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

I am new to this forum and elk hunting. I do hunt white tail in pa and only really know this area. My wife's uncle has been out to montana 2 times with a 7mm and was successful. His shot was 350+ yds and took a bull. Adam

The difference I see is the 7mm will hold more powder, and is capable of handling bigger bullets. Say, 160 to 175 gainers better than the 280. Rem. The 280 is more efficient on powder and you can achieve the same velocity with less powder, as opposed to a 7mm. I shoot a .280 hand loaded with 140 grain bullets. I like the 280. Always been an odd ball though.

Adam,
Better question is what can a 7mm do that YOU can't do with a .280? Can YOU shoot well enough to take advantage of the slightly flatter trajectory? Will that additional energy/velocity matter at 350+ yards? I'd say no, not at 350. Is that 7 or so inches of flatter trajectory at 500 yards going to matter? I've killed elk with a .280 and it does just fine, but I also trust physics. A 7mm is more powerful and delivers more energy downrange. But, so what? Is it enough to matter? In my opinion, no, not at the ranges most elk are shot at.
Since I can't see a question in your statement, I'm assuming you're asking if your .280 is enough for elk. It certainly is. But if you already have a 7mm Rem Mag, I would consider taking it instead.

Yeah, what they said.

are you sure.

The biggest difference is the rates of twist in current production rifles. Same caliber but rates of twist are different. 7MM Mag will shoot heavier bullets and stabilize them.

We have several of both in the gun safe (or have had at one time or another). We load the .280s (including the AI) with 160 Partitions for elk. We load the 7mm RMs with both 160s and 175s. With these two chamberings, so far, we have had only two one-shot kills on bull elk--both with the .280s. That said, I can't really tell any difference in effectiveness in the field at the ranges at which we shoot elk. We don't shoot them at 300+ yards, primarily because we can almost always get closer. If we can't, we pass on the shot.

I played around with a 7mm STW when Layne Simpson first wrote about them, but found that, for me, the extra powder, noise and recoil didn't yield that much extra range. This was in a rifle with a 26 inch barrel that weighed well over ten pounds with a scope, sling and full magazine.

Admittedly, I am not a "long range hunter". I don't use a scope that goes higher than 9x and I don't trust turrets that can be turned by rubbing on my clothes or other gear. Confronted with a B&C bull at over 300 yards, I would probably twist the damned thing the wrong way anyway. I have seen both of those things happen with rifles carried by guest hunters that I have guided over the last ten years or so.

I've owned two 7mm mags and two .280's. The only real differences are the 7mm mags can open the same bullet a little further out because it starts them faster, and it comes with a much better selection of factory ammunition.
On the other hand, the .280 recoils less, and I tend to shoot one better, especially when under stress.
So, I shoot a light weight .280. E

Either one kills elk very handily. 7mm has a slight advantage, but not earth shattering. I have killed several with the 7mm mag and love it, but would not feel handicapped with a .280 at all. Flinch

I have a good 7mm-08 and a 7mm RM. I figure that I have it covered. That said, If I could only have one rifle that shoots as accurately and mildly as the 7mm-08 and nearly reaches the potential with trajectory and energy as a 7RM, I would own a .280.

Years ago, I had wished I went .280 instead of 7mmRM. But....now with this 7mm-08, I wonder if I would have ever "needed" the .280 Rem. The 7mm-08 comes awfully close to duplicating the performance of a .280 Rem. So many great cartridges and oh so little time.

By the way, for elk, my 7mm RM is what I reach for. My load with a 160 Accubond and H1000 powder is flat out impressive in my 7mmRM. Extremely accurate and not a single elk I have shot at, said I needed more power. Of course none of them were killed "too dead" either.

FH

First off, I want to thank you all for your personal info and assistance. I had failed to mention the root of my question. I am in PA and hunt mostly with a bow. When I go rifle, I use my .303 enfield open sights. I know i need/want something more and vercitile. Ammo in a little hard to get for the 303 so i don't want to have this problem agien. NOW, I am looking at 2 rifles, both used, 1) rem 700 in .280 no scope, $499, 2) rem 700 7mm mag $599, with leapold vx III 3.5-10. I know the scope makes a great deal, but the .280 has a nice thumb hole stock and stainless 26" heavy barrel. My local gun shop has about 3 choices of factory ammo, and approx. 13 for 7mm mag. I haven't shot either, but that .280 fit my frame very well. Thank you all agien , adam.

Adam,
Were it me, I'd grab #2 and never look back. That's a heck of a deal right there.

I just came back from an elk hunting trip where a 6x6 bull, a big cow and a 4x4 buck mule deer were hanging. They were all shot with a .25-06 and 117g Hornady bullets. By a 12 year old girl from Michigan...

Your .280 will be fine. I hunted elk for 20 years with a 7mm RM using 160g bullets at .280 Rem velocities. No lost game, no long tracking jobs - most were DRT or went just a few steps. One made it about 40 yards.

Choose a good bullet (Grand Slam, Partition, TTSX, Norht Fork, A-Frame, etc.), learn your load and carry a skinning knife.

.280

ateam1975:

deal #2 is a real winner, it'd be hard to turn that down no matter the caliber. I'd be all over it.

but you sound like your heart really wants the .280 with the thumbhole and you liked the fit. I'm sure we've all passed on "good" or "better" deals for something that we would be happier with, in your case it sounds like the .280 is what you want.

now the ammo situation... since you clearly have access to the internet I would suggest ordering your ammo off the internet. Midway, www.midwayusa.com , has over 16 different loads for the .280 and I'll bet you they're cheaper than your local gun shop. Or your gun shop may be willing to special order ammo for you, especially if you buy your rifle from them.

to sum it up if I were you: I'd get the .280 because you like it more due to the stock and fit. I believe I've heard "it's the rifle not the caliber" somewhere on these forums, I believe it to be true. Also see about ordering the ammo from your dealer or off the internet.

you can prolly get a real good deal on a scope in the classifieds forum. there's always a ton of them for sale at really good deals.

let us know what you get friend

Brett (Mac)

ps: welcome

Now that you have gotten specific with the two rifes that are tempting you at a gunshop, IMO the best choice for your western hunt will be the 7 Rem mag. From your description the 280 sounds like a fairly heavy rig, besides you'd have to get a scope. Do you realize how much a 3.5-10 Leupold is worth?

Grab that 7 rem mag before someone else does.

Given those choices, I would take the Rem M700 every day of the week. Check out the cost of a 3.5-10 VXIII, new or used. They are a great scope. Worst case you could sell it for considerably more than the cost difference in the rifles. And you would still have the rings and bases, which you will have to buy for the .280.

The .280�s heavy 26� barrel may feel great when checking it out at the local gun shop, but when carrying it up and down the mountains you will get an entirely different and much less favorable perspective. I just built a heavy-barrel 24� 6.5mm-0AI and, based on many years of experience, there is no way I�m carrying that thing up and down the mountains when hunting elk.

If a thumbhole stock turns your crank you can always change stocks on the 7m RM in the future.

You can buy ammo online and probably save money or I�m sure your local dealer will special order anything you want.

One of the main advantages of the 280 is that you can chamber it in a nice light rifle with a 22-inch barrel. The heavy critter you're looking at negates that advantage - I'd go with the 7RemMag and scope and never look back.

If the 280 were a 700 mountain rifle then we'd have ourselves a real dilemma.

The 7 mag can also be chambered in a nice light rifle with a 24" barrel, such as a Tikka T3 lite.

Both chamberings are factory loaded weak, but hand loads can bring either greater velocity, the 7 mag will always be faster with more recoil. But the recoil is more like a 30-06 than what most people associate with the word MAGNUM.

You could probably get $300 for that scope depending on the shape of it, making that rifle $300 (7mmMag). But, keeping that scope on that rifle will make it a great all around rig, not just limited to elk.

joe

Ateam: I have Hunted with both a 280 Remington and a 7mm Remington Magnum for a LONG time now.
I have killt Bull Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Whitetailed Deer, Mt. Goat and Black Bear with bo'fum (urban youth word for "both of them"!)!
Properly placed projectiles (through the heart/lungs!) from either cartridge WILL harvest your game!
In fact I owned a Ruger heavy barrel Model 77-V in caliber 7mm Remington Express starting back in 1982. The 7mm Remington Express was simply the 280 Remington with a "fancy monicker"!
That 77-V in 7mm Remington Express (280 Remington) was an Antelope and high plains Mule Deer killing MACHINE!
I wish I had never sold that one.
Then in 1986 I had a full custom Rifle built for myself in caliber 280 Remington.
It was built on a pre-64 Winchester Model 70 action (that was "born" the same month and year as I was - July 1947!) with a 25" Douglas barrel and a McMillan stock - this Rifle is one of the safest, most reliable, most accurate and handsome Rifles I have ever owned!
And at about the same time I purchased a Remington 700 Classic in caliber 7mm Remington Magnum. It was a whimsical kind of a good deal purchase but that Rifle shot so well that it has been in my Hunting Rifle arsenal for 24 very successful years now.
I shoot 160 grain Nosler Partitions out of my 7mm Remington Magnum and 140 grain Nosler Partitions out of my 280 Remington.
Seldom do I ever fire more than ONE shot at a game animal with either Rifle!!!
Indeed the 7mm Remington Magnum has slightly more energy and a slightly flatter trajectory than the 280 Remington but I would not consider either cartridge to be lacking in any way when it comes to Big Game Hunting.
IF, you are considering one over the other and Montana Elk Hunting is in your future then I would tend to direct you to the wonderful 7mm Remington Magnum cartridge for that - along with the SUPERB 160 grain Nosler Partitions. Then I would suggest you have another loading tested and ready for your Pennsylvania Hunting - for this I would use either the 140 grain Nosler Partions or the 140 grain Nosler Ballistic Tips.
Best of luck to ya with whichever you choose.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I"m gonna drag this off topic a bit, but I'm kinda wired again today.... You don't need more than 9x to shoot longer distances.... I have taken deer out past 550 yards with iron sights. You only need to know what you are doing. X of the scope isn't all there is to it.

Turrets can't get changed by rubbing them on clothes. They have covers and guns are generally zero'd for chip shots like 300 yards and under. Its the longer shots where you have time, you take the caps off and adjust.

And he says he'd adjust the wrong way, well certainly if you don't practice it. But to this day if you tell my wife to turn left up there at the light, she'll have to THINK about it. But due to years of shooting I can scream 6 left and 2 down, knock it down, and in the matter of a couple of seconds the CORRECT correction is on the gun EVERY time, and the shot is gone.

What you say is all fine and true to you, but to others its VERY simple, not a disaster like you make it out to be. The good thing is folks know their limitations and where to stop, but they don't need to be bashing others methods or tools that are proven to work.

I prefer as close as I can get. Yet if the only shot is a long one, I'm generally set up for it and ready to shoot. Actually the problem we get is judging quality of antlers way out there, making a shot is easy compared to seeing if the animal is what you really want or not.

What, yet another person that finds the 7mm "Hit-em-Again" Remington Magnum to be a perfectly adequate elk cartridge?

That makes at least three of us!

My wife and I both killed elk this year in NM with shots over 300 yds. She shot a 7-08 AI (140 gr TSX) and I shot a 7wsm (150 gr Partition). It took her two shots, but only due to shot placement with her first one. 280 Rem is a tad more gun than the 7-08 AI, I would not feel undergunned shooting one.

You missed my vote, so that makes 4 ;o) No caliber has impressed me more in the game fields than the 7mm Remington mag. I shoot a lot of stuff and a lot of calibers, but the 7mm just crunches stuff. I sure do have a soft spot for the 7mm-08 though. Very impressive round.

Get both rifles, take the scope off the one and put it on the .280 with good DUAL DOVE TAIL mounts, then sell the heavier 7mm. Flinch.

The 7RM deal you mentioned was a great buy, and there is no better choice for you as an entry level set up that would cover the gamut of western game from antelope to elk.

Thumbhole and heavy 26'' tube does not a mtn elk rig make. Truly a SUCKS rifle.

It sounds like your factory ammo shooter. With the 2 choices you have in front of you, I would go with the 7mm mag. Great ammo selection and at that price with the Leupold a good deal to boot.

Personally, I'm not a magnum fan and own a 7mm-08 and 280 in the .284 calibers. I probably only need one of them but what fun is that. I do not hunt Elk but feel a good quality 160 gr bullet in the boiler room will put down any elk and when I get a Moose Tag here in New England would have no problem doing so to a moose.

Great post. I'll only contest that turrets usually have caps. Many do not. However, they sure aren't getting changed by rubbing on clothes, either way!

Jeff and Rost,

I do not know what you are talking about. When ever I have to dial in my turrets I just hand my rifle to my buddy and tell him to rub it on my close. Usually dials it right in

Must be a Bushnell scope if the "turrets" are changing zero that easy. Maybe you should start wearing "clothes" instead of "close". That might be part of the problem ;o).

I use turrets on all my rifles and if you can change them by rubbing on anything, you are a better man than I am. I swear buy them and use them year round. I don't touch them if shots are under 350 yards, but over that, nothing beats a dialed in turret, a range finder and a solid rest. I have taken out a bunch of first time turret users. These guys and gals can shoot well, but had no idea what turrets could do for them. They borrowed my rifles with me in tow. The First guy wacked his buck at 481 yards, second girl 556, third guy 351, fourth guy 501. They all have turrets on their rifles now and swear by them. If you don't shoot a lot at long range, then they aren't for you. If you are a weekend warrior, they aren't for you. For western hunters that simply can not get closer to game across the huge canyons, they are a life saver for those that are dedicated to puting in the time it takes to get good at long range shooting. I wacked a small prairie dog at 746 yards on the third shot with turrets and witnesses. Deer an elk are a chip shot after shooting pop can sized targets at long range year round. Flinch

My 7 Mags will shoot the 154's comfortably at 3200 fps, 400 yards is a chip shot with the Bushnell 4200 4-16's at the rifle range that we shoot at. Brother nailed a large bullet at 550 yards, one shot DRT with the 154g hornady bonded bullet.

As a point of clarification, the .280 can indeed �achieve the same velocity with less powder� as a 7mm RM, but only within the limits of the .280 Remington. Case in point, Hornady 7th lists 162g bullets at 2800fps with IMR 4831 for both � 51.7g for the .280 and 56.2g for the 7mm RM. The difference is that 2800fps is top end in the Hornady manual for the .280 while the 7mm RM has loads to 3000fps.

With lighter 120g bullets, Nosler #6 shows differences exceeding 300fps, with the advantage going to the 7mm RM.

Its really hard to beat case capacity when looking for velocity.

I have been shooting the .280 for several years now and I think you are just fine with using it for elk. Just use good bullets that your rifle shoots well and practice at the distances for shots that you might encounter and have fun.

VarmintGuy,

I built a similar .280- mine on a 1949 vintage M70 action, with a 22" stainless PacNor barrel, and Bansner stock, painted by Rick Bin. Scope is a Leupold VX3 2.5x8.

With Federal Vital Shok 140 gr. Accubond ammo, it's a sub-MOA shooter. With my handloads, it makes ragged one-hole groups at 100 yards. Accuracy is way more than acceptable!!

In fact, I've given my custom 7mm Rem Mag. to my son, for elk hunting- I really don't see the need for it anymore.

280's belong in light,svelte,mountain weight rifles that handle like batons....not heavy barreled laminated thumbholes that you wield like a railroad tie....that's like putting combat boots on Michael Jordan......can't think of anything less desireable for an elk hunt.

OTOH, the 7 mag is closer to perfection. This is not a caliber issue...in this case, it's a rifle decision,made easy.....

I am going to be contrary here, and say that neither of those rifles is a good set up for a first time elk hunter that shoots factory ammo (probably is not a high volume shooter).
The 280 is way too heavy, and I bet the 7 mag is also heavy. I'll bet that Leupold is also a gloss scope with Ao, and you need a 10 X gloss scope with AO for elk hunting like John Candy needed another sandwich.
A 308, 30/06 or 270 is going to be less expensive to shoot(read practice here), and with the astoundiung price of factory ammo, and the more astounding need for substantial practice, that is an issue.
Also, all of those calibers are available in fairly portable rifles, which is another important issue.
The scope needs to be reliable and user friendly. A fixed 4 power gives more than enough aiming precison on elk to 600 yards or so, and is light and reliable.
I would have a trigger job done, and I'd have the stock glass bedded so it wouldn't be as apt to change zero after being knocked around on the trip, humidity changes, and temp changes.
A Nosler Partition from any cartridge in the 308/30/06/270/280/7 Mag class with Nosler Partitions is going to kill elk just fine.
JMO

Royce

.....words of wisdom........

Of the two this is the way I'd go as well. With time I'd add a Ti take off handle and some Talleys and a Uncle Mikes Mtn sling. Good action, wonderful round and with all due respect to my elder friends from the Fire (Royce and Bob and Ingwe, thought I'd toss him in the mix just cause he uses a 7x) I really like the 3-10 Leo and it's one of my fav scopes going and one I could easily use for the rest of my days of hunting and shooting. (my 7 Mashburn Super has a 41-14 on it go figure...grin)

To me, the scope power issue is a personal one much like picking a woman for a wife. I'd buy the big 7 and then with time would change out the handle.

Just my way

Dober

Dober: I've had a 3.5-10X Leup..............several times

I actually like it.....

Can you put a standard Rem barrel in a Ti takeoff? Will it fit?

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.

That is just so much BS. Much depends on where and when you hunt, hunter pressure, whether the migration is on, and so on. It also depends on things the hunter cannot control � like constraints of time, terrain, property/unit boundaries, animal populations and movement, the presence/movement/actions of other hunters, etc. Often the only choices are take the shot that is offered or take a pass.

I've never bow hunted anything larger than rabbit, but I've been close enough to deer to reach up and grab belly fur. Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't.

What you say may well be true in Colorado, but that's the problem in living in an overpopulated state. I hunted for years around Yampa, but when it came time to retire and settle down I picked a state with less people and more Elk than a Denver suburb. (fewer democraps too)

Long range target shooting on live big game is not "my thing" as I've seen too many "dudes" try it and cripple animals that are lost or guides have to track down and put out of their misery.

If you can't....don't.

You're missing a lot (and a longer season) by not getting a "stick & string".

I've seen enough game wounded with "sticks", and although I've always been a fair shot with a bow I don't feel any need to risk adding to the count. Game I've shot with a rifle has always gone down quickly if not immediately. To date my longest shot on big game has been 350 but now I'd be pretty comfortable at 600 in good conditions with my .300 WM or 7mm RM. As I stretch my capabilities my options will remain the same and I'll still be willing to let game walk.

Well as with ANY hunting (including the wannabe snipers who wound big game at 1000 yards with their stupid "tactical" rifle), bowhunting does require more ability than a 100 yard rifle shot off a BiPod.

Since I shoot a long bow, with wooden arrows, real feathers, broadheads I sharpen and no sights, I shoot about 200 arrows per week as the skill is easily lost. My self imposed range limit is 25 yards, so it is hunting, not potting an unsuspecting animal at 600 yards.

BTW ALL the "bowhunting" wounded big game I have seen were either shot with those GD crossbows or those mechanical monsters with cams, tiny arrows and fancy sights. Almost always a function of shooting too far. Again, trying to substitute technology for hunting ability.

I'm still waiting to meet the Elk, Deer or Antelope that you can't get closer to than 600 yards.

Oldman-sounds like you enjoy your bow hunting, are you doing it off the ground still hunting and or out of a blind or stand?

Thx
Dober

Coyote Hunter, we bowhunters would probably see more game wounded with rifles if our season was actually after rifle season. I'm sure you're a fine shooter, but please don't assume that the average joe out there, with his brand-new .300 MwhateverMag, is!

With competent hands, Elk is completely killable with a Marlin 30-30. I've seen it.

IntruderBN -

No worries, I've spent enough time at the range working as the RO during sight-in days to see a pretty wide variety of the shooter skills. Some of it is pretty eye-opening - on both ends of the scale...


First elk I ever saw on a wall was taken with a .30-30, and I've hunted them (unsuccessfully so far) with mine. Never seem to have it in my hands when I get a close shot.

I also know from first-hand experience that shooting skills vary widely with bows.

This bowhunting vs rifle hunting topic gets old;particularly listening to a lot of the elitism spewed by bow hunters in that they somehow occupy a higher moral dimension than knuckle dragging rifle hunters.I have to listen to this silly nonsense from Orvis-clad fly fishermen because I pitch jigs under boat docs and haul 5# bass out with 17 pound test P-line...a real gentlemen would use poppers on a fly rod and extricate those bass from lilly pads with 2X tippets...nonsense.

The equipment and skill sets are completely different;a bow hunter "lives" within the narrow confines of his limited "reach",and there is nothing wrong with that.He has to be very stealthy and use tactics that some rifle hunters would do well to emulate.

OTOH the rifle hunter has a much broader territory to cover due to the added reach of the weapon.He has to pay attention in a lot of different directions at once, out to his maximum sure-hit range. Nothing wrong with that either,and the rifle guy is no less a "hunter" because he uses a rifle responsibly.

Which one is more difficult can be called into debate,because a lot of mid-western bowhunting(in farmland with abundant deer,lots of mature bucks,limited size woodlands,and restricted firearms seasons)strikes me as a lot easier than getting on the ground in the vast Maine forests and trying to kill a mature buck with a rifle,just to make an analogy.Ditto the ridiculously simple expedient of hanging a tree stand in Vermont or New York and skewering one of those very abundant does,vs trying to kill a mature trophy mule deer with a rifle at 8-10,000 feet.

If I were King of the World,there would be no "archery season" or "muzzle loader" season(a real joke in the wake of todays technnology); there would only be "deer season",...Gentlemen,choose your weapons..!

How did we get to this from a simple conversation about the merits of two great big game cartridges!

Amen Brutha!!

Amen to that.

The 7mm bullet selection is outstanding and whether one chooses a 7mm-08 or a 7mm STW, or something in-between, the thing that counts most is bullet placement.

Mine happens to be a 7mm RM and its a keeper. I really like a 140g TTSX at 3358fps or a 140g North Fork somewhat slower, at recoil levels under many .30-06 loads...

CH: 7mm's work good....even Ingwe's wee little one...

I'm secure in my masculinity....

I think.....



Not secure enough to go down in caliber to a .270 though......


Ingwe

I'm hoomiliated again....it'll never end!

But you went 243, you must secure with something

I went down to a 378!
Where does that leave me??

As long as it has a 7 in the name it'll work.

Which is the problem with the .280. (Just kidding, guys.)

And like all the other threads that debate meaningless questions, this one goes on and on and on....

Tim do you drive a Corvette?...........

Mule Deer does this mean the 7mm Express is better than the 280

Exactly!

Over the years I kept hearing about how one of the advantages of the 7mm was the vast selection of bullets available in .284" diameter.

Well, I finally heard it once too often, so sat down with my latest Midway catalog and counted all the different weights and styles of bullets available in .270, 7mm and .30 caliber.
Turned out there were 130+ .270 bullets available, around 150 in 7mm, and slightly more in .30.

My take is that if you can't find a .270 or .30 bullet to do exactly the job at hand that you're probably going to be dissatisfied with the 7mm selection as well.

Geez, JB....a lousy 130 bullets for the 270??? How the hail can you get anything done with such a paltry selection!!

ha! No Vettes...
...BMW M3 , but sold it a while back.
Makes me even worse, eh?

I sure am pleased with the 130 Part in my 270.
60 grains of H4831SC, Fed210M sparklers and it shoots 3050fps out of my little 22" M70-shoots really well when I do my part.
I may just use that for elk next season if I finally draw a good tag out south of town here.
(I can only hope!)

+1

Tim,
Today is the last day of anterless season here in WV. I think I may take my 280AI and my 7 RM and let my son and grandson shoot a couple of does. I will also take my stop watch and see how long it takes the does to die. We will shoot 120 TTSX's out of the 280 and 150 NBT's out of the 7 Mag. I hope they don't bounce off. In case they do I'll have my 6MM Ackley with me to take care of any problems we may have. I could call my ex brother in law and he could use one of my 270's with 130 NBT's so we can see whether they will dispatch a doe too.
Not sure the 280 will be enough compared to the 7 Mag. lol

Dave

Tim: 130 Partitions work

Adam,

Just my .02 here and based on your description I'd quickly buy option 2 and "I" would be selling off the 3.5x10 for a leupy 2.5x8.

CLB

Dave, first of all, good luck to you guys on your last day.
Must be very nice to have 3 generations of your family in the hunting fields together.

As far as the 280/7 Mag deal goes, I don't have any experience with either-but my 'knee-jerk' response would be to say: if a guy doesn't reload, the 7 mag is the best choice but if you are a 'loony' the 280 or 280AI looks very interesting.

Bob,

IIRC, your experiences with the 130gr NP was what finally got me to take the 270 seriously.
Probably is my single favorite caliber/rifle now.
That little PF FWT is flat amazing with the 130gr nozler.

Go for the 7mm Mag, I've always liked the 280, but it won't do much if anything more than a 270 will do and 270 ammo is everywhere. A 7mm Mag particularly with 160 and 175g ammo is a big step up in power and recoil is still relativey mild in a normal weight rifle.

Tim,
Personally I am "bit" bad as in thinking that going forward a guy might redirect any investments he has left into rifles, pistols, shotguns, and ammo or at least open up a store. Been thinking about it hard.
I was trying to be humorous regarding the 'bullets bouncing off" and the "Stop watch". All of us know that a well placed or even a not too well placed bullet out of any 280 or 7 Mag will drop a Whitetail or Muley or Elk. A not so well placed will obviously create a tracking job or at the least he won't be laying right where he was hit.
Gotta get after a doe or two this afternoon. Gonna call #1 Grandson and see if he wants to go. BTW he is lefthanded and I am looking for a Model 7 in LH if anyone knows where one might be. .

Dave

Dave,
Oh yeah, I noticed your humor, sounds a bit like my own.


I just was happy to hear you and your son and grandson do some hunting together.
Me, my dad and grandpa(when he was still alive) only hunted a few times together, but still a good memory.

Tim: Accurate,goes fast,shoots flat in a light rifle,and kicks little...also knocks the snot outta stuff if pointed correctly....not much not to like

Very well stated BobinNH. You make a very good point. I just wanted to read about the pros and cons of the 280 rem and 7mm rem mag, but instead have to listen to this nonsense about bows and arrows vs guys with rifles. As a fellow native american though, I'd have to say we should of progressed more towards the modern firearm instead of the old stick and string.

chief: Sorry if I hijacked the thread;I was just reacting to where the thread had "gone";apologies...

On the 280/7mag issue,I'd say it's hard to wrong with either one....I like them both!