Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 270 Winchester versus 280 Remington

Resig it isn't going to matter...get either one...load a 130 to 3100 in the 270;or a 140 in the 280 to a bit over 3000 fps and go kill stuff.

In short...there is no difference.

Bob, we all know there's a difference....

You have a good point. I suppose I thought the ability to load heavier bullets would be in favor of the 280.

When I bought my 270 Win I thought about the 280 Rem, but the model I was after didn't come in the 280.

If it was available I probably would have gone for the 280. I certainly did like the prospect of being able to shoot bullets up to 175g. And I suspect I would have used them as well.

As it is I am using the 270 with mostly 150g bullets. I certainly like the way it shoots and kills, and doesn't kick very hard.

In the end I got a 30-06 to go with the 270, which has assuaged my need for something that can shoot the heavies. And these days I am shooting a lot more 130 grainers in my 270.


All said and done, I just can't accept the notion that the 280 Rem is any "better" than the 270 Win. Like was said above, its just preference.

Although I have owned both .270's and .280's I always preferred the .280. Mostly because my first really nice rifle was chambered in .280, a McMillan Talon. The action is basically a model 700 receiver married to a model 70 bolt. I used said rifle for years on deer in MI, MT and Moose in ON with excellent results.
With that said, I cant even buy factory ammo for it in the area I live in, but .270 win ammo is available at gas stations during hunting season. The other problem is I have only ever used 140 or 150gr bullets in the .280. I do not believe there is any difference in a 140 and 150 gr bullets fired at similar velocities from a .270 or a .280 So why put up with the lack of rifle offerings or factory ammo with the .280?

Pea's in a pod? comes down to bullet weight to me. 7X64? Any will work for the same range of game. 270 easier to find in loaded ammo on the shelf. I would be happy with any if that is what I wanted.

For your use based on your description as a non-handloader and a non hunter who does recreational shooting and anticipates hunting deer, sheep, elk, and moose, I recommend the .270
Win of the two choices you mention. Much more available factory ammo with better ballistics than the .280 Rem factory ammo. The .280 as a handloaded round or the .280AI would be modestly better ballistically but are handloader propositions.

I have several bolt action rifles that are redundant in this category including 30-06, 280 AI, 270 Win, 6.5-06 and 6.5x55 Swede, not including the 300 Win Mag and a 7mm Rem Mag.

All of mine will do the jobs you describe with handloads and the proper bullet selection. If limited to factory ammo and as a recreational shooter, I would stay with either the 30-06 or the .270 of the rounds I listed. Of your two choices for a non reloader, the .270 Win is better than the .280 Rem. This is due to factory available ammo and cost of that ammo for your recreational shooting.

If you can handle the recoil, the 7mm Rem Mag might be your best choice if you want a single rifle to do all you describe.

I thought your post was spot on, until I remembered there was 20 boxes of 280 rem on the shelves at the local sporting goods store and everything else was gone ...Definitely not the norm, but nonetheless true in this instance..

That's what she said ...Just a little thicker and a little more penetration

This thread makes me think I need a 280. 120s at 3200 and 160s at 2800 would fill a niche my 270s, 30-06s, 308s, 7x64 and 300s don't, right?

GOOD GOD,man! You are suffering from grossus-gaposis. Start filling it.

Riesig what are you going to shoot with them?.....but like Johnny B states above, most people don't load heavier than 160 gr or so in the 280;150 in the 270.

You simply will not see any difference on animals between a 150 from a 270 and a 160 from a 280 if construction is the same.

You may get a bit deeper penetration from those two than with a 130-270 or 140-7mm.But there isn't much that I would shoot with any one of those loads that I would not shoot with the other....just don't choose some thin jacketed C&C bullet in the lighter weights...the heavier constructed bullets will, day in and day out, prove more reliable and predictable in game animals than the thin jacketed stuff.

Bullet construction is going to matter a lot more than the weight/caliber distinction between these two cartridges...for example I would rather shoot an elk with a 130 TTSX from a 270, than a thin jacketed 160-class C&C from a 280 any old day of the week.

My thoughts are get either one....but there really isn't any difference when it comes to killing stuff.

Bought my 1st 280 circa 1967. Wanted something different than my dad's "pea shooter" 270. Had a lot of enjoyable "discussions" over the years about which was better.

....you Texas boys....



Even Tanner has been polluted....

....but,they don't make a 162 gr. A-Max for the .270, so you can't shoot whitetail at 1173 yards.

I think there are some differences in a 270 and a 280,but they are fairly subtle.

I have owned more than a dozen of each through the years,all factory rifles,and on the average the 280s have been more accurate with factory ammunition.This may be because the rifles and loads for a 280 have been manufactured in smaller lots,or it may have been luck of the draw,but it has been my experience.

I have only owned one 280 factory rifle that would not put three factory made bullets from a cold barrel into a one moa group at 100 yards. It was a boat paddle stock Ruger M77,and it shot a lousy 1.25 moa.

On the other hand I have run across more than one 270 that was hard pressed to shoot into less than 2 moa.

Not to say that wonderfully accurate 270s do not exist,I have a couple of them myself.

The other difference in my view relates to typical bullet construction in 270 vs. 7mm bullets. On the average 7mm bullets have been more likely to penetrate deep and exit on game animals. I think they are built a little tougher because most are intended to be used at 7mm mag velocities.

Should you take away my present 280 I'd go back to my old beloved 7x57..get my drift?

Bob, always gives us a well-thought out, carefully phrased and experience-based commentary on these crucial issues and he is "right" in his conclusions. His posts remind me so much of our late friend, Allen Day, another guy who actually knew whereof he spoke.

BUT, there is also that little, nagging issue, SO, often the deciding factor among "gun nuts" and it is simply the "like factor". I KNOW that there is ZERO difference in "killing power" between my three P-64-70 Fwts. in .270Win and my three, soon to be four, custom, light "mountain rifles" in .280 Rem., I KNOW this......

Yet, when I seriously think of which non-magnum cartridge I would choose in which rifle, for a matched pair to hunt BC and the ROC for my remaining lifetime, I ALWAYS come up with custom Brno 21/22 actions, modded to "roundbolts", 23" light bbls. Micky Edge handed, Blackburn triggers, Talley QDs, Leupy VX3s, Lapour 3-pos. safeties AND in .280 Rem.

What can I say, I have a pair like this, all-rechambered 60mm tubed factory 7x57s and another in preparation and I have one last 21/22 action and am thinking of a fourth built this way but with a sts. tube for BC's wet November weather......

I know that you fine guys, my fellow "rifle loonies" WILL understand..............

Nosler makes the 150 grain Accubond LR, and there are 165 Matrix bullets out there if a guy is looking for super high BC long range 270 bullets. So yes, the 270 is more versatile.

tongue-in-cheek comment, not serious