Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters What can you do with a 280 that you cant with a 270

And in 7mm Rem mag, 7mm ultra mag, 7mm short mag, etc.

R E D U X



YES there is a S A 270.

And it can make a difference at ranges less than 400 yards when the wind is blowing hard enough. BTDT

Every time I think I might want a .280 or .270 I look at the ballistics charts. All things being equal (meaning loaded to full potential), the difference in drop between either of those and the 7x57 is about two inches at four-hundred yards. The cost of those two inches is increased recoil, burnt powder, and muzzle blast. So frankly, I think we can add the 7x57/.275 to the "same-same" category as well.

.270 Titus, on a .300 Savage case, and the .270 Redding, on the .308. Next question?

I have owned 270s and 280s my whole hunting life. I have always been a 7mm bullet fan and specifically a 280 Remington fan. My dad made us learn our ballistic data when we were kids. I was, and am convinced, the 280 is superior to the 270 in one area only. That area is bullets. More specifically in availability of higher BC bullets. That "superiority" is small enough to not even matter; however, it does exist. Taking that to its logical conclusion, i have always felt that the 280, in the wind, provided more room for error. The more I have learned over the decades, the less measurable that actually is. They are simply more alike than different. To argue against my own "slight edge to the 280 position", we should all learn our dope whether we are twisting dials or not. Frankly, if you know your dope and accurately judge the wind and distance, we should all be just as accurate with any and all rounds we so choose.

I just ran the numbers for loads for the .270 145-grain Hornady ELD-X and the 7mm 162-grain ELD-X through a ballistic program, using Hornady's G7 BC's, which are .270 for the .270 145 and .315 for the 162 7mm.

The muzzle velocities were what I actually got in a 22" barreled .270 and a 22" barreled .280 Ackley Improved, 3100 for the 145 .270 and 2900 for the 162 7mm, 3100 fps and 2900 fps. (Actually, I can get 3000 with the 162, but the accuracy sucks. 2900 is where the accuracy's best. This is a little odd, since the .280 AI was barreled by Mickey Coleman, but there it is.) But that's with the .280 AI, and with a standard 22" .280 around 2900 is about it.

The difference in drift at 400 yards in a 10-mph wind at 90 degrees to the shooters, in typical Montana fall hunting conditions, turned out to be .53 inch. At 20-mph, of course, that would double--but I must admit that I don't shoot at big game at 400 yards in 20-mph winds, partly because they tend to be pretty gusty in my part of the world. 10 mph is about it.

The difference in drift at 500 yards was calculated at 1.89 inches, again in a 10-mph wind.

I have owned 7 different 7MMs in my life including a 280. I have also owned 5 different 270 Winchesters, one 270 Short Mag, and two 6.8 SPCS. So I have shot a pretty complete cross section of cartridges in both bore sizes and I have done a lot of game killing with the 270 Winchesters and the Short Mag as well as a pretty good number of kills with the 7X57, the 7MM mags (both Remington and Weatherby) and a 7MM STW.
Not only have I used them for game killing, but also for paper shooting and steel shooting.

I read now and then about the 7s being more accurate. Not in my experience. (over 50 years now) In fact the 2 bolt action 270s I still have are more accurate than any 7MM I ever owned, and I owned several 7s that shot VERY well. The two most accurate 7s I ever owned were a 7X57 Mauser and one of the 7MM Rem Mags I had, and both would shoot about 3/4" at 100, but the 2 best 270s I ever had (and I still have them ) both shoot 1/2" and several times less. Shooting paper at 600 yards with them I also got by best groups at that range with my 270s and a few 30 cals. The best 7MMs were very close seconds, but they were still seconds. So I don't buy the line that the 7MM bore size is "more accurate". It's not.

The number game is not impressive either. Looking at the drifts of the best hunting bullets in the 140 150 154 and 160 grain range of the 7MMs and comparing them to the 140s 150 and the 160 grain 270 the difference is so small that there is not 1 shooter in 500 that could see any difference on paper or game, and that one in 500 who could can just as easily hold a 24 inch drift as he can a 22-1/2" drift at 500 yards. Very Very Very few men can hold a 2.5" correction at 500 or farther, and if you can, it's not a disadvantage to hold 24" in comparison to 22.5" So the numbers game is just that, a mental game that keeps us interested, and keeps us talking, but no enemy or any game animal would know any difference, and any paper target is adjusted for, so a super small difference is going to be either held-off or "dialed in" a scope, so the "advantage" is really non-existent.

I am not a fan-boy of one bore size over the other. This is not an argument for the 270 over the 280. Neither is it a rah-rah session of the 7MM over the 270.

In fact I agree with John, and I'd say if bullets of equal weight and equal construction were tested, in the area of actual use for ANY purpose, there is no difference at all. Zero. Zip. As in none at all. I do not feel any religious dedication to a cartridge of bore size. My purpose here is not "pro-270, Pro 280 or anti-either one.

It's just to state the facts.

Here is a glimpse of the real world illustrated in a simple question:
If we assigned a value of 100% to the 280 and for the numbers fans, we give a value of 99% to the 270, ask yourself what target exists anywhere on earth at any range where the 99% is just inadequate ----- and yet the 100% is just fine or perfect?

You see..........that target (game, enemy, paper or varmint) doesn't exist, and it never will.

Good post, Steve.

Have owned and hunted with a bunch of 7mm rifles in chamberings from the 7mm-08 to 7mm STW, and also not just the .270 Winchester but the .270 WSM and .270 Weatherby Magnum. After decades of hunting big game with various bullets, and also observing a number of companions using the same rounds and a wide variety of bullets, I came to the conclusion that they all work, as long as the bullet lands in the right place. In fact, one of the quickest-deadest blue wildebeests I've seen dropped in Africa was taken with a 140-grain Accubond from the 7mm-08, and by far the quickest lung-shot kill on a bull moose was with a .270 Winchester and 150-grain Partition. But they all worked fine on a wide variety of game.

Right now my "collection" of .270/7mm rifles is down to four, one .270 Winchester (an O'Connor Commemorative Featherweight Model 70), and three 7mms, a tang-safety Ruger 77 7mm-08, a Sauer drilling in 7x57R, and a Mauser Model 18 7mm Remington Magnum. Apparently I eventually came to the conclusion, after several .280s and .280 AI's, that I'd just as soon use a 7mm Remington Magnum, which does more than either .280 will (at least on paper), and has the .270's advantage of widely available brass and ammo. (Aside from the 7x57R, I find myself getting more practical--but a drilling is practical in a different sort of way.)

Have also found myself becoming fond of the 6.5 PRC, which is essentially a short-action 6.5-06 (another round I used for a while and liked)--and another round that essentially dances around .270 ballistics with higher-BC bullets. But that's not what this thread is about....

Nosler manual #4 has great 280 load data that is not intended for a 740 or 742.

Ken Waters has a tremendous write up on the 280 in the Book, Pet Loads. After reading it, and just happened to have a Nosler manual #4, I tried the nosler load of 160g Partition with IMR 7828 in a 24" barrel, 2930 fps, half inch groups with a 3.5x10 leupold. I have yet to try the R#26 in the 280 case. Family and friends got stuck on the 160g Sierra btsp with the 7828 loads, and deer just flop.

Well pretty simple really the 280 will shoot .284 bullets easy. You have to work harder to get them in a 270. Any other questions ? MB

The 280 has a faster twist, 1:9 v 1:10, you can load heavier bullets with better results, 160s for example.

Nope. The 7400 was though.

Actually I believe the RoT is all over the board. Of the larger manufacturers Winchester lists 1:10, Remington is 1:9.25, Ruger is 1:9.5, and Weatherby is 1:10. About the only barrels I'm seeing twisted tighter are the "semi-custom" Ackleys. They seem to run 1:8.5 or 1:9.

But it certainly raises a question I've often wondered about: If the standard European twist for the Brenneke is 1:220mm/1:866" (with the exception of Sako/Tikka, which is 1:10), why twist its ballistic twin in 1:10? Calling Mule Deer...

John,

As you know, the difference between the .270 and .280 has nothing to do with some inherent superiority of one bullet diameter over another, but simply the commonly available barrel twists and bullets. Factory rifles chambered in .270 with a 10" twist are by far the most common, while finding a .280 with a 9" twist is also fairly common. Using the most aerodynamic bullets appropriate for hunting in both chamberings, I compared the .277" 145 ELD-X at 3030 fps, the .277" 170 EOL at 2700, and the .284" 180 ELD-M at 2600. All velocities were found using Hodgdon data which lists 24" barrels for both the .270 and .280. I gave the .270 the benefit of the doubt with the 170 EOL and split the velocity difference between the 160 and 180 gr bullet data listed. The trouble with the 170 EOL is that it loses about 8% of its G7 BC value when launched in these conditions from a 10" twist, while the other bullets achieve super-stability and retain the published BC values. Using 30deg F and 4000 feet ASL, we find that with a 10 mph 3:00 full-value wind the bullets drift as

170 EOL - 10.4" at 400 meters, 16.6" at 500 meters
145 ELD-X - 10.2" at 400 meters, 16.5" at 500 meters
180 ELD-M - 8.3" at 400 meters, 13.3" at 500 meters

Using a 20 or 30 mph wind doubles and triples the drift, so the difference between these bullets starts to become significant. In fact, even at 10 mph the difference is significant when considering all the sources of uncertainty in assessing and making a wind call, and a few inches can mean an outer hit in the vitals or a hit just outside the vitals. I've not seen it matter in the field very often, but it has on a couple of occasions.

As far as terminal effects go, I haven't seen any difference between the two chamberings, but when we're talking about external ballistics and putting the bullet in the vitals, the differences can be material. If manufacturers started making 9" twist barrels the standard on .270 Win rifles, and bullet development followed suit to take advantage of the faster twist rifles, then there'd really be nearly no difference between the .270 and .280.

150g at 3000 in a 270 has been a pipe dream for me, tried it in three different rifles(accuracy). I have not tried R#26 yet. I could not get the 145 eldx to group 1/2" in any of the three 270's either. About 1.5" was the best I could do averaging different days. Must be some trick to get this 145 to shoot super accurate.

I shoot the 110g ttsx in my 270's at 3300, everything dies real quick, 1/2" accuracy or a tad less.

One of my 280s with a 24" barrel shoots the 180g eldm at 2700 and change, real easy with IMR 7828 and the 162 eld's at 2930, easy... Start shooting some steel at 600 and that 180 you realize is in a class by it's self.

Everyone is praising the 145 eld, to me it is a very big pain in the butt to get to shoot. 6 trips to the rifle range working with three different 270's and different powders if the bullet does not shoot well, then move on. I have a rifle range where I shoot and reload in a heated and ac house. I can work though bullets and powders real quick, clean the guns, etc.

I don't call 1.5" groups shooting well, that is where I want to screw on another barrel.

With my 280's, Sierra 160g, Berger 168's, Hornady 162 eld's all shoot small groups easy in the 2900 fps area. In the 280, the 175-180g bullets tune easy at 2700+ with multiple loads, and in one LIlja 3 groove, I am getting 2800 with the 175 eldx in the accuracy node where the bullets all touch.

Ease of working with great ballistic's in the 280 is a given, and I certainly have not found this to be so with the 270's while attempting to get accuracy. The ballistic's of the heavier bullets bullets in the 270 where best accuracy was achieved has been in the 2850 fps area. A given is that if you are going to be shooting longer ranges your goal should be 1/2" accuracy, NOT 1 inch.

Running the 270 at top end pressures seems to blow the groups with heavier bullets, in all 3 of my 270's.

So for me, the 270 is like a 16 Ga shotgun, and the 280 is a 12 Ga 3" mag. The best of the ballistics of a 280 is very easily attained with minimal effort, while the best of the 270 ballistics has been like chasing a phart in the wind.

If you have a rifle range were you can shoot even 400 yards, you will see just how impressive a 280 with a 9T shooting 180g eldm are. As the wind picks up, lets up, swirls, the 180g eldm at 2800 just blows your mind and everyone else that is watching you shoot.

That's starting to happen. Tight twist barrels and higher BC bullets are coming. But to me it's a moot point. I don't really need it. The .270 is an excellent deer rifle within normal hunting ranges. And I can kill all the deer I'll ever need within 400 yards. Ya gotta get closer, that's why it's called hunting. Shooting at game in the next Zip Code is no longer hunting. People need to quit reading sniper books because they confuse what long range snipers do with ethical hunting. They are not, nor have they ever been, the same thing.

Agreed. I spent a lot of times figuring on a 400+ shot...killing all my game but a handful at far, far under! ha I have spent far more time playing/hunting with 7mms than anything else. Meantime, I have used many Medium & Heavy Mediums, played with some real genuine Heavies, and killed a lot of game with the "minis" ( .22-6mm) At 67, I aim to focus for a long while on the .270 Win ( 24" bl) and an easy handling 6.5 Creedmoor( 22"bbl). All the rest are great; getting another 30-06 "just to have", but overall, I'm done with anything 7mm. Life is way to short....

Well Jim,

now at 70 and I'm serious bout this, I have come to like/appreciate the 7 RM more than ever before.

I hunt on the ground, on the move and I can be on any day in a thicket -- 7 RM works; OR I can be on a tree line of an open field. The 7 RM shoots 139(140) gr bullets easily 3200-3300 fps and is FLAT has LESS drop than even the 270 W.

I haven't quit using my 270 OR 284 Win but the 7 RM is AT the TOP of MY list.

Diff strokes.....


Jerry

Jordan,

I ran some more calculations--again, all from actual results in my rifles. At 400 yards (not meters, as I mentioned 400 in my original statement, these are the results with a 10 mph wind:

.270 145 ELD-X @ 3100: 8.13"
.270 170 EOL @ 2850: 7.6"

Then I ran the 195 Berger at 2700, which is what it actually gets from my 7mm Remington Magnum (not a .280 or .280 AI) with a 24" barrel: 6.76"

Please note that the largest difference is 1.37".

I don't care what the difference is at 500 yards, or meters. I know a higher-
BC bullet will drift less beyond 400. But I do not consider 1.37" significant at 400.

Here's a question for you: Do you actually shoot at big game animals at 500 meters (550 yards) in 20-30 mph winds?