There has been a debate for a long time now on the merits and demerits of certain calibers, one of which has been the 280. Usually though, the comparison is between the 280 and it's almost identical twin, the 270. A couple of our pre-eminent writers have written that the 280 is an inherently more accurate caliber than is the 270. I didn't believe that statement (and still don't), but had no personal experience with the 280. I've been using one of several 270's for four decades now, so never had any interest in the 280.
Naturally, I have contested that statement in print. In order to have at least a little experience, I had Glen Pierce put a 280 together for me. I used a Heym SR-20 action, Heym hammer-forged 7mm barrel and a McMillan
stock. The rifle is very accurate, every bit as accurate as most of my 270's, but not any more accurate than any of them.
I contacted several of my custom maker friends and inquired about their experience with the cartridge. A few reported that they had no real problems getting a 280 to shoot but a few also reported that they would not accept an order for a 280 due to past problems getting them to shoot acceptably.
I know of no technical reason why this would be so, but I can only report what I was told. The 280 and 270 are so much alike, it makes no sense to me why one would be more accurate than the other - but, at least a few of our best custom makers believe that there is a difference.
My one and only 280 will shoot under an inch all day long. Based on that experience with one rifle, not a good idea, I would say that there is no inherent differences. Perhaps we can get some more experiences here. I certainly respect Mule Deer's comments, but, based on what I've been told by guys making their living building rifles, perhaps there is more to it than that.