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

I like the power Bob, if I can pick my spot, read the range, the wind the angle then I feel I can my spot. I know that I could do a lot with a 3 or 4x but I just feel more comfy with more X's.

I used my Dads old 06 this year with a 3X Leo on it to take a lope at about 100 yds and the lope looked like the tinyest lope on the face of the earth...

A good 3-9 or a good 3-10 is my fav by far.

And yes you can stick a std contour in a Ti take off have had it done 2 or 3x's for myself.

Dober

Another point of clarification, the .280 was originally chambered in Remington, pump actions, and semi auto. They had to keep the CUP low, for those actions to safely function. Later manufacturing of the round in bolt actions showed they could handle pressures relative of those used in the 7mm. They called it the 7mm express Remington. So people wouldn't use it in the older guns. This caused a mess with the two chamberings being the same. So they went back to calling all the rifles and ammo .280 Remington. Only factory ammo was loaded soft in case the older guns were used. That's why factory ammo ballistics for the .280 arent that of the 7mm. Although hand loaders know the benefits.

With the same pressure limits, the .280 can never achieve 7mmRM velocities. Period.
The .280 has less case capacity so with identical loadings, it will have higher pressure.

[quote=4100fps
Another point of clarification, the .280 was originally chambered in Remington, pump actions, and semi auto. They had to keep the CUP low, for those actions to safely function. Later manufacturing of the round in bolt actions showed they could handle pressures relative of those used in the 7mm. They called it the 7mm express Remington. So people wouldn't use it in the older guns. This caused a mess with the two chamberings being the same. So they went back to calling all the rifles and ammo .280 Remington. Only factory ammo was loaded soft in case the older guns were used. That's why factory ammo ballistics for the .280 arent that of the 7mm. Although hand loaders know the benefits. [/quote]

Forget factory ammo, compare handload data with similar pressure data and powders, both with 24� barrels:

2644fps = .280 Rem, 162g Hornady A-AMAX, 54.5g H4831, 49,300 CUP
2871fps = 7mm RM, 162g Hornady SPBT, 64.0g H4831, 49,800 CUP

2614fps = 280 Rem, 162g Hornady A-MAX, 49.5g H4350, 49,900 CUP
2799fps = 7mm RM, 162g Hornady SPBT, 58.0g H4350, 49,400 CUP

Greater case capacity wins every time it is tried. That�s why the .280 Rem cannot keep up with the 7mm RM.

OK, I will.
From Hodgdons powders:.280 Rem
140 GR. NOS PART H4831 58.5 2927 48,500 CUP

7mm Rem:
140 GR. NOS PART H4831 64.0 2950 50,200 CUP

Note: more powder, more CUP's 23 more FPS

.280
162 GR. HDY A-MAX H4350 49.5 2614 49,900 CUP

7mm:
162 GR. HDY SPBT H4350 58.0 2799 49,400 CUP

8.5 gr. of powder more than .280 and 185 fps more velocity.

I put two different sized bullets and powders so people can see for themselves:

Like I said the .280 shoots the smaller stuff better,(not better than a 7mm) than the heavier stuff.

The 7mm shoots the heavier stuff better than the lighter stuff.Even better than the .280 but at a cost. More powder, magnum barrel blast.

If a guy was dead set on the heavier bullet weights, then head on over to the 7MM Rem.



Not true on the lighter weight bullets. 7mm tends to waste powder there.

if you compare velocities with equal bullet weights, the 280 is like the 7mag plus 50-100 yds

so, shooting a 280 at something at 300 yds is like shooting the 7mag at something 350-400yds out for energy; point blank range is about 50 yds less for the 280

in other words, for most hunting in N America, there's no meaningful difference, with a decent bullet they'll kill pretty much the same at most people's reasonable game shot ranges

as noted, if you're going to push it into long ranges, and want heavy bullets, the 7mag wins, but most 7mags are tougher to haul around all day

4100 - load both to 63-65k psi and get back to me on all bullet weights. When you hit 3250 with 140's and 3050 with 160's in your 280, call me. "Efficiency" diminishes as you burn more powder - in all cases. There is no inherent efficiency in the 280 case or any other case - the bigger the case the greater the point of diminishing returns when adding powder.

I've loaded for both for 25+ years. There is a distinct ballistic difference between them. Might agree that in the field difference is more limited but I've not shot enough truly big game with both to offer a valid empirical opinion.

Using an A-MAX bullet, that extra 185fps adds 135 yards to the energy, momentum and velocity levels of the .280 Rem. Not a bad trade off for 8.5g powder in my book. My 7mm RM is an elk gun first and everything else second. 160g bullets were my choice for 25 years.



4100fps �

Also from Hodgdon�s load data:

.280 Rem = 100g Sierra HP, 63.0g H4831 (max load, compressed), 3266fps, 46,000 CUP
7mm RM = 100g Sierra HP, 71.0g H4831 (starting load), 3316fps, 43,300 CUP

Hmmm, can�t get any lighter, the .280 is maxed out due to case capacity while the 7mm RM is just getting started, runs faster and has about 6% less pressure...

.280 Rem = 100g Sierra HP, 60.5g H4350 (max listed load), 3379fps, 49,200 CUP
7mm RM = 100g Sierra HP, 65.0g H4350 (starting load), 3334fps, 44,800 CUP

OK, the 7mm is marginally slower in this example, but again the .280 is at the max listed load while the 7mm RM is again just getting started and is at 9% lower pressures. Of course, that�s what larger cases do for you and the 7mm RM has significantly larger case volume � about 19% greater (67.5g water for the .280, 80.8g for the 7mm RM per AmmoGuide.com).

The 7mm RM�s larger case volume also means the powders that are ideal in the .280 Rem are not necessarily ideal in the 7mm RM and vice versa. While there is some overlap, the 7mm RM shines with slower powders, for which direct .280 Rem/7mm RM comparisons are difficult to come by, particularly if actual pressure data is required (which is why I used the same powders for my comparisons). One can compare the maximum velocities achieved with each cartridge, however, knowing that they data providers kept pressures at or below SAAMI�s maximums.

SAAMI pressure for the .280 Rem is 60,000 PSI while the 7mm RM is just slightly higher at 61,000 PSI. For comparison purposes the .280 Rem AI is, I believe, 64,000 or 65,000 PSI. In any case, the .280 Rem AI version has more case capacity than its parent .280 Rem case and the .280 Rem AI still can�t keep up with the 7mm RM.

[Note: For a more fair comparison to the .280 Rem AI you need to push the 7mm RM to the higher .280 Rem AI pressures. Since the primary difference between the 7mm RM and the 7mm WBY is pressure standards (case capacities are 80.0g water for the 7mm RM, 81.3g for the WBY per AmmoGuide, a miniscule 0.6% difference), and since the .280 Rem AI and 7mm WBY pressure standards are similar (64-65,000 PSI for the .280 AI, 65,000PSI for the 7mm WBY), I�ve included the 7mm WBY in the Nosler data below.]


Nosler 6, fastest loads:
120g
3296fps = .280 Rem, 54.5g W760, 87%
3396fps = .280 Rem AI, 60.0g H414, 92%
3570fps = 7mm RM, 70.05g RL19, 93%
3653fps = 7mm WBY, 84.5g RL25, 108%

140g
3152fps = .280 Rem, 57.0g RL19, 99%
3266fps = .280 Rem AI, 63.0g AA3100, 105%
3340fps = 7mm RM, 67.5g RL22, 94%
3361fps = 7mm WBY, 79.0g H1000, 101%

150g
2995fps = .280 Rem, 55.0g RL19, 95%
3107fps = .280 Rem AI, 63.0g IMR7828, 103%
3248fps = 7mm RM, 63.0g IMR4350, 85%
3302fps = 7mm WBY, 77.5g RL25, 103%

160g
2929fps = .280 Rem, 61.5g MagPro, 103%
3045fps = .280 Rem AI, 59.5g VV N560, 102%
3077fps = 7mm RM, 72.0g MagPro, 92%
3197fps = 7mm WBY, 76.0g RL25, 102%

175g
2760fps = .280 Rem, 52.5g IMR4831, 91%
2828fps = .280 Rem AI, 58.5g IMR7828, 96%
2970fps = 7mm RM, 62.5g RL22, 88%
3061fps = 7mm WBY, 78.0g Retumbo, 103%

Say what you will, Nosler tends to have some of the fastest data available for the cartridges they list. Since Nosler standardized the .280 Rem AI with the introduction of factory ammo and rifles chambered for it, it is doubtful that they sandbagged the published velocities for it.

The simple truth is the .280 Rem can�t keep up with the .280 Rem AI which in turn lags the 7mm RM even though the 7mm RM runs at lower pressures. If you like, you can run through the same .280 Rem/7mm RM comparison exercise with Speer, Hornady, Barnes and other data sources and for each you will find the .280 Rem velocity lags the 7mm RM in all bullet weights.

Although I used 160g bullets in my 7mm RM for many years, these days I�m shooting 120g bullets at 3579fps and 140g bullets at 3358fps � velocities I wouldn�t begin to attempt in a .280 Rem, regardless of the powder.

I�m not knocking the .280 Rem - it�s an efficient cartridge and a very good one. Nevertheless, it cannot keep up with the 7mm RM in terms of velocity due to its smaller case volume.

Coyote's post is as usual, spot on IME.

I've had multiples of both;but my 280's all had 22-23" barrels,andthe 7 mags have had 24".Day in and day out the 7mag sends 160 gr bullets out at about the same velocities as a 280 does the 140's,ie at or about 3050-3100 fps. I have had barrels in both that exceed these velocities for each cartridge,but these seem to be reasonable, real world averages.

It would appear ay first glance that pushing 140 gr bullets from a 7 RM at 3250 or better is "wasted",but this is mostly internet chat and crunching numbers from manuals.I prefer to see how they do on game,in the field,with bullets;and if you start a 140 gr Nosler AB at these velocities and zero it properly,you will have a "hold on hair" load to 400 yards; for situations when you do not or cannot precisely determine distances, this load can be a trip-saver.I know of one 200+ mule deer buck that was wounded by a companion,and did not escape because I knew that load intimately at the 500 yard distance at which I had to shoot him.


Something else little mentioned is that the higher velocities will expand some of our tougher 140 gr bullets more thoroughly at the 300-400 yards distances than the standard cartridges.

And when it comes to elk,those long 160-175 gr bullets driven at high velocity (faster than can be managed from a 280) provide the long range performance to easily handle elk sized stuff at distance without the punishing recoil of a 300 magnum,in lighter rifles...and about as well.Smart people figured this out 50+ years ago....

We don't seem to have this same prejudice about light bullet velocity being "wasted" (whatever the hell that is..)when talking about the 270,257 Weatherby's,etc....but for some reason people like to carp and snipe at the 7RM when similarly used.....I think they read too much "Craig Boddington".....

7 RM is a hot rod for sure with extreme accuracy.

I shoot the 120's at 3500-3600(depending on the barrel)with 71-72g of R#22 with a CCI 250 Primer(very important).

The 154's are shot with 72.0+g of R#25 with a WRRM primer(very important) at 3200 fps.

In the 280, I shot the 160g Sierra BT at 2900 fps, which killed deer DRT...see nosler manual loads.

keith: Good cartridge...always has been and so is the 280.I like them both...but arguments that say they are equals always stuck me as a little intellectually.....uhh...dishonest;number crunching mostly....

They strike me as BS.........

They certainly aren't equals, but if you want to kill an elk, a .280 (or .270 for that matter) can still carry over 1500 ftlbs past 400 yds, and a 7mag can carry it past 500yds. That's an energy number many consider around an acceptable minimum for elk. Most elk are shot at well less than 400 yds, which I think is a good thing. Thus, some of my version of the argument that they are effectively equivalent for killing elk at reasonable ranges. Understanding point blank ranges is also part of it.

Should every hunter be shooting at elk past 400yds?
I'll leave that to the individual reader to answer, but I've got my opinion from what I've seen. No.

Myself, sometimes I carry a 7mag, sometimes a .270 when hunting elk, depending upon circumstances, both are great solutions if you know your limits and those of the guns, that's the key. My friends and I have got enough personal experience at long and short w/ both to give me confidence but also see limitations. Last Sunday, I passed on a 455yd shot with a dead rest at a stationary feeding cow with my .270. Light ran out before she or I got closer. It was okay, I felt it pushed the limits too much and would have ended my season happy. Tuesday morning, the good Karma of having some restraint worked out, I harvested my cow with a 70 yd shot. It's more fun to get close anyway.

Non - not diputing your thesis at all - in fact I agree. But to state that somehow the 280 and 7RM are equals or even close is not accurate. I've been on the 'Fire for quite a while and folks still keep making the 280 a wonder cartridge. It's good but lets keep the discussion at least factual..........

OK, perhaps your "BS" disagreement was up higher; if you read close, you'll see my point was only that they're effectively equal at what are most hunter's reasonable ranges for killing an elk... both have plenty of wallop and shoot plenty flat enough to hit the vitals of a target that big in the 300 yd range, dead is dead, that is the equivalence

You'll note that I said if one wants to stretch it w/ a heavy bullet, the 7mag has the edge, it really shines in that plus 400 range... where a lot more can go wrong with hold and wind... and one of the things often not mentioned in shooting that long on game is time of flight... a chest shot can easily become a gut shot with one casual step forward. I think most of us are happy hunters keeping it at 350 or less, where they both work great.

I've seen enough shot up elk limping around on the winter range to know it doesn't always go the way it should. It ain't pretty. I think there's often too much emphasis on shooting long, and not enough on hunting...

Just a note � using Nosler 6�s fastest data and AccuBond bullets, a .270 Win/130g/6158fps drops below 1500fpe at about 435 yards. For the .270 Win/140g/3018fps the range is about 480 yards . For the 7mm RM/160g/3077fps it is past 640 yards. As you say, they certainly aren�t equals.


Not just �No�, but �Hell, no!�

+10 to Yote Hunter, every animal killed deserves an ethical death.

No real "hunter" need shoot an Elk at 400 yards. WY, ID & MT statistics state the VAST majority of Elk are killed (not just shot) within 150 yards. The "sniperwannabe syndrome" is not only making people spend a lot of money on silly guns and scopes (14 pound 338 Lapua mags with 6-40x65mm scopes) but is also encouraging and causing the loss of many fine animals.

"If you can't get it done with a 30-06, perhaps you shouldn't be trying it."

"Any big game too far away to be killed with a 3X riflescope is too far away."

We see the results here every winter/spring of the sniperwannabe syndrome. But what the Hell...Yotes, Wolves and Mr Griz needs to eat too. Who cares if the gut shot cow can't feed her calf, if the 6x6 with his jaw shot off starves to death, if the 3 legged spike can't escape the wolves... too bad the Elk are not armed too, might make golf a more interesting game for the "dudes" who never see the results of their irresponsible conduct.

The point is not whether a 280 or 7 Mag will do the job...they both will in spades. The point is: does the "nut behind the bolt" have the skills to make a good stalk and execute an ethical one shot kill at the shortest possible range?

Actually, I think you misunderstood my post.

The questions was �Should every hunter be shooting at elk past 400yds?�. With focus on the word �every�, my response was �Not just �No�, but �Hell, no!�

That is in no way a condemnation of those are well prepared to shoot past 400 yards, of which there are many - including myself. My favorite targets are clay pigeons on the 400-yard berm. Targets the size of mule deer kill zones are easy out to 600 if the wind cooperates.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people that shouldn�t be shooting game at 100 yards.

These cartridges are peas in the same pod...assuming that you handload for the .280. That is key, as much/most of the factory .280 ammo has been loaded to lower pressures than the 7mm Rem Mag. That's enough for me to side w/ the 7mm Rem Mag.

That's exactly why I have and love the 7x57, and don't have a .280 any longer (the 7x57 is a handload-only cartridge, and I like the rifle, character, pinache, etc. I'd much rather tote it around than a .280). For more power, I leave the 7mms for .300s or .338.

Well my point is that there is no reason for any real "hunter" to have to shoot an Elk or deer past 400 yards unless he is a handicapped hunter. Elk and Deer are are not B2s, they are animals with habit patterns that can be learned and used. Reading some of the "long range hunting crap" makes me wonder how I ever killed all those deer with a bow and arrow.