Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mule Deer & All...280 Rem vs 270 Win velocities

N560 has let me push 160NP's over 3000fps in 3 different 280s with 22" barrels.

I was once a young gun-nut with access to my brothers' old hornady reloading manual. I determined that I needed a 280 from reading that manual cover-to-cover. My uncle took me and my summer berry-picking money to the local pawnshop and we asked if they had a 280...out came a pressed-checkered 700 in 7mm express with a 2x7 leupold compact...for $200.

I have a lightweight pacnor barreled ackley now but if I started over it would be SAAMI 280. But i'll be setting my kids up with something like a 308, 30-06 or 7mag for reasons cited above, unless they too want to handload everything.

I have chronographed several 270 Winchester loads with 150 grain bullets at between 2900 and 3000 with a very few going over 3000. I have done this many times.

My current loads chronograph at 2981 for 5 shots with Nosler 150 Gr partition fired from my Mauser with a 25" barrel. This load is outstanding, giving me several tests groups with 5 shots going into or a bit under .6 inch at 100 yards and with a max velocity spread of 4 FPS (yes four!) in this rifle.

I have some old (early 1970s) vintage 150 grain Remington Round Nose bullets that I use in my Winchester M95 lever action, It shoots as well (probably better) as I can shoot with a semi-buckhorn rear sight and a bead front sight. I used IMR 4350 for this load. 5 shots strings average 2899 from this rifle and I got a max spread on velocity of 40 FPS.

I own a 3rd 270 too, and I use it with 130 grain bullets. Of the 3, it's the most accurate and shoots 5 shots (several times) into .400"-.435" at 100 yards and it chronos that load at 3122 FPS. It also has a 24" barrel.

In the past I have owned and used 3 other 270 Winchesters and loaded all my ammo for them all. One thing I have found to be a bit odd about many 270 Winchesters is that many (maybe most) shoot their best when run toward max safe pressures. I'd have thought it was just an exception, but having seen it in 6 different rifles I have owned I can say it seems to be common. Not 100%, but common. I'd guess it was about 7 times in 10, load for load.

I have owned a 280 in the past and used it with several bullets but for what ever reason I never shot it over a chronograph. In my rifle I found the 280 Rem gave me the best accuracy (around 5/8" for 3 shots) when I shot loads about 1.5 grains under listed maximums, so I can only guess what the velocity was, but I did favor it with 150 and 160 grain Partitions and also had good results with the old Hornady 154 grain and also their 175 grain bullets. But comparing what speeds CAN be achieved with a 280 as compared towhat speed is achieved with the greatest accuracy, I found the 280 to be like most other cartridges, shooting it's best when backed off about 100 FPS from potential max. I know my 270s are likely a bit faster but that may be due to the fact that two of them have 24" barrels and one has a 25" barrel, while my M700 280 had a 22" barrel.

So in the real world, given the same construction of bullets and of the same weight, the difference between a 270 and a 280 in the field is non-existent.

The 280 gives the option of bullets of 175 grains, and the 270 Win was for the most part limited to 160 grains, but having shot deer and elk both with both calibers I can say there was NO difference at all at any range or on any elk or deer that I could see.

270win is the easy button because of ammo availability. Most folks won't notice any difference.

I've got both and two of my rifles are 270win. Right before the pandemic 270win was cheap as an factory option so I got my 270win with some factory ammo and lots of bullet components to load for it. I got into it back when it was cheap and I'm set for life. I think we spend too much time on this stuff worrying about things which really don't matter. I bought a rifle here in the classifieds and aquired lots of bullets to load so and that's what really matters.

Yep, as always it is shot placement that counts!

RinB,
I have read a thousand times right here on the campfire, bullets matter more than headstamps.... appears in your case headstamps mattered more than bullets... great point you made!

Not sure why the 270 Win. is still questioned about it's use in Africa or anywhere for that matter. With the right bullets and the right shot placement, it's going to work on most of the world's game animals or all game animals save Dangerous game where other cartridges are required by law. Are there better cartridges for certain applications, yes, but there's virtually nothing I would not hunt using the 270 Win. cartridge and a great bullet if I was somehow required to do so.

If the .270Win had been originally standardized with a 1-9" twist, I wonder if the 280Rem would have even become as popular as it did? (which is still not that popular, overall)

I have killed a few animals with the 270 Win and the 284 Win in a variety
of bullet weights. With either I have yet to feel that the quick kills would have
been quicker if the bullet was just going a little bit faster.
Take the load that shoots most accurate and go hunting.

Between the two mentioned. I started out with 280's and have had a half dozen or more of them. I have three now and I have three 270's, plus one 280 AI. (all 700's now) One 270 and one 280 will put partitions into 1/2 MOA or less on a regular basis.

I annually hunt whitetails, sometimes mule deer, sometimes elk and sometimes pronghorn. I can't say that one is much better than the other in most circumstances. As far as factory ammo is concerned, it is absolutely no (zero, nada) concern of mine. As I can recall the only animals, I've killed with factory ammo is a 17 Hornet on prairie dogs. (In 1968 I did buy a box of 257 Roberts for Black Hills deer for a friend who didn't have ammo).

I've been applying for elk tags in SD ever since SD had tags and I've only drawn one. My elk hunting has been mostly Wyoming, sometimes in Colorado, and once in Idaho. I apply in New Mexico, but so far nada. The last elk I shot was with a 270 in Wyoming, near New Castle, I knew the terrain and I was confident that there would be no ravines the cow could travel down if I didn't drop it where it stood, and I had confident that the 270 with 160 grain partitions would work well.

If I am going to an area where I didn't know the terrain, I'll likely take a rifle chambered for a 300 magnum. I've gotten licenses West of Laramie WY and in that area, I'll always carry a 300 Magnum due to steep ravines and longer distances - I'm too old to enjoy carrying meat out of a ravine. Even though I like elk meat, I'd be wanting to have a bullet go through the front shoulders in such country. Maybe a 270 or 280 would work there, but I am more confident that a 200 grain Partition will.

I suspect that I load the 270, the 280 and the 280 AI to about the same pressure - I don't have a good way to measure pressure, so I don't know - mostly I load to a sweet spot. The oldest 280 rifle I have, has sentimental value to me and it would be the last to go.

Let's compare the 308 vs the 30-06....

Not sure it would have really made any difference, at least none that I can see.

Just checked the Remington website, and they don't chamber the .280 in any of their present rifles.

But gee, they do chamber the .270 in a bunch of rifles--with a 1-10 twist....

And it makes no sense to make a .277 cal. and a .284. The whole idea was stupid.

We've discussed before how when I graduated college in the early 80's my research and discussions with the top 'smiths and gunwriters of the time led me to the 7mm rem mag. I took that advice and have never regretted it...now some 47 species later.

What I've not related, and we've not discussed is a few years later when I was established and had the funds for my first custom rifle. I happened to be working on the Savannah River Plant in South Carolina. Kenny Jarrett was local and he, at the time, was a huge .280AI proponent. Likewise, John Lewis had left Jarrett and formed Carolina Precision Rifles. John straight forward told me: "For your first custom you need a 'neutral rifle', ie, factory rounds are available, but to extract full performance, you need to handload (in effect forcing you to learn to do so); will work in a long barrel, but also short - compromise at 23", stock American classic..." Answer was: .280 Rem in a McMillan Classic with a Rem 700 action and a Schneider 9 twist #3.

Was, and is, a freaking fantastic rifle, and served its purpose as stated well...yet, I never swayed from my beloved 7mm Rem Mag, and when Dad retired and I gifted him a 3 week trip to 2 African countries we took matching (of his beloved) .270 Winchesters.

Rambling I guess, but I'd still recommend to the early hunter/shooter working to learn the game the exact "neutral rifle" recipe...but, if asked to cut to the chase and skip the fluff I'm still a 7 Mag, .270 Win, and for the last few years a HUGE 6.5 Creed/PRC fan in factory rifles/fodder..

Had 2 270 Win and 2 280 Rems on my rifles it was easier to get the 270 Win to shoot! Any one else see that?

I never had a .280 but several .270 Win. and seemed they all liked everything from H 205 that is long gone, H 414, 380, a IMR 4064 , 4350, and some miltary powder . Seems the .270 Win. just likes it all.

The

280’s are easy to shoot well too. Of all the shooting I’ve done with both cartridges it so happens that the most accurate load combination was with the 280. I’ve shot both quite a bit - thousands of rounds.
Anyone that says the 270 is better likely hasn’t shot the 280 much. I’m not saying the 280 is better either. Comparing the two, the 280 has slightly larger case and slightly larger diameter bore - no big deal.

The comparison with the 243 vs 6mm - the 243 is much more popular, yet the 243 is not a better cartridge than the 6mm. I shot both quite a bit.

Compare the 7mm-08 with the 7x57. I’ll give you hint there’s a lot more 7x57’s than 7mm-08’s. Following the same logic the 7x57 is a better cartridge. But which is chambered more now, I suspect the 7mm-08.

Popularity does not mean correspond as to which is better. There’s a lot more parts of the equation that has nothing to do with popularity.

6.5x55 vs 6.5 Creed. Which one has been chambered in more rifles? I prefer the 6.5x55 not because it’s a better cartridge! The Creed is more popular now. So just which is the better cartridge?

I once asked DArcy Echols which he found easier to get to shoot well, a 270 or 280. Remember he tests each of his rifles for accuracy. He told me the 270 was more consistently accurate.

I have had several 280’s, a 280 RCBS, and a 280 AI. Loaded to the same pressures the maximum gain was around 35 fps. Both 280’s were throated so the 150 NP was at the neck shoulder junction.

I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other.

I've had 5 of each over the years, still have 3, 270's & 2, 280's.

Of those, a Dakota 280 was the least accurate of all, a Beretta Mato 280 was fair, an early Rem 700 in 280 was fair, but the 2 I have left, a custom Mauser w/ Douglas barrel & a re-stocked Rem 700 Mountain Rifle are excellent.

By contrast, 4 of the 5, 270's I've had have been very good, with a Rem 700 KS, probably being the most accurate rifle above 22 caliber I've ever owned, & it just bugholes day in day out & is not at all finicky. And an old Sako AV in a McM stock is almost as good.

So I really think that both cartridges can be "accurate", & is far more likely to depend on the rifle than the cartridge.

As to velocity, over the several 280's that I've had, although the traditional wisdom says it should do better, due to a slightly better expansion ratio, than a 270 with comparable weight/diameter bullets, 280 's have usually shown pressure signs at lower velocities than the 270 using the same criteria, except for 1 current Rem 700, which seems to tolerate slightly higher pressures than the other 4 280's that I have or have had.

But it is near max on headspace & has a 22" barrel. so go figure.

Nonetheless, with 140' at 2900÷, & 160's at 2800, it does all that it's asked to do & is very accurate.

As for the 270, & I've killed more deer, elk & antelope, even a moose than any other cartridges combined. It has absolutely never disappointed me.

But today, I've wandered away from both, mainly because of the configuration of the gun, & am using a Rem 700 Ti in 7-08 for most hunting..............after getting it bedded right, it's superbly accurate with 120 & 140's, not finicky about either powders or bullets & weighs less than 6.5 lb, scoped.

It gives up a little velocity to both the 270 & the 280, but it's more than good enough, & with good bullets, it gives up next to nothing to the 6.5 Creedmoor (except with some extremely high BC bullets in 6.5), & the package is so good that it's really hard to justify jumping into another rifle, will all the necessary dies, bullets, etc., for minimum real world gain on animals.

MM

I have a few both a pair of 280's and a three of the 270's. I couldn't begin to see a difference loading for either.

H4831SC with the 280 in the 7600 with 145 LRX's in the 7600





RL26 M725 280 Rem 140 Sierras/Noslers






270 P64 Fwt RL26 130 Tipped Bear Claw





Tikka T3X 270 Win RL23 150 Hornadys





I will say from the few I have monkeyed with, the 270's seem to come around really easily. Not that the 280 has given that much trouble, but the 270's have been easy.

Great real-world data there!