Figured I better help all these poor fellas sell their 280 Rems.

July 1989 . . . American Hunter

Great writer.

Another spike in .280 Rem. sales is on the horizon.

Not into nostalgia. Just performance.

My gun safe with a current population of 3 .280's would probably agree!

Ol' Finn was a heck of a writer. The 280 Remington is a heck of a cartridge, too.

I knew of Aagaard's use of the 7x64, so I figured he would be a fan of Remington's version.

I have used one a few times on Whitetails and found it to be very well suited.

Something I notice about Finn Aagaard is that he used a 270,280,7x57, 30/06 on game (and others) and thought them all "good". I think the 30/06 was his favorite.Whatever.

This was likely because he understood good game bullets, could shoot straight and knew how to hunt. Those things alone negate a lot of discussions wasted comparing cartridges.

He was never worried about a cartridge being uber cool....whatever the hell that means.

Bob, I would say those four cartridges are probably the most used cartridges on earth. The good thing is he didn't use them because they were the most popular...he used them because he knew they would work. powdr

powdr true.

Yeah, and coincidentally all four chamberings are just fine with a 22" tube.These are my favorites too and all ideal for the great pursuit of wild sheep,goats and mule deer...and I have tipped over a few bull elk with some of these too.

For the last 10 or so years of his life Finn became a 308 Win man, and remained so til his death in 2000.

Yep--and why not? It basically duplicates "traditional" .30-06 ballistics.

As an aside, despite the .280 Remington's virtues, I can't believe the .280 Remington it's one of "the most used cartridges on earth." This may be true among among a very small set of hunters, especially those with enough money to travel AND buy custom rifles--in other words, rifle loonies who want to be a little different. If my memory is correct, I've seen exactly four .280's in all the hunting camps I've spent time in around the world, and one of them was mine. Two of the others belonged to a couple of friends from the same town in Oregon, and the third belonged to a Canadian hunter, a museum-quality taxidermist who liked custom rifles.

I do have a good friend here in town who was a .280 nut for a while. In fact he outfitted not just himself but his wife and two teenage daughters with .280's, in order to simplify the ammo situation. But then they went on a hunt in eastern Montana and, due to various unforeseen circumstances, ran low on ammo--and there wasn't any .280 ammo in any of the local stores. So he sold all the .280's and bought everybody .270's. I can't think of anybody else I personally know in the state who uses a .280 right now.

Even 7x57's aren't all that common anymore. Can remember only four of them as well, and again one was mine. The others belonged to a guide in the Czech Republic, an American on a safari in South Africa who had been unduly influenced by an American gun writer, who brought a 7x57 and 9.3x62. And Ingwe brought one on our safari to Namibia in 1999.

In fact, have seen far more .308 Winchesters that 7x57's, even in Europe. That includes a red stag hunt in Norway--where the .308 was by far the most common chambering among the two dozen hunters I met. (There wasn't a single 6.5x55 among them!)

Probably the most common cartridge used by traveling hunters, whether in North America, Africa or elsewhere, has been the .300 Winchester Magnum.

Brad: What I remember most about Finn was that Mauser 30/06 of his that he seemed so fond of. So I sort of missed his transition to the 308....

I think that may have occurred after he moved stateside?


John in 35 years the only 280 I ever saw in any camp I hunted in belonged to "me"....until about 6 years ago when a buddy took one to Wyoming. But he's one of those loonies whose made it a his life's mission to shoot one animal with every caliber he can think of.....

As popular as the 30/06 is with hunters, I notice that you are right when it comes to guys who travel a lot to hunt.You see relatively few lugging a 30/06.....a great many gravitate to the 300 magnums, no matter the game. And the 300 Win Mag does lead the pack from what I have seen.

My favorite BG round is easily the 308, and to a lesser degree, 270 Win. Right now I have two of each, and those are the only BG rifles I own.

The 308 is simply a thing of beauty. Kicks noticeably less than the 30-06, but does the same thing. It's available everywhere, miserly on powder, and inherently accurate. Likely the easiest round to get shooting of any cartridge I've ever worked with. The 308 is the epitome of KISS.

I used a 280 for a time in the early 1990's. I simply saw no reason for it over the more common 270, and eventually switched back.

Bob, Finn moved to the US in the 1970's. He started switching to the 308 in the late 80's, early 90's. He wrote a number of articles about it, and used it on everything up to Nilgai.

I forget a lot....

I used a 280 a lot until I learned it didnt work any better than a 270. I had mine rebarreled to 270 after I tried to buy but could not find one box of factory ammo. I was driving across southern Idaho into south central Wyoming to shoot an antelope. I stopped at every town from Boise to Soda Springs and all the places across Wyoming without finding a single box. Yes I went into every town and every store.
It is a G33/40, Burgess metal, Monty Kennedy stocked outfit so it was a big deal to put a new barrel on it. I still have it.
The 308 is great but I like the extra velocity of the 270. You can find 270 ammo everywhere big game is hunted.

He was indeed. I kept in touch with Berit after Finn died. She is quite a lady and her current husband, Bill, is a really nice guy.

I find myself highly concerned with optimal cartridges Feb-August. This is how I end up with a 280AI instead of a 280 or a 6.5x47 instead of a 7/08. Once hunting season comes around I could care less about 50 fps or .05 differences in BC. Off season boredom is also how I end up with 5000+ dollar scoped hunting rifles. My first deer rifle was an off the shelf 270 Win. My hunting successes or failures over the last 15 years would be no different if I had kept that rifle as my only rifle. This said, the 280 is way better than the 270

I think the 7mm-08 is to the 280 what the 308 is to the 30-06


While it's true the 308 sized cartridges only give 95% of what the 06 sized case give they get you 100% to where you need to be short of a 375 H&H. And they do it with a number of inherent advantages.




Shod

The frailties of the human condition is what makes this place so entertaining sometimes....


You can read numbers and come to the conclusion that the 280 is (somehow) minutely better by fractions of "something"..

That's assuming you can avoid falling into a coma during the analysis...but when it comes to killing animals you will never in a million years and a million animals, tell the difference.

The .270, .30-06 and .308 are far more practical than the .280 due to availability of factory rifles and price/availability of factory ammo. Cool don't count for shyt with me. Practicality does. I have a .308 and a .30-06.

While I do enjoy my 280's my true first love was the 308 when I bought my first hunting rifle in 1976. I recently put it back into service since 2009. I cannot discern any difference between the two.

From what he wrote, Finn certainly appreciated the .308. However, you can't forget that in two of his articles, "The Professional's Rifle", and "The Professional's Rifle - 10 Years Later", his choice was the 30-06!

Did fin say his favorite "cartridge" was the 30-06?

Or did Finn say one of his favorite " Rifles" was chambered in an 06?




Shod

Yes, I find the 280 Remington so impractical.

You should publish a story about that trip. Seriously... About that travel experience

Should have took up reloading!

Just curious- how did you run out of ammo, driving across southern Idaho, into south central Wyoming? Prairie dogs, perhaps?

I've never run out of .280 ammunition and needed to buy more on a hunting trip. But I can see how that could be a problem under certain circumstances. If that's an important consideration, then it would make sense to confine yourself to popular calibers like .223, .22-250, .243, .270, 7mm Rem Mag, .30-30, .308, 30-06, .300 Win Mag and possibly .338 Win Mag when travelling in North America.

That would eliminate the rifle loony calibers from consideration. I guess that would be practical but it would definitely reduce the fun quotient.

I have a .280 because about 15 years ago I ran into a good deal on a lightly used Remington Custom KS Mountain Rifle in that caliber. It's light and accurate and I saw no reason for a .270 once I had that rifle.

Sho' got that right!

Or, you could always take a backup rifle in 30-06. That's what I do.

If I'm driving to the hunt I always take a backup rifle. If I'm flying that increases the baggage costs but may still be worth it depending on the situation.

I'd say that would work both ways....the reason I haven't owned a 280 in at least a decade or more.


What I find interesting is how anyone could think that .007", 10 gr of bullet, and 50 fps one way or the other could possibly make a difference in killing anything .

Won't say nobody thinks that, some might. But, I sure don't.

Simply a matter of preference for me. And, for these threads, I like to heckle.

It's called "pole vaulting over tick turds."

Same thing about this bullet,or that scope,or this rifle is better than anything made since Ingwe killed his first mammoth.

LMAO! Elkhuntr that's a good way to describe it!

Thanks.

That was mean.

That hurt my feelings, Ingwe.

I didn't want to have to do this but.....

Check your prostate lately?

Sir Charles

https://youtu.be/TZaRUpXO-0Q

I know.....

Finn Aagaard was a great hunter, writer. I respect his opinion. But, this topic on what's the greatest is absurd.
Everyone deep down knows that the 06 is the best cartridge. The 280 is next. Further the 270 Win is the best ever coyote cartridge.

And the .460 Wby is the greatest varmint cartridge EVER!

Granted. But how much expansion on cottontails?

Just enough.

I have my .280 because I grew up reading Carmichael and he made me want one. With that said I can offer no common sense reasoning that says the .280 is better than the .270 at anything. And there is nothing I would use one for and not the other. And the man who needs ammo in a pinch is light years further ahead with a .270.

If the 280 had came out before the 270...the 270 would probably never had been born.

Flame suit on.

I've often wondered where Winchester came up with the .277 idea from. Beings how .264 and .284 were already established.

It did.

They called it the 7x64 Brenneke and it came out in 1912,so had a 12 -13 year start on the 270.

It would have been silly for Winchester to bring out a .284 on the 30/06 case because the Brenneke already existed.

So it brought out a true 7mm instead and named it the 270 Winchester.

In a way, it kind-of was.

The nearly identical 7x64 Brenneke was introduced in 1917. Eight years before the 270Win.

Hard to figure why it never took off in the US.


Beat me to it Bob

But Bob . . . I kind-of look at differently. It seems silly to me to bring out a cartridge with a minor .007" bore tweak. A new bore size.

Guess it worked for them though.

WA: I thought 1912....whatever.

The Brenneke was first. Not sure but the Brenneke keyed on heavier bullets. I guess Winchester wanted something that kicked less than the 30/06,and shot fast/flat. I don't know why .277 but have read reasons.

Anyway the 270 is a true 7mm. It was also an American cartridge chambered in an American bolt action and shot American ammo sold by Winchester. At the time it was among the fastest factory bolt action cartridges you could buy. That's a big deal in 1925.

Winchester actually designed a .28-caliber round based on the .30-06 case before the 7x64 Brenneke appeared (which most sources agree was in 1917), and a bolt-action rifle to handle it. In the years just before World War One, they intended to introduce both the rifle and cartridge in Europe. Called the .28 Winchester Centerfire, it used a .287" bullet. But the war killed the project.

As to exactly why Winchester chose .277" as the bullet diameter for the .270, nobody really knows, but one educated guess is they didn't want the Mauser 7x57's that had poured across the Mexican border during the Pancho Villa years to be rechambered for a higher-pressure round, so made sure the bullet was just small enough to prevent that.

The reason 7mm (and some other calibers, such as 6.5mm and .30) ended up with fast enough twists to stabilize the heavy-for-caliber spitzers so fashionable today is they originated as military calibers when smokeless powder first appeared--with very heavy round-nosed bullets. The twists had to be fast to stabilize those bullets.

But purely sporting calibers such as .22, .25 and .27 ended up with slower twists. The theory back then was not to over-stabilize high-velocity bullets, because any flaw in the bullet balance resulted in poor accuracy--and those three calibers came into use after lighter, higher-velocity spitzers became the trend for hunting.

1917,wasn't there a war goin' on in Europe at that time. Couldn't that be a small reason not to use a European sounding caliber?

Coulda called it the 284Win.

Yup.

WA: Convert .277" to MM's....see what you get.

I know Bob, but having a nice round number doesn't seem like a really good reason for a new bore size.

Li ke John said....who knows why except they maybe didn't want another .284 for whatever reason.

We could ask Tom Johnson but he's dead.

Remember 1925 was just 7 years after America/Britain (and our Allies) won the war in Europe and there was a anti German/European sentiment.

That's my SWAG.

Doesn't matter much now. It worked out well for them.

The 7x64 Brenneke is not the 280 Remington.
1) It is a European cartridge.
2) How many people in 1912 would have known it existed?
3) With the name Winchester so intrenched in Americana, how much traction would something with the name "Brenneke" get in a pre WW America?

I wonder if the .280 is more of an eastern thing. I don't have any trouble finding it in PA or NC. And I can get Remington,Winchester,and Federal.

With that said, I've still only known three other people who use the .280.

One reason you might find .280 ammo more easily there is it was originally designed for use in pumps and semiautos, as a lower-pressured cartridge providing .270-equivalent ballistics. Pumps and semiautos have never been as popular in the east as out west, and even though there may be more bolt-action .280's in the east these days, there are probably still a lot of pumps and semiautos around.

I don't remember anybody here in Montana owning a .280 until it became an "in" cartridge among people who had custom rifles built in the 1980's, after Jim Carmichel started promoting it in OUTDOOR LIFE, and other people started promoting 7mm bullets as providing extra killing power, not explainable by foot-pounds or other statistics. This was long before some hunters started shooting big game well beyond 500 yards, so this wasn't due to the higher BC of some 7mm bullets, but something magic in the 7mm diameter. (Which is, as Bob pointed out, the actual diameter of .270 bullets.)

These custom-rifle loonies mostly chose the .280 for the same reason they chose 1909 Argentine actions, French walnut and other special stuff, because they wanted to set themselves apart from the crowd. I can even remember one of these leaning over the counter of a local sporting goods store, talking to a clerk who also believed in 7mm magic. They bonded like a couple of fans of obscure single-malt Scotches.

I own a 280 and 7mm Rem Mag. If I feel that I can't remember to put my ammunition in the truck I pack the belted one.

That said, when the 280 barrel gets tired it will likely be replaced by a 277 one.

This thread got me to look in my copy of "Finn Aargard Selected Works" to see what he had to say about different cartridges. Didn't find anything specifically on the .280 but did find the article "Shots with a 7x64mm". Next to the obligatory picture of the cartridge under scrutiny standing next to similar cartridges is the blurb "...Finn rates the .270 Winchester, 7x64mm and .280 Remington as three of a kind."

I also found this advice in "Killing Power Myths Fact or Fiction?": "Rather than worry about killing power formulas, a hunter would do better to study animal anatomy and learn field marksmanship." In this I think he agrees with Mr. 270 himself who once wrote, "it's where you hit'em, not what you hit'em with."



Something else of interest, in the first paragraph of the 7x64mm article where he is relating how he bought his first one, he originally went to look for a 7x57 but the store had none. He writes, "...they tried to sell me a .30-06 instead. I opined at the time that the '06 was too close in power to my .375 H&H big gun. I wanted a wider spread in power..."

Just in case anybody wanted his opinion of the .30-06...

There isn't a lick of difference between the 7x64 and the 280 Remington ballistically.......they even look the same. Ever hold them side by side?

What solid reason, commercially, would Winchester have to chamber an almost identical cartridge?



How much traction another 284 based on the 30/06 would have gotten in 1925 is moot. Fact is the 7x64 didn't get any......then or later...when the 280 finally came on the scene in 1956 or so. It got buried in the noise of the 7 Rem Mag,and never has touched the 270 in sales or popularity. Even Elmer Keith and the OKH (another 7mm on the 30/06 case) did;t breathe any life into the concept.

I love you guys who like to speculate on revisionist history and convince the rest of us the 270 wouldn't exist if Winchester had created the 280 instead. Really WTH cares? It didn't happen.

What a ridiculous argument.

Kinda like....

What if a frog had wings ?

They don't so the question is ridiculous!


I actually like the 280 R AND the 270 W.


Truth be told..IF you like the one...you HAVE to like the other. Those 2 cartridges are TOOOO similar for any difference to be real.


Jerry

Exactly...if you have any common sense..and have killed anything with both.

The 280 is a true rifle loony and handloaders cartridge. Some folks don't have much appreciation for loonies and handloaders. This is where factory ammo along with mass produced chamberings such as the 270 fit in nicely.

And then there is the 7X57 Mauser and the 6.5X55 Swede. Every non Magnum cartridge that has been invented in the last 100 years basically duplicates what was already being done.

From a logical standpoint neither the 280 or 270 made any sense. They both burn more powder while at the same time you see no difference in there ability to take game.

The 270 for many years made little sense whatsoever. It pushed 3100 fps with cup and core bullets that largely were not up to the task at those velocities.

Had Mr Bell at that time decided to perhaps use a 270 instead of the magnificent 7X57 Mr Bell likely would have left this world much sooner and loonies would not read of a non Magnum cartridge that really could do it all.


If not for hype and sales pitch the 270 likely wouldn't exist today




Shod

Didn't Bell say in later years that the .308 Win would be his choice if doing it all again?

Um, not exactly. The .270 would hardly have become popular if all .277" 130-grain bullets came apart.

Here's a quote from somebody who used the .270 considerably in its early years: "The expansion of bullets is controlled by various means. One of the first successful bullets of this type was the original 130-grain .270 bullet called by Winchester the Pointed Soft-Point Expanding. It had a heavy solid base, thick jacket along the shank, a sharp point protected from battering by a cap of tin. This is the bullet that made the .270's reputation. I have never seen it fail to perform according to the script and I have shot with it animals from the size of javelina to animals the size of moose."

That sounds very much like the Nosler Solid Base, the bullet that eventually got a plastic point and became the Ballistic Tip. But when the Solid Base bullets were soft-points, they held together very well, even at pretty high velocity. I only recovered one back in their day, a 100-grain started at 3000 fps from a .243 Winchester at only 100 yards. It took a whitetail buck in the short ribs on the left side and ended up perfectly mushroomed in the right shoulder, retaining 61.5% of its weight.

The original Remington Core-Lokt had very heavy jacket sidewalls and held together well--and the 150-grain round-nose still does. But the spitzer Core-Lots were "redesigned" around 25 years ago, apparently to save money, but as far as I know the round-nose versions still have the heavy jacket. There were other early controlled-expanding bullets, like the Peters Inner-Belted, and John Nosler started selling Partitions to the public only 23 years after the .270 appeared.

But like the claim that if the .280 had appeared first the .270 would never have appeared, the suggestion that Bell would have been trampled if he'd used a .270 is specious. He didn't use the .270 because it hadn't appeared, but he did have plenty of bad experiences with other cartridges, and learned through experience (either his or that of others) what worked and what didn't. He didn't, for instance, use the .280 Ross.

Just because some hunters still assume any 130, 180 or even 250-grain bullet is just like any other doesn't mean that hunters of a century ago didn't select what worked--and manufacturers didn't recognize the problems and work toward solutions.

I'd guess that the thousands of satisfied hunters and customers should be discounted.............

more ridiculousness!


Jerry

I think he said a .308 Win with either 200gr or 220gr bullets. I can't remember which

I love you guys who completely miss the point...and then argue against it.

It doesn't really matter does it?

It didn't happen except in your imagination. Dream on.

Point is there has been some form of a 7mm (284) on a 30/06 capacity case in existence since 1917-1918 (whenever) and it has not even dented the sales, popularity and big game killing performance of the 270 Winchester,and never will.

This is how I ended up using the .280. I was in search of a .270 in a SS KS and after searching for some time (to no avail), stumbled into a .280. I figured "close enough".

Tehehehehe........



I think the 280 might be mo betta.................







Shod

When I had my 280 built it had been renamed "7mm Express". I still have Remington cases with those markings.

That's how I got my first 280...a custom on a Mauser action. It was a very nice rifle,chambered for 280.

I said..."Just like a 270!"

So I bought it.

I once bought a 25-06 thinking that it's close enough to the 270.



Push feed M70, Winlite(McMillian stock).

Did Finn hunt so that he had material to write? Or were the two activities always in tandem over the years?

A few decades ago I searched for a Model 70 .270 Win. but I got a good deal on a 1949 Model 70 that was a .270 reworked by Emil Koshollek into a 7x57mm with a 24" Buhmiller barrel.

I thought that was close enough to a .270.

You win....grin

It is....and without being gay.

I have a .25/06.

Finn was a Kenya PH starting in the 1950's, through to 1976 when hunting was banned in Kenya. He only became a "gunwriter" starting in the 1980's after he had moved to the USA. So no, most of his hunting experience was long before his writing career.

Ok thanks. In my "formative" years, I saw his writing quite a bit and he always had a thread of common sense running throughout an article.

You still don't get it. Yet you continiue to argue with yourself.

It is not the caliber...it is the name. In 1917 most people had never been to the dentist let alone recongize the name Brenneke...Winchester on the other hand was a household name.



To your last statement, you really need to get over yourself.

I posted in my original reply a nudge...just to get the elbows going. Popularity has little to do with "killing performance". You really mean to be taken seriously to suggest that a bullet that is .007" difference in diameter is going to eclipse another in "killing power"?

The cult of the 270 apostles is almost as irrational as the cult of the 1/4 bore.

Lighten up. This is just a forum...and it's all for fun.

If they would of came out with the 6.5-06 first none of the others would of been needed.............

From page 188 of The Hunting Rifle by Jack O'Connor, 1970, The Winchester Press, 314pp, ISBN 087691007X

The 6.5 swede is an efficient 6.5-06.....

The bases have been covered for 120 years now.




Shod

They did.. it was called the 256 Newton.

The went a long ways to the Top Ten charts, huh?

I think an awful lot of the .270's popularity had to do with JOC and a zippy 130gr loading.

But to say that just because a similar cartridge existed previously, the .280 was doomed to failure is placing too much weight on the logic of buyers and timelessness of a cartridge.

A round has to be in the right place at the right time to succeed. It has to make a splash when the puddle is deep, so to speak. Yeah, there are a bunch of 6.5mm rounds out there. But I wouldn't say he Creedmoor has no chance at becoming Americas most popular 6.5 round. Mostly because of timing.

If you read everything i said, instead of cherry picking,you'd know I think the 280 has nothing over the 270. This business of .007 in bullet diameter making the 280 something special is the purview of the 280 lovers....not me.

So "no" I don't believe there's a difference. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I use them both, interchangeably. There is no difference in killing effectiveness between them. That's bullet dependent.

Popularity has nothing to do with killing effectiveness; but if the 270 didn't work well as a BG cartridge, it would not have sold and been popular.It's record in that regard is obvious. The 280 in all it's various guises, fell flat, because it tried to fill a niche already occupied by the 270,and did nothing really different.

The 7 Rem Mag polished it off. That's part of cartridge history too.

I get the fun part. I love reading revisionist history. I don't care who heard of what in 1925. You had the 270 and no 280. Those are facts.

I think it's silly the topic even comes up....but 280 lovers refuse to let it die. "if this"...."if that"...the 270 would never exist. Hilarious.

Damn I can't wait for the hunting season to start! You boys are board [bleep]! Sh1tless

That quote sounded word for word like it came out of O'Connor's "The Big Game Rifle" 1952 also.

You should have edited that post one more time.

If handloading is the order of the day the 280 certainly has it in the bullet selection area.

The 270 has a much better shelf ammo availability.

But then this thread don't have one damn thing to do with the 270.

It's about Finn Aagaard and his thoughts on the 280

It's been turned into the police brigade and forceful recommendations about what may or may not be discussed on the fire have been thrown about.

It appears nobody gives two schits about those recommendations. We're here to discuss many topics including Finn Aagaard





Shod

He still doesn't know, what he doesn't know.

Jerry

Shod - Guess who started the 270 aspect in this discussion

Clue - P 2








Just for grins & giggles!

Jerry

I just knew there must be a reason why I have been hanging onto that box of original 270 150 Gr Nosler Solid Base bullets...

A few years back and friend and I each had cow tags for the Madison valley. We had access to a big ranch we were living on and could choose our moment to execute our cows. The day finally arrived when elk cooperated so it would be a simple thing to get the truck to the fallen quarry.

My friend was shooting a 300 WM with handloaded 180 NAB's. I had a 270 WIN with handloaded 150 NBT's. We each picked out our cows, both similar sized (on the large side), and both shot. Each of us hit our cows about identically through the ribs/lungs. The range was essentially identical, right at 150 yards. Mine tipped over almost immediately after a couple steps, his took a 25 yard dash. His Accubond was under the hide on the offside, my Ballistic Tip passed through.

So none of this has any bearing on anything, being an example of one, other than that day the 270 was at least the equal of a 300 WM on eating-sized cow elk, and that Ballistic Tips are more bullet than many think!

moosemike-
Agreed. The Big-Game Rifle from 1952 was the first book I took off the shelf to search for MD's quote. I did not find it there, so I went next to the 1970 book where I did find it.

The similar passage in the 1952 book is this: "Western-Winchester preserves semi-spitzer shape with the Silvertip by protecting the soft lead point by a thin jacket of tin. Same stunt was used on the now obsolete Winchester protected soft-point bullets in .25, .270, and .30 caliber. They are now obsolete, but the 130-grain .270 bullet of that construction with its sharp point and heavy reinforced base was largely responsible for making the reputation of the .270 cartridge. It was an expensive bullet to manufacture, but so are the Bronze Points and the Silvertips."

--Bob

Amazing isn't it ?

I thought his comments regarding the 7mm Express/.280 Rem within the article which Brad recently posted on the .270 Win were rather prophetic :

"For the handloader the 7mm Express/.280 Rem has the advantage that 175 gr bullets are available for it, but the chap who does not reload will find that a far greater variety of loads are offered by the manufacturers for the .270 than the .280

In any case, the differences between the two are so trifling as to be quite inconsequential for any hunting purposes save campfire discussions "

emphasis mine

So, having shot both .280s and .270s extensively (and having read this whole thread), can anyone enlighten me as to the proper pronunciation of Finn's surname? Thanks in advance!

LOL, there was two pages of discussion about this on the Aagaard thread I put up last week.

I've always pronounced it Ah-guard, and Mule Deer confirms that's the way Finn pronounced it himself. However, that wasn't quite good enough and the requisite pole vaulting of mouse-turd ensued.

Most people who bag on the BT have never used them to any extent. I HAVE been using them since they first came out and they have always worked great.

I too have been using them since the 80's, and have never been disappointed, antelope through elk. Though I've only used them on two elk, one cow and one heavy, mature bull, they seem perfectly up to the chore.

I have five 280s, the last one a Ruger #1. I would not even dream of buying ammo over the counter for a serious hunt. I guess I would qualify as a rifle loony. I used 140gr ballistic tips for roe deer and wild boar and 140 accubonds for Ibex, red stag and roe. I am not crazy about the 140 gr accubonds, and plan to try heavier bullets next time. Roe deer are no problem with the ballistic tips in 140 gr.
A very experienced friend of mine took the 7X64 to an extensive African trip and was VERY disappointed. He now uses a 270 but for roe only. He bought a 375 also.... He over reacted.
After hitting a relaxed wild boar with two perfect shots using 140 gr ballistic tips we had to track him in a tall wheat field with flashlights in the middle of the night. Now I load 175gr Swift A Frames. This is precisely the advantage of the 280 over the 270. (Also the 280 is way too common for a rifle loony)
I am not deranged, when the wife of a very good friend asked me to choose a rifle for her to give him on his 60th birthday, I bought a 30-06 with a plastic stock and free floating barrel.
So far he has 128 roe, many wild boars and stags, fallow deer, Ibex and has done Scottish doubles on wolf,roe and wild boar. He started with 150gr for roe etc but now uses only 180s for everything.
For my son I chose a 308 and he has gotten his whitetail every year for the last 15. I load monolithic only. I also got him a 300 win mag since he is not sophisticated at all...
I guess the question is who has the most fun....

Your exact words.

As a note the 280 lovers comment. I like the 280, I've owned and hunted wtih two of them. I have hunted and liked the 270, the 7 Rem Mag, the 06 and several others. I've come to the conclusion, however, that for my type of hunting, there is nothing that I cannot do with a 308 or 7-08 that I can do with the others. YMMV

Not a startling statement--which is why these discussions of very similar cartridges go on longer than any others: Hunters like to nitpick, because some believe there IS an actually difference in how a few hundredths of an inch in bullet diameter, or a few grains in weight, kill big game animals. But many want to justify their choice, when they have used relatively few cartridges on relatively few big game animals.

As a magazine editor, now retired, once said: "Somebody who's only hunted with the .308 Winchester can't write a good article about the .308 Winchester, because they have no perspective."

The same could be said about a lot of scopes, bullets, etc.

Who cares? Take a hike....

If you can't understand what I was saying that's your problem, not mine.

I understand exactly what you said. You started with something foolish...and then persisted...even when given an out.

Have a great Memorial Day.

[video:youtube]BbU4Cb4A4-o[/video]


David

What was the problem with the 7x64?

He claimed could not get clean kills. I do not know which bullets he was using. He had a Steyr rifle he had used for years, a present from his grandfather.

Let me make sure I got that. You load monolithic only...for whitetails...for 308?

Barnes, 160 gr. Had bad luck with Sierras tearing down when touching branches early on. We shoot in very thick woods in NW CT.

Barnes, 160 gr. Had bad luck with Sierras tearing down when touching branches early on. We shoot in very thick woods in NW CT.

It always fascinated me that the 280 threads always produce such emotion for and against. It's heading toward obsolescense ( if it isn't already there) and it is zero threat to the 270. A number of gunwriters have praised the 280 through the years and I guess that's why it's still sputtering along. Mostly it's an 'anti establishment' cartridge and that will continue to be it's niche.

Quit hitting branches. Shoot between the branches and regular bullets work just fine. We have plenty thick woods/brush here in NY and I've killed multiple deer every season for over 40 years with standard cup and core bullets. That would include many with .308, .243 and .224" Sierra's. Also MANY with factory loaded core-lokt's, power points, silvertips and power shoks. If you're having troubles it's your shooting not the bullets that are at fault.

There is a LOT more difference between the 06 and 308 than between the 270 - 280.

Jerry

I am pretty amused by those who pick the 280 over the 270 because of the "large selection" of bullet weights. For big game hunting, I have found 130's best in the 270 and 140's in the 280.
I'll wager fewer than 2% use 160's or 175's in their standard 280's.
150's work pretty well in both bores.

That is very true, but put me down as 160 guy. I got hooked on them back when Federal had 160 NAB load. I found out it didn't drop much more than the lighter bullets and drifted less in the wind. It worked quite well on critters.

Now I handload both 140's and 160's for one of my .280's and shoot 150 Partitions in another.

2%'er here as well.

Count me in. A 162 lover

Yeah - it's not like the 270 doesn't have a 160 ! No ?


Jerry

Rick,

Several years ago I did an analysis of the available .277 and .284 bullets and came to the conclusion that there were even more .277 bullets available. Of course, there weren't any 175-grain spitzers, but like you I've rarely run into anybody who used 175's in their .280. Most used 140-160's--though that has changed with the long-range trend. But still don't know anybody who uses bullets over 168 grains in their .280, and so far I have excellent luck with the new 170 Berger Elite Hunter in my .270, even with its 1-10 twist. I also don't know of any lead-cored 175-grain "premium" 7mm bullet that penetrates any deeper from a .280 than the 160-grain Nosler Partition from a .270.

These days there's an even greater selection of .270 bullets, thanks to the 6.8 SPC. Either an 85-grain TSX or 95 TTSX can be loaded to really high velocities, and while neither would be the choice for really long range, I know people who use them quite successfully at conventional ranges.

But as always, somebody will pick nits with all this--which is why, as I mentioned earlier, arguments about ALMOST identical cartridges go on far longer. In the meantime, those who've actually used a bunch of different cartridges considerably eventually find it hard to stifle a yawn.

They just cost more than the 7mm version from Hornady

I love these cartridge debates. In reality, ever single cartridge on the spectrum/continuum/list of all cartridges, can intelligently and honestly, be argued to be better than both the one immediately following and the one immediately preceding it on said spectrum. Within the list, the adjacent cartridges are all more alike than they are different.

Marc - in this day of 'multiplicity' of bullets....
....there's ALWAYS an excuse.



Well, well...I guess that removes 1 more bragging right from the 7mm prejudice.


Remember - I like BOTH.

Jerry

Jerry,
I also have both and like both. I see no real difference in how they kill game.

The 280 has slightly better velocity for like weight bullets and the bullets themselves have better BC's. This assumes your loading the 280 to 270 pressures.
I like both of them and have used both. If there is a big differance between either for normal hunting I haven't noticed it.

And the .30-06 will get higher velocities with even heavier bullet weights than either the .270 or .280. Amazing, isn't it?

Sounds like Voodoo to me

As a 270 and 280 owner, I do find it amusing that when the CF talks up the 7-08, 7WSM, Mashburn etc it is all about the long and pointy bullets that make them somehow magical. But other than the occasional post on this thread, everyone discusses the 140 Nosler and such in the 280, bullets that the same guys wouldn't be caught dead shooting in the other 7mm's.

I have learned from the CF that the 7-08 is a thousand yard cartridge, but the 280 is not. And being able to buy factory ammo is vital ... unless a guy shoots a Mashburn.

Sorry Bob.

Very true, but the BC'S aren't as good for normal hunting weight bullets.

Rick you are right! But I have a long kill history with 130's in the 270 and 140's in the 280....what's a guy to do?

When it comes to long pointy 160's etc, I want to boot them in the arse with a big case full of powder.

I like the speed .

The real point of these discussions:

BWalker,

Yeah, the BC's of .30 caliber bullets usually aren't quite as good as 7mm's, but let's look at some numbers, since this thread has always been about minutiae. We'll use Nosler bullets and data, since in general we've been talking about "normal" hunting ranges, not whatever is defined as long range.

One interesting thing about the .280 is the SAAMI maximum average pressure (MAP) is exactly the same as the .30-06, 60,000 PSI. Which means we're comparing apples to apples, even if somebody decides to boost either round a little over SAAMI loading data. However, Nosler's data for the .280 was shot in a 26" barrel, so we'll subtract 50 fps to match the 24" data for the .30-06, using the generally accepted 25 fps per inch of barrel:

Maximum velocity 160 .280: 2879 fps
Maximum velocity listed for 165 .30-06: 3002

The BC of the 160 Accubond is listed as .535; the BC of the 165 AccuBond is .475.

Maximum velocity 175 .280: 2710
Maximum velocity 180 .30-06: 2812

The BC of the 175 Partition (they don't make a 175 AB) is .519; the BC of the 180 AB is .507.

Maximum velocity 200 .30-06: 2697

There is no 200-grain 7mm, but since one of the main points of .280 proponents is always the 175's, why wouldn't there be even more advantage in a 200-grain .30-06? The BC of the 200 Partition is .481, and the .300 AB .588.

Now, we can argue with the BC numbers. However, most of them hold up pretty well in Bryan Litz's testing except the 200 .30 AccuBond. But the 200 Partition actually tested a little higher than Nosler's BC number.

Anybody who wants to can run the numbers with this data in a ballistic program. I'm not going to bother, but they'll find the .30-06 bullets do very well out to 500 yards compared to the .280, despite the BC's not being quite as good, thanks in part to the higher muzzle velocities of the .30-06.

Oh Yeh, NOW YOU"RE USING LOGIC RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION.

I am sure that's all true, John.
Let's get real. There is really nothing that one of the three will do the others wont.

"A" being the operative word

You could expand that number "three" about tenfold and the statement would still be true.

You need to do some catchin' up. 6, at last count, not including AIed versions.

Yeah I'd say so!

There's no way that thing could split a hair. Just look at the edge! It looks like it was honed with a piece of concrete

Wow, those BC's are pretty close.

Much closer than the Berger VLD's where the 168gr 7mm has nearly identical BC to the 210gr 30.

How fast can the 30-06 boot a 210?

About 2700 from a 24" barrel. But I generally load the 185 VLD's at around 2850.

Nosler lists 7mm 168's at around 2800 from the .280, adjusting for a 24" barrel.

I get nearly 2850 with the VLD 168's from my 22" 700 Mountain Rifle.

Originally Posted By jwall
Yeah - it's not like the 270 doesn't have a 160 ! No ?

Jerry

>>Bellydeep>> Recognize this ?

"A" being the operative word " b d p.15


Now -Please note MD's comment-----not mine.



" ALMOST identical"
Just tryin to sort the FACTS !!!

Jerry

"ALMOST identical" sounds to "citified" I prefer "two peas in a pod" better.

As I've said in this thread and in other threads. If I could have only 1 rifle in 270 Win OR 280 Rem.....
I'd be happy with either. TRUE.


I have to add ONE qualifier:

If I were limited to factory ammo...270 hands down.

If I can handload either....makes NO difference.


Jerry

"almost identical" is MO better soundin!

Jerry

Nope.

Now at least 3 pages discussing which saying is better.

lol

I just was home in PA for the holiday weekend. In local shops I saw Rem Core Lokts in 140, 150, and 165. There were Federal blue box 150's and Winchester BST's in 140. The .280 shooter is in far better shape with factory ammo than say, the .284 Win.

Almost forgot Fed. Fusion 140's.

I did a quick scan the other day too. I didn't see as many as you, but there were enough choices to satisfy any emergency need.

I really didn't start this topic to encite a pi$$ing contest, thou I was pretty sure one would ensue

I have 270/280/30-06 and 7RM, so I like them all.

I was just watching the guys having so much fun with the Finn and 270 topic, I wanted to help them have even more fun

That sounds pretty good. As you know ammo & component availability bounces worse than a tennis ball. Nothing is guaranteed.

Being a handloader I don't rely on factory fodder for anything. From my perspective I'd just as soon to have EITHER one.


Jerry

I doubt he found more than one or two 160gr bullets for the .270 during his search.

I'm not going to waste time counting how many are available in 7mm.

There might be more .277 bullets available, but they are not concentrated at the heavy end of the scale like 7mm bullets are.

Whether or not that is necessary is another matter. But there is no doubt the .280 owns the game when it comes to S.D.

For my use, I'll take the .280 every day of the week. Excellent and affordable bullets abound, which is important to me.

Whelenaway,

I'm sure you do get 2850 fps with 168's from your 22" .280 barrel. My comparison was not about what somebody CAN get with handloads, but what happens when handloads are tested at the same pressure.

Bob, that eliminates a lot of gack flak right there. 🤔 😃

These conversations about the 270 vs 280 have been raging on for ...oh....maybe since the 1970's (?),or at least that's when I became aware..

I never participated having rifles chambered for both, but finally grew weary of 280 lectures at the LGS, and said "piss on it" and bought a 7Rem Mag, leaving them both firmly in the dust.

I concluded it didn't matter which of the other two I owned because there was nothing I could do with a 280 that I couldn't do with a 270.....I was right on both counts.

When I joined the CF I was not surprised to see the same silly arguments going on.Might be one of the biggest wastes of grey matter in the rifle shooting world...especially today.

Indeed M D. After all these points made and others refuted......

the "nit picking" continues on this page. > P 17 <

"None are so blind as those who will not see"


Jerry

Yup,the Campfire does take "pole vaulting over tick turds" to a whole new level.

C'mon man, yer trying to take half the fun out of being here!!!

I'm surprised somebody didn't bring up the .280 Ackley Improved. If the .280's great, the Improved version has to be better! :-)

The .280 AI is the best. it goes to 11.

Not only can the .280 AI match the velocity of 150-grain .270 bullets with 160's, providing all the benefits of another 10 grains of bullet weight, but many handloaders report the .280 AI exceeds the velocity of the 7mm Remington Magnum.

Well you can't be at the range all day!

Yah....more pressure than a 7 Rem Mag and less velocity.

That's what I call "progress" LOL!

I'm betting the 280AI ain't slower than the 280, otherwise it wouldn't be improved.

That would also lead me to believe that with all the supposedly great .277 bullets out there that a 270 improved version would be eminent.

Yes, all Ai'd cartridges exceed their closest magnum counterparts... just ask their owners.

The .280 Rem is a fine chambering and these comparisons don't mean much to myself.The eliminator for me is barrel length when using a rifle in the mountains.The .270.280,7×57 and the 7mm08 work well with a 22 " barrel . I choose my hunting rifle based on other factors, weight is a huge one for me (backpacking or horseback) - and your choice of the amazing bullets these days. We all handload here so factory ammunition availability is not an issue.

S Head - I'm betting Bob was talking about less velocity than a 7 RM.
Not slower than 280 !!!

SMH


Jerry

Geez, thanks Captain Obvious, that weren't where it was directed.

Of course, very few of the people commenting here have used by far the the finest cartridge in this class, the B-29. If they had, all this blathering about the .270, .280 and "improving" would disappear, due to the obvious superiority of .29 caliber.

Unfortunately, the B-29 is so good it was apparently suppressed, probably by the Obama administration, perhaps through BATFE agents on another "secret" mission to disarm the American people.

I've never seen anyone say a 250AI trumps a 257 Weatherby...

So, to sum it up, Finn Aagarrd liked the 280 and 7X64. Gun writters are responsible for us having bought all those 280,s but in reality the 280 is not as good as the 270 because you can not buy ammo in the hardware store.
But wait, another gun writer was the reason some continue to buy those 270s when the 30-06 is really the better round.
I will have to agree.

I knew it!

It also helps if the manufacturer gives the cartridge a name, the rifle an effective rate of twist, and refrains from screwing with either.

I love the .280, myself, but love is an emotion and a headstamp doesn't do a damn thing.

You summed it up nicely!

Killed a albino bull elk in the middle of a blizzard with mine.

Not a very good pic,but it's all I have.































Took me two days to pack it out.

The elk was so far away when I shot it,I put salt and pepper on the bullet to keep it from spoiling.

Maybe, but those 130 grain bullets were mostly Noslers & that fact had as much to do with the success of the 270 as did the caliber or JOC's writing...............I kinda doubt he would have gotten as much performance out of cheaper C&C bullets of the day.

MM

I don't think very many of the general population were using Noslers. And JOC wrote a lot about C&C bullets.

[img:center]http://https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/images-jpeg.89414/[/img]

It's hard to beat a good 280 with good handloads for any nondangerous game. If you don't handload just get a 270.


But if you do,a 280 is mighty nice,and has a couple of advantages over the 270. One is that there are lots of premium bullets in weights of 160 grains and up. The 270 has one,the 160 grain Nosler semispitzer. Second is that there are lots of really high BC long range bullets for the 280,the 270 offers less options in this category as well.

The 270 is really the all around rifle for Everyman. The 280 is really the all around rifle for guy who want a 270 and 30-06 rolled into one and doen't mind handloading to get it.

Great post doc!

Regarding the 280AI, nobody should expect it to be a 7RM, but another 100fps is never a bad thing and really plays well with the heavier bullets the 280 can handle.

C'mon JB, of course it was meant to be funny, but you know you don't have to AI a 280/160 combo to match speeds with the 270/150.

JOC wrote about Western Tool and Copper Works bullets alot.

Only problem with your line of thinking is in the current brass market 280 hulls are scarce as hens teeth, while 270's are everywhere.

Not true. Jack O' began using the .270 in 1925 and he mostly used Winchester Positive Expanding Points and Remington Bronze Points and he says they were excellent.

Those too.

Haven't bought any lately, so I ran a quick check.

Took me 30 seconds to find two sources. Hens teeth are waaaaay more scarce.

LOL, that might be true!

On the shelves here there are no 280 shells. However, 270 brass is in every store.

and so is ammunition.

For the Worldwide Big Game Hunter, there is no substitute for ammo availability should SHTF and your ammo is lost, stolen or you run out (having to sight-in after an accident or some other issue).

If in any given year I'm travelling to Asia, Australia/NZ, Europe or Africa (heck, even going up to Alaska or Canada) and spending tens of thousands of dollars on hunts, it's absolutely foolish to bring along a 280. You will not find 280 ammo. I will always find 270 Winchester ammo in some bullet weight or another and that's why my Model 70 in 270 Winchester is my all-around light deer/sheep/plains game cartridge; else, it's my 300 win mag or my 375 H&H or 416 rem mag depending on the scenario.

Won't .270 ammo work in a .280?

Brass will. You just have to be smarter than the average bag of brass to make it work.

I have several of Jack's books and grew up reading his articles in Outdoor life and I remember him being quite fond of the 130 gr. Winchester Silvertip. I'm pretty sure the positive expanding points were never made/loaded for anything but the .25-06.

No, but there's an "elk hunter" on that same forum that uses the 280 in a 338 WM... I've learned an awesome amount of chit on this forum!

See how versatile it is? Try that with a .270 round!

You're right. I checked my book and Jack calls them 'Winchester Pointed Expanding Bullets'. You're also correct that he was a big Silvertip fan.

Right?

And here John's been "lying" about that B29 of his...

C'mon this thread needs to keep going,just got some more popcorn and beverages.

I really like all of the '06 based rounds I've tried.

But the more I work with the damn '06 itself it keeps making me think that's all a guy really needs

hummm, that's important folks...

and I like the 280 so it's not prejudiced.


Jerry

It's important in theory, but really, how often does one have to go find local ammo on a hunt? Yes, there are certainly instances where airlines lost stuff or something else happened, but it really is in the minority. Not saying it can't or won't happen, but I and no one I know has ever had to go find ammo locally to salvage a hunt. It's not even a concern for me when travelling.

Jerry,

If you decide you would prefer a .280 on your next Australian hunt, look these guys up. They should be able to fix you up.

https://www.winchesteraustralia.com.au/categories/AM/MD/MD22

I'm betting the Kiwis could round you up some also.

It's a big world out there.

It's a point if a guy only has one rifle, but otherwise not so much.

If leaving the country, my 30-06 or 7RM is going. Not my 270 or my 280.

In the US, I'll take two anyway.

I tried it once by accident, got brass in my nose and face kinda homely for a week or 2.

Kodiakisland,

Yeah, taking a rifle chambered in a common cartridge never seems important--until it happens.

It's never happened to me, even on an international trip, but I have lost count of the people who've been on the same trip, or are hunting from the same camp, that it's happened to.

Have even seen it right here in Montana. Two buddies and I drove to eastern Montana to hunt, and in the process of consolidating our stuff in one vehicle, a small ammo bag got shoved under the front seat of another pickup while somebody was taking out something else. Luckily all it contained was .30-06 and 12-gauge, and it was easy to resupply in nearest small town. .280 and 16-gauge would probably have been a different story.

Yeah, As I said I know it happens, but usually what I've heard could have easily been prevented. If flying, I have ammo in two bags. If driving, I have a check list that gets checked twice to make sure gun and ammo are with me. Sure, I may end up with no ammo on my next hunt, but I still won't let that possibility determine what gun I take. I'm sure there are some places and circumstances where you have a high probability of not having your ammo, or even your rifle. In those cases I can see where taking the most common gun or just borrowing one once you get there would be the best course of action.

I enjoy hunting with my 250 savages, 257 Roberts, 7-08, 280AI, 358STA too much to go buy a sensible 308 or '06.

Absolutely, it's a bore rider..keep your shots under 500 yards.If it's not true, it should be

Absolutely, it's a bore rider..keep your shots under 500 yards.If it's not true, it should be

Yeah, it's important. Especially if something unexpected comes up.

Ouch

Absolutely foolish statement. I reckon that must have been Custer's line of reasoning also. He figured he could just pick some ammo up at the Greasy Grass General Store right before he engaged the Savages.

Yeah....don't try that at home. A 270 case fired in a 280 chamber. Even when I owned both I never took them on the same hunt.

Did you sell the .280 carbine Bob?

No Mike still have it....thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten all about that!


Sign of age! haha!

I won't sell that little rifle,except to one friend who loves it. It's a cool rifle. I need to shoot something with it.

A pump 280 is nirvana

760 Carbine no less!

I will post a picture.....later.

I remember it from the pump rifle thread. It's up there on the woods rifle cool list.

Ha I forgot about that too.

Kodiakisland,

Being careful helps, but various airlines and countries have different regulations about which luggage ammo MUST be kept in, and often it must ALL be in a single, locked box. Some require it be in the case with the firearm; others don't allow that at all.

In once instance, the hunter departed for Africa on an airline that didn't allow ammo in the gun case. Everything was fine when landing in Johannesburg, but during a flight change IN SOUTH AFRICA, another airline required the ammo to be in the case with the rifle. This was a recent change nobody knew about, including the very experienced travel agent the hunter used. When the hunter's luggage was run through an X-ray machine the ammo showed up, and was confiscated by the airline, which did NOT inform the hunter. He arrived for his hunt with everything he'd packed except his ammo.

In another instance, only the hunter's rifle case showed up on a Canadian hunt--and his ammo (per the airline requirements) was in his other luggage. His rifle was chambered for a wildcat .338 caliber, and .340 Weatherby ammo MIGHT have fit the chamber, but was never tried, because there wasn't any .340 Weatherby in any sporting goods store around.

I even know one guy whose ammo case was stolen during a vehicle break-in during the drive from the airport to the hunting lodge, probably inadvertently by some thief who just grabbed whatever he could easily carry, because the heavy rifle case wasn't taken.

Those are just a few examples, but lot of it just simple odds: The more somebody travels to hunt, the more likely ammo will be separated from the rifle. I don't travel as much as some people (one friend has been on 50+ African safaris, and hunted in almost 100 countries), but as noted previously, even in my more limited travel I've lost count of companions like the three guys just mentioned.

Despite that, I've traveled several times with rifles chambered for relatively unavailable cartridges, at least where the hunts took place, such as the .358 Winchester and 9.3x62 Mauser. (In much of Africa 9.3x62 ammo can be found in many stores, but not in Alaska and Canada.) Once I even brought a rifle for a real wildcat--not just an "improved" version of a common cartridge, where factory ammo would work. But in each of those instances I either took along another rifle in a common chambering, or made sure a rifle could be borrowed, either from a traveling companion or the outfitter. And when I've brought a spare rifle, it's ended up being borrowed more than once, because a companion's ammo or rifle didn't show up.

So you've never known anybody whose ammo got separated from their rifle on a trip. This just indicates you and your friends/acquaintances don't travel all that much. While the odds are with somebody who doesn't travel much, that doesn't mean it can't happen on their very first trip--and no, it usually isn't their fault.

I call 2nd dibs if that other "friend" doesn't bite.... Heck, he already has a sweet one

Not really as there is plenty of 270 ammo available locally here...good luck with purchasing 280 off the shelf.

Ironically enough there are a few box' of 7x64 on the shelf, now what are the odds of that.

Yeah, as I mentioned in my previous post, ammo availability is often very much a local deal, whether in another country or even in different parts of the same country.

As an example, there's no problem taking a 7x57 or 9.3x62 to South Africa, for instance, because ammo for both is common in stores. You can even find both in some stores in larger towns in my part of Montana, but in eastern Montana (which has been losing population for a while now, and never had many large towns in the first place) you'd be out of luck. You're not going to find much .375 H&H ammo in small country stores anywhere in Montana, but you will in Alaska.

One of the things I try to do when traveling is go to at least one local sporting goods store, and is possible 2-3, just to see what's available, and not just ammo. This can be very interesting and even surprising. The very first place I ever found a box of Swift A-Frame .416 bullets (not loaded ammo!) on a store shelf in Bergen, Norway! Also found far more .308 Winchester than 6.5x55 rifles both in stores and in the hands of local hunters while there.

Of all people to lecture about using a commonly available cartridge. You carried your 9.3x62 to hunt moose in Canada,you carried a 257 Roberts all over the west,and you let your wife carry a combination gun in a 9mm oddball cartridge that no longer really exists. Just what is your latest drilling chambered for anyway? I heard you sold the one in 12 gauge and 30-06.

But the 280 is just too oddball to fool with? Somewhere a pot has offended a kettle about ethnicity.

HA!

Take a look at my more recent, longer post, and you'll see even larger transgressions--but also why I dared the fates. One example being taking a .300 Winchester along with my 9.3x62 on that trip to Canada.

Must note that Eileen's old combination gun and my 16x16/6.5x57R drilling have never traveled farther than 200 miles from home, and that in our own pickup.

Must also confess, however, to just putting together another .280 Ackley Improved. Dunno where it will travel, however, as I don't travel as much as I used to--and probably won't take anything weird if I do.

I do the same. Carry at least one rifle when traveling in a common cartridge. I also have a 280 Improved being built. Actually asked for a 270 or 280 and let the gunsmith talk me into the improved. He said it was way better. (That means he already had the reamer)

Like a true loon, I said sure, go ahead.😊

When traveling to Zimbabwe for a buffalo hunt, I took half of my buddy's .416 Rem ammo, and he took half of mine. I also chose the .416 as my buff gun because he already had his, and that gave us a measure of redundancy. Schit happens when you mix airlines and firearms.

You won't be sorry.

Well, at least, now, the good news is that you can buy brass if you don't want to enjoy the range time doing lots of fire forming.

MM

You have too many guns! LOL!

I just picked up a copy of "Guns and Hunting". A tip of the hat to MD for the very fine forward. There is a chapter devoted to the .280 but the .275/7x57 keeps popping up all over the place. It seems FA liked the mid-weights (139-154 gr) at about 2600 fps. As MD points out, he was more concerned with bullet placement and proximity to the animal than he was with absolute velocity and half-inch groups. I guess the old 7x57 just fit the bill.

Too bad he never got to hunt with the B-29. Danged ATF!!

Just grab a 270 and go kill shidt.....

Short and to the point.

Been doing that since 1976...

WITHOUT all the melodrama ! !













Still like the 280

Jerry

This thread reminded me to take finger nail paint and mark my 280 Rem cases so I can keep them separate from my 270 cases.

If it's black nail polish paint the 280 cases . . . if it's pink paint the 270's

MD,
By the same logic, you must not travel much either if it hasn't happened to you, and I know that's not the case. Luck, odds, planning, it all goes into it. I've been at camps where people showed up without their ammo and it was completely preventable. As I said, I know it happens. I just don't let the worry of what might happen control what I do. Sounds like you don't either. In fact, you're sending very mixed signals about the whole thing. Talking about how important traveling with a standard chambering is, and then not doing it yourself. Talking about how likely it is you will be separated from your ammo, and then admitting it's never happened to you.

I know it's good advice to shoot the most plain jane, common round available where ever you go, and I'm sure most people do just that. I guess I'm just too hard headed to listen to logic. Sounds as though I'm not the only one either.

Let's get real?? You're the one that brought up the BCs of 30 caliber hunting bullets.

Kodiakisland,

Yeah, I'm sending mixed signals--partly because I often HAVE to hunt with non-standard rounds, as part of my job. Many readers aren't very interested in hearing what the .270 or .30-06 or .375 H&H will do, because they're rifle loonies and to them the rifle is as much a part of the story as the hunt.

But also as part of my job, I don't often pay full price for hunts, and sometimes nothing at all, though quite often there's still quite a bit of money sunk into travel, licenses, tips and other incidentals such as motels/hotels while going and coming from the hunts. For many years I averaged spending at least $10,000 a year, and sometimes considerably more, while flying somewhere just about every month. (I don't travel nearly as much as back then, by choice, both because I did just about everything I'd wanted to, and because I wanted to stay closer to home to hunt with family and friends.)

But because of traveling so much, and got to know so many other people who did it frequently, that I also learned pretty quickly how prevent problems, or have a solution ready if something did go wrong. I also know damn well I've been lucky not to have my ammo go astray on any big trip, because I've seen it happen to so many people, often through no fault of their own.

But knowing what I know now, if I was somebody who didn't work as a hunting writer, and instead saved a bunch of money from their regular job to go on a few dream trips in a lifetime, I probably wouldn't take a .280, or whatever cartridge some rifle loony has persuaded themselves is superior to so many world-wide standards that do the same things. In fact, I probably wouldn't dick around with nearly so many cartridges, instead sticking to a very few standards and thus saving money to spend on more hunting, whether near home or far away.

Now, if I owned some heirloom rifle that would add real meaning to a special hunt, but was chambered in some hard-to-find cartridge, I'd do it--but I'd also take along a second rifle in a standard chambering, just in case. In fact, as mentioned earlier that's what I often do when "field-testing" some oddball round. This can be a PITA, because I much prefer to travel with one rifle inside a take-down case, with a spare scope (though have also done some iron-sight-only hunts in both North America and Africa, which tend to be far more relaxing, because there's no worry about whether the scope might go bad and need to be switched, or rifle might get rolled on by a horse.)

Part of my job is to entertain, but part is also to provide readers with the benefit of my experience, whether with cartridges, rifles, game, travel or whatever. That's why I try lots of stuff, including taking oddball cartridges to strange places. But that doesn't mean it's not risky for somebody who saved for years to go on that that ONE dream to take a rifle in an oddball chambering. That's their right, of course, but it's also part of my job to say it's risky, and why.

Yeah, I get it, as I've tried to say in every post in this thread. That still doesn't stop me from using what I want instead of the most common whatever. Sure, I only do 2 or 3 trips a year and sooner or later it will catch up to me, but I take precautions and also figure things will work out one way or the other if something does happen. Hell, if I worried about all the things that could go wrong, I'd probably never leave the house.

I certainly didn't mean or try to get on a nerve, but it seems I have. It's great advice to consider all the things that could happen while traveling and what can be done to decrease the chances. I've got no problem with you or anyone else saying consider using the most common thing, I just don't. I'm also willing to take whatever happens and make the best of it.

I guess the only thing that rubbed a nerve was seemingly suggesting that because it had never happened to you, or anybody you knew, that it never happens. But that's obviously not what you meant.

And just as obviously, my attitude is a lot like yours. Otherwise I wouldn't have done all sorts of stuff, including my job, which isn't exactly risk-free!

Good hunting,

Uh, no. In every post I said I knew it happened. I also said in almost every post that it will probably happen to me at some point. I could go back and highlight every time I said it, but I wont. It's there if you want to read it. So far it hasn't happened to me or any of my friends. I can't change that. I have met and been in camp with people it has happened to, and almost every instance was preventable.

Again, I wasn't trying to piss you off or anything else. Merely stating my reason for not being worried about using non standard rounds. Risk is part of life, and one I enjoy at times.

Sage advice.

Kodiak,

I went back and read your posts, and yep, you're right, you always said it could happen. My bad. Apparently what got me going was statements like this:

“Yeah, As I said I know it happens, but usually what I've heard could have easily been prevented.”

“I've been at camps where people showed up without their ammo and it was completely preventable.”

So I provided some examples of when it wasn’t preventable.

And as noted in my previous post, obviously you and I are a lot alike!

Most people I know the gun is just a tool to complete the hunt. To me, the gun is just as important as the hunt. I like odd things and enjoy using them. I'm also willing to take whatever I get if I do end up on the bad end of travel issues. I've been flying with guns since the late 80s and take as many precautions as I can. the worst thing that happened is all my hunting gear ended up in Dutch Harbor for a week without me. I had my rifle and ammo and hunted elsewhere until the airlines got things straitened out.

I'm also not trying to make money or only taking THE once in a lifetime trip. If I was I'm sure I'd look at things different. If a hunt turned into a photo shoot it wouldn't ruin my trip, but I know that's not how it is for many. I also get that sometimes things are out of your control. I'm OK with that too.

Ending up with no ammo to me is no different than having a scope or gun malfunction and not be fixable on the trip. Either way, the gun is out of commission and something else has to be done. Sometimes I travel with two guns, sometimes I tempt fate. I feel on almost every hunt I've been on, I could have come up with some solution to be able to hunt.

All to say you give sound advice and I was in no way trying to trump it. I enjoy your writing even if I don't always follow your advice.


Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the trip my gun didn't show for 24hrs after I got there. had ammo though!

We are a lot alike. Would be very happy just to take photos too, in fact if I go back to Africa may do that. Always take some time off to do that anyway when on a hunting safari.

But get to hunt enough in Montana with my own rifles (and surrounding states and provinces where I can drive, rather than risking an airline screw-up) that it doesn't bother me to hunt with something else on an assignment-type hunt. In fact I'm happy to have a rifle waiting for me there, rather than going through the hassle of traveling with them, especially internationally. But then I'm also at the stage of life where I'm planning to hunt more locally with family heirloom rifles, instead of rifles I bought or built--which will be just as important as the hunt, perhaps more so, though the sum will be greater than the parts.

Speaking of Blathering :

Was this mythifictitious Bravo-Two-Niner based upon the RSAUM case ?

I assume it was best served by a Full Gainer Twist...

;-)

Nope, it was the 7.5x55 Swiss necked down, with a small but vital change in the shoulder angle. The .29 caliber bullets turned out to have extremely high ballistic coefficients, due to the combination of diameter and twist. For a short period after the cartridge was introduced it appeared the bullets actually GAINED velocity, but eventually they turned out to lose a few fps over 500 yards. But they did flip big game animals over on their backs, ready to be field-dressed.

I don't know JB; I didn't see any velocity loss until at least 600 yds. All the animals I shot with it ended up on their sides 'cause I Iike to use the "gutless method"

No substitute for actual field experience ;-)

When I'm out cruising in a hunting area, and stop in at a shop that sells ammo, I check or ask if they have my oddball calibers (.280 Rem) in stock.
I'm not insulted if they don't carry it, but if they do, I make a note of price, and quantity for another visit.
Sometimes, I've bought a couple boxes that were great bargains at old prices.
Lots of this stuff gets discounted substantially at the end of hunting season too.

Found some old Green & White boxed Federal Premiums w/150 NP that I've yet to match for accuracy that way. Wish they had more.

"....One has to conclude that Col. Whelen was quite right - the 280 Remington is about the finest, most practical all around big game hunting cartridge that we have."

And you're glad you did, right? If not, you will be.

Used to have trigger locks on my firearms before I had a safe. Went dove hunting a couple of hours from home once and forgot to remove the locks before I left. I also forgot to bring the key. A screwdriver will remove the locks with minimum to no scratches.

I would never be so foolish as to forget my ammunition.

^ True Dat ^

I have never run out of ammo for ANY rifle on a hunting trip. Short of theft (and then I'm likely short a rifle as well), how anyone could allow that to happen is beyond me. Then again, I seldom require more than one shot.

I hear this absurd argument about ammo availability over and over again, and I'll go to my grave thinking it's way overstated.

Bully for you big guy.

Wow what a guy!

Impressive!

You two are adorable. My point is, a little preparation makes it a non-factor in buying a rifle or choosing a caliber--particularly if one handloads.

"Then again, I seldom require more than one shot".

That got me all hot and bothered

I like the 280 simply because it is not a 270. I hold no illusions that I will do anything with it that I could not do with a 270. Or a 30-06, 7RM, and about a dozen others for that matter.

It's a nice cartridge, built on a great case that is easily available, and has big game bullets from at least 120 to 180 grains. And as I said before....it's not a 270

That's the reason I chose it.

There is no practical difference between the 270 and the 280.

Any difference only exists in the mind of the shooter. I think Aagaard knew that.

Yes but admit it, you are just easy.

Bob,

Finn also wrote that he believed "I have experienced a higher proportion of instant, one-shot kills with the .270 Winchester than with any other cartridge."

John: YUP!

And Finn had a lot of experience with the 7x64 so it's not like he was "guessing".

Not to hijack too bad, what are a couple of good Aagaard books to search for?

bigwhop I don't know the books but have read many articles Finn did for American Rifleman and other magazines .

He did some great ones.

I grew up on his stuff. Loved his articles on the 270 Winchester and elk hunting cartridges.

Yes a have a few from those magazines too. Maybe I'm looking for a collection of works as I see can be bought from Amazon.

Aagaard's Africa. It's his memories on growing up in Africa IIRC.

Finn Aagaard on Hunting Rifles & Cartridges. This one is his articles published in the NRA publications.

It's a solid reason.

Aagaard was one of the few gun writers I went out of my way to read. He wrote a lot of great articles for AR. Always enjoyed his straight forward, matter of fact, style.

Long live the 280.

It has always intrigued me how cartridges come along like the 270 & the 308 that just seem to be the perfect marriage of components.

Good. I'll have one for sale shortly. NIB Win M70 if anyone is wondering.

Yeah, and Finn's experience with the .270 (as he stated in that article) wasn't with shooting a few deer, as it is with most people, but watching various .270's in use while performing his duties as a PH in Africa. In fact, he never even owned a .270 until he moved to the U.S.!

My own experience with the .270 was somewhat different. Bought my first at age 20 and hunted with it for years, with great results. In fact it was among the most accurate big game rifles I've ever owned, averaging around an inch or a little more at 300 yards for 3-shot groups of its favorite handload. Within the next 10 years I tried several other rounds, due to rifle loonyism (plus shooting out the barrel on that .270), but my wife started hunting with a .270 soon after we got married. She also had great "luck," at one point taking a dozen big-game animals in a row with one shot each, ranging from pronghorns at over 400 yards to elk and a bull moose. And the moose is still the "quickest deadest" bull I've seen taken with any cartridge.

I was young and relatively inexperienced and thought such accuracy and killing power must be "normal," but after more rifle loonyism realized the .270 was damn good. It may indeed be due to what you just mentioned, a perfect match of cartridge and bullets. I dunno, but like the .308 and some other cartridges (the .243 and 9.3x62 come to mind) the .270 flat works.

I don't think it's magic, because the .280 and .280 AI work just as well in my experience--and I used the .280 a LOT during the 90's, as part of my rifle loonyism, and the .280 AI some since then. And there's somewhat of a lack of real long-range .270 bullets, though that's changing. But the .270 certainly does a good job on big game, for whatever reasons.

The two quickest kills I have on deer are with the .270 and .280. Both dropped stone dead and didn't even twitch. The small buck I shot with the .270 simply flipped over dead. He was was on his back with all 4 legs in the air, bent and the knees. Shot was about 40 yds.

The .280 kill was on a doe in a clear-cut, about 100 yds. She simply dropped at the shot. Never twitched. Just dead.

MD, what was your bullet (or bullets) of choice when you were shooting the 270 Winchester a lot?

Gee, you want a list? My original .270, a Rem. 700 ADL, shot best with 150-grain Hornady Spire Points and I killed a lot of game with them, but also used the 130 Sierra GameKing and, eventually 130 Nosler Partitions.

When Eileen started using a .270 exclusively, after a couple of years of using my grandmother's old .257 Roberts, it was an early Browning A-Bolt. I worked up two loads that shot to the same place, one with 130 Hornady Spire Points and one with 150 Partitions. She used the Hornadys for sight-in and deer-sized game, and the Partitions on elk and moose.

Eventually, however, she got an Ultra Light Arms .270 because it was so much lighter than the A-Bolt (which only weighed 7-1/2 with a 4x scope. She used 130 Partitions for everything for several years, but switched to the 140 Barnes TSX when it came out, partly just to see how it did, and used it on everything, including elk and caribou, until she started getting recoil headaches and replaced it with a NULA .257 Roberts.

The Hornadys work great, but my all-time favorite .270 bullet is probably the 150 Partition, because I've seen it not only put down deer-sized game quickly but larger stuff from elk and moose to African plains game, including supposedly really tough animals like gemsbok. Which is why my "new" .270 (an O'Connor Commemorative Model 70 purchased a couple years ago) is right now being loaded exclusively with 150 Partitions and RL-26--though I'm also still working on a load to shoot to the same place with a cheaper bullet. Have plenty of 150 Sierra GameKings and Hornady Interlocks, and either would be fine.

Oh, and somewhere in there we've also used some Nosler Solid Bases, Speer Grand Slams, Combined Technology Fail Safes and some other bullets I've probably forgotten about. They all worked too.

Be interested to see what you settle on with the 150 Partition. I am just starting to load them for my .270. Why, I don't know, as the 130 Partition has been good for one-shot kills on everything I have shot with it.

The .284 150BT is an impressive killer.

As is the .280 150 NP ;-)

I dont think there are too many 150/165 grain bullets in the .277/.284/.308 zone that won't kill the chit out of damn near anything that is hit where they are supposed to be.

Did I mention 270's suck

I always preferred 150s in a 270, might try some 140s, 130s never impressed accuracy, and feel behind in retained energy.

Finn liked the 338/06 a bit, but also the 6.5x55. Even praised the mini 7mm - BR. Finn knew shot placement works, and mild recoil enables accuracy vs hurts it like a heavy recoiling round.

MM - I agree, and one might throw in the 140 PT in a .264, not that I would choose it over a good 125-130

Well, after 12 years of lurking (10 registered), I finally feel compelled to join a conversation (albeit a bit late to the game).

My two favorite writers growing up were Finn Aagaard and Bob Hagel. Both of them had "been there and done it". Both of them wrote in a no-nonsense style that was heavy on facts and real world observations. Neither seemed to be pushing an agenda or writing to sell equipment or outfitters. I respect Aagaard very much.

I primarily hunt big game in two different scenarios - high plains pronghorn and mule deer, and dark timber elk, mule deer, and occasionally black bear over bait. I have way more rifles capable of fitting the bill for either (or both) scenarios than I need. After twenty-five years of hunting, I pretty much use two rifles exclusively now.

My plains rifle is chambered in .25-'06 Rem with a 24" barrel pushing a 115 grain Partition at 3,100 fps. My timber rifle is the same make and model in .280 Rem sporting a 22" barrel, loaded with 160 grain Mag Tips at 2,750 fps. I use these rifle/load combos because they are extremely accurate, they kill their intended quarry quickly, and most importantly, I have the utmost confidence that they will put my bullets where I intend them to go, and the bullets will perform as necessary once they arrive.

I have several other rifles in chamberings that would be just as effective (.260 Rem, .270 Win, .308 Win, .30-'06 Spr, etc...), but the .25-'06 and .280 are my go-to rifles now and have been for several years. I believe in them and myself when using them.

Lack of common availability of ammo in both calibers is a concern when travelling more than fifty miles from home. As noted multiple times in this thread, stuff can happen when one travels. My backup rifle for plains hunting is a .270 Win with 130 grain Spire Points, and my backup woods rifle is the .30-'06 using 180 grain Grand Slams.

I have taken many head of game with my primaries, have never lost an animal I've shot, and all kills have been quick and humane. Some might say that my backups are more effective for my hunting needs than my primary rifles. Perhaps in theory that is true. But the .25-'06 and .280 shoot more accurately for me at all realistic ranges and have plenty of killing power for my needs. I simply have more confidence when hunting with them.

Which in my opinion is the most important factor when selecting a rifle for a hunt.

Aagaard liked a lot of calibers, including the .280 Remington. I suppose arguing over the minutiae regarding the advantages/disadvantages between two similar calibers can be fun, as this thread evinces. But in the end, it's all just dancing on the head of a pin.

Welcome out of the shadows, and congrats on a thoughtful first post.

+1

Good post.

DF