![]() @ 07:50 am (GMT) |
MARK SCHOFIELDWith the background of having owned, loaded for, and hunted with .280 Remington chambered rifles, I read with interest the article in the knowledge base named .280 Remington.There is so much duplication of detail that its impossible to make sense of the article. And SO much B.S. put forth about wounding and brittle bullets that it is evident that the only shots the writer ever fired were from his PC. And one bullet is good for up to 200 yards, but others are qualified to take game at 700 yards. Seriously now, boys... The intro of the article is good and has factual information, but the bullet and load discussion is just a bunch of space filling word salad. Did you use ChatGPT to fill the empty void? It appears so. Anyhow, I think some editing is in order. Knowledge Base is the wrong category for this article. |
![]() @ 08:45 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: .280 Remington articleHi Mark. Sounds like you have a lot of experience with the 280. Ive never used it, although its resurgence in popularity as the 280AI makes it an attractive option for those of us considering a milder alternative to a 7mm magnum. If, based on your expertise, you have specific disagreements with the content of the article, such as the performance of certain bullets, let us know what they are. I reread the article and concluded the cartridge is a good medium power choice for medium sized game. That tells me all I need to know. I believe the author actually tested the cartridge on live game. |
![]() @ 05:04 pm (GMT) |
VinceRe: .280 Remington articleCongratulations are in order Nathan, for using ChatGPT many years before its inceptionCheers Vince |
![]() @ 02:16 pm (GMT) |
Matthew BeitzelRe: .280 Remington articleChat GPT doesnt seem to work on a hill next to the number of animals that has gone into this knowledge set.The bullet doesnt know which cartridge it came out of and neither does the animal. A 7mm 139 grain SST mm bullet out of 7mm08 does the same thing at around 350m that a 7mm rem mag does at out past 500m |
![]() @ 06:05 am (GMT) |
Fernando CundinRe: .280 Remington article - greasing the grooveEmpirical knowledge can and will often do well in most situations when regarding evaluative positions and even qualitative arguments on a matter, but these are also good starting points for deeper and still unfinished investigations on toward a thorough understanding of a subject.If one works with a vast array and well of information on a subject then there is a trend toward an implied and construed on average positional reference for context and meaning, but there is also included the working requirement to just so often (if not regularly) test assumptions being just that and demanding a clean scrub of the base levels of argument and relative knowing. A good place to start into any subject is an operative regular and sound practice. Contesting anything as a working reference and body of knowledge as categorically something only definitional then puts the position of any empirical sourced argument in suspect and even suspicious grounds. Students soundly embrace the process and engage both truthfully and with control over bias as they garner more acumen. I retain these habits now well on after I have even mastered some of the basics, for I am never so assured as to ignore the secret weapon of the basics and not return to the square and solid position of clear observation and practice. Best FC |
![]() @ 07:31 am (GMT) |
MARK SCHOFIELDRe: .280 Remington articleQuote: Congratulations are in order Nathan, for using ChatGPT many years before its inception
Cheers Vince Vinny boy, Congratulations are in order for failure to read and comprehend. Cheers, Mark |
![]() @ 08:51 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: .280 Remington articleHello Mark.Its one thing to cast insults at me. But its another matter when you start in on my readers. This is my business, my website, my forum and these are my readers who come here for support. I put a great deal of my time into helping and caring for them. I don't want you bringing everybody down with your sarcasm and attacks. How about you take a breather for a bit and have a think about what you are trying to achieve. Do you want to be known for being kind and helpful, or would you rather be known for being sarcastic and insulting. For the record, I have studied the .280 and .280 AI quite thoroughly, in the field spanning many years. I have also worked with custom rifles and have guided and provided tutorials for .280 users. More recently, I worked with Dave Manson to design a reamer that seeks to find a balance between SAAMI specs versus the more extreme custom versions, all in an effort to make life easier for gun builders and end users. I have put a great deal of time into my research, most of which is given freely in an attempt to help hunters achieve the best possible outcomes. Funds to support my research are derived from the book series which goes into further detail for hunters and includes photos to verify outcomes etc. A long time ago, we had a photo on the website of my wife and our (then) baby daughter with a large wild boar. My wife, Steph, and I had been testing the Scirocco in .280. I had our daughter (Riley, 8 months) in a back pack, Steph was doing the shooting, it was a hard day of hunting and hauling. That very large boar became a bit of a to-do at the time locally, because someone had contacted a local news agency and told them about this couple who research ballistics and that having a baby had not stopped them. A reporter came out to take a photo after we had just come out of the bush. Much later on, we set up this website. We put the photo the journalist took, onto our website as a family portrait. Soon after we launched, someone wrote in to say that my wife and baby were extremely ugly and that I was making everything up, was a lazy bum and should get a real job. Your posts border on the same category, Mark. This is the water you are treading in. Its not very nice, especially when folk take it to the next level and start attacking your family. I am not person who uses knowledge as a weapon. I take researching and the sharing of information (the internet) very seriously, it is a great responsibility. I know that I can very easily put people wrong or that with the smallest thoughtless comment, I can derail a persons happiness. I am also well aware that I do get it wrong and that there are times when I have hurt people via my own negative comments on various kit etc. That's life though, do your best to help others and try to not make too many mistakes along the way. All the best, Nathan. |
![]() @ 05:59 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: .280 Remington articleHin Mark. The members of this forum post here to learn about the art of hunting, not the art of writing. If I wanted a lesson on how to write an essay, Id read George Orwell, E.B. White, etc. Your failure to comprehend the contents of a simple essay about the 280 Remington leads me to conclude you lack the mental capacity to safely own a firearm. |
![]() @ 04:23 am (GMT) |
MARK SCHOFIELDRe: .280 Remington articleIt's interesting that I managed to offend all the members by pointing out contradictions.Some forums allow freedom of expression within boundaries that preclude obscenity, profanity, and personal attacks. Some forums allow very little freedom of expression. Others are completely fire at will. I hope this forum aligns with the first example. Still, my statements about the article stand. If it is helpful, I found the 244/ 6mm Remington article very well written and accurate. If poor ____ is offended because I replied to his snarky comment, then so be it. Despite what Scott thinks, I was not pointing out grammar or spelling problems. There is a difference in writing vs. exposing contradictory language. If this amounts to an attack, so sorry. A member should be allowed to respond to other members, or is it only the first salvo that is allowed? Apologies for my strong opinions. |
![]() @ 09:26 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: .280 Remington articleHi Mark.My experience participating in this forum has been that you either 1. have an interest in something, so you ask a question, or 2. Have something interesting to say. You state that you pointed out contradictions in the 280 article. Contradictions might be interesting, but you havent said what contradictions youre talking about. In your original post, you stated that you have a background of having owned, loaded for, and hunted with .280 Remington chambered rifles. But you havent told us anything interesting about the 280. Im sorry about my earlier, ad hominem comment. If you want to save face, please say something about the 280, or the contradictions in the knowledgebase article. Nobody knows what the hell youre talking about. |
![]() @ 03:56 am (GMT) |
Craig SanfordRe: .280 Remington articleHuzzah! The ALL CAPITAL LETTERS NAME BRIGADE has arrived to grade reading comprehension. These are the most entertaining conversations.Hi Mark, I vigorously support the right to express opinions in any forum. Youre just wrong, thats all. Once upon a time I was content to call myself a 2 MOA shooter and a 300 yard hunter. I thought that it was unethical to consider shooting any farther at game and frowned on those who did.. I then came across this website. I was incredulous at first. How could one bullet be suitable for 200 yards and another for 800? I kept reading before commenting. I read every free article on this website and then I bought the book series. That was the best money I ever spent on the shooting sports. My groups have tightened up, Im more confident at longer distances, and my knowledge base has expanded significantly. Nathans experience is simply irrefutable. The man has done it and seen it literally thousands of times. Ive never even heard of anyone else with such expertise. Best regards. |
![]() @ 10:07 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: .280 Remington articleIt might be a contradiction to say, without further explanation, that one bullet is good for up to 200 yards, but others are qualified to take game at 700 yards. However, the 280 article doesnt say that. It mentions those specific distances for the 140 gr. Accutip at 200 yards, and the 162 gr. A-Max at 700 yards. The Accutip is a Remington factory load. The article explains that the velocity of factory ammunition is not optimal. (The Accutip is likely a Nosler Ballistic Tip.) The article states it can suffer jacket-core separation on raking shots beyond 200 yards, and progressively narrow wounding at 320 and 400 yards. Its suggested use is on game weighing up to 200 lbs. The A-Max (now branded ELD-M), is a similar bullet, discussed in the hand loading section. Its worth noting that it has a G1 BC of .670, vs. the Accutips BC of .485. Although they are both .284 cal. bullets of similar construction, its not contradictory to suggest that terminal performance of one over the is different at different distances. The article suggests that the ELD-M is adequate for 700 lb. elk at 700 yards, which may strain credulity, but it goes on to caution that The 162 grain A-Max is somewhat better suited to light to mid sized medium game if consistently satisfying results are to be expected.Somebody posted on here a couple years ago an account of shoulder-shooting a mature red deer bull with a 140 grain ELD out of a 6.5x55 and breaking both shoulders. That was an interesting story. I wouldnt choose that caliber for the task, but at least I learned something. I dont think there are any rules on this forum other than one: Dont divulge the substance of Nathans books to people who havent bought them. It has never crossed my mind that there any rules of order, code of conduct, or similar ethical considerations to be followed here. Although I did piss off his wife a while back when I posted a video of some morons taking pot shots at a deer way beyond their capabilities. Nathan despises all-copper bullets. Yet he applauds their effectiveness for close-range, high-velocity use. Contradiction? Maybe. But hes careful to point out that their usefulness is limited to high-velocity, light cartridges, such as the 243 at close range, where a lead bullet might not be heavy enough for the job at hand, such as shooting a pig through the shoulder. Im sick of hearing about the virtues of copper bullets, which is permeating the US discussion today, thanks to marketing juggernauts like Hornady, Barnes, Federal, Winchester, etc. They cant sell enough of them in California to justify their development and production setup costs, so theyre on a mission to convince every last deer hunter that penetration is the only criterion worth considering. |