Why can't they just get along?
.280 - will you promise to not start outselling the .270 and drive it into obsolescence?
.270 - will you accept that some gun loonies, being loonies, won't listen to arguments about popularity, ammo availability, standard pressures, yadda, yadda, yadda, and just want something different?

Oh, and 30/06, please let the little guys work this out alone.

No comparison, 270 hands down....

All 3, including the 30-06 are in my safe at the moment. I don't hear any fighting going on in there!

(Yawn) that didn't take long

Ok, we'll take the wizzums and the SAUMs, but not the 270s!

An enlightened, intelligent loonie?

Don't know why you say hands down ballistics wise there virtually the same. IMHO it comes down to personal preference, I bought a 280 back in the mid 80's for 2 reasons there were a million 270 out there and bullet selection and I wanted something different. It work great for me for many years.

Geezus....not this again.....

Yep, not much difference. Now the 280 AI on the other hand...

Yeah, had to do it, now the game is see how many take it too seriously.

Can someone explain why there was a need for a reamer/mandrel/Boolit/Bbl-bore with a diameter .007 less than one already on the shelf?

What does that -.007 'DO' ?

Gotta say I have owned a number of both and with the bullets we have today both are very capable rounds. Killed my first elk with a .270 handloader with 150 grain nosler partition bullets. Worked just fine. Killed a bunch with a 280 rem. Mostly deer and with 139 grain Hornady bullets all drt. Folks talk about 160-175 grain with a .280 which is true . In my mind a guy can't go wrong with either choice. Lots more factory ammo choices available for the .270. Happy hunting.

Have had both, only have the .270 Win now. Wouldn't hesitate to try the .280 Rem again if the right deal came along. I'm just not that worried about things right now to seek one out.

The 280 is what the '06 should have been in the first place...

Wondered that myself. Came across one explanation (forget where) that said when Winchester was developing the new cartridge they figured Americans were still a little sensitive about getting shot at by "European" 7 and 8 mm stuff so they made sure to develop a new non-metric caliber.
Don't know if true, but its a story.

If Winchester goes with .284 back in 1925 .277 might never have been developed. And the 6.5-06 might be a regular factory option. That would be a win-win for everybody.

I own three P-64-70 Fwts in .270, two Brno21Hs in .280, one HVA-Kreiger in .280 and one Kimber MA 84L in .280AI, prefer 150NPs-.270, and 160NPs in all four .280s.

Cannot tell ANY difference in effect on any BC animals and there are NO "better" rounds with good bullets for BC hunting, but, I do like a CRF .338WM-250NP for solo hunting in Grizzly country.

It is best to have several of both and a few .338s, too.

I get what you are saying. The good ol 30-06 is always the sensible one...

Best post so far. I agree with Dewey..

To be way cool, you have to have a 275 H&H, 275 Rigby, 270 Savage and a 277 ICL Flying Saucer.

The Bbl on my #1 is marked 275 Rigby Improved - is that cool??

Especially the 338 parts

My first "real" rifle was a Pushfeed M70 Featherweight in 280. Great rifle, great cartridge but I soon rationalized myself over to a 7mag and then further rationalized myself into a 270win. Really I think the 280 is great but I have always had two sides to rifle cartridge selection. One where I don't mind having hard to obtain or wildcat cartridges I find interesting and the other having a mainstay of no nonsense mainstream cartridges. That is where and why I floated over to the 270 over the 280.

Fans of 7mm often criticizes the .277" for having bullets with poor BC, but all calibers and catagories of high BC bullets can be ordinally ranked and the 7mm can be criticized as not at the top of the heap as well. The long range community is driven by two factors: fear and paranoia, and largely don't represent the vast majority of hunters. This is because people don't worry that if they choose a 270 thier Magic bullet will stop working at 620 yards as opposed to 680 yards had they picked the 280.

Great post. True!

Just don,t go hunting with a 270 and a 280 and get your ammo mixed up. Shot a 270 that was in my 280 ammo can pieces of primer in my nose and face. Wearing glasses luckily but now want to paint case head to never make that mistake again.

Seen that one happen. You gotta watch it.

One of the reasons I'm leery about buying a 280...

This is funny. When I had my 280 I was living remote in Ak. Just about every family member that bought me ammo or components, bought me 270 stuff. "Never heard" of a 280. I had boxes of 270 ammo before I got my 270. All is well, I used my 458 on just about everything anyways.

Don't call it a comeback
I been here for years
Rockin my peers and puttin suckas in fear
Makin the tears rain down like a MON-soon
Listen to the bass go BOOM


It's only as complicated as you wanna make it. Hardest part is admitting you got duped.

What's the question ?

I refuse to participate in this wanton waste of e-ink! 🤐

The great debate...

Science might say 280 is easier to get the spin you need on longer projectiles for long reach.

Most of the squids only shoot ink so far, and under a certain distance BC and spin... Who cares.

So - it's a how far do you shoot type question to me... And the answer only become relevant if you shoot in the longer window.

That and all 270 bullets come in rainbow colors...

Waaaay cool kinda like my 1B marked 35 Whelen.

This rings true to me. I'm relatively new to the rifle loonie camp. I still find my self trying to justify a 7 Rem when I have an -06. Or a 6.5CM when I have a 7mm/08. Or X over Y, but Then I go look at a ballistics table and realize there is no practical difference. Or, I look in the safe and see its full.

Pack up and leave camp. Save yourself!!

I have one foot in and one foot out. It's a tough addiction to kick.

Don't make a hill of beans worth of difference unless, for some reason beyond your control, you need to purchase ammo in B F nowheresville.

270's best for coyotes and smaller. Otherwise it is clearly inferior.

Have you .270 guys read Craig Boddington's article on the .270 Winchester that is in the current issue of American Rifleman, May 2016? Be careful you may wet your pants.

Did you notice that the case diagram labeled 270 Winchester is NOT...it's a 30-06!!! LOL

They do bring up a valid point in that one though...the reason the .264 Winnie never caught on was because it(or the 7mm Rem Mag, but that one did get just a little bit popular) won't really do anything in the field that a 270 won't do(except burn more powder, but I digress). The same applies to the 280...just ain't enough difference to matter.

You can replace them all with a 7-08.

Haha.....loved the article.

Don't quite agree about the 7 RM not being a step up though. It sort of takes over in bullet weight, trajectory,and ballistic goodies where the 270 leaves off.

I love it, too.

I also love how the 270 causes so much heartburn on here....LOL!

TUMS are my friend...

I'm not sure which is more worthless, Craig Bottington, American Rifleman, or the 280.

Best part of a 270 is the eye rolls it gets here. There are plenty of places where its more 7 Mag'ish. But the difference between a high BC .277 and .284 is about a 1-1/2 mph wind call at 500.

And there ain't a person here capable of that.

Got one of those in there too!

Whatever the question was, the 30-06 is the answer!

That must explain it. The more time I spend here, the more I want a .270 or 279 wsm. That never even entered my mind before I found the fire.

I get the loony thing, but if ever two cartridges had about fugg all difference between them, it's those two.

For a bit of fun the other day I got all my rifles out of the two safes and started looking at them and realized how damn crazy this rifle loonieism really is. I have so many rifles that do the same darn thing it's crazy. Sure has been fun gettin em all. I could easily get by with two to three and be just fine. That's really what this is all about,right guys? Best to all......goodshot!

Put a fast twist on it to cause even more hand wringing

I do like both the 270 and 280 but I ended up with the 270 Win and am happy. Still may get a 7x64 or 280 as well one day though.......

I'll throw one more thing into the fire. Have a look at the Nosler laoding website and look at the case capacities of the 270 and 280 AI. About 1 grain.......

Which still makes me wonder how/why we see the 280 AI vels that get posted on here and on Noslers own website.

I love the 280 - had one since 1982. That gun was magic to me. I still fight not buying a 280 AI in a Montana even though I have a 270 that gets 2900+ with 150 Partitions......

When it comes to the cartridge....Um.... I don't care!

My question is/was/still is.

What was the point of a bullet that is .007" smaller in dia.?

When there were so many .284 options, what did .277 do?

Read Boddington's recent article in AR for a partial explanation of why .277 instead of .284.

A bit more capacity for the 280AI,and loading to 65,000 psi . Plus 26" barrel IIRC, don't have the manual in front of me...... Little things add up.

The 1-2 gr extra case capacity, 2" of barrel, and 0.007" bore size aren't going to equal 200 ft/sec. Both have SAAMI of 65k psi.

Example:

280 AI (26" brl) 160 gr 3 loads ~ 3040 ft/sec
270 Win (24" brl), 160 gr, 2825 ft/sec

280 AI, 150 gr, 2 loads at or pushing 3100
270, 150 gr, 3 loads at or slightly above 2900

Hodgdon tells a completely different story.

Are you aware of diameter weight BC correlation? 7mm has 162 AMax. Pretty much a wash below that. And if you think you can see the difference anywhere other than a chart, you're FOS.

The only number Nosler can get right is the phone number.

Yep! That's my point.............

Well Bill...I think we agree. If the capacities aren't that different,then it can only be one thing.....pressure. It sure isn't magic

The 280AI does have more capacity than a 270....that's what they call it "improved". So I would expect it to be faster.

A 160 .277 is not exactly the same as a 160 7mm. The 7mm has more base area for the gas to push on (Waters and JOC had that conversation 50 years ago A better comparison is the 150-.277 vs the 160-7mm

Velocities don't just "show up". There's always a reason...whether different barrels, lots of powders, bullets, primers, throats.Capacity..... Million reasons.

Besides you can't tell all that much about cartridges so closely matched by reading about it....they are too close. You have to take a bunch of rifles and shoot them with a bunch of loads and see what they do. You'll drive yourself crazy reading those numbers.

End of the day: 270 Win with 150....2900-2950 from 22" barrel. BTDT. Had one that did 3000+ with a 24".

Where's that leave the 280AI? Don't know and don't care. I shoot 7mm's with belts cause like to push 7mm bullets fast.

160 .277 vs 160 .284 might not be the place to look. But, 140 .277 NAB's @ 3K vs 160 NAB's @ 3K is pretty interesting.

Sure!

Point being when you have to siphon through such closely matched shidt, there ain't THAT much difference.

Some? Sure.

But earthshaking? Nope.

Checkmate

Yes, you got it right! !

Now DANG it!! Bob,

I was staying out of this "conversation" on purpose. This is such an OLD story I don't understand why many don't get it by now.

Maybe cause some aren't as OLD as WE are?

Jerry

Backin out...tryin to anyway.

The REAL question is: "which is better, the 9mm or 45acp?" Or "Glock vs Colt: THE FINAL ANSWER!"

Holy schit, every rag from the 80's.....


More beaten dead horses than a glue factory.

All these numbers is confusing and pretty much unnecessary.

Keep it simple.

The .270 is for women and frail men.

The .280 is for manly men.

That's what I read, anyway, back in the day when Jack O'Carmichael was expounding on the merits of said such .280 in Outdoor Fields.

I'd rather 280 .

I'd rather 7x57 or a .270.

My wife is having a .280 built for herself.

Hmm . . . you like the 270

The .280 is for manly men.

"My wife is having a .280 built for herself."

You're not keeping any secrets from us are you elk?

The 30-06 is a great caliber.
The 270 is a great caliber.
So why would the 280 be any worse or any better than those two?

Availability of ammo and brass?

FWIW-- I think you are SPOT ON !!

Jerry

It is a great caliber. Like John implied, not as popular;but fully capable yet not magical.

The 280 is magical. It helped bag me! The young lady I was dating bought me a 280 Mountain Rifle when we were dating. I claim it pushed me over the edge and I married her

28 years later and no complaints so it isn't all bad

Just think how differently your life could have turned out if you had taken a job tending sheep w/ a buddy that loved 270's....



David

Is that some kinda hint..or..somethin ?


Jerry

Its like anything else, give and take between the 3 and it just depends on what you wanna give and what you wanna take.

Nobody kicks their own dog and either is going to convince the other even when numbers prove otherwise.

And none of it matters anyway.

Odds are this discussion will fire up again in another thread, closer to fall.

In spite of my defending it, I actually only own one .270. But it is a good one that is fast & accurate. And yes, if I goof and leave the ammo at home I can still find some in Ozona, Tx.

.270 versus .280 is to me another one of those cases where I look at it and ask what rifles are chambered in it. In my case the Ruger #1B is just about perfect for either one of them, but .270's are easy to find and .280's are uncommon. If I stumbled on a really appealing rifle, the .280 would be fine, and maybe a hair better than the .270 on elk. But if I was going to have one built, I'd probably pick a .270 Weatherby, 7mm STW, or something else with significantly more ooomph than the .270 Winchester, to justify the expense.

Today: 270 vs 280 vs 30-06.

50 years ago: Dodge vs Chevy vs Ford.

150 years ago: Appaloosa vs Mustang vs Quarter Horse vs Saddle Bred.

The discussion goes on and on and on... Only the subject changes...

I'll keep my 7mm RM and .280 Rem. No need for a .270.

Lol ,280 what only 3 names changes but "what da hey" it still can't carry water for a 270 WCF nuff said fred .

Attention Walmart shoppers, Remington CoreLokt 270WCF ammunition now on sale in aisle 3

Sorry . . . can't help myself, because dumbass statements from 270 owners like the one above make it so hard for me to like the the 270, and I own several.

In every measurable (case capacity, bullet selection, high BC bullets and attendant factory barrel twists) the 280 owns a slight advantage.

For the factory ammo Walmart shopper, the 270 is king.

I also think there are MORE 270 reloaders than 280 reloaders.

Remember - I like the 280 also.

Jerry

Well, some of you more or less got the point of this.
You guys still trying to convince us that one is "better" than the other pretty much missed it.

So which 140 NAB has the better BC? Nah, how about 110 Barnes zappers?

Ok, I'll give you 162's especially since the ABLR was a swing and a miss and came in at .543 not .625. Ahh phuqqit.

So the delima is to ditch the 260 and 7RM, roll (2) 270's and phuqq all the reloading BS with some fine 270 factory fodder???

Can it be done? Sounds like a set up for failure and wounded/missed animals


These are the things that keep me awake at night. Serious stuff...

Jerry . . . I am sure there are.

I'm one of them

I am pretty sure it would work just fine, and make life so much easier.

And no schit, saw 130 CL's on sale at Wally for $17.99, HA!

I love common, low tech stuff.....

Love that big ol' bruiser Bob....

The new school stuff kills too..... even at old school ranges.... 162 outta the .280 at 18 yards.....



I'm sure I could live a long and prosperous hunting career with a .270.... painted rainbow colors of course. Doesn't matter which one I've got in my hands.... if I can't find a critter to shoot. Seems like boots, Binos, packs, and other gear have been FAR more important than .050-.100 in BC on all my hunts. But, I'm the kinda guy who'll hedge bets a little ballisticlly.....

'Bore..... The .280 threats the .270 like ham in pan, wraps it up in Saran, then kidnaps it and slaps it up inside of a van..... since we're on LL references....

by the way.... don't get mad an explode, because I know your nine is easy to reload.....

dogshooter: I know....I am poking fun. The extra reach don't hurt a thing.

You spoke volumes of truth....

A couple years ago I got a stand on the edge of the ranch. The other hunters said, "what if your deer runs off after you shoot it?" I replied, "I'm not going to let it run off"

I didn't let him run off, he was DRT.

Tex,

What caliber is that No. 1?

.270

130 Ballistic Tip over a fistful of Reloader 22

Why do you mock people who shop at Walmart? The 280 isn't very popular because since 1957 not many people have wanted it. Plain and simple. You can numerically compair any two cartridges, but thier values don't nessasarly equate to an "advantage". In the case of the 280 the "advantages" you claim seem to have very little impact over the 270win pragmatically or in popularity. Also, there are cartridges with lesser "advantages" as you described them that are not only newer but more popular than the 280, for example the 7mm-08 and the 6.5CM.

Ah hell.....lets just have some fun!

Now lets sort them by 500 yard drift!

And now by 500 yard energy!

Moral of the story? 162's are phuqqin king. Everything else a pawn. Soooooo......a pawn is a pawn.


Checkmate.

Fun for the Thursday doldrums.....

How would a 270 win pushing a 150 gr at 2925 with a g7 bc of .317 compare to the 162 amax.

Can it be added to your chart it would be interesting to see how close the two would be.


From what I can find the 150 will beat the 162 if both are given 2925 fps for a velocity with the same zero and same scope height. The next jump in bc for the 280 would be in the 168 gr bullets. Where I have found that velocity becomes a strong factor. In this class /weight of projectile in the 280, given some rifles will run significant velocity in the 168+ grn bullets. it's rare in a 24 inch barrel. Given the bullet manufacturers daily trumping the day before's technology in bullet design i.e. BC and SD not to mention the powder advancements. I would find it hard to pick a 2moa 280 over a 1/2 moa 270 and vise versa.

270 Win ?

isn't that for the lipstick boys that wanna pee in the little girls room ?

No........it's what you shoot when you get tired of playing with rocket launchers and figure out what really kills BG animals.

At the risk of getting scolded - how do the 162 Amax's hold up to elk/moose? I've shot them before and they are accurate but I've always been a bit skeptical when elk/moose are involved. They are not an interlock design bullet.

The 160 NAB drops 2.1" more and drifts 2.6" more at 500 yards but is bonded. I'd think it would be a better choice when elk are involved, especially if one shows up at 50 yards. As an example, the bull I shot 2 years ago was shot quartering to me at 50 yards. I ran a 180 Partition into the near shoulder - DRT.

Plus I can't hold within 2-2.5" at 500 yards so the extra advantage over a NAB is lost on me.

Thoughts?

I've had the same sentiment. I'm pretty excited to see the new ELD-X in action. VERY close BC with the interlock ring under the jacket.

I tweaked my post just before you finished to add an example. Bullets on bone at less than 100 yards require a bit of integrity. I'm not saying the Amax wouldn't work because I've not used them. I'm hoping some will chime in.

If you support Nathan Foster and all his findings (some here dont), he speaks VERY highly of the Amax in a 7mm-08. Based on what he has seen, since impact velocity is below 2600 (that's basically MV), they behave pretty much like a cup N core.

I had slight reservations, and once they discontinued the Amax, I decided to look at other alternatives. I plan to load up the 145 LRX for most uses, esp when meat hunting. I'll also load up a 150 LRAB for more on the trophy hunting end since this will be my MTN rifle as well.

FredIII- it's practically identical, except for about 150 FPE @500.


When I said "162 is King" that's strictly based on flight characteristics. Lotsa dead stuff and threads about if its great on game. Not even going there, especially since I've not spilled blood with one.

If you look across the top you see that they all average out to about what a 280 is with 140's. Even funnier because of the subject matter of this thread.

Unfortunately I monkey with a lot of numbers and starting farting around with this stuff about 5 years ago. Curiousity I suppose. Fun if your an Excel guru. Not so much if you think your setting the world on fire because you get another 50 FPS or your BC is a little higher.

Hence my lack of give a schit for chasing my ass with this stuff anymore.


Doesn't really matter.


But damn if I wouldn't love to see a .277 ELD-X!

Add: or it averages a 270 with 140 NAB's.

The .280 running 162s is better than anything the .270 can put out..... that is not debatable.... look at the numbers (and the pile of dead schitt pics.... one of which I included in this post).

The debate is whether it's ENOUGH better..... 20% more energy and 20% less drift.... for the same powder charge..... seems a pretty good gain to me. And, I've seen the real-world difference..... though it typically takes 1/4 mile plus for the differences to become evident. "Normal hunting ranges" don't tent to divulge much by way of external ballistic advantages.....

By the way.... if you're one of those guys who think 20% is no big deal...... I'll gladly accept 20% of your next paycheck.....

I'd be curious what a matrix or new 175 vld do for the 270. Granted, that would require a custom tube and sort of defeats the original intent.

Sure. But look at the difference between a .486 and .625 and a 2 mph missed wind call at 500. The .486 is 3.6", the .625 is 2.7". So a 1" "gain" at 500.

Under 500 it all means very little and 99% of the threads about this stuff come from 99 difference situations and perspectives none of which really matter to the other 98.

The ass chewings come from guys that like to make gravel at 1200 yards and tell Joe that he's phuqqed because he's without turrets and some improved chamber with target bullets. But Joe never has/will shot past 200 yards and doesn't care. But Joe is sucking hind tit.

Poor Joe.

That ELD would be a dandy let's keep our fingers crossed.

Does the .277 150lra not have a similar BC than the 162. As well as being able to out pace a 162 in most 280. Granted it's new the dead chit is no were = but the LRA is new and will no doubt begin mounting kills.

No based on testing, even dropping a new 1:7 twist tube, it only tested at .569.

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/nosler-lr-accubonds-bc-testing-results-137554/

Are the g7 not similar I have not seen Brian date on the LRAB or The ELD.
Just read the link never mind.

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure the published BC on the LRAB are pretty well inflated. I'm going from memory, but I'm pretty sure the ELD checked out pretty close. They were developed with Doplar, so it makes sense for them to be spot on. I'll dig and see if I can find where I saved the ELD tests.

The phone number is the only number Nosler can get correct.



The Accubond LR is shown as "LITZ" on the table, 2,850 FPS was a solid number and all the 4831 I could get in the case, IIRC. The .543 was his call in a 1:10.

Damn accurate too.

Give me a .543 ELD-X and I'd be happy. Hell, I think the 140 BTSP at .486 could be a sneaky little devil.

Tex -

Nice buck......but ......

Ain't as nice as that No. 1 !! Sweet.

Jerry

270.
The real debate is 270 vs 30-06.
Thank god i have both

I can't read those little chart numbers on my screen.

I presume the pink hi-kited ones are the .270s.....

Lol, probably need to change that fill color since its hard to read. 280 is pink, of course.


Maybe I should rainbow the 270?

Never put one in an elk, but have seen them crush moose. Pulled one out of the off shoulder last fall. Have seen others give pass throughs with similar placement. Their ballistics (external and terminal) are at the top of the pile.

WITH a 270 OR 280 there is no need....

for any LESSER cartridges! !

i.e. there is a 25-06 in every 270 Win.


knowwhatImeanVern?


Jerry

It's the epi tome of excellence....



Quite a bit of crossover in them all, which is why these threads last for eons. Hard to believe that a cartridge that can be out shot with a 260 can almost out shoot a 7 Mag.

Doesn't make sense to some. Its "X is better than Y", period. No consideration of the other 99 variables.