Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 280AI vs 270 Winchester

280AI is 1:9"

I am not certain about the 7RM

Been following this thread and being rather amused and entertained with the passion.

I've had and shot numerous animals with both - same : same.

As to bewlits, I'll stir the pot a bit - I wouldn't shoot any of the super duper high BC bewlits in either if elk were on the menu. A guy can achieve velocities greater than 3000 ft/sec in both. I seem to get elk show up at distances measured in feet rather than yards. I don't want to put a thin skinned bewlit onto an elk's bone structure at close range. Broadside, I'm sure they may work as advertised. I know Randy Newberg runs the 140 Accubond for elk and bears in his 7mm-08. They seem to work great at that velocity - full penetration, dead animals. I've run that bullet in various large capacity 7mms and I can't get them to exit broadside deer when bones get involved - and they make a hell of a mess.

The 7mm 160 NAB different story. I'm running the 160 NAB in my newest 280 AI. It will partake of a 2 state elk hunt in October. I suspect it will work as well as my 270 did with 150 Partitions at 3000 ft/sec. Of which accounted for 2 elk the last 2-state elk trip I did at a combined 50 yards. Partitions are not super duper wonder bullets, lack the sky-high BC, and are a bit boring - but they hold together when things get close, and expand when distances grow a bit. Its probably not the bullet I'd run if I was shooting at extended ranges (you can decide how to define extended ranges) but I'd throw them in the mix of bullets to consider when animals exceed deer size for either cartridge.

The Berger twist rate calculater shows the 180 .277” Woodleigh bullet (.513 B.C.) to be “marginally stabilized” at 2500fps from a .270 1-10 twist rate.

It also shows a 175g Woodleigh (.510 B.C.) as “stabilized” from a 7mm RM 1-9.5 twist at 2800 fps.

Thanks, but I’ll take the 7mm RM and the "BC club" 175. Fully stabilized, flatter shooting and higher velocity and energy downrange.



When I asked you to show me a better deer/elk/both cartridge it was in reference to the 7mm RM, not the .280AI. Given only factory ammo, I’ll take a .270 over a .280 or .280AI. Given handloads, I’ll take the .280 or .280AI every time.

The facts are that you cannot show me a universally better deer/elk/both cartridge because “better” is so highly subjective. One person’s pudding is another’s poison.

Besides, my 6.5-06AI with a 130g Scirocco II (B.C. .571) at 3161fps is clearly “better” than any .270. Five out of 8 clay pigeons at 600 yards would agree.

This place could split a red CH enough to make it look like fiber optics.....

When it comes right down to it, for most elk hunting the boots on your feet are more important than your rifle's chambering. Especially when you're talking about 270 vs 280. But boots are no fun to argue over. And there's no published data on bbots.

Me too..

Same could be said for a 6.5 creedmoor, or even a 243 for that matter. It’s all about where you put the bullet.

When hunting at 1200 yds and further the 338 lapua is better. I'm thinking I will trade it in for a 50 cal so I can be the end all of cussing and discussing 👍

At less than 300 yds I use my 6.5X55 swede however if I had a 6.5 creedmoor you would not be authorized to so much as question me!

Any other questions?





Trystan

Perhaps someone will build a double rifle with barrels for the 280 AI and the 338 Lapua.
Have a scope mounted over each barrel. Have a built in tripod system.
Nothing would be out of range.

Don’t sign me up!

There are far more people with custom barrels than those who hunt over 600 yards, let alone 1200, yet you felt using custom barrels was being unfair in the .27 vs .28 comparison?

In any case, a .338 Lapua is not necessarily better than a .28 (7mm RM specifically since that is what I asked you to compare against), even at 1200 yards. It depends on what you are hunting and the capabilities and needs of the shooter. Yes, a .338 Lapua can deliver more energy to the target than any .28 caliber cartridge I'm aware of, but that alone does not make it "better" for any particular purpose other than delivering the most energy.

If sniping large big game at that range, it may be a fine choice. For smaller big game, such as antelope, it really isn't necessary, Delivering energy downrange comes at a cost, though. Recoil is one. In the Savage .338 Lapua (8.85 pounds), a 265g LARB at 2900fps (pushed by 86.0g powder) generates over 50ft-lbs of recoil without a brake. Most people can't tolerate that much recoil so the brake is needed. Even then there are people that will have a hard time with the remaining recoil.

You could go to something like a Barrett MRAD to reduce recoil but who wants to carry a 13 to 14.5 pound rifle very long? Or up and down mountainsides? And how many can afford $4500 or more for such a rifle?

A 7mm RM with a 195g Berger VLD @ 2850fps can deliver 1300fps and 780 ft-lbs past 1500 yards. Significantly lower cost, weight, recoil - things that are not a "nice to have" but a "must have" for some. For them that may make the 7mm RM a "better" choice. A 7mm RUM would push the 1300fps performance envelope out to about 1700 yards.

As a more practical matter, where most game is shot within 600 yards and the vast majority of that at 300 or less, the discussion of a .338 Lapua being a "better" cartridge than a .280/7mm RM/.280AI for deer/elk/both is rather ludicrous. Inside 350 or so I'd take a .338 Fed over a Lapua. For the ranges I'm willing to shoot (600 yards max but only under perfect conditions, 487 longest ever), my 22" .338WM does just fine with 225g AB @ a rather sedate 2742fps. No need or desire for a Lapua for my needs.

Not even Ackley could improve upon the 270. It’s long been told that the 270 Winchester is why he left the improving buisiness.

Well...that and his unsuccessful assassination attempt on Elmer Kieth

You rely on a hypothetical Berger calculator instead of what Woodleigh the designer/manufacturer tested in the real world?

do you feel like contacting WL to tell them about what the Berger calculator tells you?

btw: achievable velocities are closer to 2700 fps

Re: "marginal stability"
For shorter ranges, marginal stability isn’t really an issue,( especially a high borerline case 180 WL stability factor of 1.45)
A marginal stability project. can still travel with good accuracy and precision, even though BC performance is less than ideal.
people interested in max. LR performance would need a slightly better twist to fully stabilise a projectile for best BC performance...
which is not imperative for the vast majority of hunters.

your Berger calc gives 180 WL a factor of 1.45
original BC of .513 is compromised to .505
minimum twist recommended is 9.75

it doesn't sound anything like a worrysome situation in practical real world terms, but those who obsess with number crunching model
ideals could sure invent something to worry about.... Berger does not say its wrong to hunt with a factor of 1.45,

http://www.bergerbullets.com/twist-rate-calculator/

GSC bullet site indicates a stability factor of 1.4 or greater is adequate for a projectile if; 'general hunting out to 500 metres'.
considering GSC are made in Africa and used in Africa with a great reputation, I gather they know what they are talking about
in their technical advice to hunters.




how about you put your calculator down ....and in relation to the OP, just tell people what is going to 'go wrong' if a .270win owner
loads WL 180....?....How much real world effect 'worse off' are they going to be (vs) using .280AI 175 Woodleigh.....?




Hmmm.... you didn't ask me that, you asked TRYSTAN.

Haven’t seen what the original designer tested or what velocities were achieved and in any case prefer multiple sources rather than what a single manufacturer may say. I have problems reaching Nosler maximum velocities, for example, and find Hornady and other vendor data more consistent and reliable, even after adjusting for similar barrel lengths.

2700fps may be reachable but I have not seen any pressure test results for 180g loads other than Hodgdon, who lists 2540fps maximum at 50,600 CUP with a 24” barrel.


I agree. But high B.C. bullets are not needed for most ranges, either.



Agreed that a high B.C. is not needed for the (vast) majority of hunters. But arguing that a bullet is best because of it’s B.C. and then saying that B.C. is compromised is trying to have it both ways.

Thanks, I’ll stick with my .280 Rem and 7mm RM, both with 1-9.5 twist rates, rates that stabilize the .510 B.C. 175g Woodley, not that I’ll ever use them. (I use 140g an 160g bullets exclusively in them these days, some with club-like B.C. values and am quite content to shoot them to 600 yards.) If higher velocity, flatter shooting and more energy downrange is how you measure it, a faster, stabilized .510 B.C. bullet is “better” than a slower 180g bullet with an effective B.C. of .505.



I agree – for most hunters and most situations, arguing over which bullet or cartridge is “better” based on B.C. is foolish. Most bullets will work for most situations most of the time. And for those times they don’t, a higher B.C. bullet is rarely the answer.



The OP is “not really a long range guy at all” that typically hunts at 300 yards or less and is interested in something with higher B.C. and velocity “just in case“. You admit that the 180g Woodley might not be the best past 500 yards. It really isn’t necessary at shorter ranges, though.

The real question for me is “How much better off would he be if using the 180g Woodley?” The answer I come up with is “Probably not at all.”



I don’t know which claims you are talking about but both Hodgdon and Nosler list 2800fps for 175g bullets in the .280AI. The Hodgdon pressure is 61,100psi, well below the 65,000psi limit for the .270 Win and well within the safety margins for modern rifles.

I’m not arguing that a 7mm is “better”, just pointing out that that a .270 isn’t necessarily better. I have no real use for the heaviest bullets in either caliber. “More” is not synonymous with “better”.



My bad. Hey, memory is one of the first things to go.

WORD........

You didn't like my question so you made up your own instead to replace it.
born politician.



So .270 he owns now is adequate even with a marginal stability 180 WL.


what I actually said:
.."GSC bullet site indicates a stability factor of 1.4 or greater is adequate for a projectile if;
'general hunting out to 500 metres'.."

...which more than covers the OPs 300 yd needs.



Sensible people would not refer to Nosler ,Speer or Hornady velocity /pressure figures to gauge AFrames
so why do you cite Barnes 180 results when we are talking 180 WL....?



but You kept pushing 7-Mag into this thread, saying you prefer 'fully stabilised' 7mm over a marginal stability ..270
...So you believe that makes a real world noticeable difference and is better,....yes?




Nosler cited velocities are not achievable according to you.
and its not safe to assume pressures in the Hodgdon test rifle will be replicated in a whole range of other individual rifles out there using
the same load data and a chronograph.





BC?.....I was clearly addressing stability, and only because you had made an issue specifically about marginal stability,

> does 1.45 stab. 180 WL genuinely concern you regarding the OPs stated 300 yd needs...?

iF not, ... why did you go to the trouble of bringing up your Berger calc. 'marginal stability' ?

Berger did not say it was wrong to hunt with 1.45 and GSC states 1.4 and up is quite acceptable,
so what exactly is your issue with 'marginal stability' of 1.45 ?

I think your mistaking me for Starman on a fair amount of this post.

Besides, I already told you I own a 6.5 and that makes your 7 rem mag argument for the most part obsolete!



Trystan

If the 270 is “gay” than a 6.5 is bag over the head, hole in the bathroom stall at a rest area, costume gangbang gay.

I also own a .6.5 (-06AI) and agree the 6.5's are fine cartridges. If I was purchasing today, my beloved .257 Roberts would be a 6.5 Creedmoor instead. I'm not really arguing for or against a .270 or one of the .28's as much as I am the stupidity of claims that a particular cartridge is "better" because of a higher B.C. bullet for it. B.C. values don't make a lot of difference until well past where most shots are taken. I used 160g Speer Grand Slams, B.C. .389, in my 7mm RM for 20+ years and never realized I was handicapped. My last elk was taken with a 160g Grand Slam at 411 lasered yards (4 steps and down forever) and would have been just at dead at much longer ranges.

My 6.5-06AI is absolutely great for what it was designed for but is heavier than I want to carry when elk hunting. Even though it pretty much does the same thing as my 7mm RM out to ranges well past where I'm willing to take shots at game (i.e. past 600 yards max), the 7mm RM would be my choice every time because of the weight issue - screw the B.C. differences.

The point of my posts is that whole concept of "better" is meaningless without specific criteria. Since each person's situation is unique to them, what is "better" for one person may be a poor choice for another.

Sorry if I got you and Starman confused.

LOL, you forgot the man bun and clogs....