# barrels



## dj405 (Mar 23, 2005)

HI 
new to site. need some input . i have a ruger m77 284 win barrel. pan on rebarrel to a 270. does any one know much about the montana barrels.
thank you doug


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

Before you do this, sell your ruger if it is factory chambered in 284 it is worth a bit of cash. There were not very many chambered in 284, and it would have a much better save value than if you rebarreled it. Then take the cash and purchase the gun and sights you wuld like, and save the rest for a nice hunt. Also, as a shooter of the 284, you are not going to gain much in the change of 284 to 270. The 284 and 270 are very simular, unless you are thinking about one of the short mag 270's then you would pick up some performance over the 284. But, I still think you would be better off selling the orginal 284 and purchasing what you would like. On the other hand, if orginals keep getting taken out of the market, guns like my 284 browning safari will just keep going up in value. If you reload, the 284 if a great round to work with, and with "wonder" bullets, it just gets better.


----------



## OneShotOneKill (Feb 13, 2004)

*The 284 Winchester action is too short for the longer 270 Winchester. Check with a reliable gunsmith yourself. You will have ejection and magazine length problems. I suggest reloading the 248 Winchester and you will be pleased with the results. The 284 Winchester will meet 280 Remington velocities and will outperform it in accuracy. The 284 Winchester will totally spank the 270 Winchester in everything velocity, accuracy and bullet weight choices. I love the 284 Winchester because of its 35 degree shoulder, much like the 40 degree Ackley Improved shoulder which burns slow powder efficiently and offers superior accuracy.

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/284win.php
http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/280rem.php
http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/270win.php
.*


----------



## .17remman (Dec 7, 2004)

OSOK,
Once again you have let your intelligence shine through. Too bad there is a tinted window where fact and fiction meet.
The velocity of the .270 Winchester equals that of the .284 Winchester, and also has a greater ballistic coefficient, which means more downrange energy. Does this mean that the .270 Win. is better? Not necessarily. It's about personal preference. 
The 5th edition of Hornady Handbook for Reloaders states that you can put 62 grains of H-4831 behind a 130 grain bullet and it will shoot 3100 fps. I have used this load through my Remington 700 BDL with a 24" barrel and it averages 3185 fps through my chronograph. 
The .284 is also a fine cartridge, and has a unique attribute in that the brass uses a rebated rim. 
Personally, I would keep the .284 Winchester, because it is unique and is inherently accruate.


----------



## OneShotOneKill (Feb 13, 2004)

*.17remman = Silly lad!

Ballistic coefficient, what weights are you comparing between .277 and .284 bullets?

Thank you, we all know the 284 Winchester is a rebated rim, that's why the bolt face will function on the 30-06 Springfield case head.

No, the 270 Winchester will come really close but not match the velocity and accuracy of the 284 Winchester if you are staying within the manufactures maximum charges!

Hornady isn't the manufacture for Hodgdon powder. Look at the Hodgdon website for the 270 Winchester with 130 grain bullets the maximum charge of H-4831 is 60.0 grains!

Remember; please stay within the maximum charges for your safety and the others around you, plus your firearm will last longer. Just because you may not see visual high pressure indicators isn't a smart way of accurately calculating your actual pressure! I suggest to contact Hodgdon and send samples of your own hand loads to be tested by the professionals. Hint, more velocity doesn't always mean better accuracy.

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/270win.php
http://www.hodgdon.com/contact.php

Have a nice day!*


----------



## dj405 (Mar 23, 2005)

Thanks for the information.
I should have explain myself better. the ruger m77 that was rebarrel once before , in the 284. the reason is finding shell , the rugerm77 that i have is a long action.


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

This is a great excuse to start reloading!!!!! The 284 is a great chambering, and it is also somethng you don't see everyday. If however you don't want to start reloading, (the cost of re-barreling and other assorted bedding and such) would go a very ling way to gettng you a top reloading outfit. But, if yoiu already have a standard length action, the 270 is a fine choice with factory ammo available almost everywhere. Other top choices would be 25-06 if deer sized game is likely to be the largest you will hunt with said gun, 280, 30-06 35 Whelen 338-06. Also, with the ruger 77, you can have the bolt face opened up and go with the standard action magnum choices of 300 win, 338 win 7 mag ect, this would only add about $50-60 in cost for you, and would add to the choices that would be available to you.


----------



## iwantabuggy (Feb 15, 2005)

I'm with Whelen..... Reload. :sniper:

It will increase your knowledge, skill, and pleasure in the shooting sports.[/quote]


----------



## iwantabuggy (Feb 15, 2005)

I differ with OSOK. The difference between the 270 and the 284 is not worth arguing about. There is more difference between individual guns than there is between the potential of the two calibers. If your gun is a shooter, keep it. If not, sell it and get a different one. Re-barreling is probably going to be too expensive. If you can justify a re-barrel job, then you can just as easily justify a reloading setup.... which is what I would recommend.

Mr. OSOK, If one is going to use books to determine chamber pressure he could be doing something very dangerous. Other than visible pressure signs (including a loss of accuracy, which is visible) how else would one accurately measure chamber pressure, since every gun is different? The chamber pressure for any given powder charge will be different in every gun. I have a 7x57 in which I shoot a Sierra Game King, 150gr, backed by 46.7 gr of IMR4350. This is the best load I have found for this gun, and it consistently yields sub 1" groups (more than adequate for hunting). The measured velocity from that gun/bullet/powder combination is 2849. My books only show that bullet/powder combination at 2730 with a max load of 48 gr of IMR4350. As you can see, I have much higher velocity than the books would indicate is possible at max charge, with a lower powder charge. Does the fact that my gun is shooting faster than the books show mean I have excessive pressure? I don't think so. I have slowly worked my way up to 51.0 (not BS) grains of powder, 3 gr over the max recommeded load (by Nosler) with only slight signs of excessive pressure (slightly flattened primer, and a loss of accuracy). I have another book that shows that powder, bullet combination is safe up to 49 gr. of IMR4350 (IMR book). Did it cause severe damage to my gun? No. Neither did 51.0 gr. The books are only recommendations/refrence material and all data should be used with careful consideration. Never trust only one source of information, start low and work your way up. Your gun will let you know when the pressures are right, (or wrong) if you watch for the pressure signs. In fact, you MUST watch for the pressure signs. Some guns won't handle the recommeded maximum loads, thats why every company that publishes reloading data says to start with the minimum load and work up, when pressure signs are noticed (including a loss of accuracy) then back off a bit (a gr. or so). That should put you near the correct maximum pressure rating.

Remember; please stay within the maximum charges for your safety and the others around you, plus your firearm will last longer. Just because you may not see visual high pressure indicators isn't a smart way of accurately calculating your actual pressure! I suggest to contact Hodgdon and send samples of your own hand loads to be tested by the professionals. Hint, more velocity doesn't always mean better accuracy.

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/270win.php
http://www.hodgdon.com/contact.php

Have a nice day![/b][/quote]

Oh yeah, thanks for all the lessons on ethics....... NOT! :eyeroll:


----------



## OneShotOneKill (Feb 13, 2004)

*dj405,

I suggest re-barreling to 25-06 Remington, 270 Winchester, 280 Remington, 30-06 Springfield, 338-06 or 35 Whelen or start hand loading the 284 Winchester! Have fun!!!

Nhunter,

Animals being shot with the 284 Winchester or 270 Winchester cartridges with the same weight bullet will not know the difference, but there a distinctive difference between them that's important enough to professionally educate certain individuals. I don't argue, I teach! Why are you talking about differences between calibers? I was referring to distinctive cartridges not calibers!

Did I say if you hand load at or below maximum manufacture charges you will have excessive pressure? The answer is NO! If you are exceeding powder manufacture load data then you are an unsafe hand loader. I only rely on the specific powder manufacture load data, not what Lee, Blue Press, Lyman, Nosler or Hornady says.!

Of course there are going to be different velocities and pressures between chambers. There are so many factors that can changes these events. Barometric pressure, temperature, altitude to name a few. No one can duplicate the manufactures load test, because they have the equipment and facilities and professional expertise to properly perform these tests. Once again, visual pressure indicators are warning signs, not a gauge for safe or unsafe ammunition.

The only accurate way to test your ammo is send it into the manufacture like I do. Don't rely on visual signs! I suggest you contact Hodgdon/IMR, Accurate or whatever appropriate powder company for the powder you use and send them samples of your hand loaded ammo. Then you will see if you are truly beyond the safe zone, but they will probably ask you what you loads are and tell you to stay within manufacture load data. They send me extensive reports on all my hand loads, so I do know the only true safe way.

Warning young man, if you continue to practice unsafe hand loading then you will experience a failure someday. I only hope innocent people will not be hurt during this catastrophic event from the ignorance of one person.*


----------



## iwantabuggy (Feb 15, 2005)

Thanks for setting me straight, Dad.


----------



## DuaneinND (Jan 22, 2005)

I have talked to a couple of "owners" both are satisfied with the quality and accuracy of their Montana barrel.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I only rely on the specific powder manufacture load data, not what Lee, Blue Press, Lyman, Nosler or Hornady says.!


Don't powder manufactures test their powders in pressure test barrels which are stronger in all areas? The reloading manuals I have will show the particular brand of gun and length of barrel a rounds load data was tested in, such as T/C 10 inch barrel or Marlin 1895, so on and so on. Personally I have more faith in the reloading manuals than what the powder manufacture was able to achieve in a special barrel. Just my opinion.


----------



## OneShotOneKill (Feb 13, 2004)

*Well of course they use pressure barrels! That's why they are able to push to the extremes. Non-powder company reloading manuals sometimes go over the powder manufactures recommended limits and this is entirely unsafe!*


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Well of course they use pressure barrels! That's why they are able to push to the extremes. Non-powder company reloading manuals sometimes go over the powder manufactures recommended limits and this is entirely unsafe!


Let me see if I understand your reasoning here ................ powder manufactures use pressure barrels so they are able to push to the extreme in their figures. And you find that acceptable data to use in your standard rifle barrel. Sorry, in my opinion that is a disaster waiting to happen. Only question would be will it be sooner or later. I find it interesting also you believe non powder reloading manuals sometimes push beyond safe limits. I've never run into this situation myself but maybe you might be so kind as to cite a reference for this as I'm sure this would be of great interest to all.


----------



## OneShotOneKill (Feb 13, 2004)

*Gohon,

Son, you need to talk to the powder manufactures. Give them your reload data and see how they cut it apart if you are beyond their maximum charges. You can freely compare various loads with non-powder and powder loads on your own.*


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Son, you need to talk to the powder manufactures. Give them your reload data and see how they cut it apart if you are beyond their maximum charges. You can freely compare various loads with non-powder and powder loads on your own.


OK fine ............... one of the most important things about reloading is safety and if you can't or won't share the data you claim then so be it. I'll certainly give it the credit it deserves. Thanks anyway............


----------



## OneShotOneKill (Feb 13, 2004)

* Gohon,

Obviously safety is the most important part of any activity and not limited to reloading!

My reloading data doesn't have any hidden secrets. If anyone thinks he has something new in reloading, it literally takes me a week to stop laughing! If you want to have all my loading data, just follow Hodgdon, IMR and Accurate powder data religiously and you will have it! I am certainly not looking for any type of approval from you or anyone!*


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

OneShotOneKill said:


> I only rely on the specific powder manufacture load data, not what Lee, Blue Press, Lyman, Nosler or Hornady says.!


I much prefer the load data from the bullet manufacturers, they tend to test several different powders and list the ones that gives the best results with that particular bullet. If you use the data from a specific powder maker, you handicap yourself to the use of their powder. Also according to my cronograph data, the powder manufacturers tend to overstate the velocity that you will achievewith their powder, the bullet manufacturers are much closer to what is actually achieved. This really makes sense as the bullet manufacturers don't really care what powder you use, the powder manufacturers most definately do.

JMHO

huntin1


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

OneShotOneKill said:


> If you want to have all my loading data, just follow Hodgdon, IMR and Accurate powder data religiously and you will have it! I am certainly not looking for any type of approval from you or anyone!


I don't want your load data, I didn't ask for your load data. I don't need your load data. What I did ask for was data to support this statement from you......"Non-powder company reloading manuals sometimes go over the powder manufactures recommended limits and this is entirely unsafe". That's what you said and it is a very serious charge if true. If this is true then everyone should be made aware of it including the publishers of the reloading manuals. If you don't have the data to support the charge that reloading manuals are sometimes unsafe then what you claim is nothing but a load from you, and as I stated before I'll give it all the attention it deserves. Do you understand what I am asking now?????????????


----------



## OneShotOneKill (Feb 13, 2004)

*Gohon,

I never have to support my statements to you or anyone! If you choose not to believe its not my problem! Feel free to re-read my above post and you will have all the information for your own research unless you only own one reloading manual, so sad! Do you understand?

Have a super day!*


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I never have to support my statements to you or anyone! If you choose not to believe its not my problem!


Didn't mean to cause you to get your panties in a wad but yes, I as well as everyone perfectly understand the value of your information now. And yes it is your problem as well as everyone else when some know it all makes a blanket statement accusing reloading manual companies of dangerously putting out false information. If you can't back up that kind of claim then it is nothing but pure hog wash and deserves to be corrected before someone stupidly follows your advice and hurts themselves.


----------



## OneShotOneKill (Feb 13, 2004)

*dj405,

Are you staying with the 284 Winchester?

Gohon,

You are a confused little man!

Don't worry about me I will continue to prevail. If you do your own research you will find what I am talking about! Nothing I have said could ever get anyone hurt. The complete opposite is the truth, I informed everyone to stay within the powder manufactures maximum load data and that is the only safe data published. I never post any load data, because it is clearly unsafe and I wouldn't want to make a typo and put someone's life or firearms in jeopardy.*


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

From another thread

I don't remember which form it was in, but someone (OSOK I think) said he pays little attention to manuals by bullet makers, he relies on manuals by the powder makers. I feel just the opposite. All companies have the equipment to test (I will purchase my own strain gauge shortly for my own testing). I have about ten reloading manuals, but prefer those by bullet manufactures. The reason: For example: A load of 47 gr of Varget for a 150 gr bullet out of a 308 will vary greatly by bullet construction. Thin jacket soft core bullets obdurate more easily and to a greater extent than thick jacket bullets. This raises breach pressures at lower loads. Bullet manufactures manuals test their bullets. I was counting up my bullets and I had 138 boxes of 100, six boxes of 500, and four boxes of 1000. For that reason I need a few kinds of powder, and a bunch of manuals. I have manuals from powder manufactures, but they all tout their brand and exaggerate the velocities. Bullet manufacture data is more realistic in that they more closely match my chronograph.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> You are a confused little man!


Nope ....... not confused at all. Since you made a statement that reloading manuals put out unsafe data I simply asked you for proof. Now that I know it's not a question that you won't support that claim, but more a fact you can't support it because it is made up on your part, I won't bother to ask you again.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon

I think all the reload manuals have safe loads. All are so afraid of liability that they have backed way off of older manuals. You should see the loads in my old Speer (1956 I think).

Also, sending your loads to a powder manufacture is nearly worthless. If you don't check the pressure in your chamber you don't know what is going on. I have a Remington 700P that I sent in and had the barrel turned in and rechambered. The chamber is now .002 over minimum. I have had to back off my old load 1.5 grains of Varget with 168 gr SMK.

It may make you feel safe sending your loads to the powder manufacture for testing, but in reality it does little for you.

Many powder manufactures do not list the brand of bullet used in their tests. For example when Hodgdon mentions 150 gr bullet for a 308 Winchester what bullet are they talking about? Of all the manuals I have the Sierra and Nosler are the ones I turn to most often. These people test all the powders they list with their bullets. Much safer than the powder manufacture manuals.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Gohon I think all the reload manuals have safe loads. All are so afraid of liability that they have backed way off of older manuals.


I agree ............... only reason I pushed for information from OSOK was because I have dozens of manuals on the book shelf and if some of them contained unsafe data I'd like to know which one's. For some reason he doesn't want to back up such a claim so I guess that's that. I think Speer and Sierra are the two I rely on the most. Thing I like about both of them is not only do they show the brand of powder, brand of bullet but the manufacture and model of the rifle used for testing that caliber. Every once in awhile I stumble onto the same gun I'm actually loading for.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon

Up to date reload manuals are all safe. Like OSOK none of us advocate going beyond safe loads. The difference is your not in a rush to portray yourself as Mr. Safe to gain public admiration. OSOK is a knowledgeable person that would be extremely interesting to converse with if he could get over the condescension. I don't care if people are a common Joe Blow or a famous outdoor writer you and I are still entitled to our opinions, and sometimes the hot shots are wrong.

Case in point: if your loads are within manual recommendations it does you little good to send them to a powder manufacture unless you send your rifle with it for testing on a strain gauge. Same model rifles made the same year can show some variance in chamber dimensions. Factory tolerance for head space is + or - .005. Five thousandths of an inch doesn't sound like much, but it changes things very much. I like mine within minimum specs. My chamber pressures go up slightly, and I have to back off my loads. I do however get approximately the same velocities, and I can reload my brass many more times.

All these things said, powders do change some over the years. I would never use my old 1956 manual for reloading today. As a matter of fact not all powders sold by companies are made by those companies. Many times powder sold under a given name are made by different companies over the years.

I always take OSOK seriously, but I will respect his knowledge when he respects others, and looses the crayons. The colors are a psychological tool to tell you that what he is saying is more important than what anyone else has to say. Arrogance, or little boy attitude? I don't know and I don't care. Have a good day Gohon.


----------



## OneShotOneKill (Feb 13, 2004)

*Gohon,

Ok, lets look at the 270 Winchester!

Lyman 47th Edition, page 240 look at what the maximum charge is for 150-grain bullet using H-4831.

Lyman 48th Edition, page 181 look at the adjusted but still over manufactures maximum charge for 150-grain bullet and using H-4831

Now look at Hodgdon's 2004 Annual Manual, page 84 and you will locate the correct maximum charge for 150-grain bullet using H-4831.

 I don't include the powder charges, because I don't want to publish dangerous data. What cartridge do you want to tackle next?

Plainsman,

There is some truth in your words!*


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

OSOK, I appreciate your reply back but in all honesty all I see represented here is simply a difference in maximum charge amounts by different companies in different books. You have to take into account the test system used for each one, and thus there is no indication that any one of these load data amounts would be unsafe, even if one is higher than the other.

Tackle any cartridge next you wish but there is no facts supporting unsafe loads .................. just different data with all being safe if used as directed.


----------



## OneShotOneKill (Feb 13, 2004)

*Not true!*


----------

