Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire .270 vs .280

There's gay....then there's .280 GAY!

I cannot understand someone doing a 280AI to shoot 140s, which is almost as gay as a .270. The great reason to do a 280AI is because it is about the best use of a .473 bolt face action for a long range shooter, that has factory ammo available. If nosler will load some 280Ai with LR accubonds stock in the 280AI might go a little higher.

But then Nosler could simply load the 150 ABLR in the 270.....

And the 7x64 has been around for how long?
Basically, a 280.
Ill stick with my 280's and AI's. Performance, cool looking, and no trimming.
After my first exposure to a 270 at a young age, seeing a fallow deer shot 4 times, and I killed one with 1 shot from a 243, I swore off on the 270. Never owned one, nor ever will.
First impressions ya know.

Not taking up for .270's, but that sounds like operator shortcomings and bullet placement deficiencies. Could also be a function of bullet selection.

Just saying.

DF

Still dealing with a .625 vs a .650ish BC difference with both running in the 3K range. You could jump up to the 175 in the .280 for a .672BC and sacrifice a little velocity, maybe. Until I have loaded them myself it is all theoretical.

I will concede that the LRAB does make the 270 a more attractive choice than the 150 bergers I have been running in mine.

Thats still not 7x57 gay

No such thing.....

I agree those long heavy slugs are the cat's azz for LR shooting; but the overwhelming majority of BG hunting worldwide is done at more modest distances. 140's kill stuff very well.

I cant buy into the notion that all rifle/ammo for BG hunting should be approached from the standpoint and perspective of LR match shooting....actually I think it's a pretty lousy approach from a number of perspectives.

Agreed DF, but not knowing bullet type, and seeing vital hits, a 21 y/o, wasn't impressed.

Bullet selection has given the .270 a bad rap IMO, .243 suffers the same malady.

And that, I understand...

Just goes to show how many hard and fast impressions we Loonies foster, based on emotional rather than rational decision making processes...

DF

Running the .625 vs a .65 at 2900 fps (a likely velocity for both using 22" barrels) the 280 AI has something like a 3" advantage in wind drift at 1000 yards.

Pass the 270, hold the fluff.

all are likes and dislikes, with most just plain bull with no backup. so it boils down to what you like and if you can place the bullet at the proper place, nothing else counts. a miss kills nothing but air.

I've only ever personally known three people who hunted with the .280 Rem. It always seemed obscure and irrelevant to me. Overshadowed completely by having the 7mm-08 on one side of it and the 7mm Rem mag on the other.

Rational thought has no place here....

Not since the 1920s and 30s. Bullets were toughened up soon after.

These days - load a Partition, point it at the right place, press the trigger. Dead deer.

Nice thing about the 270 Winchester is that almost all available bullets (other than some of the new 6.8 SPC bullets) are designed specifically for it's velocity window.

Does that imply that you have 1st hand experience with that gayness???????????????

One could surely draw that conclusion!!!!!!!!!!

MM

I have seen 130 gr combined tech factory loads leave three shallow but huge entry wounds on a whitetail, have seen the same from 130BTs launched from a .270, screw the velocity window.
In the camp I used to be in a 270 was the customary round. I was the guy with the blood dog. Spent many nights out tracking .270 shot deer, all were due to bullet selection or placement. There is nothing inherently wrong with the .270, but it has a bad reputation I attribute it to bullet selection and placement what do you attribute it to?

Poor bullet design is not something inherent to the 270 - the initial round of Ballistic Tips were pretty bad in many calibers.

Around here, the 270 has a stellar reputation - taking many, many deer and elk every year, often with the "whatever is cheapest" ammo.