Why the 280?



Photo and text courtesy of Guns&Ammo*


The 280 Remington is nearly identical to the 270 Winchester in many aspects (though, the 270, on paper, is the marginally better performer). Even the recoil appears similar (according to Chuck Hawk's recoil table).

The price is a dime's difference (as of 8/1/13): $1.40/shot for 270 and $1.50/shot for 280.

I like the 280, but on paper the 270 is a better performer. The only difference, I imagine, would be it's potential effect on game with a larger diameter (270's .277 v the 280's .284 diameter).

What's your opinion between the two rounds. What would you pick, and why?

Personally, and this is all theoretical for now, I'd choose the 280. Again, theoretically (as I do not hunt or reload yet), I'd have a 280 for small & medium sized game and a 7mm Rem Mag for large game. The 280 and 7mm bullets are interchangeable, though I may choose heavier weights for the 7mm Rem Mag.

As I'm sure someone will ask, I'd like to hunt:
Deer
Sheep
Elk
Moose

and,

Recreational target shooting (mostly gongs but some paper) out to 800 yards.


* http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/05/22/reloading-the-280-remington/

.280....Ackley.....

yup !!!!!!!

Remington wanted a .270 and Winchester already had one.

I have chosen the .270. Who needs a wider bullet selection when the ones available for the .270 work so well? I've owned five .270s (two currently) and have no designs on the .280.

Nothing wrong with it, but when I made the choice, the .280 was all but dead. It might as well be, now, for that matter. There aren't a lot of choices in .280 rifles unless you build one. That is pretty telling, right there.

My pick is the .280 Remington. For no particular reason other than I like the 7mm. The 30-06 and the .270 WCF are excellent hunting cartridges in their own right.

I sincerely doubt any deer in North America, be they of the whitetail or blacktail variety would know the difference if they were hit with a projectile from any of the three cartridges.

Luckily, I think this is a spot where you can't go wrong. What you should do is find a rifle you like and if it is only available in 270 then buy it. (likewise 30-06)If it is sitting on the dealer's shelf chambered in .280, then you have been living right and should not dicker about the price tag.

Just pay for it and take it home.

Enjoy.

the pic tells the story...

I think RDFinn nailed it!!

there's no getting around greater case capacity and better bullets.

I'm afraid I lack the expertise to know what I'm looking at...

280 Remington on left, 280 Ackley on right....

30/06 on left, 280 Ackley on the right.

Since you do not handload (yet) I would get the .270. Ammo can be found anywhere and for the animals you listed,the .270 would work just as well as the .280 and 7mm Mag.

The 7x 57 had been around since the turn of the century but it never took off in the US as it did elsewhere. So Remington just renamed it essentially to the 280.

Well there's always the 270 Weatherby, 270WSM, and 270 Gibbs.
Just saying.

.280 Such a great bullet selection.

I'd been hearing about that "greater bullet selection" for the .280 for years, so maybe 3 years ago went to the Midway site (which sells just about every component bullet made, except during Obama panics.

Found out there were something like 170 7mm bullets for sale, and 150 .270 bullets. The 7mms went up to 175 grains and the .270's up to 160 grains. These days I'd bet there are more on the low end for the .270, due to the 6.8 SPC.

I've never seen the .270 have the slightest trouble killing any sort of big game, including elk, moose and similar-sized African plains game, with 150-grain bullets. As a result I wondered why the 175-grain 7mm is supposed to be such hot stuff. Tried a few on various animals and found out it didn't kill any better than the 150 .270.

This is also what I've generally found with a pile of big game rounds of approximately the same power, in calibers from .270 to .30-06, including various 7mm magnums and the smaller .300 magnums. Oh, and the .280 Remington and .280 AI, which I've used some too. Hit an animal right with a good bullet using any of them and the animal dies, pretty damn soon.

Yeah, some 7mm bullets have enough edge in ballistic coefficient that way out past 500 yards you'd see some difference in wind drift. But if you don't shoot past 500 there isn't the slightest bit of difference between the .270, .280 or .280 AI.

Now, if you run out of ammo some place like, say, eastern Montana, you might be able to find .280 ammo and you might not. But you'll for sure be able to find .270 ammo, even if you have to knock on some rancher's door. He might not have any but one of his neighbors will.

Or even in Sopchoppy, of course you won't have to go that far as someone will have a box in their truck.

greater bullet availability is only an advantage where the competitor has very little selection.....this just simply isn't the case with most cartridges these days....all it takes is just one bullet that your gun likes and the rest of the selection is irrelevant.....

Thank gawd Mule Deer is here...

Somehow, I knew the 280AI mavens would run to this thread like ants to a pile of offal....they display an astonishing proclivity for not being able to stick to the subject at hand.....like Democrats

If you've killed BG animals with a 280, you've killed it with a 270,and vice versa....if you've killed game with factory-loaded 7Rem Mag ammo, you've for sure killed it with a 280AI,given its' best loads.....and if you've killed game with a 280,you've killed it with a 280AI 25 yards further away....and so it goes.

Referring to the original post,if I had a 280 (I don't anymore;see Mule Deer's post),and I wanted to make a jump to a bigger BG cartridge, it would be at least a 338,and preferably, a 375H&H or 375 Ruger; not a 7 Rem Mag.

If I didn't already have a few 270's, I'd be perfectly happy with a 280.

Again as to the original post,additional frontal area can have an effect, but not at the level of swapping a 7mm for a 270......007" is nothing to get excited about, whether in expanded or non-expanded form. I know this drives the 7mm fans nuts but a 270 IS a 7mm.

Anyone who needs 150-170 bullets to choose from and bases his cartridge selection on this is schitzo......for killing game with the 270 or 280, you need maybe one for each....and they are both Partitions.

I'm beginning to remember why I no longer read Guns and Ammo.

Why choose the 280 over the 270? Probably for the same reasons JB prefer his own 7x57 rifle. Personal preference. Any of the three cartridges work fine on the same animals. But 270 ammo is easier to find than the other two. It's all good out there

Aw, hell, all those '06 cases burn too damned much powder.

And as blind as I am, a 7-30 Waters would well outpace the range of my eyesight.

Still, since more is better, I bumped-up to a 7x57. I guess I've got more piss & vinegar left than I'd reckoned...

FC

No self respecting rifle looney ever runs out of ammo.

Except when the airplane loses it.

Then his wildcat or off the wall factory cartridge choice seems like a really bad idea.

Yeah but there's always a 270 loaner hanging around...

If you're worried about that, and it can happen, mail it forward.

I have a funny story about that!

One of my local buddies, who is indeed a real rifle loony, became fascinated with the .280 maybe 20 years ago, after using the .270 with perfect satisfaction (including lots of elk) for many years. He swapped me for a custom .280 my editors were tired of hearing about, then bought .280's for his wife and two daughters to simplify the ammo situation.

They all went hunting pronghorn opening week in eastern Montana, 400+ miles from here. There were a bunch of tags available that year, and before they filled all their tags his wife and daughters had run through the 3 boxes of handloads he'd figured would be plenty.

This was during one of the periodic slumps the .280 has between bursts of enthusiasm by rifle loonies. The nearest small town didn't have any .280's. They kept driving and stopping at stores, and by the time they were halfway home they still hadn't found any. So he said the hell with it and kept on driving, figuring he'd kill an elk and help his family hunt deer to fill the freezer. That winter he sold all the .280's and bought some more .270's. He stills buys and sells rifles like crazy, but hasn't owned a .280 since.

You guys need to take Bob along with you cause I'm sure he'll always have an extra Legend or "Myth" you can borrow......

Well these days I do my hunting with a 7mm RM, I bought it because I wanted the rifle, I figured that I would sell the barrel and get either a 30-06 or a 270. The thing shot very well and saw no reason to swap out the barrel. There is not a wit difference that you could really tell in the field between the 270 30-06 280 7mm RM. One my shoot a inch fatter over reasonable hunting ranges, The other slightly more bullet energy. In the end not enough to keep you for killing game, it only matters on the internet and something to write about I guess. These days with high quality bullets you can get, the differences are so thin its not really worth paying any mind to. I would take a 270 over a 280 any day of the week not because one performs better that the other, but 270's are pretty much can be had anywhere!

RD how many rifles you wanna borrow?


I actually ALMOST bought another FW 270 the other day.....common sense prevailed.

Wouldn't mind permanently borrowing that Simillion

That's when taking a spare rifle along makes sense. My pick would be either the 270 or a 30/06.

Common sense would have bought the FW .270....

1. They will all do the same thing.
2. Buy 1 of each so you can quit worrying about picking nits.
3. Or go to the biggest gunstore around where you live and identify what ammo is more common and least expensive.
4. Buy a rifle identified by the criteria of #3.
5. You don't reload or know how to shoot pick the least expensive ammo and buy a full case of to learn on.
6. If it shoots good and groups nice buy some more.
7. Will talk about scopes later.
8. Please PM me your snail mail addy so I can send you my consulting bill as I've given the best practical advice so far.

Don't understand why the .280 was ever invented, much less made commercially available.

The AI version is respectable, but a 7Mag or if you prefer a shorter package, the 7WSM will roll them over just as well.

Good point, elkhunter.

Bob, for a minute there, almost sounded like an Un-Loony, if there is such an animal...

But, we know him too well to buy into that nonsense...

DF

Well, there's a 'little' more to it than switching barrels. Like the mag follower AIN'T the same AND the bolt face is QUITE diff.

Believe he is shooting a Blaser rifle jwall - easy swap...............

No mention of the rifle.

Don't see how a Blaser can shoot mags & std cartridges with ONE bolt.

I've just seen him mention previously that he shoots a Blaser jwall (IIRC).
When you get the different barrel assembly with a Blaser you get everything you need to swap it to a different cartridge.
They are expensive set ups - just said easy swap - not inexpensive

Yep, IF he's shootin Blaser.

A lot of unknown there.

No more unknown there than when you posted not knowing what he was shooting.
Ask him if it makes you feel better.....

Lightly step on a prickly pear bear foot. As you hop around the rest of you will end up in the patch.

elkhunternm: I think it's still there!

Pah...a real aficionado would have asked "why not the Brenneke 7x64".

It's calling your name BobinNH.

The only thing that needs changed is the bolt head. It takes about a minute to do it. As for magazine "follower" you mentioned earlier, each barrel comes with a magazine. It's pretty much plug-and-play too taking all of about 10 seconds to swap one out.

I didnt bother to read the whole thread, or any of the posts for that matter, just opted to answer the OPs question...though I'll bet this has been covered....

OP: You are new here, and quoting Chuck Hawk....well, nevermind.

As for the cartridges you asked about, the .280 is the choice...the .270 is gay.


Simple as that.

15 years ago I had a really expensive custom made in 280. It shot 3" groups. The maker told me to get some factory ammo to be sure my dies weren't the problem. At the time we had a really good gun store in town they had no 280's. I then drove 50 miles to the largest gun store in the area,they had no 280's. I called around & finally found some at Bass Pro. Drove 60 miles to Bass Pro & they had 2 boxes of 140 gr Corelocks which I bought. THE RIFLE STILL SHOT 3" GROUPS.

Last Friday I bought the 280 below at a local pawn shop for $450.00 OTD W/O a scope.I have 3 custom 280's & probably 10 270's.

280 was just Remington sour grapes and thanks to their 7Mag, the 280, even after a couple of name changes never caught on. As to this Ackley "Improved" business, I'm not seeing and neither do the animals. If I want 'Improved' I just buy a Weatherby caliber, that way you'll have at least half a chance of finding ammo should you need some.

Any chance of you translating that into English.... ?

That was a 'kawi' post. Consider it exactly like a 'Gus' post, and treat it accordingly.
If you seriously need a translation, please consult savage62, who's posts are equally twisted.

Seem to me that it means that if you step in [bleep] you will fall in the big pile.

I have three customized P-64-70 Fwt. .270s, have had maybe a dozen .270s, all P-64s, even one "J'OC" style Biesen custom, with both a FN and HVA actioned Husqys. as well. I got my first in 1968 and my last and favourite on a 1946 action, my same age, was just finished last April.

I have three custom .280s, two re-chambered, stocked and modded Brno 21-H rifles and one really neat Krieger-tubed HVA which is VERY light and was also just finished last April. I have another of the Brnos in parts, just waiting for me to get around to taking it for re-chambering, etc.

I have also had a custom VZ-24 in .280 with stock from Biesen's shop, nicely finished by a friend in my hometown. I had another custom .280 on a P-64, SGW tube and I converted an early Brown stock for the post-64, with some help from a smith, to make a somewhat heavy, but, absolute DRILL of a rifle in 1985.

So, I have a fair amount of experience with both of these rounds and will say that, FOR ME, I DO prefer the .280, which I consider the "best" of all the "standard" .473" headed cartridges. The "advantage" is miniscule, tiny and only a GONE rifle whacko, would even think about it......but, well, you know........

So, my light,synthetic-handled, CRF .280s, with 150 or 160 NPs and am trying NABs, are THE all-around hunting rifles and it is my favourite cartridge of all, except the fabulous, superb and wonderful .338WM....with good handloads, these make THE pair for BC, IMHO.

BobNH, should just buy that .270 FWT, I have a slot in my No.2 safe where it would just fit and would "look after it" for him....and for FREE!!!

While a 270 will make a passible squirrel rifle or will take out a small coyote if ranges are limited, they are too gay for deer shooting. The 280 on the other hand is too macho, which is why I opt for the 243AI and only feel slightly over gunned if I keep things under 700 yards.

Went to the range the other day with a 270 Win 22" Ruger LH stock rifle, a LH Remington C prefix Kevlar Stock 24" 280 Remington, and a Custom LH MRC 24"6.5 X 284 Lapua. To try and establish
pet loads for each rifle.

They all shot 140 gr bullets all around 1" or under. And seemed to be max for each rifle. Was pretty impressed with the 270 Win and the shorter barrel. The wanderings of a Looney!

270 Win 22" 3000 FPS 140 Gr Barnes TSX
280 Remington 24" 3025 FPS 140 Gr Nosler E Tip
6.5 X 284 24" 2920 FPS 140 Gr Nosler Ballistic Tip

I figured mentioning the gayness was just adding salt to the wound.

Saw a new .280 A-Bolt-II Medallion with 26" barrel on a dealer's shelf, today. Dealer said it was part of a special run for one of the distributors. They had new Medallion models with 26" barrel in .264 Win Mag, .308 Win, .300 WSM. $599.99 each.

I guess a .280 with 26" barrel would perform well, maybe too unhandy to be worth the bother. But, easy to shorten. Barrel taper is the same on all of them, magnum and standard calibers.

270 hands down. I will do anything the 280 or 7mag will do and just as well, there's no real argument over that. Ammo and reloading components are everywhere.

The most important reason is it's numerically further away from a 338 or 35 or 45 than a 280. All you have to do is show SWMBO the round and explain how small it is compared to a 338-06 or 35 Whelen or 45/70. You NEED a 338-06 or 35 Whelen for bigger meat! This tiny bullet just won't do...

Steve
Oregon

So your saying you have actually killed squirrels and coyotes with a .270. Stunt shooter, I bet you never tell about the wounded squirrels that got away.

So when do the hunting seasons start.................???????

I have a couple of .270s and a few .30-06s and a 7x64 Brenneke, which is not interchangeable with the .280, but close enough that Speer recommends interchanging load data, which in my experience works just fine and produces .280 velocities. Now, I want a .280 to add to the collection just because I've never owned one.

With all that said, if I had to sell all but two, I would keep my favorite .270 and my .375 and go hunt the world. And not because I think the .270 is better than the '06 or .280, but because that is the rifle I like.

I like the way you think..

I didn't read the whole thread but between 270 and 280 there is 7 thousandths (.007) of an inch difference, do you really think that any animal on Earth cares one tiny bit which one it gets hit with?

You want to get a 280 and then a 7mm Mag? they are so close to the same that it doesn't matter.

kutenay thanks for offering to watch over that 270FW for me!

I cold leave that with you and RD Finn cold baby sit the Simillion rifle and I would not have to be bothered worrying which one to hunt with...

The 270 FW is an early Classic...5 digit number....looked pretty good to me.

My first 280 came by default in that it wasn't a 270 but the rifle was so nice(a custom Mauser stocked by Kevin Campbell)that I couldn't pass it up. I have had several more 280's since then. I would buy another 280 if I bumped into a rifle that I really liked.

Arguing which is better between the .270 and .280,well that's like "pole vaulting over tick turds."

I'm surprised I didn't catch any mention of Remingtons model 740 autoloader in this thread of which the .280 Remington was birthed for. This rifle was designed for the .30-06 cartridge but there was a desire for a .270 Winchester offering in it. Remington felt the rifle was not strong enough to stand up to the hotter loaded .270 so they came out with their own "270" which is the .280 Rem. They then factory loaded it to the same pressure as the .30-06 and the problem was solved. But a couple years later Remington revamped and strengthened the model 740 and it became the famous model 742 which was strong enough for the .270 Win. thereby relieving the .280 of it's duties. If that fact alone wasn't bad enough for the future of the .280 Remington introduced the 7mm Rem. mag which sold like wildfire and mostly relegated the .280 to the scrap heap of history. Mostly that is, except for some rifle loonies who almost keep it relevant.

Famous? More like infamous.

The 742 Hangmaster should join the .280 on the scrap heap of history.

They go together perfectly.

Being from PA, I've never been allowed to use one for hunting. So I can't say how good or bad they are and will have to take your word on the issue.

Another question I had:

Comparing the 270 to 280 when it comes to reloading. Which has better potential when it comes to handloads? Your thoughts?

Font enlarged so that maybe the people who don't read will catch this.

280 Remington wins. Larger, heavier bullet loaded at equivalent (to the 270) pressures makes it more flexible. That said, there's nothing wrong with the 270, especially with premium bullets.

If we follow that statement to its logical conclusion, the .30-06 beats either one, and the .460 Weatherby might be best of all.

Plus, over the decades I've known quite a few rifle loonies who handload for the .280. Exactly ONE has hunted with bullets over 160 grains, while I've known hundreds of .270 handloaders who use 150-grain bullets, and quite a few who use the 160 Nosler Partition. Apparently the long-touted belief that 175-grain 7mm bullets make the .280 superior for handloading is pretty well ignored in what is often called "the real world."

It could just as easily be argued that these days the .270 wins, because not only does it have just as great a weight-range of bullets as the .280, but its bottom end is better, due to bullets for the 6.8 SPC.

Six one; half dozen the other.

Like 'em both!

This note in the September 2013 issue of Rifle Magazine, pg. 23-

Om September 2012, David
Bailey won the 2012 F-Open Class
National, which allows any cartridge,
at the NRA Whittington Center
in Raton, New Mexico, with a
.280 Remington. The event is 1,000
yards and quickly sorts out the
men from the boys, pertaining
to accurate rifles and cartridges,
with many of the �super duper�
magnums falling short on performance.
In spite of wind gusts
and generally poor weather conditions,
Bailey read the wind accurately
(a key factor) and managed
to win with a remarkable score of
1,283-59x.
Bailey�s Bat-action rifle (smithed
by King�s Armory in Arlington,
Texas) features a Bartlein 32-inch
barrel with a one-in-9-inch twist
and is chambered for a no-turnneck
.280 Remington. His handload
consisted of Berger 180-grain
Hybrid bullets pushed 2,860 fps
using Hodgdon H-4831SC powder,
Wolf primers and Remington cases
with �very little brass prep.�
A moderate velocity 7mm, the
.280 Remington offers consistent
accuracy and is apparently hard to
beat in stiffly contested 1,000-yard
competition, even by ballistically
faster cartridges.

'Nuf sed...........

+1000.

IMHO, anyone owning a 270, a 280, or a 30/06, has no practical reason to switch between any of the three. It's about preference. No so much about performance.

I'd agree with that.

2 wanna-be '06s and the real thing, IMO.

Still, they are great excuses...errr...reasons to buy more rifles, so none are bad.

As well as the 30-06 has done for me for 50+ years, I have never seen any advantage in a 270 or 280. My choice between the two is the obvious 270. I go some strange places and am prone to forget things like ammo and tags, etc.

CRS will eventually get YOU, too!

My 280 KS C prefix LH Rem 700 has a very short throat? Is this common? Way short of mag length.

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

I figured so, but I didn't want the 280 guys busting out their supposed trump card (the 162 Amax) without a rebuttal.

For me, I'll happily keep chugging along killing stuff with my 270.

If anything walks after hit with either, then it's the shooter's fault.

ruraldoc,

That's very interesting about the inaccurate .270's you've owned--since it illustrates some sort of law of chance. Between me and my wife we've probably owned 15 .270's. I can't remember one that wasn't capable of 1" or better accuracy at 100 yards, including a Remington 760. At least four have been among the most accurate big game rifles I've ever fired, factory or custom, and three of those were factory rifles: a Mark V Mauser, a J.C. Higgins FN Mauser and a Remington 700 ADL. The last would average three 150-grain Hornady Spire Points in an inch--at 300 yards.

Every 280 that I have owned has been a bolt rifle,the 270s include a couple of other action types.

Right now I have a BAR in 270 that is pretty close to a 2 moa shooter,and the first rifle I ever owned was a Ruger M77 that was just as bad.

On the other hand I currently have 270s in a Sauer 202 and a Merkel K3 and both are wonderfully accurate. My Steyr model M is a full stock 270 and shoots great too.

I also foolishly sold a Remington M7600 in 270 that shot close to half inch groups at 100 yards.

So far I've not seen a lemon in 280,maybe it is just luck of the draw.

Those 202's do shoot, don't they?

I've only had four .280's, one custom, but they all shot very well.

Yeah, he can write a coherent sentence, even a well constructed paragraph, a real treat here on the Fire...

And, he actually starts with a theme, develops it, draws conclusions and finishes his thoughts without fluff, rabbit chasing, over reaching statements, glittering generalities, insults, name calling, chest thumping, preaching or moralizing, etc, etc.

Quite unique and refreshing...

DF

I wonder how much the whole "7mm Rem. Express" experiment set the .280 back? From what i've read it created a lot of confusion.

I bought my "7mm Express" new in 1979 because it wasn't a .270 or a .30-06. Even at that tender age I was on the way to semi-loonyism (sp) and didn't want a rifle that everyone else had. A quick look at any handloading manual shows no practical difference between the three so for me it was the "like" and "different" factor. On a good day my ADL will still shoot three 175gr Nosler Partitions into an inch at 100 yards and the velocity is somewhere between 2775 and 2800 according to the Millenium Pro.

Lately though, due to time constraints I have been shooting a "one shot group" just to check the zero. There are other rifles in the safe but I always pick up the boring, reliable and accurate .280 when it's go time. By the way my, rifle is barrel stamped 7mm Express. It has never failed to do its part and it will be the last one I sell.

Beats me why they didn't stay with the sexier, 7mm Express name. Sounds a lot more exotic than a plain .280.

Oh well, Remington marketing decisions often don't make a lot of common sense.

DF

I have a Ruger 77 in 280 that has the barrel stamped with "7MM EXP REM". Shortly after buying it, I called Ruger and asked about it, but the CSR with whom I spoke told me that Ruger had never stamped any 280 barrels with the "7MM EXP REM" name.

I have only owned a couple of 270s and 280s; still have three of the 270s, a S&W A (Husqvarna 8000 action), a Ruger 77 Mark II RSI, and a Remington 700 in a Rynite stock, but only the Ruger 77 in 7MM EXP REM. I have thought about cutting the barrel back to 18.5" and installing the barreled action in a 77 RSI stock, but since I'm not too likely to use it much, decided that I'd just leave it as is and put it to sleep.

The greatest benefit, that I can see, of the 270 over the 280 is the ease of which factory ammo can be found both far and wide. I almost always carry a spare/loaner rifle in 30-06 with me when I travel more than a couple of hours from home to hunt, just so that I know that I'll have a rifle with easy to find ammo in the event that my primary ammo get lost or forgotten. This has only been put into practice once, when I loaned to a guy from OH who was staying in the same motel as us in eastern CO. His only rifle was a 6.5x55 for while the ammo had been misplaced and nobody in his hunting party had brought a spare rifle. I loaned him the 30-06 and he used it to successfully punch his tag. That particular 30-06 is gone, but its replacement is the CLR that I bought here in 2011 as a donor action for a 7x57 that I was looking to have Mr. Forbes put together for me. The CLR shot so well with Federal's least expensive 150 grain Power-Shok load that I've put the 7x57 project on the shelf, at least for the time being.

I've been at stores when the conversation at the guncounter went something like this:

"Give me some of that Remington 7mm ammo," says the joe off the street potential buyer.

The counter monkey responds with, "What kind? I've got 7mm Remington Magnum, 7mm-08 Remington, and 7mm Remington Ultra Magnum."

"Well hell I don't know. My gun is a 7mm, and it's a Remington. 'Bout all I know. Let me see a box of each,I should be able to tell by lookin' at the shells."

Having another cartridge in 7mm Express Remington on the shelf would just add to this confusion/cluster. I believe that is one of the primary reasons Remington switched up the name to the 280.

I think that the sequence of Remington names for the 280 ran in this order:

1 - 280
2 - 7mm-06
3 - 7mm Exp Rem
4 - 280

John Lacy's book on the Remington 700 discusses the 7mm-06 and 7mm Exp Rem to some degree, but I don't recall any of the specifics.

Or lately-

"We ain't got no 7mm ammo, period, and don't know when we will ever have any"

My buddy from Idaho bought a Ruger No. 1 around 1983 or so that was stamped .280 Rem/7mm Express. They covered their bases on that one.

Yikes!

Or lately-

"We ain't got no 7mm ammo, period, and don't know when we will ever have any"[/quote]

Here - "We ain't got no ammo..."

Predictably, this thread has become as logical as arguing over who makes the best pickup truck. My family has .280 Rem., .280 Ackley Imp., 7mm Rem. Mag, and 7mm-08. All are good. The .280 Ackley and 7mm Rem. mag have a lot of overlap, but the Ackley is more pleasant to shoot and is by nature a more accurate cartridge. The .280 shoots 140 gr bullets on as flat a trajectory as the .270 Win. shoots 130 gr. The .280 shoots 150 gr. much flatter than the .270 shoots 150 gr. and will handle 160 gr. when needed. The .280 Ackley has been to Africa and killed zebra, greater kudu, sable, waterbuck, and sitatunga, all of which are good sized animals. All of these cartridges are excellent deer cartridges.

You cannot blame the gun for you running out of ammo. Can't blame cutlery for being overweight either.

All of these work fine. Most important is that the rifle fits you, comes naturally to your shoulder, has a good trigger, and that the scope is properly mounted. That said, we are hunters, not gun nuts.

Blancocounty,

Not sure if I understood one part of your post where you say the 280 will shoot a 150gr much flatter than the 270.

How can that be?

- Bob

Think I bought my #1 in late '82.Still shoots under a minute if I do my part.

It's no great trick to get 150 grain bullets to exit the barrel from a 280 at 3000 fps.The 270 will get about 2850-2950 fps without pressure signs from typical sporters.

This does not amount to a world of difference but the advantage does lie with the 280 with most hunting bullets of 150 grains.The exception to this may be the new long range accubonds,the 150 grain version in 270 has an awesome BC.

Just working on those numbers giving the 280 Rem a 50fps advantage and using Nosler BTs at 150g in each, I am only getting about 1.5 inches less drop for the 280 Rem out at 500y. About 4 yards more PBR with a +/- 3 inch figure.

Not much in it really. Which may have been said already!

According to a couple of rules of internal ballistics, the .280 has about a 50-60 fps advantage over the .270 when bullets of the same weight are pushed at the same pressure, from the same barrel length. And that's giving the .280 a 2-grain advantage in powder capacity, which it doesn't always have, thanks to differences in brass weight. This is about what I've seen over the years.

In general, 150-grain .270 bullets have a similar, very slight advantage in ballistic coefficient over 150-grain 7mm bullets. I just averaged the BC's of 150-grain bullets listed in Bryan Litz's book, which lists actually tested BC's, not the optimistic and/or simplistic BC's from the manufacturers. The four .270 bullets listed averaged .458 for their G1 BC, while the five 7mm bullets listed averaged .439.

Not much difference, to be sure, and neither is 50-60 fps. All of this is real nitpicking, but does prove one thing: Anybody who claims the .280 shoots 150's a lot flatter than the .270 is ballistically prejudiced.

So that would make them a ballistic bigot?

Or perhaps a ballisticis...?

I currently have 3 .270s and 1 .280 and have owned another 5 or 6 of both over the years. Everyone is right there is not any practical difference between them. I'll always have a .280 Remington though. When I was growing up my dad and all my uncles treated a rifle as just a tool, most used a .30-06 a few .270s and one oddball .257 Roberts. My grandfather was somewhat of a "gunny" for the time and one day he shows up a the deer lease with the most beautiful Ruger #1 in .280 Remington. A single shot in an exotic caliber! I was mesmerized. Somehow one of my uncles ended up with that rifle after my grandfather passed but I did get his .401 Winchester which is a whole other topic. I never pick up a .280 without thinking about my grandfather.

Jeez, 123 posts and you guys haven't figured it out yet that the
.270Win. beats the .280Rem.?

Been hearing the ammo availability bs for years. Are 4 real/decent gun shops in three-county area near me and all carry 280 ammo. Guess this 280 shortage must be a western thing.

I knew you were pro 270. You guys think you've beaten the dead horse enough yet?

I've been a .280 fan for years, but only owned one very briefly years ago for reasons like the story above. A few years ago I started paying attention to the ammo supply in little podunk stores as I traveled during hunting season. Much to my surprise, I found more than one little store that had a pile of .280 in various forms, but no 30-06 or .270 left. My theory is that the more popular stuff sold out first during hunting season and the .280 was still left. Find a bigger town or store and they'd have some of it all, of course.

Either way, I got over it and finally got a .280 from a member here last year. It shoots so dang well with Federal Trophy Copper I went ahead and bought 200rds of that ammo to have on hand. Haven't even bothered to load for it yet, though I plan to if I ever get time.

I won't admit to owning a .270, but if I did it would be a Sako A7 that shoots 140 Accubonds into little groups. Too bad Federal discontinued that load not long after I tried it in my, er.. I mean someone's .270 rifle. It's so hard to find good .270 ammo!

I'm channeling JOC and he said enough of this mindless debate!

Bought my first 280 in 1981 after being encouraged by a Jim Carmichael story about the round, and have never found ammo lacking in my part of the world.Also live nowhere near any type of metropolitan area.

DF/Kutenay, thanks.....I showed this to my wife who immediately responded by saying that I am undiagnosed ADD and that I am incapable of stringing together two cogent thoughts.

I think Rural Doc has a good point about some 7mm bullets....sometimes I swear 7mm Nosler Partitions are drawn with heavier jackets but have never sectioned them to find out....that said I have also used Bitterroots in both calibers and Mr Steigers saw to it that they behave in similar fashion when driven to the same speeds....and of course with these mono's today the issue may be moot but I have never used a mono on an animal, so cant say.

Kutenay raises a good point about what we "like"....this is based on images of success or actual experience with one thing or the other, both of which breed confidence. In the end, this is most important.

My first trip out west, I took a 270 because I had been shooting lots of woodchucks with one, and besides, JOC said to use it....so I did.

As luck would have it my crack at a pronghorn was at a guesstimated (after careful consideration) 400 yards and he looked like a dot out there....but I knew the rifle and its trajectory, showed a smidgeon of daylight over the back and touched off...the herd ran off but there was a tiny white dot laying on the prairie....my pronghorn, and my first western animal with a 270.Wow!

Today this is routine work for the LR artiste,but to me,then,it was simply.....magic!

I have been equally impressed with the 280 and feel very strongly about both cartridges in a light bolt action with 22" barrels....add in the 30/06 as well.

I long ago gave up wondering which is better and try not to read too many numbers because this just gets a guy confused and upsets digestion and interrupts sleep. I will just grab any of them and go hunting.

Funny. I have have had as many as five .270s, three .280s and one .280 AI. I used (and still use them) interchangeably, depending on what I feel like carrying on a given day. My wife, on the other hand, has only one rifle, a .280, that she uses for everything from pronghorns to elk. She can't understand why I need all those other rifles. I tell her that I have a sickness--a diagnosis with which she totally agrees.

Out of curiosity I ran Quickload and it predicted 31fps advantage for the .280 over the .270 with 150 partitions for avg velocity of top 3 fastest loads for both in 24" barrel (loaded to 60k). Of course this is just model, but another point of reference. For default data loaded in QL it showed a .9 gr capacity in favor of the .280 so this is probably delta of velocity vs MD's rules of thumb. I have personally not seen the case capacity increase in the .280 when I've measured it for seated bullets vs the .270 though I've only used Rem & Nickel Win brass in the .280 and mostly Win brass in the .270 so not apples to apples.

Lou

mudhen wives generally don't understand rifle nuts.

I am in the camp of No Discernible Difference.

I have NOT owned a 280/7mm Express but HAVE LOADED one for a friend. We achieved the 'virtual' same vel. in the 280 as 270 with comparable bullets.

I have only stated this once before, here. If I had bought a 280 first, I probably would not have bought a 270. At the time I was unfamiliar with the 280 but EVERYBODY knew of JOC > So......

+1

That four letter word, "need" is very controversial.

Mudhen, as well as the rest of us, needs to be very cautious trying to expain it. Bottom line, there IS no explanation...

Mudhen, it seems, admitted his disorder, not too unlike the first step in a 12 step program.

"My name is Mudhen, and I'm a Rifle Loony"...

DF

I used Hornady's ballistic calculator and plugged in a 0.458 BC bullet at 2850 fps muzzle velocity for the 270, and a 0.439 BC at (2850+60=) 2910 fps for the 280. With a 250-yard zero for both, and default values otherwise, the 280 is a clear winner with 1.7 inches less drop at 600 yards (68.2 vs 68.5 inches), not to mention 3.0 ft-lbs of energy favoring the 280 at that distance.

Nitpicking? I dunno. The importance of a nit depends on where it's picked. If some forum readers should think that 1.7 inches coupled with more energy is trivial, then perhaps they need to pay more attention to some of ads in the back pages of recent issues of Field & Stream.

And further:
After reading multiple pages of this topic, it's surprising that nobody has suggested a compromise -- "Why can't we all just get along?" The .270/.280 wildcat cartridge will work to that effect. Thinner lots of .280 brass can be selected to take advantage of the increased case capacity of the .280 vs. the 270, and using .270 bullets will take advantage of their higher BC vs. 7mm bullets for a given weight.

Google can find no mention of a .270/.280 wildcat. If it is truly new, perhaps it should be christened the "B-27", following in the nominal footsteps of the famous B-29 cartridge. Wikipedia says that as a USA bomber, the B-27 "... never made it past paper, and no prototypes were built."; this seems apropos.

--Bob

Well sir, you may be in the wrong church.

WE are 'certified' loonies. That's short for 'lunatics'


Now I'm NOT inviting you to leave, on the contrary if you stay you may be converted.

The only reason nobody has done the 270/280 wildcat,is that virtual wildcat perfection was achieved by the 280 Ackley. Perhaps if we did a 270/280 Ackley Improved,we could achieve true perfection.

Thus we could call it the 270/280 Nirvana Green. It has a real multicultural ring to it,and I added the green cause it sounds really politically correct and everybody knows that's important.

Naturally,we could only use nontoxic bullets,which seem a little like an oxymoron,and that just makes it cooler.

BOY!!!!

Now, I HAVE "heard it all"!!!!

Good one, tho'!

If you're suggesting that the 280 AI case be necked down to 270, that at first blush seems a wonderful variation on the theme. Note that it can't be called an "Improved" cartridge, because one of the conventions connected with cartridges having "improved" in their designation is that they be able to accept and fire safely a factory cartridge. Given the headspace differences between the 280 and the 270 factory cartridges, a 270 factory cartridge can't be fired because of those differences. A 280 factory cartridge cnanot be fired because the bore diameter is too small.

Persons who carp will says the proposed wildcat cartridge is just a runty 270 Gibbs. Such derision can be silenced by pointing out the longer neck of the 280 AI-based case.)


In the context of Indian religions, wikipedia says that "Nirvana literally means 'blown out' (as in a candle) and refers, in the Buddhist context, to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished."

This seems to be appropriate in a couple of ways. The 280 AI is indeed "blown out", and the term has important connotations related to Barsness' promotion of candle-based annealing processes for brass cases. Too, users of this compromise cartridge will have "stillness of mind" and will have also extinguished desires and delusions relative to the 270-280 contention.

Despite this, the name Nirvana Green may need refining because of its probable abbreviation to "NG". NG is nicely ambiguous, and can signify National Guard, National Geographic, natural gas, nanogram, or possibly Nigeria. I'm afraid the riff-raff among rifle loonies might adopt the urban dictionary's first and primary meaning as the most appropriate: "No Good". (Link to Urban Dictionary.)


While I'm with you on bullet types, it's hard to be responsible for, or to control the toxic bullets that the hoi polloi rifle loonies might put into the case. Perhaps rifles chambered in 270/280 Nirvana Green will sell really well in CA?

--Bob

If JOC were alive today, I think he'd be shooting a 6.5 - perhaps a Creedmoor, like Wayne Van Zwoll dumped his 600+ yard elk

Thinking of a .485 BC at 2850, makes me think how efficient a 130 gr Accubond in 6.5 safely handloaded at that speed in a 260 or a 140 AB in a 7/08 are - running at the heels of many 270/280 loads.

Of course the 6.5x55 and 7x57 simply close the gap a tad more, so it's all back to 'Ballistic Masturbation' as some term it...in the end, they all work.

Me, I prefer non-mag recoil, and if forced to shoot one rifle for all non-dangerous NA game, would circle right back to where my head was as a kid, and when I bought my first rifle in college - a 270. The 270 was so popular then I had to 'settle' for a 7mag b/c it's all I could find in a used rifle at a decent price at a gunshow. It was heavy, and kicked, so off it went. Owned a few 270s since, no doubt ammo is possibly only hard to find in some countries outside the USA, though I bet you can find them in Africa. 280, I wonder.

Now someone will tell me how the '06 is universally found, and I would add, the metric 6.5x55 and 7x57, and prob the 9.3x62 are as well....

Pick your poison, use proper bullets, and STV - Shoot Thru Vitals.

65 -

I read UR first sentence. This thread ain't about 6.5s.

Somehow I doubt JOC would be interested in pedantic velocities.

I've noticed through the years that gunwriters like to push the .280 Rem. Especially Carmichael. If any of them would have really used the round exclusively and wrote about it's performance in their adventures, they may have been able to sell a bunch of .280's the way that JOC sold .270's.

When Carmichaels' name comes up I'm more inclined to think of the .458 Win mag than the .280 Rem. The .280 just needed someone to proselytize it.

With the .280 it's about less pressure in factory loads than the.270
Where the .280 shines is because of the tighter twist to accommodate the heaviest (longer) bullets available.

This brings to mind the 6.5'06 and .25'06 comparison, where twist limits the .25'06 .

The same can be said for the 9.3x62 and .35 Whelen

The metric calibers win out because of the established standard quicker twists, that the new sleek bullets require.

Some of them were desperately hoping to be known about the .280 the same way JOC was known for his .270 stuff. Carmichael was pretty open about it, as was Jon Sundra, both of whom wrote nicely about it. So did Bob Milek, for that matter.

But in the end, it's just another way to mess around with a .30/06 case to do exactly the same thing that the all the other cartridges based on '06 cases do, kill the hell out of animals.

If you want a 280 that is available outside the US, get its ballistic twin, the 7x64. Widely used in many African and European countries from what i can tell. Or you could just get a .270, which is also used in many of those same places plus the US.

I've seen .270 Winchester ammo all over Europe and Africa. In fact it's very popular on both continents.

The problem that Carmichael and Sundra had was they were never the wordsmiths that JOC was its that simple. Hawking 280's would not have mattered, because it pretty much did what the 270 did and if you wanted more that that then there were the 7mm RM or the 270 or 7mm Roy's. I just didn't light enough fires. I was stupid once and had a Dakota Number 10 chambered for 280, no matter what I did that rifle never shot well enough for what I paid for that one. I would have been happy with 1.5 to 2 inch groups but it shot 3 to 4 inches no matter what I tried for loads. When back to Dakota twice, I sold the rifle at a good price and a Blaser R-93 followed me home. I still have that Dakota if I just chambered it to 270 but for some odd reason I decided I needed a 280. Live and learn.

Not that Australia is a hunting mecca, but neither 280 nor 7x64 are widely available here. You would probably luck into some 280 brass in the average gun shop (I suspect the average gunshop here pales compared to the average in the US) but just as likely not. 7x64 - forget it.

But 270 Win ammo and components are even more popular than 30-06 here. No doubt 243 Win, 308 Win and 223 Rem outstrip the 270 Win but I suspect the 270 is probably in the top 5. 30-30 probably pips it too.

During the past week or so, I have been casually keeping track of the available CF rifle ammo that has been available in the small, rural, KS/MO/NE stores that I've stopped into for gas/pop/pi$$call and have noted that the most common ammo has been 243, 270, 30-30, 308, 30-06, and 35 Rem. I was surprised to see so the 35 Rem, but no 223 and only a couple of boxes of 22-250, 25-06, and 7mm Rem Mag. This is, mostly, coyote and whitetail country.

Jwall - I realized that.

As to JOC and Carmichael, seems in his later years Carmichael touted his new creation, cough cough (260), the 6.5 Bobcat and Panther.

Point is, He went from a 280 man, to talking 6.5s/260 and even loves his 250-3000 built on a shortened Mauser. Less recoil, yet solid deer killing performance. I believe JOC may well have gravitated towards lesser recoiling modest 6.5s if alive today.

The OP mentioned hunting, but also gongs to 800 yds. ALOT of steel shooters use less recoiling 6.5mm rounds, the same that have killed mice to moose. Another option.

Bullet choice for handloaders and ammo availability for those who don't are the biggest differences. All work when used well.

Good points BR.

And, you'll notice that Carmichael did make an ostentatious "jump" over the .277 caliber...

And, Ole JOC's last Al Biesen commissioned rifle, completed after his death was, reportedly, a .280 and on a Ruger action.

Go figure...

DF

Well, yeah....all of the above is true; but we can't read too much into it...

Always fun to speculate what guys like JOC and Carmichael would do if they were around today but I doubt things would change much.
I like to look at these things from a reality prism.

As to Carmichael, he was a target man in addition to being an experienced BG hunter and gun writer (with the professional obligation to mess with a bunch of cartridges and calibers), so development of stuff like the 260 sort of falls in place since it makes more sense as a target round because it kicks a bit less and burns less powder.

But his Clayton Nelson 280 was built about the time he followed JOC as guns editor of Outdoor Life, a tough act to follow. I think he used a 280 as much to distinguish himself from JOC and the 270 to the greatest extent possible, as opposed to thinking it was an inherently superior cartridge. Carmichael was not above toying with readers now and then...but a lot of this zipped over their collective heads...

That 280 went on to kill hundreds of BG animals on several continents until it was retired. Mostly it was loaded for the purpose with a 140 gr Nosler Partition, a load considered today to be as gay as the 270 with the 130 Partition, and about as effective..... I bet he killed more game with that 280 than with his 338 and 458 combined.

When JOC latched onto the 270 he was nobody; the 7x64 Brenneke was available, as was the 256 Newton and 7x57.The 280 came along in 1956 IIRC and JOC was hunting actively...if he were inclined to scrap the 270 for the 280 he never showed any signs of it....I cant find a shred of evidence that he ever used the cartridge on a single head of BG, despite the fact that he thought highly of it. He thought the 264 WM needed a 26" barrel (which he hated) to make it perk, and if you shortened it to a handier 22" you had a 270 that was an ear splitter.

JOC had two 280's made up by Earl Milliron on Mauser actions....he never hunted with either one near as I can tell.

The Biesen 280 on a Ruger barreled action, finished posthumously, was a gift from his drinking buddy, Bill Ruger. He never got to hunt with that either....so much of JOC's 280 activity came after most of his hunting career was over with....his last Stone Sheep, killed when he was in his 70's was killed with his Biesen 270 #2.

(Actually, JOC,Bill Ruger, Len Brownell,and Bob Chatfield-Taylor were hunting and drinking buddies who hunted together on more than one occasion... I bet they drank together more times than they hunted

If JOC was going to become a 280 maven, he had ample opportunity but took a pass.... Actually, both Carmichael and JOC had ample opportunity to hunt with many BG cartridges but history tells us what they actually used during the bulk of their careers and with a host of other cartridges and calibers being commonly available. I can't see a single reason either would drop what they used for something else.

BobNH -

Yep, yep, yep, yep, etc. etc. etc.


Speculation is NOT reality.

Lemme see....

Ah, yes. This is now the longest thread going on Ask The Gunwriters, proving once again the Internat axiom that the most trivial questions create the longest threads.

For some reason many people fail to grasp the importance of this debate.

This past Saturday I decided to shoot my Steyr Classic in 280. It hasn't been fired in a couple of years so I fired at a baseball ball size spot on my steel deer target at 275 yards.

The 140 grain bullet hit dead center,and the recoil was negligible. I decided to put the rifle back up,it's good to go this fall.

Warren Page used to talk about this kind of shooting as a one shot group,where you periodically test your zero under different ambient conditions with a single shot.

You can do the same thing with a good 270 but you don't get as many points for style.

If you were shooting a rifle at a Big Game Animal that someone just handed you without telling you if it was a 270 or 280 , you would know the difference before or after the shot. The 270 and 280 is like comparing one brand of apples to another brand, basically the same .

Indeed, as I said way up above, both proven.

The .280 is way better.

Yeah, John.

It fits your by line like a glove...

DF

Ingwe could tell by feel, which one was a "gay" .270...

DF

Yeah....besides, this is really important stuff!

Of course it is!

I'm glad the "gunwriters" of this forum have so diligently addressed this concern of the OP's. Now i think I can sleep better at night knowing you guys have this thing whipped

Nice thread summary, bsa...

DF

When I add up the number of properties and the number of years I killed feral goats, it numbers into the thousands of animals.

Over that period of years I used most everything from the .222 Remington to the .460 Weatherby with again, just about all the bullets available at that time.

When you kill a few dozen animals in a few days using 2 or 6 rifles at a time, you do start to be able to generate "averages" of response to a like hit.

When you consider the general range of cartridges that most people use on deer sized animals, shooting a few a year tends to blend the results so they are much of a muchness. Comparing these 2 cartridges falls into that squarely and I don't believe anyone can detect any real difference unless you start to look at the bullets used and that and only that aspect or component would generate any "perceived" variation between the 2 rounds.

Goats are funny animals. They are often seen by non shooters as the little 40-60 pound cute things kids feed at zoo's and if they are born and grow in arid mountainous or hilly country, can top 200 pounds on the hoof and have a skin thickness that can measure a full 1/4" around the shoulders with both long coarse hair and even an undercoat of mixed angora wool.

You can blow their guts all over the paddock and they still try and get away and yet they can be stupid and stick their head into a bush with their whole body visible and they think if they can't see you, you can't see them. (Wombats do that too)

They are criminal sexual mongrels without romance or etiquette, and commonly gang rape and gloat, bleat and fight for a turn. They stomp on the heads of their lady friends during the act. They are not my kind of critter, but they make great bullet testing medium.

Back to bullets:

When killing these pests, I commonly used small bore magnums like the .240, .257, 270 Weatherby's and the 7mm Remington and also the rounds around them such as the .270, 7x57, .30/06, .243, 6.5 x 55, .25/06 and any others I have forgotten.

Some cartridges stood out.

The .257 Weatherby killed better (meaning a higher percentage of instant kills) than the .270 unless..........I loaded 110gn bullets in the .270. (110gn Speer was a favourite)

Likewise, when Barnes introduced a 100gn X bullet about 20 years back, that bullet was a dynamite in the .270 Winchester. When the 130's and 150 grainers were loaded, the performance fell off.

When I got a pair of test rifles in .270 and .30/06 to try out, I used all the factory ammo provided and also my hand-loads, often with considerably more velocity, and I learned a lot.

The .270 was the .270 and was an average performer, reliable but not at startling as the .257 Weatherby. The .30/06 really surprised me. The bullets as you would realize are or were, all really made for this cartridge in this caliber which is why the .30 magnums struggled when first introduced.

This means they are all designed to expand at the velocity ranges where the .30/06 may have impact, usually from 50 yards to say about 250 yards in most cases. My observation was that the .30/06 was a far greater performer than the .270 as slow factory loads up to 300fps behind my best hand-loads still worked well. The bullets performed as if the range was between the aforementioned span. I put this down to a little more caliber and a reliable and uniform expansion from all the bullets tested.

The .270 Weatherby was better than the 7mm Remington and just as good as the .257 Weatherby when loaded with standard bullets designed for the standard .270 Winchester. The 7x57 was better than the 7mm Remington, again because of the bullets selected for each.

When loaded with something like the 150 or 160gn Partitions, the .270 Weatherby was capable of much more than deer sized game. We had a writer in the 70's called Dick Eusson who was always on the front cover because he routinely shot buffalo with his .270 Weatherby and Partitions. He did it so often it would be stupid to say the .270 was inadequate and Dick was obviously a good hunter and his shots were always shoulder/lung shots, I am not talking head shots here.

So after babbling here on all this stuff, my answer to the OP's questions is, any answer would be meaningless unless you stated which bullets were being loaded and what game was being hunted.

That's how I see it.
John

Aussie GW -

THNX for the post. Very interesting relativity of cartridges AND bullets.

Also NOTE - real life hunting experience, not test media (mediums)<G> or speculation.

Since this thread has gone way beyond the pale of ridiculous-

7 thousandths of an inch difference in bore diameter has yielded at least 168 posts, or 24 posts per thousandth.

By that measure, a .280 vs. .30-06 thread, about calibers 24 thousandths of an in. apart, should generate at least 576 posts........

AGW-outstanding posts, very thot-provoking and well worth careful reading several times. Thnx., this is the sort of commentary which I come here to learn from.

John,

Interesting post. I have found the same thing with the .257 Weatherby, just a real quick killer.

When Eileen and I went to New Zealand a few years ago with several other people, including Walt Berger, to shoot a bunch of animals with Berger VLD's and get a real handle on their performance, we used the .257 Roberts, .264 Winchester Magnum, .30-06 and .300 Winchester Magnum. When we arrived at the place we were going to shoot and started checks the scopes on the rifle, the outfitter took one look at the long, pointed VLD's without any lead showing and went on a rant about how were using exactly the WRONG bullets for goats. Instead, he said we should be using round-nosed bullets with lots of lead exposed, so they'd really open up and knock the snot out of the goats.

Well, we confirmed that VLD's really open up, even more than round-nosed bullets with lots of lead showing. They just kept crumpling, but after the first afternoon we weren't sure whether that was due to the bullets or hitting the goats mostly in the shoulders and spine. Then Eileen shot a big billy across the head of a canyon, right through the lungs behind the shoulders, with a measly little 115-grain at 2900 fps or so. The billy crumpled and came rolling down the hill, to all appearances stone dead as soon as the bullet hit.

By the end of the hunt we'd tested every rifle with 115, 140, 168 and 185-grain bullets on goats out to 550 yards. To tell the truth I couldn't tell any difference in the way any of them killed, except there might have been an advantage to the .30-06 and .300 beyond 300 yards. ALL the bullets did so much interior damage that animals hit at all decently went down very quickly.

All the guides said the VLD was the best damn goat bullet they'd ever seen--all because it violently expanded only after getting inside the chest, making an absolute hash of the organs. It was the most interesting example I've yet seen of how little difference in "killing power" there can be in different rounds simply due to using a very damaging bullet.

JB,
Very true. I think shooting the same kind of animal helps a lot too, as you are "containing" the comparison and reducing the variables, so you are in a better position to judge the rifles, read that, bullets and loads.

Today, I look at the .30 caliber as a reliable choice for deer sized animals because it crosses into the comfortable zone in caliber for deer sized animals, the same as the .375 does for plains game in that 450+ pound size. Both very useful and reliable calibers with bullets specifically designed for them.

My standard load for the .257 Wby was 100gn Nosler Solid Bases with the lead tips and then I stepped up to the 115gn Partition from there. Slaughtered a lot of animals with 90gn and 120gn Sierra HPBT's but the bullet I liked for dynamic kills was the same one Roy E. chose, the 87gn Hornady loaded to a little over 3800fps.

John

AGW/JB: Good posts! Interesting reading.

There may be a lesson here about tough bullets and high velocity?

What works really well in a 270 Weatherby, may be less than ideal in a 270 Winchester. Plus there are variables like what we hit, and at what distance.

That. Exactamundo. Spot on. Damn straight. You ain't just whistling Dixie. Boing. Zap. Tah dah.

BR: IMO,variables, mixed into the equation, of distance, and what we hit, plus size of game, forces compromises in bullet selection. So I have fired a lot of 130-140 gr Nosler Partitions into animals from the 270 and 280 with good results.

But I have not shot as many animals as AGW or Mule Deer so might fall into that category where everything sort of blends together as far as results are concerned.

+1

Matching the bullet type, weight and velocity to the range and game animal is an art. One size (or type) doesn't seem optimal for all.

As a trivia Loony, great stuff.

Then, a hunter buys a Wally World rifle off the rack, a couple boxes of factory ammo and hammers game. That seems to work, at least for him.

But, where's the entertainment in that...?

DF

I cured the issue myself owning all three plus an Ackley improved version. My experiments yielded only that I am a rifle afficianado, that with similar bullets they all killed the same and if there was an edge it went to the 30-06. Long thread!

AGW, I have killed some goats too. Several hundred in the last few years and a good few more as a young bloke when they were considered more of a pest than they are now.

With the 270 Win on goats I consider the 130 grainers the heaviest you would want to use. And if using those, the light-ish ones driven fast over 3100fps seem to be better. Lighter bullets like the Sierra 90g HP for the 270 and in the 30-06 or 308 the likes of 130g HPs seem the go for putting goats down fast to me.

I used the 222 Rem, 308 Norma and 22 WMR as well.

Unfortunately when hunting goats its often prime pig country so you want a bullet appropriate for a good boar as well. So the hollowpoints usually get left at home and the 270 Win gets loaded up with a good 130g SP and the 30-06 or 308 with a nice 150 to 180g bullet. None of these are probably ideal for goats but will do the job of course when placed well.

As you mention however, with the heavier bullets those bloody goats will often stand there after having heart and both lungs blown to bits, not realising it until you punch another one through!