Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters why is 7mm08 more popular than 280 Remington?

Me too, by far.

In my part of Texas, ( I moved in 1987) I only saw "one" .270 and "one" .243. There were tons of 30-30/30-06/6.5 Eyetalians/and 6mm Remington a handful of 8x57s. I knew "one" guy who used the Mod 740/280. Due to Jim Carmichaels influence via articles I and I wanted to begin handloading and wanted a get a bolt actioned 280 (to handload at 270 pressures or so). I did so in '77, ( Lee Loader/RCBS scales/ Lee hand priming tool, 3 Manuals read first! ha) I bought a Mod 77 in .280 at a Clearance sale at the old Texas Gunman in Beaumont, Tx....I had watched it sit in the sale rack for over a year! Everyone wanted the 7mm Mag ( folks began using them on finally deer then) if they wanted a 7mm ( there were only a couple 7x57 Mod 95 Mausers around). I used that 280 with 55gr IMR4350/Hornady 139sp, never clocked it, for years. It was a real killer from 15yds to 276 long steps ( I'm proud of that shot!) Yes, it got traded for a new Colt Python...the "loudest" .357 I have ever shot! Fast forward ( too many rifles/trades/experimenting to mention)

in 2000 or so I bought a little Kimber 84M in 7mm/08. It was a neat little rifle, shot the then avaialable Light Magnum 139SST at 3100fps into one ragged hole! Sticky bolt lifts too. I tried a few handloads later but never beat that one, so that's what I used. I felt it was just like a 280 in the field! It was the only 7mm08 I ever had ( yes, its gone :)) have owned just several and many .280s/280AI/7mm Express and 7mm Mags (7RM/7RUM/7STW), but now only have the 7x57. ( I never killed game past 375yds, averaged 150yds, maybe, so saw no need in the LR rigs anymore.) ( 7x57 in handloads of course! To me the 7mm/08(7x57) and the 280 are in the same boat (comparison debate) as the 308/30-06. Fist fights are common...but I'm happy. I really only have Two Rules for people when I'm in the woods..(1) Do NOT shoot me! and (2) leave me alone. I'll use what I want to use! ha

Since the biggest things I hunt are whitetailed deer, I bought a .270 waybackwhen. The 7mm/08 wasn't even available. The .270 was available, so was the .280, in the same rifles, but you couldn't find .280 ammo in every little gunshop, and .270 was everywhere.

Since that time in the waybacks, I've stuck with the .270s. They work for me. I handload for everything, but I never saw that the 7mm bullets were all that much better on deer (I dinked around with a 7x57 for awhile), and the .30/06s I had were great, but not any "better" than my .270, at least on deer.

I've never gotten around to messing with a 7mm/08 or .280, and the couple of 7mm Rem. Mags. didn't kill deer any "deader", so my .270s have served me well. I might be missing out on something, but I doubt it.

The 280 didn't catch on quick. Five years later the 7mm Mag came on like a rocket ship.
If someone wants a long action 7mm that has high velocity, why choose the cartridge that "almost" equals a 7 mag, and only handloaded. They go 7 mag.



The 7-08 effectively does the same thingas a 280, has a reputation for light recoil, and frequently comes in lighter more compact rifles.


Seriously consider this.

If the 30-06 would have been five years old when the 300 Win was introduced, and
15 years later the 308 would have come along............

Would the old grandad 30 have the popularity it now has.

Yup, Short Bolt Throw, Lighter Recoil & Handier Rifles !

When I went on my quest for the perfect .280, with an eye to converting it to a.280 Improved; the 7mm-08 was barely made legit by Big Green.

Who Knew ! I'd like to give my son a 7mm-08 M70 Fwt , so that I can inherit it when he develops MagnumItis. I'll give him a fair trade ...


Here's an interesting quote from MD's recent article on the 1955 vintage .358 Winchester :

" Fellow gun writer Richard Mann used a New Ultra Light Arms Model
20 and a 225-grain Nosler Partition to take this nice Montana black
bear on a hunt with John more than a dozen years ago. "

Gettin it done! I wonder how much of a twitch RM got from the bite from that NULA Model 20 ...

DF - have to hack & quote to get this story out of the Fake News category
- No slight intended, apologize in advance for introducing any new errors



7mm Express was supposed to be a Heavier Rifle Only Load 65K psi ?



As an aside the 244/6mm was loaded in the 740 at the higher operating pressure .




And that is Ok, that Remington is not promoting, or Marketing the 280 AI.

It was their Custom shop that introduce all the confusion about the headspace dimension for the SAAMI .280 Ackley Improved .

I'm still confused over the .014" discrepancy .

Anyone care to elaborate ?

338Rules

^^ THIS ^^

With the .25 and .27 calibers mired in 10" twist BCs ,

These caliber bullets aren't going to get popular in much longer & higher BC configurations anytime soon.

It just seems natural to chamber them both in the .308 case, and 2.8" magazine
Neck angles could be adjusted to 30 degree "improved"

.25-08 and .27-08 are naturals for hunting ranges, where the .260 is doomed, by the length & market strength of the 6.5 LR Bullets; and the short action 2.8" magazine.

Seems the 6.5 CM sorta fixed that problem.

I think the 6 CM with its long, high ogive bullets out of a fast twist barrel will make it hard for a .25-08/.25 CM or a .270-08/270 CM to exist, must less flourish, IMO.

DF

Can't imagine why anyone would need a .25 CM, but I know the wildcat exists, from the recent article in Wolfe.
Wasn't the SA .25x284 popular a while back ? Before the short fats took over catting

I think so, in some circles. There will always be wildcats as long as there are Loonies...

With advancements in powder and bullet technology, especially 6mm and 6.5mm, those two may be at the head of their class.

DF

Tough not to look long at one of the 8" twist 6 or 6.5 s before the 7mm-08

More than the 7-08 vs 280 question, i have yet to comprehend shooter’s preference for the slower 7x57. I would never give it a single consideration, yet others think there is nothing better.

Always gonna be the 280 & 7 Wby for me.

PART of this is:

Some of us just have a 'thing' for a certain cartridge. Maybe nostalgia, maybe simply the LOOKS of the cartridge << I like the 6mm Rem LOOK much better than the 243 >>> I have always LIKED the 284 W but in a L A. >>

Some think the 7 Mauser can be handloaded to = the 7-08. Seems likely, tho I haven't tried it.

For myself ---
there are cartridges that some are in love with......I have no use for and I seldom express my opinion....because I like/love some cartridges others despise.

Also there are a few STOCKS that some are obsessed with and I don't see any need for the design --- Again I just pass on commenting.

Some almost hate Synthetic --aka plastic-- stocks, and I feel they are very practical and have several.


IMO it's simply a personal preference. WE ALL have them.


Jerry

IMO, the choice between 7x57 vs. 7-08 would be the specific rifle, classic vs. modern, etc.

The rounds are so similar, otherwise.

DF

Reloder 28,

If more muzzle velocity was the only criteria for choosing a big game cartridge, then the .280 would be considered mediocre among 7mm rounds.

Remington sure seems to field more losers than they win...

winners 223, 7RM, 7-08, 300 Ultra

prom dates left at the curb: 244/6mm, 260, 6.5 RM, 350 RM, 7 Ultra, 8 RM, the SAUMS, the great 280...

to me the 280 is THE PERFECT do everything compromise... a 140 NP to 3000 or a 150 NP to 2900, pray tell what can't be cleanly handled by that in the USA, while not beating the snot out of you?

Maybe the 280 got lost in the crowd as a 'tweener...

Middle child syndrome...?

Getting no respect. Not the alpha dog, not the baby...

Plus Remington's flawed roll out and subsequent confusion, 7 mm Express, etc.

A perfect storm... ?

DF

I think the SA appeal of the 7mm-08 is the reason. My wife also hunts with and adores it. It fills a niche that the 280 doesn’t. After all, we already had the 270.

Other than shorter bolt throw, a LA can be made into a very light rifle.

I guess it's just the idea of a SA.

I wish there were more 3" actions, which would be good for rounds like .257R, 7x57, 6 mm Rem, etc., give more bullet room for .243, .260, etc.

DF

Dirtfarmer,

I posted way back in this thread about how the .280 sold all right the first few years, when Remington promoted it pretty well. In the beginning it was never intended to compete with bolt-action .270's. Instead it was meant as a ".270 equivalent" cartridge for the Remington semiauto, because the .270 operated at too-high pressures.

It didn't "fail" as a bolt-action round because of Remington's poor promotion. It failed because it wasn't intended to primarily be a bolt-action round. If Remington had intended the .280 for bolt-actions, they would have been even dumber than many Campfire members believe, because it was so similar to the .270, which was already well-established--and there wasn't any noticeable difference in the field.

.280 nuts like to argue that their cartridge is vastly superior, but I've hunted a LOT with both the .270 and .280, and for the sub-500 yard big game hunting most people actually do, there isn't any difference--except you can buy .270 ammo and brass easily, almost anywhere. Except for shooting beyond 500 yards, where the wider availbility of high-BC 7mm bullets makes some difference, the claimed "superiority is based on tiny differences in bullet weight, velocity, etc. If loonies couldn't weigh bullets or lacked chronographs, the differences would never be noticeable, whether in the field or by simply looking at one of the rounds.

Remington knew the 7mm Remington Magnum would just about kill off the .280, but they gambled that the 7mm would be a hit. It was, far more than any other post-WWII non-varmint cartridge until the 6.5 Creedmoor came along in 2007. Due to the enormous success of the 7mm RM, I sincerely doubt Remington regretted the semi-demise of the .280.

This thread is yet another example of how the longest Campfire rifle-cartridge threads are almost always about stuff that doesn't make any difference, except in the minds of loonies.