• If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here

Whats Todays Thoughts On The 284?

I also had bad luck with the early Ballistic Tips. I will have to try the newer ones.
I sort of look at accubands as ballistic tips but bonded, I've got them shooting under 1/2MOA in a 7mm-08 so they should do the trick in the 284 as well. Good Shooting and let me know what the velocity turns out to be. Dave
 
Here is some info from Accurate shooter, it is a few years old and is about target shooting, but you might find something useful.
 
Thank You very much, a lot of good info and powder suggestions. Since I fully intend to use 130-140gr bullets for OAL and magazine fit, as well as less felt recoil, I need to do some powder experimentation to see what the gun likes with lighter bullets. Up here I don't see the long range shots either at local ranges or in any long range hunting application. Probably 300-350yds will be the most I encounter. Velocity on the other hand will be well above what I expected going in. Thanks again Axl Dave
 
I think it has to be on a long action as ypu mentioned and you can push the 160gr and 162gr bullets close to 2,800 fps. Its a nice classic carridge
It was a short action cartridge and there were 160 & 175 offerings in Hodgdon's #21 manual but I shoot a 6.5x284 and with all the newer long slender missile the long action is the better choice.
 
My current thoughts about the 284 are the same as back when it was, "do I buy the 280 Rem or the 270 Win.?" both were on sale and I walked away with the 270 win. I still have the same thoughts about the 7MM's; why bother? I had shot the 280 rem and found it lacking in accuracy and at the time selection of slugs. now that the tables are turned on the 277 slugs. The 277's are not produced widely as the 7MM. I still own my 270's and will not own a 7MM. I still wonder what ever happened to my Montana rifle it was a 277 wildcat off the 264 win/7mm Rem Mag case. I should make another one just to have that gun again. it was my go-to rifle.
 
It was a short action cartridge and there were 160 & 175 offerings in Hodgdon's #21 manual but I shoot a 6.5x284 and with all the newer long slender missile the long action is the better choice.

Yes it works better with long action for the longer bullets. I have several 7mm-08's, my 2 hunting ones are 700 short actions, but the one for Silhouette Competition is built on a 700 long action so I can seat those heavy match bullets a little further out.

I've been curious about trying the 6.5x284, Maybe a project in the future
 
I got in a big row here some while back. 7 saum. That compared to a 7 mag.The belt is evil guys. Even got called ignorant. That was special. I said the F class guys were backing away from the 7 saum because of erosion. My argument was the belt in these days was cosmetic. Capacity rules the day. Neck a 6.5 prc to 7. 284 capacity or very close in a more efficient case without a rebated rim. Hmmmm?
 
I got in a big row here some while back. 7 saum. That compared to a 7 mag.The belt is evil guys. Even got called ignorant. That was special. I said the F class guys were backing away from the 7 saum because of erosion. My argument was the belt in these days was cosmetic. Capacity rules the day. Neck a 6.5 prc to 7. 284 capacity or very close in a more efficient case without a rebated rim. Hmmmm?
When I first saw the 6.5 PRC I thought of it necked up to 7mm. The .284 is already established and the SAAMI specs neuter it with a short throat for light bullets in a short action. The 7x6.5 PRC would duplicate it but could be designed from the ground up for 175-180gr bullets. That would be a great cartridge as well. I'd still shoot my 284 though. I love that round
 
When I first saw the 6.5 PRC I thought of it necked up to 7mm. The .284 is already established and the SAAMI specs neuter it with a short throat for light bullets in a short action. The 7x6.5 PRC would duplicate it but could be designed from the ground up for 175-180gr bullets. That would be a great cartridge as well. I'd still shoot my 284 though. I love that round
Winchester in the 60,s always ran the longest case they could with the bullet seated very deep. Stupid
 
Winchester in the 60,s always ran the longest case they could with the bullet seated very deep. Stupid
Just an old way of doing things I guess. They took such an advanced case design and chose to ruin it haha. What they did made sense, but they could have done more with the .284 than what they did. Same with the new short mags.
 
Just an old way of doing things I guess. They took such an advanced case design and chose to ruin it haha. What they did made sense, but they could have done more with the .284 than what they did. Same with the new short mags.
Look at the model 70 now. A spacer in the box to make it a 3.34 length. Guess what? Drill out the spot welds and get the spacer out and you have a 3.6 box.But the only way you can get a 3.6 model 70 is the safari grade. A lot more money and unless you go to Africa you have no use for one besides Alaska. Bean counters. Think about it.If they had not been so dam stupid they could have made a 7 mashburn, 300 weaterby, 340, 375 weatherby clones. 458 lott
 
I had a NULA built in .284 last year. Shooting 160 Accubonds for elk. They work fine in the 3" mag box. 162 ELD's will have a long jump or single load. Killed a nice bull with it last October. Really happy with the rifle and caliber.
 
A clubmate here in New Zealand, built a 284 on a Savage action, for F-Open shooting. Very accurate and he reckons easy to tune loads. He got the WSM bug and pulled the 284 barrel. New bolt head, barrel and some factory loads. Shot 60.4 at 600yds with the 7WSM, so was very happy with his change. Brass is difficult to find here but Hornady brass arrived recently. Also Bertram brass is available occasionally.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top