Cartridge Nomenclature: 6.5x284 vs 6.5x284 WIN vs 6.5x284 NORMA

[aom]

I've been doing some research on the 6.5x284.
As such I've encountered some confusion concerning nomenclature.

6.5x284
6.5x284 Winchester
6.5x284 Norma​

I've come across some references on each one of these cartridges.
And, in some cases, the cartridge terms seen to be used interchangeably.

However, it has become evident to me only the 6.5x284 Norma is a standardized round.
Does the 6.5x284 and 6.5x284 Winchester terms refer to the same
cartridge specifications and are they interchangeable?

Moreover, I'm sure there are various derivatives of the 6.5x284
that are simply considered wildcat loadings with no standardization.
I'm trying to sift through the various incarnations of the 6.5x284 to find the
variation(s) that will function in a short action.

My questions:

Can the 6.5x284 WIN be safely fired in a rifle chambered for the 6.5x284 Norma.
Or, can a 6.5x284 Norma be safely fired in a rifle chambered for the 6.5x284 WIN?
Is the 6.5x284 WIN or the 6.5x284 currently being commercially loaded by any reputable cartridge company?​

 

[Bnhpr]

There are dimensional differences in the brass. Norma, lapua or 284 win (necked down). I have machined two of them based on the lapua brass.

I think Lapua and Norma make a factory ammo for 6.5x284 Norma.....but I do not know anyone who uses factory loads.

It's a wonderful cartridge.

Some info:

http://www.6mmbr.com/SixFive284.html

 

[Pete Wass]

The regular 284

ain't too shabby either, I might add. I bough my first one in 1965 and have had several others since. I don't have one just now but I will again have one someday. Why Winchester didn't do more with that chambering is beyond me but then, thay are no longer here to tell the tale, are they?

 

[Jeffreytooker]

Parent Case 284 Win

ain't too shabby either, I might add. I bough my first one in 1965 and have had several others since. I don't have one just now but I will again have one someday. Why Winchester didn't do more with that chambering is beyond me but then, thay are no longer here to tell the tale, are they?

The 284 Win actually comes from the 7.5 X 55 Schmidt Ruben (Swiss). When Swiss rifles first came on the surplus market there was no brass. One could make it from 284 Win Brass. 284 Win brass is made for higher pressures than the Swiss brass. I think the 284 Win (short fat 280 Rem) was made to fit in the Mod 88 ?? Win lever action. I do not remember it being a real popular rifle.

Jeffrey Tooker

 

[Bnhpr]

Yes, I find it odd that it did not take off, when you compare data/efficiencies.

Rem 280 with 150 grain bullet, H4831@53 gr 2709 ft/sec
Win 284 with 150 grain bullet, W760@53.5 gr 2985 ft/sec

And the 284 comes in shorter package.

Pete,

I will likely get a reamer for the 284 at some point, I was thinking about one in a Mauser hunting rifle. I noticed the brass cycles quite well in a Mauser action when I tried it.

Has the rain stopped at home yet?

Ben

 

[Charles E]

The 284 Win actually comes from the 7.5 X 55 Schmidt Ruben (Swiss). When Swiss rifles first came on the surplus market there was no brass. One could make it from 284 Win Brass. 284 Win brass is made for higher pressures than the Swiss brass. I think the 284 Win (short fat 280 Rem) was made to fit in the Mod 88 ?? Win lever action. I do not remember it being a real popular rifle.

Jeffrey Tooker

There are some small size difference in the case body between the S-R and the .284 Win. I'm not too sure I'd go with the statement that the .284 Win brass is made to take higher pressures. Hard to get design specs on brass, as opposed to rifles.

Bill Shehane was an early proponent of the 6/284. Cases didn't last long enough for him, so he & Dave Tooley made a 6 S&T, which was basically the same chambering but on the 7.5x55 S-R case. RWS brass. That took all Bill cared to give it. I had one too, but with the reamer held in .200 short. Primer pockets didn't get loose, and I sure never blew a case.

As an aside, for some reason, the 280 Remington was never loaded to the pressures it would allow. There is nothing you can do with a .284 you can't do with a .280, except maybe use a slightly shorter action. A .280 AI would be, from a velocity standpoint anyway, superior to anything you could get with the .284 case. Brass choices for the .280 are as wide as it gets if you're willing to neck down .30/06 cases.

 

[aom]

6.5x284 Norma Short COL

And the 284 comes in shorter package...

This is my main priority.
A 6.5x284 that will cycle through a short action.
With the goals of:
2600 fps 155-160 gr bullet (round nose)
2800 fps 139-144 gr bullets (will be satisfied 137-142 bullet)
I maybe coining a new cartridge term ... 6.5x284 Norma Short COL.

 

[JerrySharrett]

As an aside, for some reason, the 280 Remington was never loaded to the pressures it would allow. .

Just FYI, the 280 Remington was introduced in the Rem 742 semi-auto and the Rem 760 pump. For that reason Remington never felt safe in going to something like 270 Winchester pressures which would have given the 280 a slight advantage over the 270.

Some years later Remington went so far as to rename the cartridge the 7mm Express Remington so they could up the pressure on factory ammo but I guess the Remington pettifoggers over ruled that idea.

 

[aom]

280 Remington, 7mm Express‚ Remington are interchangeable

... Some years later Remington went so far as to rename the cartridge the 7mm Express Remington
so they could up the pressure on factory ammo but I guess the Remington pettifoggers over ruled that idea.

Apparently, nothing did happen ... other than a public relations blitz.

Rifle Centerfire Ballistics (280 Remington – 300 Win Mag) - bottom, page 93

† 280 Remington and 7mm Express‚ Remington are interchangeable.

It is amazing to me that handgun ammunition can be produced in +P, +P+
loadings.
But, Remington is reluctant to manufacture a 280 Remington +P ... so to speak.
Are handgunners more sensible than riflemen?

Talk about hi-jacking a thread ... Stockholm syndrome - you'll made me part of the hi-jacking conspiracy.

Anyway, a 6.5x284 Norma loaded to a COL of 2.800 in-order to function in a short-action seems feasible.
What would be some bullets over 140 grs that could be loaded to a COL of 2.800 without the ogive entering the case mouth.

 

[Pete Wass]

That's an enticing thought Ben

Yes, I find it odd that it did not take off, when you compare data/efficiencies.

Rem 280 with 150 grain bullet, H4831@53 gr 2709 ft/sec
Win 284 with 150 grain bullet, W760@53.5 gr 2985 ft/sec

And the 284 comes in shorter package.

Pete,

I will likely get a reamer for the 284 at some point, I was thinking about one in a Mauser hunting rifle. I noticed the brass cycles quite well in a Mauser action when I tried it.

Has the rain stopped at home yet?

Ben

I might like to "Rent" the 284 reamer if you get one. I have had excelent results wit the Winchester brass I have been using in my 30-284 x 1.650.

Still raining. We had 1.5 days of sun in June as I recall.

 

[Pete Wass]

There are some small size difference in the case body between the S-R and the .284 Win. I'm not too sure I'd go with the statement that the .284 Win brass is made to take higher pressures. Hard to get design specs on brass, as opposed to rifles.

Bill Shehane was an early proponent of the 6/284. Cases didn't last long enough for him, so he & Dave Tooley made a 6 S&T, which was basically the same chambering but on the 7.5x55 S-R case. RWS brass. That took all Bill cared to give it. I had one too, but with the reamer held in .200 short. Primer pockets didn't get loose, and I sure never blew a case.

As an aside, for some reason, the 280 Remington was never loaded to the pressures it would allow. There is nothing you can do with a .284 you can't do with a .280, except maybe use a slightly shorter action. A .280 AI would be, from a velocity standpoint anyway, superior to anything you could get with the .284 case. Brass choices for the .280 are as wide as it gets if you're willing to neck down .30/06 cases.

What would a 284 AI do differently than the standard case?

 

[Charles E]

What would a 284 AI do differently than the standard case?

I believe I said .280 AI, not .284 AI.

A ."284" AI would essentially be the "Shehane" variant; far as I know, Bill's only staked his name on that for the 6.5/284.

The biggest problem with the .280 AI that I can see is it isn't new. And it is neither short nor fat.

 

[Chisolm]

I believe I said .280 AI, not .284 AI.

A ."284" AI would essentially be the "Shehane" variant; far as I know, Bill's only staked his name on that for the 6.5/284.

The biggest problem with the .280 AI that I can see is it isn't new. And it is neither short nor fat.

That's right Charles.

Long and thin goes too far in.
Short and thick does the trick.

I am a fan of the 7 RSAUM. If I don't get my NEW HG finished I am going to shoot it at the IBS 1K Nationals, with 1500+ rounds on it. If I don't get my 6mm figured out I may shoot it in LG too.

James

 

[Pete Wass]

I heard ya

I believe I said .280 AI, not .284 AI.

A ."284" AI would essentially be the "Shehane" variant; far as I know, Bill's only staked his name on that for the 6.5/284.

The biggest problem with the .280 AI that I can see is it isn't new. And it is neither short nor fat.

based on what Ben reported with a pretty good speed advantage, I wondered if a 284 AI might gain even more vs the 280. I currently have 2-280's so I am a believer in them but I do like the Short-fat configuration, being one meself. I don't think there is any question regarding efficiency of fatter katridges but the danged gun manufacturers go too far with capacities, IMHO.

 

[Bnhpr]

based on what Ben reported with a pretty good speed advantage, I wondered if a 284 AI might gain even more vs the 280. I currently have 2-280's so I am a believer in them but I do like the Short-fat configuration, being one meself. I don't think there is any question regarding efficiency of fatter katridges but the danged gun manufacturers go too far with capacities, IMHO.

The shoulder is already quite obtuse, I cannot see where you could move it significantly. 70 degrees to 80 degrees?

 

[sdean]

answer

The answer is no. Factory ammo COL is 2.95 or longer. Built mine on a long action no problems. Great caliber.

 

[Pete Wass]

I don't know

The shoulder is already quite obtuse, I cannot see where you could move it significantly. 70 degrees to 80 degrees?

I was thinking it had a 30* shoulder but see that it has a 35*. I think the AI's are 40* ain't they? How much more forward are the shoulders of the AI's blown forward? It isn't anything I want to mess with anyway. All said and done, the closer one can stay to off the shelf dies, the better.

 

[Bnhpr]

I was thinking it had a 30* shoulder but see that it has a 35*. I think the AI's are 40* ain't they? How much more forward are the shoulders of the AI's blown forward? It isn't anything I want to mess with anyway. All said and done, the closer one can stay to off the shelf dies, the better.

That is one of the things that caught my eye when I was first looking at the 284, was the nearly AI shoulder.

 

[slugger]

This is my main priority.
A 6.5x284 that will cycle through a short action.
With the goals of:
2600 fps 155-160 gr bullet (round nose)
2800 fps 139-144 gr bullets (will be satisfied 137-142 bullet)
I maybe coining a new cartridge term ... 6.5x284 Norma Short COL.

A 6.5-284 will cycle through a short action, just not with 130-160 grain bullets. You are limited by a 2.8" magazine and many of those long sleek bullet will be seated into the ogive to keep the COL short enough for the magazine.

6.5-284s are best built on a long action. If you want a short action 6.5, then you probably want a 260 AI and it won't give you the 2800 fps you want without a LONG barrel.