Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting 280 rem vs 7mm mag

I too have owned both the .280 and 7mmRM.. I sold the .280 after one season.. We have been shooting t he 7mmRM since 1991.. It offers excellent speed with the 140 grain bullet, and has been an excellent rifle for everything from coyotes to moose.. With the 140 shot in 3"high at one hundred yards, it drops a bit less than 2 feet at 500 yards.. I seldom need this distance any more, but it is nice to know that is offered if an exceptional mule deer buck is scene..

The Magnum shoots the same bullet faster, but not all that much. The truth lays in looking at the ballistic tables and using a bit of common sense at the same time.

The Magnum will outrun the 280 by about 100 FPS or maybe a bit more or less depending on barrel lengths and the individual rifles being tested, but 100 FPS is a good guide line.

So look at the top speed of the 7MM Mag and see at what range it has bled off velocity to equal the 280s muzzle velocity. In most cases that range is going to be about 65 to 70 yards. So in other words, bullet for bullet, the 7MM Mag out-runs the 280 by 70 yards. My 2 questions are:

What animal at what range is going to be able to tell a difference? And what "ambush" can a hunter set up to be 100% sure the 70 yards are just too far to shoot with the 280 but it's just fine with the belted mag? Is it logical to believe you can control the range of all shots in all hunts?

I doubt any logical answers can be made to those questions that wouuld give any real-world credit to the Magnum over the 280. So that's why I say, in the game fields, they are basically the same.

I have owned a 280, two 7MM Rem Mags and one 7MM Weatherby and shot both and killed game with all 3. Given the same bullets ---- there is NO effective difference at all.

I own a 7-08, a 7x64, a 280ai, and a 7 Rem Mag.
In all but extreme distances, I can't tell a bit of difference in how they kill, except the 7 Mag.
Its yet to be bloodied.
Each is a different rifle, for a different kind of hunt.
I can say the 7 Mag does have a bigger thwack sound on steel !
I like the .284 bore !

I have a load for my old 7mm RM that shoots a 140 gr. Nosler BTBT right at 3400 fps.. About 300 to 400 fps faster than the .280.. Not all 7;s will do this, but this one has a 26 inch barrel and a long Remington magazine.. I can seat the bullet out as far as needed.. I know this load was common when the 7 first hit the market.. Friends developed a load similar to this for shooting long range chucks and other varmints.. BobinNH had a similar load for one of his old 7s and someone else on the fire also had a similar load.. So the old 100 fps rule doesnt always apply.. This load came directly from a loading book and it did offer loads that went up another grain and a half.. Several friends have found this load works well for them also.
I did have a Sako 7mm RM in the early 70's that would pop the primers out with starting loads!!! Never found a decent load for that rifle... I think, this issue was one of the reasons loads have been reduced over the years.. My load came from a book in the early 90's.. So some 7's offer a gain over the std. 280.

The animals can't tell the difference; neither can I.

The only magnums, besides the ones for DG, that I own anymore are all 338's........................7's & 300's are gone.

I don't miss them at all.

Besides, the 6.5 obsoletes them all anyway.................................I hear tell.

MM

We my 6.5's and 338s are all gone and I don't miss them at all either.. The 7 and 300s do it all for me...

Would that be muzzle blast you’ve heard?

I'm curious to your load, it seems warm and in 7mm STW or Weatherby territory. Most 280s are 22" barrel so you're probably gaining around 150 fps with your 26". The 7 RM is faster, but all things being equal, the 280 is not giving up much.

I had a Hornady Load Manual, back in the late 70's, that showed several loads for 3400fps with their 139SP in the Rem Mag. My rifle had a 24" barrel, and I had no chronograph...so you bet! ha I later went to the 140 NBT and got pretty close, but not with a 24" barrel, ha. I too had a Ruger 77 in .280 that got me started in handloading. I killed a buck at 276 long steps down a pipeline. I killed a few others under 30yds. I then sold it ( my wife had given me a Mod 700 BDL for Christmas) and used that rifle for about 10 straight years. I never killed anything with that particular rifle past 30yds, but it was heavier, longer, did not swing or handle as fast as that Mod 77. I "still" hate the flat bottom of the stock at the receiver on Rugers! For me, its the rifle, then the cartridge. different styles of hunting is all. Later in life, I killed a wad of game with a .280 Mod 700 Mtn rifle reamed to the AI, but it still was 2950 with a 150NBT. The uncut chamber .280 got 2900, these are loads it liked, I got some faster, but accuracy suffered...as most Ackley's I ever owned have. Being a tall man, I prefer longer barrels, 24" is about right, 22" feels like a carbine, and 26" just unnecessary for my style of hunting.

There has been a lot of speculation in the difference in velocity between the .280 and 7mm RM on this thread. I already suggested 200 fps with the same bullet weights, which is about what the 4-to-1 formula comes up with, but I got curious--especially after somebody here suggested it was only 100 fps.

So I looked up actual pressure-tested data for the two rounds, on two websites that both use 24-inch barrels, Western Powders and Hodgdon. They also both test a wide variety of powders and bullets. Here are the top velocities for four bullet weights, 140, 150, 160 and 175:

.280 140--2943
7mm 140--3217
274 fps difference

.280 150--2825
7mm 150--3133
308 fps difference

.280 160--2746
7mm 160--3069
323 fps difference

.280 175--2676
7mm 175--2915
239 fps difference

The average difference across all bullet weights is 286 fps, both from 24" barrels.

Now, some people will no doubt point out that this isn't a fair comparison, because the SAAMI maximum average pressure for the .280 is only 60,000 PSI. But the max for the 7mm Remington is only 61,000, and all these tests followed the SAAMI guidelines--which in rifle pressures is practically zero difference. It's irrelevant whether YOUR handloads get a lot more, from either cartridge. Just about anything can be done by optimistic handloaders, who work up loads using "pressure signs."

Whether or not all this makes any difference in the so-called "real world" is another question.

i do own 280 Remingtons and Remington 7 Mags also, glad Mule Deer chimed in with the correct fps and that is a true fact we should all thank him.

here`s my thought and its because i want a cartridge that i can buy ammo for just in case something goes wrong with my ammo lost,damaged or what ever 7 Remington Mag is very common to find, 280 Remington is a good cartridge but many times hard to find and could ruin a hunt ? take the cartridge you like but for me i will carry a 7 Remington Mag just in case i need ammo.

Based on actual velocity for the 140 and 150 out of my 7mm-08s, I think the data for the 280 is a bit on the slow side.




P

Well JB,
That’s a fair comparison. I have loaded for all but three of the 7mm cartridges. I have never expected my 280, nor my 280 AI to draft my 7 Wby’s. To do so would be foolish. As many of my kills have been at the hand of 7mm 150’s averaging 2850 fps at ranges out to 400 yards, I am quite happy with that combo.

My 7 Wby can really make some laser beam vapor trails & I enjoy hunting with it. Never actually felt it offered any appreciable advantage over my 280’s for 90% of my hunting.

Never expected a 280 to be a 7 Wby or vice-versa.

It was in the 70's in Drummond Montana, I saw a beat up old pickup with a bumper sticker that said " You ain't Sh*t unless you have a 280". I got a chuckle out of that.

I’ve shot a7-08 and 280 Ackley. For most guys I think the 7mag is the way to go with readily available ammo. I’m a little “different” so built a 280ai on a pre 64 but that’s more work and more expensive than a 7 mag for less performance

Those numbers are amazingly close to my 140g North Fork SS/HP loads in my .280 Rem and 7mm RM. One difference is a 22" barrel for the .280 and 24" for the 7mm.

280 - 140 = 2942fps
7mm-140 = 3214fps

I get 2928fps with a 140 Barnes TTSX. Could probably get more but that load is very accurate (3 into 0.066" last time I checked). I'll take the accuracy. A 140g TTSX in the 7mm can also do better velocity-wise but again I found a good load and am sticking with it.

Had a choice yesterday, on purchasing a wedding gift for a SIL -Ruger American .223, Ruger Hawkeye .280 Rem or Remington M700 .30-06, all NIB. My other SILs got .30-06 but this one already had a .300WSM and .308 Win. He also has two 6.5CM, one a Remington M700 heavy-barrel and one Ruger American Predator.

The .223 was attractive because he didn't have a bolt-action chambered smaller than the 6.5CM and I thought he could use a varmint/plinking rifle. He has an accurate AR and felt he would be fine using that. That left me leaning heavily toward the Ruger .280 Rem, a synthetic/matte blue Hawkeye. I have an All Weather model (synthetic/SS) that I really like, so I was a bit biased towards it.

Then I found a NIB Remington M700 in 7mm RM, synthetic/black like the other Remington rifles. SOLD!

My reasoning was the 7mm RM makes a better long range elk rifle than the 6.5CM, .280 Rem or .30-06. I've used mine for 38 years on everything from prairie dogs and coyotes (quite a few of both), to antelope, mulies and elk.

Looking forward to working up loads for it with him.

If you can' t kill an elk with a .280, you are not going to kill them with a 7 mag

Maybe not, but a 140 gr. BTBT and 3400fps, from my 7mmRM sure flies a lot flatter than any ,280 I ever had...

I wonder what the velocity difference would be with factory ammo? Some years ago I chronographed ( an Oehler) some 7 mm Remington Mag. 150gr factory stuff out of a Mod.700 that barely broke 2900fps.