreciated.

EOD3

Are you trying to get more out of .280 by loading it to old Express data?

[376Steyr]

Thanks 376Steyr, I don't have a copy of Waters' Pet Loads. Any chance you could pass-on some of the load data?

PM sent. Every handloader should have a copy, as the article on how to estimate chamber pressures alone is worth the price. Make sure you get the "Complete Volume" as earlier editions were meant to have "Supplements" added to them as Mr. Waters published more articles.

[EOD3]

Are you trying to get more out of .280 by loading it to old Express data?

Not likely, I rarely load any cartridge to "book" maximum as I'm a big fan of "heavy for caliber" bullets at modest velocity. My memory (NOT reliable anymore) is telling me that when the Express first came out, the advertised velocities were pretty close to the 7MM Mag.

This trip down memory lane is being caused by one of my sons trying to convince me that I need to retire my 280 and replace it with a 7MM Mag. He should know better. The only magnum rifle cartridge I shoot now is the 300 Mag.

[Geraldo]

Tell your son to read some data on .280, .280AI, and 7mm Rem Mag. I remember the 7mm Express (great cartridge name) but I'd guess the advertising was pretty optimistic on velocity. My next Encore barrel will be a .280AI.

[oldblinddog]

My memory (NOT reliable anymore) is telling me that when the Express first came out, the advertised velocities were pretty close to the 7MM Mag.


They were not. I had just previous to the 7 express coming out purchased a rifle marked .280 Remington and fired factory ammo of both headstamps in the rifle while I owned it. There was no difference. I also owned a rifle in 7 Rem Mag, so I was well aware of that difference. It is my opinion that the .280 is the better cartridge. Just use current data for the .280 and work your way up to an accurate load with the bullet of your choice. 139-145 gr bullets are outstanding in this cartridge, but 160's work well when called for.

But, just to put an end to any doubt, they are the SAME cartridge and loading data is interchangeable.

[EOD3]

They were not. I had just previous to the 7 express coming out purchased a rifle marked .280 Remington and fired factory ammo of both headstamps in the rifle while I owned it. There was no difference. I also owned a rifle in 7 Rem Mag, so I was well aware of that difference. It is my opinion that the .280 is the better cartridge. Just use current data for the .280 and work your way up to an accurate load with the bullet of your choice. 139-145 gr bullets are outstanding in this cartridge, but 160's work well when called for.

But, just to put an end to any doubt, they are the SAME cartridge and loading data is interchangeable.

You know, even when there's 20 or 30 pages of posts in a thread I, at least, "skim" looking for members who's opinions I respect. The practice helps me avoid unnecessary embarrassment.