Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles .270 win vs .280 rem

+1

But I can't get 3300 with a 140/3225 with a 150/3100 with a 160 in my .280Rem. I can in my 7mmRM.

Amen the that Bob!

Dobro

Lou, I must have missed the article by Mule Deer, Perhaps you missed one by George Orwell who said something like " All cartridges are equal but some are more equal than others."

You seem to think that increases in velocity must be exactly poportional to increases in caliber on a percentage basis and therefore the increase of only .007 inch in diameter that we see in .257 to .264 and again in .277 to .284 is meaningless.

It is fine with me if you have reached this conclusion, but you should know that the numbers you are using are not based on any sort of solid scientific data. In other words no equations exist in physics to support your opinions.

When I was working my way through graduate school, I taught physics labs at Samford University. I would ocasionally run into bright people who would not accept a well established principle because it conflicted with their "common sense" or their personal experience. There are equations in science which support my views about velocity increasing as bore size increases in a given weight bullet as long as all other factors are held constant, however their are practical limits to theoretical concepts.

When you attempt to create an equation to fit your data based on the opinions of a journalist in a popular magazine, you are not playing fair.

The 280 is a little more gun than the 270 and your attempt to derive an equation to prove it just isn't so is in conflict with too much objective data to the contrary.

I guess you never saw Ghostbusters. Back off I'm a scientist.

RuralDoc,

At what point did I say the .280 should not get more velocity than the .270? I agree 100% it's a well established fact that an increase in bore size will cause an increase in velocity. You say you believe it to be 100 fps, I am saying you are wrong. What scientific fact or equation are you basing your 100fps on? I referenced the handloader article because when I researched through my library of data it is the only one I could find that addressed the issue. The velocity gains happened to line up with my expectations and I actually ran a bunch more scenarios based on Nosler load data for other rounds and they worked out well too.

I agree that the .280 is theoretically a little more gun than the .270, but it is not with like bullet weights. Whatever meager gains (that you are exaggerating) the .280 will have will be surpassed in most cases by the higher BC of .270 bullets a bit down range (using the same bullet weight). If you want to try and turn the .280 into more gun, load the 175s, not the same weight bullets.

Wooo...you're a scientist. I'm and electrical engineer in the semiconductor industry. I don't have to back off to any discipline on technical matters.

-Lou

Lou, funny thing you should mention Nosler load data.I was just looking at my Nosler 4th edition manual. I have a copy of the 5th too but I can't find it right now. If we look at the common bullet weights in 270 and 280 made by Nosler we can compare at 140 grain, 150 grain ,and 160 grain bullets.

I looked at the maximum velocity with the single fastest powder( fastest in terms of velocity not burn rate) listed in all three weights in 270 and and 280. No way I could be cherry picking, I looked at the single best load in each bullet weight in both 270 and 280. The 280 wins in every single bullet weight. If we average the difference in all the weights, the 280 shows an advantage of more than 100fps.

You engineers are so sensitive when you're wrong. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.

RuralDoc,

.280 load data is based on 26" barrel and .270 is based on 24" barrel in the Nosler manual. I'm assuming you're not cherry picking, but I thought a scientist would notice this important variable to muzzle velocity. Soooo, since we can't find .270/.280 load data that is equal, I looked to the next best combo. .270 WSM vs. 7mm WSM. Same case, shoulder set forward slightly on the 7mm, yada...yada...yada..., but loaded to the same pressure standard. I am babysitting today and son is taking a nap (created a spreadsheet...engineers like those), so I compared load data for 140 gr. bullets from 5 different online sources (Hodgdon, Nosler, Alliant, Ramshot, Accurate). Here are my findings:

.270 WSM top velocity: 3275 fps (Accurate Magpro)
7mm WSM top velocity: 3272 fps (Accurate Magpro)
.270 WSM avg. of top velocity listed from each source: 3200 fps
7mm WSM avg. of top velocity listed from each source: 3199 fps
Average of all .270 WMS loads(20): 3118 fps
Average of all 7mm WSM loads (26): 3131 fps
# .270 WSM loads >3100 fps: 11 (55%)
# 7mm WSM loads >3100 fps: 18 (69%)

So, it seems to me that the best case velocity for each round is very similar. If you average the data across many combinations and wider range of powders, the 7mm WSM is a bit faster. If you can think of a better way to isolate the factors between .270 & .280 (same case, shoulder set forward, different bullet diameter) and do an unbiased comparison based on available pressure tested data, let me know.

-Lou

Lou, I figured you would cry foul about the 26 vs. 24 inch barrel. Tell you what, lets compare 7mm Weatherby to 270 Weatherby. Just to keep things fair, this time I'll spot you the 2 inches of barrel. If we go to the Nosler 5th edition which I found a little while ago we see the 270Roy has a 26 tube,the 7mmRoy has a 24 tube. The two rounds have the same saami max, the data was developed in the same lab and we can compare the same bullets that I used in my previous illustration in rounds with virtually identical case capacity.

This time let's look at the velocity produced by the two fastest powders for each bullet weight in both calibers.

270Roy- 140 grain- 3293fps and 3260fps
7mmRoy- 140 grain- 3361fps and 3353fps

270Roy- 150 grain- 3207fps and 3190fps
7mmRoy- 150 grain- 3266fps and 3253fps

270Roy- 160 grain- 3110fps and 3098fps
7mmRoy- 160 grain- 3110fps and 3089fps

The average velocity of all 7mm loads is 46fps faster in a barrel that is two inches shorter.

If we adjust 50 fps which seems conservative but reasonable in a magnum for barrel length, then the difference is about 96fps.

A little shy of my 100fps,but pretty close.

RURALDOC - "Perhaps you missed one by George Orwell who said something like " All cartridges are equal but some are more equal than others."

That's from Orwell's great novel, RIFLE FARM, isn't it?? Very interesting read!

L.W.

RuralDoc,

Once again, you need to pick from more sources and not just one that shows the data in your opinion's favor. I averaged max velocities from Nosler, Alliant, Hodgdon, Barnes and I came up with 3300 fps for 270 Weatherby and 3347 for 7mm Weatherby. 2 very interesting points on the 270 W, is there was little or no data with the newest wave of slow burning powders such as Magpro, Retumbo, RL25. These are the powders in the WSM comparison where the 270 was evening up with the 7mm. High was 3357 for 7mm, 3325 for .270. I expect if we had more data with these super slow burners, the .270 Weatherby would have closed the gap more.

-Lou

Gee, another highly entertaining thread that I somehow missed while away in Africa. Some comments:

The "fact" that .270's have rarely been used in competition is correct, mostly because nobody makes .277 match bullets. That will change when Berger starts making .270 VLD's (which they say they will do ASA they catch up on other orders).

Many .280 fans mention "heavier bullets" as an advantage. Yet in all my years I have only run into one .280 shooter who loaded 175's, and he loaded Sierras, not exactly a better choice for large game than, say, a 150 Nosler Partition. Almost everybody else has loaded 140-160 grains bullets, something easily done in the .270.

I have a .280 AI right now, with a 22" barrel. It will get just about 100 fps more out of any bullet weight than a 22" .270 can. This gains us, oh, about 35 yards. That's how far it takes a typical 150 spitzer to lose 100 fps. So even AI'd, the .280 has a theoretical 35-yard advantage over the .270. I will keep that in mind while hunting with it.

Back when I was younger, I thought the common availability of chronographs would kill many campfire arguments about ballistics. Gee, was I wrong! Instead, now the whole point of almost any argument seems based solely on range chronographing. Even if guys will admit that the .270 and .280 are identical in the field, they nitpick tiny differences in chronographed results--and these are usually conducted without adult supervision.

A good friend has been as big a .270 fan as Dober for decades, and has killed umpteen deer and elk with it, no problems. (In fact, when he hears the .270 isn't big enough for elk, he asks, "Gee, you mean I have open the freezer and give 'em all mouth-to-mouth?") But he heard about the .280 for so long that he finally had to have one. He eventually bought three more, mostly so he could hand out the identical ammo to his wife and two daughters on pronghorn expeditions where things didn't always go right.

Then one year they ran completely out of .280 ammo. He went to the nearest small town and tried to buy some, but the only place that carried ammo was a gas station and it had the typical .223, .243, .270, 7mm Remington Mag, .30-06, .300 Wnchester Mag selection. So when he got home he sold all his .280's and went back to the .270.

So far that is the only rational argument I've seen here, aside of course from the people who admit that one is just like the oher in the field. Count me in there, and I have killed literal semi-loads of game with each.

JB

Not that I even have a dog in this fight, but the ability to buy ammo at the corner store is why I have 223, 308 and 30-06 rifles. Especially when the corner store might be in Africa to Europe.

280: Perzactly!...................

Dober: It's a good one, no doubt...........

MD: As usual, great post. Very rational. To keep this thing going, though, and for home entertainment value, of course, would you mind being just a tad more....uh.... inflammatory?.......

I have shot game with a .270, 25-06 and a .280. I loaded 130's in the 270, 120's in the 25-06 and 140's/160's in the .280. I'll be damned if I can tell the defferance between the three.
If I want more gas than the .270 I'll step up to my .300 winny with 200gr slugs.

Bob,

How's this? ANYBODY WHO THINKS THE .280 REMINGTON IS WAY BETTER THAN THE .270 WINCHESTER HAS TOO MANY TOYS IN THEIR ATTIC (and probably in the gun safe as well).

JB

This is the most insane excuse for an argument I have ever heard. If one is so stupid to go on a hunt and not bring the ammo or the right ammo or enough ammo....then they deserve to reap what they have sewn.

I have heard this time and time again from several stupid people I know. Stupid people offend me.

Luggage can be lost....or stolen...or confiscated in foreign countries.

Now driving from TX to NM with only 10 bullets would be dumb.