Is the difference worth bothering over? No one in my camp shoots a .280, so I like the idea of having one. Something different, something new. Is there enough difference between the two to even warrent this discussion? Happy to hear opinions from all .280/.270 shooters.

I love my 280Rem if you handload the 280 is a great choice!

If I had to do it all over again, I would have bought a 280 over my 270. However when I bought my 270 I wasn't handloading yet.

I was just reviewing Nosler #5, and noted that there are more 7mm bullets than .277 bullets. With the 280, you can load from 120gr up to 175gr partitions. I think ballisticly they are about identical. The cases are the same.

I'd say it's either six of one or half doze of the other.

There really isn't any PRACTICAL difference. Some prefer the heavier bullets available in 7mm. Others laud the "flatter" trajectory of the 270. It is just debating minutia. I've had several different 280s over the years from Ruger and Rem. I am currently without one mainly because I went shorter and am now running a 7mm-08.

Get the one you want! If you don't like it, rebarrel it to the other.

RH

One of my pards has a 280 rem, he loves it.
I have to agree that if you handload its the way to go.
Oh did mention......my pard.....used to shoot,love .270's

You pretty much nailed about the only real reason to buy a .280 over the .270. Not everybody has one and that is important to some people. I am a huge fan of both cartridges and decided the only real way to settle the problem is to have a few of each. What one will do, so will the other in the field, off the bench, and over the chrony. Probably the biggest advantage one has over the other is the .270 is offered in more factory loads and is much more common. You will find .270 ammo sitting beside 06 ammo just about anyplace that may carry ammo (at least in US).

-Lou

Thanks for the advice fellas. I'm leaning towards the 280 just because it is something different - guess that is important to me.

I would go 280. Better bullet selection. Better cartrige. If the 280 had been invented 34 years ealier the 270 wouldn't be around today.
My sierra manual states "when loaded to equal pressures it will do everything a 270 will do and then some."
I am now just trying to figure out a way to justify having one along with my 7mm-08, 7mags, and multiple 30-06's.
A very nice cartridge.

If you're wanting to get one because it tis different then I can certainly understand.

IMO and IME any other reason to do so is just a bunch of hogwash...ballistic gack micro mgt 101 4 sure!

They're both great rounds and what can do so can the other and that is just the way it tis.

Mark D

Be really different in camp and put a 40 degree shoulder on any of the case's mentioned.Both are so close but think I'd perfer the 280.

Oh good grief you just started a sh#$ storm over absolutely nothing Did you do it on purpose? . We will now proceed to hear how the 280 kills everything it's even pointed towards and the 270 is a bb gun and vice versa. The fact is they are so close that any point you say about one will almost always pertain to the other. This will be strictly personal choice opinions on this thread, very little facts involved.
But hey...thats what makes the world go round'.
I'm a 270 man myself but its just personal choice, not because its better than the 280. Even though we all know the 270 is better:D

Bill

Having several of each, there are pros & cons:

If you don't handload, the 270 by a wide margin

In every rifle I've had, the 280 requires a 24" barrel to do velocity wise, what the 270 does with a 22" barrel. Some can argue all they want; they just have not worked with enough guns.

Slight edge to the 280 on bullet selection, but the 270 has more than enough; what more could you want? The 280 does not handle the 175 particularly well, just adequate. If you want to shoot 175, get a 7 Mag. or an 'o6 with 180's. The 280 is at it's best with 140 - 150 grain bullets, same as a 270 with 130 - 150.

Ease of reloading....no advantage either way and I've found both to be easy to find good loads for and both are generally not too finicky.

Accuracy is equivalent in both as is recoil

Buy the rifle you like & be happy with either caliber; they are both great.

JME

MM

Montana,
Your right on the velocity, but I've never understood why except in factory loads. But it does seem to work out that way.

TX,

I can't fully explain it either as the 280 has more surface area on the base of the bullet for gas expansion and should be better but it's not......must be the length of the powder column and efficiency?????

MM

Another veddy good idea.

Dober

In the mid 70's only one person shot the 270 in the Nat.Silh.Rifle championships....7m/m's ruled! If you have to ask about the difference, then you haven't checked out printed or actual matter! Try them out! Books tell you what they want you to hear!

Sure, the 270 shoots pretty accurate but knocking down an elk with a 150 gr. bullet vs. a bigger 7 m/m is no comparison. If Jack O'conner wasn't such a 270 nut, the 270 wouldn't even have graduated from "wildcat"!

As noted they are so close as to be ballistic equivalents. In your case one reason to have a .270 WIN would be that you could borrow some ammo off of one of your hunting buddies if yours got lost or gave out while at camp.

I think the .270 WIN wouldn't have been a wildcat with or without Jack O'Connor - he had no influence in its design - he "discovered" it after Winchester designed it and put it on the market. Now of course he is directly responsible for its early (and later) popularity through his writing.

MontanaMan,

The velocity issue probably has to do with load data for the cartridges mentioned. You'll typically see the 270 and 280 have the same max charge for a given powder when both use the same bullet/bullet weight. Sometimes the 270 even has a higher max charge. Either way this probably has something to do with the vels issues.

I have a 280 Rem. but it's because I didn't want a 270. Nothing against it, just wanted to be a bit different. It works just fine as I'm sure the 270 would work just fine, and my 30-06s work just fine, etc.

Tanks 4 the morning humor.......good for giggles

Mark D

Just confirms my point from earlier, mostly personal choice. Very little fact involved.
If you think any elk is going to be able to tell the difference between being hit with a .277 150gr or a .284 160gr(which is the largest bullet most people use in a 280) then you need to shoot more elk or put down the crack pipe!

Bill

Thought the samething.Just didn't want to be the first to say it....grining

Personally, I've had a hard time getting the same level of performance out of the 280 Rem. that I have out of the 270 Win.

Maybe it's just been the luck of the draw, but all of the 280s I've owned have been much more fussy in terms of accruacy, and I've had a lot harder time achieving the same velocities with similar-weight bullets.

Everything about the 270 has been easy, accurate, and fast, even with a 22" bbl..

I find the often-stated "greater bullet selection" advantage to be more of a numerical difference than it is anything else. There are a great many fine .277 bullets on the market from nearly all manufacturers weighing between 100 grs. and 160 grs. (a few heavier than that) -- certainly enough to satisfy any bullet requirment that you'd ever have for and hunting you'd ever do with any cartridge in this class.

Sometimes mere statistics get in the way of common-sense......

AD

There are 2 .280's,a .284Win.,and a .280AI in my gunsafe.I guess you could say I lean to 7mm over the .270.Monashee

I am a huge 270 fan. That said I do believe the 280 is a better well rounded round. From power to bullet selection.

I've owned and loaded for aslew of each. I've hunted more with the 270 simply because, well, I have... What one will do the other will do, provided we keep the playing field equal. There is no difference whatsoever in field performance;any differences lie in the brain of the shooter, not as to the cartridges.

Mostly, I've bought the 280's when I've run into a rifle I really liked, and knew I could make the 280 perform like a 270.So it made no difference to me.

My general observation is that the 280 is somewhat more finicky to work with than the 270, and generally does not go as fast.The fewer bullets is a moot point, unless you like to play with bullets. In hunting applications, load one good one, learn the rifle and load, and go hunting.

Jack O'Connor was of the opinion that killing power was "90% mental" and he couldn't have been more right.

Guys would learn more about that aspect of things by spending more money on hunting trips, rather than more rifles in similar, and largely redundant, chamberings.

I'm of the belief that you can learn far more with one or two good all-around rifles that you really hunt with a lot and widely, rather than a safe full that you seldom hunt with. Paper targets and chronographs can only teach you so much, and much of what those things teach is inane............

AD

A lot of great discussion here. Good information to have. It sounds like 270 v 280 comes down to personal preference. If I want a 280, get a 280.

Maybe I shouldn't be too concerened, but I want to learn more about the velocity difference between the two. One of things that was drew me towards the 280 was how nicely it fit between the 270 and 7 Mag. But if I'm going to have problems reaching 270 velocities with 280 factory rounds, then I'm not sure its worth the trouble. Take a look at these two charts:

.270 Win Ballistics
280 Rem Ballistics

From the info on those charts, the 139/140 Grain .280 Rem Bullets match - and is some cases - exceed velocities in the same factory .270 bullets.

I am looking for an all around rifle. Something I can hunt whitetails with all season, and take for Mullies/Elk when I get the chance. But we shoot A LOT during whitetail season. Let me define A LOT: We manage two high fenced ranches - one is 4600 acres, the other 1200. Between the two, we have over 350 tags to fill from October through Feb. There are plenty of weekends where I shoot 15 times and bring down 15 does. The country has some elevation change, thick brush, and many acres of open country. Shots range anyhwere from 75yrds to 350. I would say the majority of shots fall between 150 and 250 yards.

Like the previous poster said, every advantage that one caliber has, the other one is nearly equal. I should probably just get the one I want and enjoy it. No doubt I will have a gun chambered in each someday. But right now, I can only afford one!

"DWS" (darn well said) Allen and I totally concur.

Mark D

As I live in Central British Columbia and can hunt Mulies,Whitetails and Moose in the hills behind my house,my 7mm's get carried(and shot!)quite a bit!My wife took a nice whitetail with her .280 about a mile from the house last season.As I'm retired and hunt a lot,I guess I'm in the fortunate position to be able to hunt a lot with my "similar and largely redundant" safe queens!LOL Monashee

I've burned out barrels over 3 decades with both rounds.

Put me down for the 280.

Put me down for the 284Win.....heh.

Actually, the only reason I really like the 280/284Win over the 270, would be that they arent as popular in my neck of the woods.

Other than popularity and personal choice, they're all good killin machines...

Good post, AD.

AD is right to a point.Not everyone has the opportunities to get out and hunt as much as I do.All of my 7mm's have a purpose to me,and I like the fact that on any given day my wife or I can pick any of them from the rack and they will do the job if we do our part.It would be the same if they were .270's!That being said,I still don't know why I bought that .284Win!It's a nice rifle and shoots great and I just couldn't resist!Right Trev? Monashee

Bill,

We both know a 150 out of a .270 cannot kill a TX whitetail...
The .280 160 is capable though...

Grin...

Once you realize that you dont need the 284 and want to sell it back, I'll be here with open arms....heh.

Something about the 7mms that I like. Especially the ones that arent as popular as the 7RM....

Having owned and killed deer with both - I'll take the 280. I bought one in 1982 when no one heard of it (I still have it), have killed a truckload or three of deer with it, and would not hesitate to build a dedicated deer rifle from the 280 hull.

An AI would be way cool though..........

Exactly! the 270Winchester was introduced by Winchester in 1925, It was 14 years later Jack O'Conner first started writing for Outdoor Life in 1939
(I don't the date of his first article about the 270.)

Regardless, they are both well established cartridges. To each his own, to argue one is superior to the other is no more than splitting hairs.

I recently decided that I wanted a smaller caliber than my .30-06 which was then the smallest caliber/cartridge I owned. I didn't really need something else; I just wanted something new to play with. I've never owned or hunted with either a .270 Win or .280 Rem but my choice came down to those two cartridges. I picked the .280 Remington. Why? Well, I like to think of it as my poor man's 7x64 Brenneke.

-Bob F.

I'd say shooting the .280 in order to be "different" than the .270 is a wasted effort. Why? Because, well, seven thousandths of an inch doesn't really make them different.

Also, as someone sagely pointed out above, the heaviest bullet normally utilized in the .280 is the 160-grainer. Well, there's also an easily available .277" 160-grain bullet for those who want it, as well. What's more, it has a better SD number than the .284" 160-gr. bullet. So, for me, advantage to the old boring .270 WCF.

scott

allen:
I don't doubt what you say is true, and I have learned to respect your experience and opinion.

But the 2 cartridges have virtually identical case capacities and the difference in bullet diameter is only 0.007". Intuitively, they HAVE to be very close in performance. And any statistically significant difference in either accuracy or velocity (all other factors, barrel length, pressure, etc) being equal) would be hard to understand.

Individual rifles may vary a lot, but the average 280 and the average 270 can't be much different.

I'm going to hop-in on the "add the 40 degree shoulder to either". I'd still go .270 Win though.

I won't ever be able to make myself get a .280 Rem until my .284 Win. itch is scratched.

I'll bet a few bucks that when we see one of these cartridges show clear superiority over the other, it's because some handloaders are more than willing to operate either one in excess of 60,000 lbs/ sq inch. I see some data for the 270 where the velocity of a 130 gr bullet is listed at over 3200 fps.In Richard Lee's Modern Reloading, second edition, there's a load listed at 3234 with 65 gr AccMagPro. I cannot tell what barrel length. Pressure is 63,200 lbs.

On the other hand, I don't see any loads listed for the 280 that exceeds 60,000 with a 140 gr bullet and the highest velocity is 3010. Fastest load I ever developed for the 280 was with 62-RL22-140 Nosler for a hair over 3100 in a 23" Shilen barrel.

About all this means is that you can make a case (a pretty weak one) for either cartridge being superior to the other if you want to load one to substantially higher pressures with the correct powder, and handicap the other by loading it down, or at least to unequal pressures.

Either one works very well,and there is no difference in effectiveness because the bullet diameters are essentially equal and the powder capacities are similar; hence velocities are also similar. I like the 270 because I can find ammo everywhere, and I have more experience with it.Plus, the factory 280 ammo I've chronographed is pretty slow. Makes sense cause the cartridge was designed for autoloaders and I think pressures are held back for that reason. Maybe this has changed.....

Truly, the difference comes down to the bullet selection ... that's really all that matters on any practical level, and most 'impractical' levels ...

The .277" bullets might tend to have a slightly higher SD, but the 7mm bullets tend to have a slightly higher BC ...

another thing to consider, whether you hand load or not, is availability of factory ammo, should you ever be in a bind and need to use some ... the .270win ammo is in pretty much any store that sells ammo ... the .280, not so much ...

I can't really say I prefer one over the other, because I've had a .270, but not a .280 ...

but right now, I find myself very infatuated with 7mm bullets, so I'd have to choose the .280 if I were forced to choose between the two ...

Bobin - very interesting - the findings on the factory 280 velocity numbers. Considering that most of my shots will find the shoulder of a whitetail between 150 and 250 yards, I'm not so sure I should be terribly worried about the loss in velocity.

I went to Academy today to pick up a few fishing things, and decided to walk through the ammo aile to get an idea of 280 Rem bullet choices. Now, Academy is no Cabelas/Bass Pro/Specialty Gun shop, but they do have a wide variety of options for John Q. Hunter. The Academy I went to - fairly large in size - had 15 different boxes of 270 win ammo in all kinds of ammo brands.

How many boxes of .280 Rem ammo... 1 One stinking box of 150gr Remington Core-Lokt ammunition for the .280. There are plenty of reasons for this - mainly that very few people down here in Texas shoot a 280 Rem and Acadamey, like all other sporting goods stores, is in it make business and sell the stuff on the shelves. Guess it was just a little eye opening to see.

There are a million and one reasons to buy a .270win. The ranch I hunt has 3 guys that are regular .270 shooters. All 3 are from the same family, and has a retired grandpa and does all the reloading they want. So if I go .270, I would be blessed with putting time tested hand loads down the tube. If I ever forget some, I can bum a round or two. Like I said - a million and one reasons to go .270

But no one shoots a 280. None of my hunting buddies have probably ever considered a 280 - not because it isn't a great caliber, just because they are happy with what they have. So yes, there is plenty intrigue into hunting with a caliber that no one else has. There is an excitment to that - knowing that you are taking on something new and learning the in's and out's of the caliber from the start. I'm not the only one to feel this way - someone out in the gun business understands this same complex.... and thus - the WSM's were born.

I've never found myself wanting a chambering simply because it's one that is 'unique' or 'uncommon' ... I have chosen my chamberings by what they are to be used for, and the 'best' one (by my research) is what wins ...

of course, I'm one of those very practical rifle loonies ... a loony, yes, but not like some here ...

OutdoorAg-a couple of things to consider is if you don't reload then the 270 availability factor is something to consider.

Secondly I'd look at the rifle you want, is it chambered in both and or are you building? What cals does the rifle that you love the fit and feel in come in?

Lastly it has long been my contention that to 300 yds all shooters and all rounds are pretty much equal!

Mark D

I realy agonized over this myself before I built a semi custom Mauser. It is much easier to find max top published loads for a 270, a plus. all 270 bullets are made for 270 speeds, another plus. 270 deer loads are avaliable anywhere, another plus. for deer and game up to 600lbs their is no difference. For larger game 160-175gn 7mm bullets are probably more suited. I chose a 280 only because I also shoot a 7x57 and can interchange bullets. For the neophite not cartridges, just bullets. capt david

This is the rifle I am looking at: Rem LSS 280

Only chambered in the .280 - Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of other Rem guns that I love. The mountain LSS rifle with the brown laminated stock comes in the 270. But when I first saw this stick it really caught my eye. I love the Monte Carlo style stock - personal pref. and I know some people can't stand it. I think the gray laminate and SS combo is quite good looking along with being pretty hard to ding up and having a heck of a long life ahead of it. Simply put, I fell hard for the gun, and now I'm trying to do as much research on the caliber as I can.

if you like the rifle, and know that the chambering will do you and the rifle proud, don't worry about it ... just get it ...

and if you don't yet reload, now would be a good time to start ...

Hey to me rifles are all about fit and feel formost, then a good bullet, cal comes about next to last for me.

If that is the one you like then I would saddle up and get it.

Find a load it likes and put away a few boxes of ammo and go forth and fill an ark.

Mark D

There was a time I'd have agreed with those saying 2 things: there's no practical difference, and if you handload then the .280 is the way to go. #1, there's still no practical difference, and that comes from a confirmed .280 man. #2, there are a few readily availble factory rounds that are not loaded up to full potential, ie the Hornady Lite Mags. Even Remington's basic 150 Corlokt load gets 2850 in my 24" bble. The Lite Mags get all the advertised velocity of 3100+. To me the only nod for the .280 is the slightly better selection of bullets available for the handloader, AND the reason you stated...you can tell all your buds you got something they aint AND its better! .

Lets see in the 270 for bullets one can get 90's,100's,110's,120's,130's,135's,140's,150's,160's,180's (I think).

In the 280 you can get 100's,110's,120's,130's,140's,145's,150's,160's,175's, and 195s (I think).

In the real world, no difference. Now in the world of micro mgt of ballistic gack and rifle looney's then I guess so...grins

Dober

There is one signifigant difference between the two that noone here has mentioned yet. When the 280 first came out it was chambered in a Remington Auto rifle that needed lower chamber pressures than the 270 to operate long term. The 280 was loaded to max pressures of IIRC 58,000 psi vs 62,000 for the 270.
A lot of the reloading data you will see will show larger powder charges for the 270 than for the 280 with the same weight bullets. The 280 will actually take very slightly higher powder charges with the same weight bullets than the 270 will and remain at the same pressures. An example of this can be found here:

http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp

The 280 loads are listed at up to 48,500 CUP and the 270 Win loads are listed up to 51,000 CUP...

The practical result of this is that if you reload for the 280 you should also reveiw data listed for the 270 with the same weight bullets. If they list lower powder charges for the 280 they are probably loading it to the lower pressure levels. It pays to check several sources of data....................DJ

Like others, it has been easier for me to reach higher velocities with the same bullet weight in the .270 with handloads (and no, not book .280 loads, but .270 loads plus something as dj pointed out). I have had to lean much harder on the .280 to reach 3000 fps w/140s for example. I have no idea why and thought I was alone, but apparently am not and in good company considering the other board member posts and even John Wooters wrote the same thing in Petersen's Hunting. I thought it might have something to do with the twist rate since I believe 7mms are normally 1 in 9 1/2 and .270s are 1 in 10. Of course it could just be bad luck as I have had other "slow" rifles, but I have been through several .270s and .280s now. In any case, the .280 is a great round and unlike others have mentioned, mine have not been too finicky and shot most bullet weights great.

-Lou

280 Always. My motto is: Never ever no not never ever get rid of a 280. I have four. I love them all they are not finicky at all and they beat a 270 and a 30-06 all to pieces. Faster and flatter.

I have seen far too many wounded critters from 270's. I personally do not like them.

I have shot a bunch of deer with a 270.Only 2 of those were hit and not found.One .........in my younger day,I tried to shoot through a bunch of brush.I hit the deer somewhere.I found a couple of drops of blood and a bunch of hair.Bad choice on my part.Two.......I shot at a deer running straight away from me in an open field.I hit it in the back leg........I found bone and some good blood at first that petered out after awhile.

My point is.....the only way a deer is wounded by a 270 is because of a bad hit.

Relo'a'der28

When I was about 12, I had an uncle that shot a blacktail buck in the leg with a .270. He lost that deer and blamed it on the cartridge. "That damned .270 is too fast, it's just a wounder!", he said. I thought he was an idiot then and I still do. Gods putting up with him now.
He bought a .280 to replace the .270..? Go figure. Then he shot a bull moose in the nose with the .280.....do you see where I'm going with this...?
A good bullet in the right place...who care's what the head stamp sez.
If indeed you have seen lot's of wounded critters with the .270 cartridge, it probably reflects the fact that there are many hundreds if not thousands of .270's out there to every .280 and they are being driven by everyone from the village idiot to professionals that can use any gun they please.
There is no real world difference between the .270 and the .280. What one will do, so will the other.

Mark: I have a box of Speer 170 gr rnd nose .270 on hand, to add to your list. The old Speer #9 manual sez they will lope along about 2650 with 4350 or 2785 with H4831 and top loads. BT

More good laughs, we started the morning with one and now this one, they just get better...grins

Mark D

Lol! Ya that .007 extra really makes the 280 a real deer slayer. I like it better but there is no difference between the 2.

Dang 270s wont kill chit.

Only thing a 270s good for is shooten round corners.

All those mickey mouse 270WCFs do when they hit someting is bounce off.Worthless.

Man I sure am glad I dont own or use one of those worthless wounding POS 270 WCFs.
dave

nice gun nice glass

LMAO too........can't believe I'm reading such as this.

0.007" difference in bullet diameter; come now, please Reloader 28.

I gotta call BS on this one....

MM

Exactly why I bought my Ruger Model 77 over 20 years ago in 280 Rem. Love it. Yes , I handload for it.

Faster? Flatter? On what planet? Kills better than a 270? Hell, sometimes I can't see the differemce between a 300 and a 270. How can there be a difference between these two?

Your 7mm Weatherby barely edges out a 270...

Here's a slightly different take ...

I went with a 280 over a 270 because I am the worlds worst rifleman and needed to become a handloader to make me improve marksmanship due to the bench time that came with load development.

I'm staying with a 280 over a 270 because of the bullets. No, the range of bullets is same/same between 277 and 284 (Although I am infatuated with the "120 Trinity", I do see utility in the 110 gr 277 TSX). BUT having a stockpile of 284 bullets has allowed me to play with 7mm08's, 7x57's, 284's, 7 Remmy Maggy's, etc in different rifles possessed by friends, family and acquire some extra 7mms myself. Had I been a 270 guy I wouldn't have swam in that pool.

While at one time the justification for 280 over 270 was the abundance of 284 bullet variety. Nowdays, the justifications for the handloader include the abundance of 284 chamberings you can load for with your stock of bullets.

Well until some factory chambers the 277 Dobrenski (270-08)...

I like to call it the 270 Dober Dog.........grins

More ballistic gack 101, but hey I am a gun loonie!

Dober

In other words, one must exceed SAAMI maximum pressure with a 280 to equal a 270?

If one exceeds SAAMI maximum pressures with a 270 by the same proportions as one would with a 280, what would I get?........

(I'm just asking for it--ain't I? )

Casey

You guys have entered into the debate that I have had with my self for 20 years. Which is better, more accurate, more deadly etc. ? I currently have 4 rifles in 270win and 5 in 280 remington.I have owned and worked with lots more in each caliber. Several of the previous comments have differed with my experiences. On the subject of accuracy I have had better results with the 280. Every single 280 that I have ever owned would group factory loads into less than 1moa except for one Ruger77, it was a 1.25moa gun. I have owned a number of 270 rifles that would do no better than 1.5moa. On the subject of velocity with handloads, if barrel lengths are equal and bullet weights are the same I have typically been able to get a little more velocity out of the 280. It is not difficult to push 140 grain bullets 3150fps in my 280s. This is about 100fps faster than my 270s. On the subject of field performance I have found that there are subtle differences between the two. 7mm bullets tend to be a little tougher than the same bullet in 270. I think this may be because 7mm bullets are built to be used at magnum velocity. The practical effect is that 270 bullets seem to expand more violently and are a little less likely to exit. My observations are not based on theory but on using both calibers on more than 100 deer and more than 40 hogs. The 270 may kill small critters a little quicker but on animals over 200 pounds they are about the same except blood trails are often lighter with the 270 since it exits less. Pick the one you like, If you don't reload 270 ammo is everywhere although ammo selection for the 280 is far better than it used to be. If you are a real gun nut true happiness only can be properly pursued by having at least one of each.

Ruraldoc - advice through experience - thanks for the great post.

Dang, you left of those 139's, 154's, and 162's for the 280. And I have flubbed shots with a .277 140gr that I know I could have made if the bullet had been .007" fatter and 1 grain lighter, on account of the increased frontal area of the bigger diameter and flatter mid-range trajectory allowed by the lighter weight.

I'm in that camp as well. However, debating the merits of one vs the other ad nauseam makes for interesting reading I suppose.

Sounds like pure ballistic cherry picking for your .280 and it sounds like you are falling for what Mark calls "ballistics gack 101."

The only "wounded" critters I have seen run off from a .270 were the result in poor shot placement and in one case poor bullet selection, a scenario that is going to be repeated regardless of the cartridge used. The idea that that .270 Winchester is going to be inadequate and the .280 is going to be a Dinosaur smasher is bovine excrement at best.

The .280 Rem. is a truly great cartridge. In fact, it is nearly as good as the .30-06.

I have both. My 280 performs better than my 270. I can do with my 280 shooting 160's what my 270 will do shooting 130's and 140's. I've seen a 280 perform better than most 7 mags.

I love my 270 but I'll take the 280 over it. Now I'm in the process of having another 280 built for me. This time I'm doing one in Ackley Improved. I'll have a 270 Win, 280 Rem, 280 AI, and 7mm Rem Mag. I would say that they are all close, but who cares. I like each individually.

Alfredo

You know this already, but I'll say it for those that don't and are confused by your comment. The .280 can be safely loaded to 65Kpsi just like the 270. The .270 is not safe to load over 65Kpsi. At like pressures the .280 does what the .270 does with 10 grains more bullet. Significant? Nah, not really, but it is more and thats a fact.

I've been running 139s and 140s at 3100-3150fps in my 24" .280 for years. No, nada, not any signs of pressure, including normal brass life. Have run 150s and 154s 2975-3025fps. Same same. The .280 IS MORE gun than the .270 slightly though it may be.

I always relate the .280 is more anything than the .270 to $10,000,000.01 is more than $10,000,000. Technically it's more, but the difference can't buy you anything:)

-Lou

Now you have gone and done it, stired up the ant bed of best all around cartridge. The 30-06 kicks harder and does not shoot quite as flat when both are loaded to maximum velocity with bullets of similar sectional density. However the 30-06 will handle heavier bullets of greater frontal area . It is really an apple and orange comparison. For deer sized game make mine a 270/280. For elk they are about equal. For critters bigger than elk give me the 30-06 with 200grain bullets at maximum velocity. But don't tell me the 30-06 is better than the 280 or 270. Better at what? It's not better, it's just different.

Actually it it will give you about 3% more velocity with similar bullet weights. What I have enjoyed is the 25% better accuracy in my guns in 280. To me it's like getting interest on my $10,000,000.00 I probably won't need the extra but it's fun to have anyway.

Where does 3% come from? If you get 3% velocity increase for a given bullet weight .270 vs .280, then you should get something along a 12% increase in velocity from .270 to .30-06 (I don't see too many guys bragging on 150s at 3300 fps .30-06s). My opinion is if there's any advantage to the .280 it's around 30 fps with the same bullet weight. Incidentally, the .270 & .280 are my favorite rounds. I've sent thousands of round down range from each, have high dollar custom guns in each, and have had several normal factory rifles of each (and still have a few). I simply don't see a difference in velocity and there is much more delta caused between variences in guns that a .007" larger bore will do. The trend I do see with the .280 is guys pick a number based on what they think it should be by extrapolating .270 data or .30-06 data or whatever and try and hit it. I have had no trouble getting either to shoot in either off the shelf factory guns or my custom guns, so not sure why your .270s are less accurate.

-Lou

Oh yeah! well I think the .264 WM is better than all of em so what do ya think about that!

What exactly are you defining as "perfom better?" In terms of velocity, loading both to their potential, there is no way a .280 Remington will best the 7mm Remington Magnum or the 7mm Weatherby Magnum and it sure won't best the 7mm STW.

Gaviidae: Sounds like a fine legal argument to me...... .You know of course that you can handload the 270 as well. It's been known to happen!

Lou, It has been my experience that 270 and 280 factory loads produce virtually identical velocities. This happens in spite of the fact that 270 factory loads operate at higher pressure. Federal premium factory loads featuring 150 grain Nosler Partitions are available in both calibers and my chronograph results show they both run 2800-2850fps. A call to the good folks at Federal will confirm that they load the 270 to higher pressures. The same trend holds with other comparible factory loads. If we handload the cartrdges to the same pressures, the 280 will produce the same velocity with 140 grain bullets that we see with 130 grain bullets in the 270. Not all published data shows this because lots of data also loads the 270 to higher pressure. Put the two cartridges on a level playing field and the 280 will run about 100fps faster with any given bullet weight. As far as accuracy, I have some pretty nice guns including custom stuff in both calibers. The 280 has on average been more accurate for me. After owning a pile of guns in both chamberings,I've yet to run into a lemon in 280. I own a couple of tack drivers in 270 so I know they exist, they just seem to be a little more rare in that chambering. You don't have to take my word for it, Kenny Jarret doesn't build so many beanfield rifles in .284 bore cartridges because of politics. Not just him, Selma Alabama accuracy guru Jimmy McCollough will build you all the ultra accurate rifles you want, but if you'll listen he will advise you to avoid 270 if you want extreme precision. Not long ago, Ed Brown reccomended 7mmWSM over 270WSM on the basis of trying to get an extemely accurate light sporter. To paraphase a Texas politician, Senator I like 270s, I've hunted with 270s, but when comes to comparing it to the 280, Senator you are no Jack O'Connor.

Ruraldoc,

I'm still curious why you believe it is 100 fps for the same bullet weight or why a 140 out of a .280 should go as fast as a 130 out of a .270. I have seen you extrapolating factory load data to come to this conclusion, but not sure why it was 100 fps not 300 fps or 20 fps. Also, .270 factory loads may have been running at max pressure in the past, but just look at the 130 gr velocity progression...3160 to 3140 to 3110 to 3060. I really doubt they are loaded to any higher pressure than current .280 loads which have been stepped up from the original "low" pressure loads when the round was re-introduced as 7mm express in Remington's attempt to save the round. I have seen several writers such as Layne Simpson indicate this velocity reduction is because the .270 is getting old and the factories have backed off. The main reason I am questioning this 100 fps is I just don't buy that the .007 larger bore will cause 100 fps on the same case. Like I said, if that was the case, the .30-06 which is .0031 larger, would be 350 fps faster than the .270 when loaded to similar pressures and 250 fps faster than the .280. I don't see that as possible and expect the .30-06 to be 100 fps or maybe a wee bit more ahead of the .270 with the same bullet weight at the same pressure (the .280 should be less than 1/2 way between). On accuracy, several custom smiths won't work with .280s as well. Tom Turpin and even G. Sitton (a big .280 fan) have written this in print. Names like David Miller pop into my head, but I don't exactly remember who they mentioned. I expect if a smith can't get a .270 or .280 to shoot, his ego is the only reason he says one is more accurate than the other.

-Lou

Wow, if ever there was a thread that had no merit this is it!

How about the 30-06, 308, 7x57, 7 mag, and a host of others, they should feel left out.

Truth is there is not a pennys worth of difference in any of them in the game fields of the world. It's all in the head of the beholder. Both in killing power and trajectory. inches in trajectory amount to about 3 inches between any of them at 500 or better and you can't hold that close anyway.

All good calibers and all do the same job.

The truth well spoken.

Good to see you around again, Ray. I see where you tested the water back at AR in April. I'm glad you've chosen to hang your hat here, instead.

scott

My experience has mostly been the opposite........but then again, not much difference in the real world.....

Casey

"Kenny Jarret doesn't build so many beanfield rifles in .284 bore cartridges because of politics."

That statement doesn't seem consistent with the following quote from Jarret's website:

"PET CALIBERS
When you do the same job for a long time you learn that certain things work better than others. This stands true for cartridge choices for us. We can chamber for about 90 different cartridges. The ones mentioned here are some of our favorites. � Kenny Jarrett"

16 cartridges are listed on his "Pet Caliber" list, of those 16, 5 are in .284 (7-08AI; 280; 280AI; 7Mag; 284 Jarret). BTW there are no 277 cartidges on the pet list.

Lou, I have not extrapolated anything. I have rifles in both chamberings. I have a chronograph. I have 20 years of experience of handloading for both. You can readily reach 3100-3150fps with 140 grain bullets in the 280. I am not the first person to report such findings. Over 30 years ago Jack and Eleanor O'Connor went with Fred Huntington to hunt in Africa. Jack wrote in glowing terms about Fred's rifle and load, a custom 280 with a 22 inch barrel that now belongs to Jim Carmichael. Fred's load featured 140 grain nosler partitions over IMR4350 loaded to produce 3150fps. Jack reported that Fred used the rifle to take more than a dozen plains animals, all except one were taken with a single shot. One animal was shot twice as a precaution. Jack reported that no cartridge or load could have performed better. Years later Jack privately confided to Jim Carmichael that he felt that the 280 was a better cartridge than the 270. If you try to reach 3150fps with a 140 grain bullet in a 270 you will run into serious signs of high pressure before you get there in most rifles with 22 or even 24 inch barrels. However you can safely reach this level of velocity with many 270s with a 130 grain bullet with 22 and 24 inch barrels. Again this is not based on extrapolation of any factory load data. The only factory loads that I have chronographed that approached this kind of velocity are hornady light mags. Regarding mean average pressure of factory ammo, I have reported facts not my opinion. 270 loads have a higher industry standard allowable pressure, the people at Federal confirmed this, maybe if you're nice to them they might talk to you too. It is a matter of fact then not opinion that 280 factory loads chonograph to the same velocity despite lower operating pressure. They do this without violating any laws of physics becase 280 cases hold slightly more propellant, .284 bullets are shorter and therefore have a shorter bearing area in bullets of otherwise identical design and weight than .277 bullets, and finally .284 bullets have a greater cross sectional area for the propellant gasses to work againist. So why does it work out to be about a 100 fps advantage and not 25fps or 250fps ? Because it just does and it has been doing it since Fred and Jack took the first relatively modern chonographs available outside of an ammunition plant and proved it. I have attempted to answer your question but it brings up another one. We have shown that handloaded to full potential the 280 is a little more gun but what then are the advantages of the 270 in this comparison? Well it generates a little less recoil when both are loaded to the max. Factory ammo and factory rifles are everywhere and I've never had a properly placed 270 bullet bounce off. The 270 is the best choice for the average guy who is looking for a gun that doesn't kick,can take lots of game animals under lots of conditions and who doesn't handload. The 280 is a cartridge for the serious rifle and handloading enthusiast who wants a cartridge that is just as good as a 270 and is maybe a little better in some circumstances. To quote another South Alabama fellow that seemed a little off, " That's all I have to say about that"

Southtexas, My point was that he likes to build rifles in .284 not .277 because his experience indicates it is more productive to do so.

ah...I misunderstood your sentence....sorry.

At least they won't feel left out of my gun safe,got them too. There are differences between them, whether or not they are significant is in the eye of the beholder. Some like the 7x57 are mighty pleasant to shoot. Some like the 308 do well out of short carbine barrels.But put a good bullet from any of them in the right place and it's mighty hard to tell the difference.

RuralDoc,


I can see where you are coming from, though still do not agree with you conclusions. I have not been able to readily reach 3100-3150 fps with 140s in any .280 I've had with 22-24" barrels. I have personally had a hard time getting 3000 fps with 140s in a 22" barrel, which has always surprised me as I have had no issues with .270s (w/140s) in the same barrel length. It does not surprise me that somebody else gets more velocity or finds it easier to get more velocity with a certain .280. In some rifles I have gotten higher velocity than other rifles everything else equal. I have even tried Jim Carmichael's pet load of 4350 that he used in Fred's rifle and it gave me typically around 2950-2980 fps in a 22" barrel (actually 2 separate .280s...it does shoot great though). I don't know if Fred used the same charge or not. Hornady lists the same load as 3000 fps w/ 24" barrel in their manual not 3150 with 22". I now have Mule Deer's old Gentry .280 that he reported 3100 fps with 139 Hornady/60 H-4831, but the same load ran about 2980 fps over my chrony. I have not tried too many loads with this rifle, but maybe it will be the .280 that gets me the velocity some other .280 users report.

I agree it is a matter of fact that you get same velocity at lower pressure with a .280 given the same bullet weight. Makes sense as it is larger bore. The question is how much velocity do you gain by loading to the same pressure with a larger bore. You believe it to be 100 fps .270vs.280. I still don't see why one can expect a .280 to get 100 fps with a bore 2.5% larger and not expect 4x that with a .30-06 that is 10% larger or 3x100 fps over a .280. I also agree that the .270 has a higher allowable standard pressure than the .280. I have talked to guys at Winchester via email about why some loads appeared slower than what they should be and they replied the velocity they loaded to represented the best accuracy, not necessarily the best velocity. Not sure if this is common, but point being, factory loads may not be loaded to the industry limit of the cartridge.

As for what Carmichael says about the .270, I would take it as a grain of salt. Why Jack would tell Carmichael & nobody else is a mystery. Funny how O'Connor reportedly said something similar to the other "7mm" gun writer Jon Sundra. Maybe they were trying to sell some articles? Incidentally, Jack also wrote he could see no difference in killing power between the 7mag he was using, the 7x57 his wife was using, or the .280 Fred was using (and often included the .270 & .30-06 in similar statements). Since we are talking about O'Connor .280 vs .270 velocity, Jack also wrote that he could not drive 140 gr bullets in the .280 to the same velocity he could drive 130s in the .270 in "The Hunting Rifle". That being said, Jack apparently did like the .280 as he had several custom rifles built on it. I expect he did not hunt with a .280 much because he could not get a rifle built that he liked as much as his .270 or 7x57 pet rifles. I think his final project was a Ruger 77 stocked by Biesen in .280.

-Lou

With 139gr Hornady SPs, I get 2900fps on the dot with 53.5gr of H-4350. With 139gr SSTs and 57gr of IMR-4831 I get 2995fps. This is out of a factory Ruger 22" barrel. I figure I'll never notice any difference between these loads and equivalent 130-140gr 270 WCF loads. I love what my 280 does, but I won't try to sell you that it's better than a 270. Hell I might miss with my 280 what you'd hit with your 270 so there's that.

Y'all, I'm gonna have to confirm the doc...139a/140s have been running out of my .280s at 3100+ for many a year now! 3150 is the norm. Accuracy is good and brass life is normal. Those of you that say you can get 3150 from a 130 .270 but can't get 3000 from a 140 in a .280 are not paying attention. If you don't think a .280 can AT LEAST equal a .270 with the same bullet weight then you'll have to provide me a scientific data as to why. And really see if you can tell me why it shouldn't better it across the board and make sense when you tell me.

To beat a dead horse effectively, I just measured water case capacity to the base of neck of once fired brass in 4 different rifles (2 .270, 2 .280):

.280 WW brass from custom Gentry 700- 65.7 gr
.280 Rem brass from 700 Mt Rifle - 64.5 gr
.270 WW brass from pre-64 .270 - 65.5 gr
.270 Rem brass from 700 Ti - 63.8 gr

I have no idea what this translates to in terms of powder capacity (i.e. 1:1, 2:1, etc..). In any case, it makes sense as I have always gotten just a tad more velocity in Remington brass than WW brass in the .270/.280 given the same powder charge.

-Lou

.280 - Just to be clear, I am not saying that the .280 can't get the same or even slightly better velocity all else equal, just that in my experience the variences from gun to gun has a much bigger impact on velocity than the small delta in bore diamter between .270 & .280. I believe this is why some experienced reloaders think the .280 is faster while some others think it can even be slower. For example, I have never seen anybody say you can expect higher velocity in the .270 than the .30-06 given the same bullet weight. I suspect the bigger jump in bore diameter and actual velocity gain is enough to consistently compensate for whatever the relationship between cartridge, chamber, & barrel that individual guns have on velocity.

-Lou

Ray: Thanks for being the voice of reason....

Lou:Good post. What it means is they are the SAME; capacities are so similar,and so is bullet weight and diameter. Therefore, their ballistics are similar and so is their field performance. I think they are BOTH fabulous but the 280 came too late, and then got pummeled by the 7 Rem Mag. So it lost the popularity contest. Either one is still hard to beat as general purpose cartridges.

Some guys will talk themselves into anything. The only thing more silly than thinking that there really ARE material differences in killing power between the various standard-case 7mms and the 270 Win. is the pilgrim that takes such talk seriously.

One of my early hunting mentors lived on a farm near ours, and he used the same pre-64 Model 70 Featherweight 270 Win. for all of his mule deer, elk, moose, bear, and pronghorn hunting from the day he bought that rifle new (wholesale, no less!) in 1956 until his hunting career was over, just a few years ago. The last time I saw that battered old rifle, there was scarcely any bluing left on the metal, and almost no original finish remaining on the stock. His son owns it now, and man, I'd surely love to buy that old rifle from him if I could!

That man took over fifty mule deer with it, and over thirty bull elk, including a great many fine trophy specimens of each. This doesn't count other game. He never had any trouble getting that rifle to kill well for him, and for these reasons:

1) He didn't have any patience for some theoretical pilgrim whispering in his ear that the 280 Rem. or some similar cartridge was a better killer, and that somehow his 270 just wasn't enough gun, nor did he stay up nights worrying about it.

2) He used good bullets, and he shot with great precision, always.

3) He kept his shirt on, didn't get excited, and always pulled his end of the saw, rather than relying on just his rifle to get the job done. Keep thinking on that one, if you need to........

4) He knew how to hunt, he was in shape, he was tougher than a billy goat, and he could cut it on any mountain, in any hunting environment.

I dare say that all of those factors are much, much more important than the exact cartridge he was shooting..........

AD

I've long said, use a good bullet, be intimate with your rifle, put the bullet in the proper place, and lastly all rounds and shooters (within reason) are equal to 300 yds.

The rest of this petty arguing is about ballistic gack 201 and in may cases shows peoples experience levels and or lack there of. And or quirky prejudices.

Mark D

Excellent post Allenday. There are actually times when I consider having only ONE gun that I hunt with and becoming the best damn hunter that I can be. But guns are just like cars and anything else people love - you may only need one to do the job, but your passion for it means spending a lifetime collecting and enjoying.

Listen guys I never said the 280 was a better killer of anything. But handloaded to its full potential, it is a little more gun. It is only with proponents of the 270 that you run into so many folks who would deny somthing so elementary. I like my 35 Whelen, my buddy likes his 9.3x62. As capable as the Whelen is, the 9.3 is a little more gun. Why? Because it has a slightly larger case capacity, a slightly larger bore diameter,and as a result will push bullets of the same weight a little faster. It also has heavier bullets available from major manufacturers. Anyone with any sense will agree it is a little more gun. I've taken more game animals over the last 20 years with a 270 than most people will ever see, but it is a liitle smaller than a 280. So what! The 30-06 is a little more gun than the 280. The 340 Weatherby is a little more gun than a 8mm mag. Why any of this threatens anybody is more than I can figure. it seems that some people suffer from perpetual 270 envy.

ruraldoc
You are absolutely correct! I have run into the same negativism in one of my rifle preferences!
I have found that by using a slightly heavier sling swivel on my rifle, the rifle actually moves a little slower in recoil, causing a little more velocity to be imparted to the bullet. I had never been able to prove this until I had a chronograph calibrated to measure velocities in milimeters per month, but the difference is now obvious. I have never shot a big game animal, but when I do get the opportunity to, I am sure these heavier sling swivels are going to change that little 44/40 Ackley Improved from a rather diffident 40 yard Coues deer rifle to a 500 yard peccary popper.
Royce

You know what in various Bars throughout the world and especially in Germany they endlessly debate the finer nuances of different Beers. They do it there because a bar is the place to do so.

Here we endlessly debate the nuances of various rifle calibers. Do you know why?..............................DJ

dj,

That is so very true! Very insightful. And of course you forgot to mention that the .280Rem RULZ!

Allen: Good post; I'd like to see that old M70 myself. I like guns with character!


Rural Doc: You know how it is! People just enjoy a lively conversation now and then. That's what makes the ozone crackle in hunting camps...........

Sorry ruraldoc, but that has not been my experience, and I've been handloading the 280 & 270 for half again as long as you.

Not a single 280 I've owned has ever shot 150's faster than any of the 270's I've had according to my assessment of "equivalent" pressures.

I've used the case head expansion method VERY carefully as detailed by Bob Hagel with good success. I have a very special pin mic made up for the purpose of measuring case head expansion.

Even though some may say that pressure is too high when one gets some "X" level of case head expansion, I'm not going to discuss that here.

What I am going to say is that in the same brand of brass, loads that generate 2950 FPS in a 270 expand case heads around .0002".

Loads that achieve the same velocity in a 280 expand case heads around .0003" - .00035".

It doesn't matter whether the actual pressure is 50K or 80K, it takes more in the 280 to equal same velocities in the 270.

What pressure the factory loads are, I care not unless I measure the case heads.

The only factory 280 loads that match 270 loads are the now discontinued Federal HE loads and those are very special loadings, indeed.

The above scenario has held true for 5 guns in each caliber.

Nothing to do with killing ability, as I see no difference at all using the same bullet type.

MM

That's why I have always used 160's in my 7mm RM, at .270/150g speeds. The 7mm/160's are SOOO much better!

Doubt the elk I've killed would agree, though, as I'm sure they would all still be equally dead.

Coyote,

The 160 gr., .284" Nosler Partition is definitely one of my very favorite hunting bullets; it's sleek and long and had a high BC.

But, with it started at 3000 FPS vs a 150 gr., .277" NP, at 500 yards, the difference in energy is only 120 F/lb.....not enough to tell any difference in killing ability.

MM

MontanaMan, Simply put Case head expansion is not an accurate way to judge pressure either absolute or comparative.
Loaded to ACTUAL equivelant pressures and other factors also being equivelant the laws of physics dictate that the 280 will shoot the same weight bullets faster.
The Rub is that things aren't always "equivelant" so some 270's will shoot the same weights faster but there are other variables in play.

Again the real differences aren't enough to spit over, though I did think that the point about more Magnum level bullets being available for the 7's is an cogent observation. But hey, tiny ballistic differences are the reason for this forum!.........................DJ

I'm in no condition to argue with either of you right now....grin. But I will say that how tightly the rifle is chambered has much to do with each of your respective perspectives........2MG

DJ,

While I'll agree that case head measurement is not a true measure of absolute pressure, done consistently, it is most certainly a relative measurement, absent a more scientific pressure measuring system.

I will also agree that the 280, because of base area of the bullet "should" perform better; it is somewhat suprising that in real life it does not.

Does it really matter?.......No, the difference is small. I'm just a bit stuck on real life experiences, not shoulda's or coulda's.

Do not misunderstand: I have several 280's and love 'em all; just stating what I have found......and it's held true in too many different guns of both calibers to be a coincidence.

How many 280's and 270's have you loaded for and directly compared? Do you have any data that supports your position?

MM

I think that's what I was saying...

My load for many years (~20) was a 160g Grand Slam @ 2850fps. Hardly a rocket but danged accurate. A .270/150g would have worked just as well.

I've loaded 160gr partitions to close to 2850fps in the 270 Win as well...

That's a good load in the 270, Ken.

How are things?

MM

Bill---that was some time ago. A FAT load of R-22 in a custom '98. Things are okay. I'm bored actually. Mega-busy at work, but off 'til Tuesday. Wife and kids are in Palm Springs, California 'til Thursday. Will either hit the range tomorrow, do some reloading, and/or paint a stock. Ain't hardly looked at a gun since you were here. At the very least I'll be puttin' some backstraps in the smoker......

We gotta do a get-together and do some serious consultation.

I'll be in touch.

Good to hear from you.

MM

Yep. Likewise.....

Is this batch that has the larger kernels??

The MOST reliable method would be to know that physics dictates that a like wt bullet being pushed by the same powder at the same velocity from the same sized case will create less chamber pressure when pushed down a slightly larger bore. ALL OTHER things being equal of course. AND the chambers being cut to identical specs for each respective caliber. Its a function of physics...and you can talk about your subjective real world observations...but physics don't change. So many things make creating a true actual comparison almost impossible...but again, physics dictates that all things being equal...well you know...I already said it.

Royce, I too have considerable experience with the 44-40 ackley, it's a pity we don't hear more about this excelent wildcat. I made my first one from a 1873 winchester my grandfather had used in the Blackhills. It was a fancy engraved version originaly owned by Teddy Roosevelt and so documented. I got bored with it the way it was and rechambered it to the Ackley version, for the sake of safety, I marked the new name with a dremel tool on the gun in a few obvious places. Unfortunatly, It will no longer feed from the magazine so it's now a single shot. Then it hit me, the 44-40 improved deserves to be in a good single shot. Gramps had also left me a low wall in 44-40 that was the perfect candidate. It had been originally shipped to Buffalo Bill who had presented it to Anne Oakley. I even have a few original photographs of her with the rifle. After rechambering and marking the gun in my shop, I was not dissapointed by the improved ballistics. But the increased recoil of the little gun with the crescent buttplate is not pleasant. Then I read your post and the answer was obvious, custom sling swivels in extra heavy weight. A quick internet search turned up lots of depleted Uranium but everybody says it is the devil to machine. The only other thing readily available is weapons grade plutonium. UPS won't ship either one. Fed Ex says they will deliver but I have to pay a Haz Mat fee for Plutonium. Do you think it is worth the extra expense given the shorter half life of plutonium,as at some point it will will lose any advantage in atomic number? Maybe I'll just use a 270 with shells from Kmart for everything. My sisters' cousin used one for years, day and night and he killed lots of things. Of course he was in great condition because he was allways running from the law. He only needed one rifle and the dang govment wouldn't let him buy no more after that domestic trouble at the trailer park.

I don't know why you guys ackleyed the .44-40, when all you had to do was neck it up to the .447-40 and you could have gained way more velocity, range, and killing power.

-Lou

280 Rem.

Please rationalize how the laws of physics have been defied in 5 cases of each caliber?

I agree, as I stated previously but you obviously did not read, you are correct on how it should be, but is not that way.

5 different guns in each caliber, no coincidence.

How many of each caliber have you worked with and evaluated? I know you are getting very high velocities with at least 1 280.

The velocities you are getting, I've only seen with Federal HE stuff....I won't / can't handload any of my 280's that high. Case expansion is WAY too much. Have you pressure tested your loads by some means?

MM

Bill---what , if any, effect do you believe the rifle's chambering has on the results. Not trying to make a point here, at all. Just curious.....I've seen rifles with tighter chambers shoot the same loads at equal to or higher velocities than "sloppier" chambered rifles with longer barrels....

Not really.




Gun looneys shoot 280's. Hunters shoot 270's.



Well, we're up to what?, 13 pages now...........




I prefer the 270....With apoligies to Mark D and his most excellent term for the 270 (Improved 30-06) , I was calling the 270 an "Efficient Magnum" 25 years ago. Operates at 65k psi, pushes a high BC and Sd bullet at good velocities with a 22 inch barrel.

If one goes a tad over max SAMMI pressure with a 280, it is more or less equal to the 270....

My chrono suggests 280's tends to like bbls at 24 inches or more, one reason I stick with the 270.......

I couldn't resist, this thread was getting off-track

Casey

Ken,

You make a good point.

Chambers can & do have an effect as you describe; large chamber = lower pressure/velocity & vice-versa.

No real way to quantify though and therein lies the problem.

W/O measuring chambers on all the guns involved no way to determine if some were bigger or smaller.

Bullet bearing surface definitely has effect too, as does barrel bore diameter within a given tolerance.

I just find it striking that the pattern of higher velocity at same or lower (apparent) pressure in 5 cases of each caliber has favored the 270.

280 Rem is right - it shouldn't be that way.

But I'm equally sure the data I've collected over the years is correct too.

MM

Nice philosophy, "When all else fails(logic), start some schit...."......grin

Casey

s

I've loaded for 7 or 8 different 270 Winchesters but only 2 280's. I currently own 2 Beretta Mato's that are identical other than that 1 is a 270 Winchester and the other a 280 Remington.
Since the rifles are about as nearly identical as can be had someday it might be interesting to do some comparative tests between the two but right now I don't own any pressure testing equipment other than a Chronograph.
I've got a perfectly fine blade micrometer that I used to use for head expansion measurements but have come to not trust the technique for anything other than VERY rough estimates. Measuring case head expansion just isn't a valid way to compare the pressures between two different rifles. There are mathmaticians and professional ballistitions that can explain this to you a lot better than I can.
I'm not saying that you didn't accurately measure what you say you did, I'm saying that there are so many other factors that what you measured can't be used to make accurate pressure comparisons between your different rifles. Did you use the same lot of brass for both caliber? Easy enough to do between the two and even using different lots of brass could sway your data the other way...............................DJ

DJ,

No, the brass lots between 270 and 280 were different.

Yes, there are other factors at work. Both are great guns and I love 'em both or I wouldn't have 'em.

Guess the bottom line for me is when the same trend shows itself in several rifles, that seems more than coincidental.

I'll just leave it at that and call it a day.........to each his own thoughts.

Regards,

MM

"perpetual 270 envy."

After 14 pages, that one said it best.

My advise, since no one asked, buy the one on "sale".
You'll never know the difference. BT

2MUCHGUN: Just a thought on your comments regarding chambers.Rifles in the same caliber do not differ in their velocities as a result of chamber dimension differences. They really can't because the differences are so small. I strongly suspect it's the barrel dimensions,bore finish, design of rifling, etc, that causes resistance (more or less) to the bullets travel down the bore. All of this stuff effects pressures,and velocity, etc. To say nothing, of barrel length.

When you think about it, it's really not possible to have EVERYTHING exactly the same in each individual rifle when comparing these cartridges.You have to look at a big cross section of rifles at known pressure levels to draw a valid conclusion. Also, what pressure a person is willing to work with has a lot to do with making one cartridge look "better" than the other......

Guys, You have finally convinced me that the .007 difference is insignificant. Therefore .264 is not necessary as we already have .257 in the U.S. The fact that it has heavier bullets available just does't matter to me. The fact that it has been proven in serious competition to be more accurate and has more match grade bullets available just doesn't matter to me. The fact that Boyle's Law regarding gases,pressures and volumes indicate that all other things being equal one can push 120 grain bullets faster in a 6.5-06 than a 25-06 doesn't matter to me. It just doesn't matter because both of my rifles in 25-06 with my handloads which have never been tested for pressure do chonograph faster than my untested loads in the 6.5-06. Besides 25-06 is a gun for serious hunters. Only gun nuts like 6.5 rifles and everybody knows they aren't real men anyway. So don't confuse me with your silly ideas, I have made up my mind. Only a girly man wants a gun with anything metric associated with it.

Just for the record the effect on the life support system of game animals with 270 vs. 280 is practically identical. But I do think I have observed minor differences when using comparible bullets. I've used 150 grain Partitions in both. The .284 Partition seems to be a tougher bullet, both bullets exit but wound channels and exit wounds are bigger in 270 than 280. I've used 140 grain Hornady btsp in 270 and 139 grain Hornady btsp in 280, despite pushing them a little faster in 280 they exit more . I've recovered a lot of the 270 hornady bullets just under the hide of deer and hogs looking like classic mushrooms. The 280 hornady bullets keep punching through. I've indicated that I think the 7mm bullets may be built a little tougher to withstand magnum velocity. Probably 99% of the 270 rounds fired are in 270 winchester not one of the 270 magnum rounds. In 7mm you have plenty of smaller rounds available, but at the end of the day I'd bet 90% of 7mm rounds fired are in one of the magnums. I've observed the same tendency in other bullets as well although I have less experience on game with them. For example I've never recovered a 140 grain ballistic tip fired from a 280, they all exited too. Granted both calibers did their jobs,nothing ever walked away from a well placed shot from either one. I've indicated that I really like both rounds, I've just observed a little more velocity and a little better accuracy with my rifles and loads with the 280. Others who seem to know exactly what they are talking about report no difference or give a slight advantage to the 270. If we agree to disagree about which round holds the edge in accuracy and velocity can we reach any concensus about what happens after after the bullets hit something. As a general rule I think 280 bullets are built a little tougher, are more prone to exit,and tend to tear up a little less edible critter. I also think the 270 may be a quicker killer on smaller big game animals because it's bullets are so explosive. The only bullets that I have used in 270 that didn't follow this trend are barnes X bullets which go through everything without exception and don't seem to care what diameter they are.

ruraldoc,
You can say that again, you can say that again!

Have I pressure tested my loads? Depends...how accurate does it need to be? Your casehead expansion method leaves a lot to chance with dealing with thousanths of an inch. I don't trust it to be accurate...starting with human error, and running all the way through chamber/brass/etc differences. I have run my loads through quickload. Its only a computer program, but I suspect it has some redeaming value, and though not 100% accurate, Id suspect its at least every bit as accurate as you hand mic'ing your caseheads.

My 139/140 loads running 3100-3150 fps showed pressures in the 59K-63K pressure range. 60K is SAAMI for the .280 and 65K is SAAMI for the .270. I load mine to .270 pressures. According to Quickload I'm doing ok...my 15 years experience running these loads backs that up...and the varying modern load data showing .280 loaded to 65K back me up as well.



You say you see factory stuff moving that velocity, but you can't handload it that high? The key to your above statement is "I wont...". You wont load that high...thats fine...if you don't want to, I'm not one to tell you what to do. If you're happy, then thats great. Don't fret...lots of people are afraid of loading the .280 to its full SAFE potential. Some people regard SAAMI as the aboslute max...not to be approached...I view it as the safe pressure to load to. SAAMI says its the maximum safe AVERAGE pressure.

I get a kick out of the posts claiming there are so many more bullet choices for the 7mm as to the 270. well DUHHH! the 7mm bullet market has to cover everything from the 7-30 waters to the lazzaroni velocities. the "small" bullet selection for the 270 is likely due to the fact that for most of the life of the diameter it was always designed for 270 win velocities. so it is totally possible to shoot a "cheap and normal" bullet from a 270 win and get perfect performance. A 280 is so middle of the road for 7mm that you could likely do the same. I have yet to exhaust my bullet choices before finding a slug a 270 won't shoot well. I think now that the wsm is on the scene and the 270wby has strong roots you are going to see "better" 270 bullets..........not that they have ever been needed in a win.

280Rem.

Just so you know, I DO like to get the most out of all the guns I load for, including the 280 Rem. That means the highest load that is safe, repeatable, and gives at least 5 loadings on the brass.

In order to do that, one needs to load to a higher than ideal pressure (as determined by whatever means are available) and then back down to a safe, consistent and reliable number.

Certainly, case head measurement does not give one a pressure value of any sort.

It simple tells you how much any given load in a given gun will expand that particular brass.

What it does do, and is my logic for using it because I have no other pressure measuring equipment (and obviously, neither do you, including Quickload) is that by measuring 10 or so cases before & after firing, you can see how much the case head will expand, remembering that every time the case is fired with that load, it will expand that much again...that means a cumulative effect.

About .0015" of case head expansion will generally make the primer loose - too loose to suit me.

Factory loads, supposedly loaded to SAAMI spec, some higher, some lower, generally show zero case head expansion.

Any 280 Rem loads, with 150 grain bullets that reach 2950 that I have used, pretty much all expand case heads .0003"-.00035" and to my thinking that's just too much to use......is it safe on a one shot deal, sure. But its pressure is most likely over 65K.

With me doing the measuring & evaluations, I'll take what the case head data shows anytime over relying on Quickload for anything more that picking powders and a starting point that probably won't blow a gun up but is just as likely to be too high a pressure as too low.

As for duplicating the Federal HE loads, those are very special and I know no of one who has been able to, I guess, except for you.

I think that data from multiple guns is significant and there appears to be a lot more people on here that have the their limits with the 280 to be somewhat below what your routine numbers seem to show.

Not saying you aren't getting them, just that IME, you are significantly understating your real pressure.

Unfortunately, we'll probably never know, so I guess as long as everyone is happy with what ther are doing, all's right with the world.

MM

Rural Doc: I,ve used both, loaded for both, shot game with both.Can't see a difference in effect on game. Agree with you there.
My experience has been mostly with 130 Noslers in the 270; 140 Noslers in the 280. I HAVE noticed, as you mention, that the 140 Partition is pretty tough to recover from game. I've used the bullet in the 7/08,7/57,280, and 7 rem mag and results were always the same; pass through's from about any rational angle. A friend thinks Nosler draws the jackets of 7mm bullets to the same thickness as 308's and so the 7mm tend to be somewhat tougher. He also opines that 270 jackets are closer to 6.5 in thickness. I do not know if any of this is true or not, but I have dug a lot of 130-270 Partitions from DEAD game; not so 7mm 140's, so maybe 7mm 140's are a bit tougher. In any event, this seems to be a byproduct of bullet construction, not any real difference between the cartridges.

On the other hand, I've also used 270-130 and 7mm-140 Bitterrots, which are very tough, heavy jacket bullets, in both the 270 and 280.There is utterly no difference in depth of penetration, wound channel, TKO, "Lights-Out Factor" or anything else, between the two using the Bitterroot.

MM,

You are correct...Quickload is a predicter, not a pressure testing method, and they have different purposes per se.

To that end, I trust Quickload data as much as any such data there is. That is to say its a good reference, but it shouldn't be the sole data you rely on to work up safe loads. In fact I'd been shooting my loads for many years before I ever heard of Quickload...I was curious what it said about what I was shooting. I don't own QL so I had someone else run data for me. I have read about QL and how to use it and interpret data. I interpret data it gives the same way I interpret data from a loading manual. I look at the velocity rather than the hard number on the grains of powder and I compare the velocity to the pressure. QL shows that in a 22" bbl a 139 Hornady can be moved as fast as 3134fps and still be below 65Kpsi. Predictably, that velocity to pressure changes with different burn rates of powder. The faster powders peak out pressures at 65Kpsi at just over 3000fps. Also with different brands of 140 bullets the pressures peaked at slightly different levels of velocity, but as a rule, with slower burning powders like R-19 and 22, from a 22" bbl it predicts that right at 3100fps is doable at or below 65Kpsi.

Likewise with the 154 data that I ran. 2970fps was predicted achievable at 63.5Kpsi using R-22 and in a 22" bbl. That velocity dropped at like pressures using faster powders...but both H4350 and R-19 showed better than 2900fps at under 65Kpsi.

Now I don't rely on just such data...so now I look at manuals...modern manuals...Nosler #5 for instance. I look at the type of powder, bbl length and velocity. I also know they're not putting out loads that are averaging right on the button at 65Kpsi...the manufacturers, like in the ".270 Pressures" thread above give about a 3K cushion, though they're loading the .280 to .270 pressures. So, I see plenty of data that shows 139/140 pills running 3075-3150 fps in manuals and online data...usually in 24 or 26" bbls. This tells me QL isn't too far off its predictions as the manufacturers are actually pressure testing their loads.

My final analysis comes from my own data. I have been loading 139s and 140s at 3100-3150fps for several years. I have all of the above "book data" to go on and what its worth is up to what stock you put in it...like I said its a reference...compiled, I assume, by people that have an idea about what they're doing. Its not "the law" of "the final word" as all guns vary, lots of powder and primers and brass vary...but its a good guide in my opinion...especially since it validates my own personal findings that I have been running those velocities in a 22" and several 24" bbl'd M700s for several years and have done so with no pressure problems when employing the proper burn rates of powder.

My suspicion is, and its confirmed when I read many of the posts here...many people are reloading and using the same powders they always used...the powders generally accepted as the "all around rifle powders" IMR and H4350, H414, W760 and the like. All fine powders tried and true...but they are a little faster than the R-22s, R-19s, H4831s, etc. Then I see people asking about R-15 and the like in the .280. WAAAAY too fast to achieve max velocity with bullets over 140grs! But it will push a bullet to acceptable velocity for hunting I am quite sure. And I suspect that if I used those faster powders, Id run in to pressure problems too shooting as fast as I do. But I don't use them because data tells me to go another direction to acheive my desired results which is max safe velocity and accuracy! Brass life is fine, and I've never so much as blown a primer.

Finally, many people view SAAMI max pressure as "THE MAX". In fact we all have also read that we really dont see the classic signs of pressure until about 70Kpsi in such as the .270 and .280. 65Kpsi is the speed limit...like on the interstate. Its safe to run that...its not safe to continuously exceed it, but its safe under most conditions to run that pressure. One doesn't have to go to 65Kpsi then back off for good measure. SAAMI set these numbers as the SAFE AVERAGE MAX PRESSURE! I read that to mean that if I run a load that gets 65,300psi on shot, 64,901psi the next, 65,004psi the next, 64,874 the next ,and 64,500psi the next, and so on then I have a safe...a max load, but safe to shoot none the less. You see, like we've read...pressure signs show about 70Kpsi...THAT is the ceiling! SAAMI set it a 5K cusion for the .270 to account for many variables such as varying lots of powders, pressure spikes, temps, etc, etc. The safe cushion is built in for you.

JMO, JME, YMMV.

280: Interesting post....

280Rem.

Actually, I agree with almost everything in your last post.

You are 100% correct on the powder choices for the 280 and those are the same ones in use in all my 280's as well as 270's.

Also use Norma MRP in both those calibers and keep a small horde for hunting loads.........it's basically interchangeable with RL22 but is temp stable and finer grained so it flows better w/slightly less load volume / weight.

I don't usually use anything in either caliber anymore except for 150's as I they do everything the the slightly lighter or heavier bullets do and it keeps things simpler.

Good Shooting.

MM

Guys, last night I found my speer 8th edition 1970 era reloading manual. This one is pretty cool because it was made in the brief era when modern powders were available and modern trail lawers weren't. By this time component manufacturers had chronographs and pressure testing equipment so their loads are safe and sane unlike some things published earlier like some of P.O. Ackley's data.

The data is interesting because many of the starting loads in 270 and 280 are close to current published max loads. The starting loads in both calibers are noted to be the most one should use in autoloaders. This places the starting loads in both calibers at about 50,000cup max,which was the sammi max for 30-06 and 280 both available in Remington autoloaders in that era.
The 280 rifle is a Remington M725 with a 24 inch barrel. 280 loads were put together with remington brass.
The 270 rifle is a Winchester M70 with a 24 inch barrel. 270 loads were put together with winchester brass.


When one looks at max loads, interesting trends emerge. When we look at 130 grain bullets, max powder charges are higher in 280 in the same powders and max velocites run about 100 fps faster in 280.

When we compare 160 grain bullets in 280 to 150 grain bullets in 270 max velocities are the same.

How can this be? Because this 280 data is loaded to the same pressures as the 270 data. It shows the result when both cartridges are on the level playing field of same pressures, same length barrels,and same powders.

You are cherry picking data and it proves nothing other than you are a bit biased towards the .280. The old Speer data used to be developed using traditional pressure signs (I have the same manual). Hell, if I relied on that my current .270 would zip 150s over 3100 fps. Even the current data is developed in a pressure barrel and shot in a factory rifle. This is why the current manual shows .308 velocities beating .30-06 and 7-08 either very close or beating the .280. Why don't you come to the conclusion the .308 & 7-08 are faster than their longer cousins on the same modern Speer data?

Do you believe the 30-06 will drive bullets of the same weight as the 280 250-300 fps faster? The .30-06 is an 8% bigger bore than .284. The .280 is a 2.5% bigger bore than .270 and can get 100 fps, why can't the 30-06 get a 3x100 fps gain over the .280? I guess there's just something magic about the .280.

-Lou

Bob---I agree about the barrel dimension theory. But I must disagree about the chamber theory. Tighter chambers create higher velocities due to greater pressures.......

2much: I may be guilty here of repeating what I was told as opposed to actually trying it out, to this degree. I spent many hours (days/months!) talking to Bill Steigers about this very subject. Bill not only made the Bitterroot bullet, but also was the guy who did the Speer loading manual data for Vernon Speer that I think the boys are talking about on this thread.So, Bill was no stranger to loading "hot", loading mild, and just generally doing a LOT of experimenting, as you can imagine.Bill was always very curious about why some barrels gave more velocity than others with the same load, and he deliberately had barrels built to "oversized" groove diameters,ie 7mm's cut to .285 groove instead of the standard .284, etc.He also miked a lot of factory barrels. His "conclusion",or general rules were sorta like this:

1) Chambers are held to such tight tolerances that a "loose" chamber would not make a difference. We see this in the 280 AI,which really offers, on a good day,100fps velocity edge over a standard 280, yet has more capacity. If that's so,a max spec 280 chamber could not possibly offer enough more capacity to make a difference.

2)THE WHOLE BARREL IS THE CHAMBER.Oversized groove diameters offer less resistance to the bullets passage than a tight barrel and you can burn more powder, get mo velocity.

I WOULD have thought this was hokum EXCEPT,while I did not experiment with min/max chambers, I DID build gawd knows how many 270,7mm,30,338,and 375 barrels that were .001 to .003 oversized. Also miked some pre-64 factory barrels that were .001 to .003 oversized.One 375 barrel on a pre-64 measured .378 through the grooves.. General conclusion was, yes they were faster and would take heavier charges than some barrels that were to "spec".

Here's the wildcard: I do not know what pressures I was operating at. By the same token, I never had a real presure problem. The rifles shot well,cases lasted a long time, and they were not "touchy" at all.All this work is why I do NOT agree with those who say there is no such thing as a "fast" barrel; that it is all pressure related,ie higher velocity='s higher pressure. This is applesauce and clear evidence they have done no work measuring groove diameter, paying attention to barrel smoothness, materials,etc.

Is all this important? Not really, except to maybe increase understanding as to why some rifles show more velocity than others. There ARE reasons why, and it ain't just pressure...

2)

Very good post. I have a 7 Dakota that acheives nominal velocities with 4 to 5 LESS powder than is listed in the reloading Data, I really should get around to measuring the bore as I've always thought it was probably tighter than normal and that's why it shoots faster with less powder.

But I'm not so sure I agree with you on the last couple of paragraphs. I do agree that we need a lot more data to know for sure, but I don't see how you can say "I do not know what pressures I was operating at" and then say that pressure didn't have anything to do with velocity increases. Maybe a "fast barrel" isn't running at higher pressures but you can't make that a conclusion if you don't know what the pressures were.
I also agree that there "ARE" reasons why it's an interesting study to find out what they all are................................DJ

DJ: You're right. Without pressure testing equipment, which I did not have,I was guessing to a certain extent. But at the same time I was messing with these barrels,whether custom or foctory "oversize", I had input from friends who also shot a lot, and I also owned and shot McGowen Douglas, Remington, and Winchester factories.You work with enough of them and you REALLY see a difference.During all this I had only one "incident" where I blew a primer in a 338 and H205. Did not drop the charge enough going from a 225 Hornady to a 225 Bitterroot.Couple of examples.

Worked with a friends 300 Weatherby with 26" Krieger stainless,309 groove,9" twist.Top manual loads gave about 3000 with a 180 gr bullet and 7828. Pressures seemed mild. I added powder and watched the chronograph. I stopped when the 180 g hit 3400, not because I was getting pressure signs but because I got nervous. After 5 firings, primer pockets were still tight with the same cases and velocities were still around 3400. What could I conclude?I gave the rifle back to my friend and told him the thing was freaking me out. I've messed with 2 M70 Classic stainless factory rifles in 300 Weatherby. With the same charge of 7828, one gave a bit over 3000, the other gave over 3200, both with 180 Nosler Partitions.A McGowen 270 barrel that miked 276 through the grooves gave under 3000 with loads that gave over 3100 in other 270's. We sent it back to Harry, who lapped the thing out till it measured a hair over 277 through the grooves, and velocity with the same charges jumped to over 3100 and pressure signs were gone.I also remember reading an article by Terry Wieland where he talked about a 257 Weatherby built by Kenny Jarret that blew primers with factory ammo. That could have been short throating but I think Wieland alluded to a very tight bore.I worked with a pair of 7 Rem mags a couple years ago, one a Douglas and the other a Krieger, that showed a bit over 200 fps difference with the exact same ammo and 160 Partitions. And yes I repeated the chronograph sessions on different days to be sure about the differences.

I know what I was doing at the time had big holes in it because I could not measure pressure, but after awhile, and lots of chronographing, I saw a definite trend that oversize barrels were less touchy at top end, tended to take heavier powder charges, etc. and were capable of higher velocities.Back when the 25/06 was a wildcat, Al Biesen used to have the barrels cut to .258 groove diameter;indiated they were less touchy and showed fewer high prssure signs than standard barrels. You can see the article in a very early issue of handloader or rifle.

Another "myth" I saw trashed was the one about faster twist barrels giving less velocity. Just never happened IME.

I agree you cannot make a conclusion about "fast" and "slow" barrels without pressure equipment, but honestly, that's true about most of us who handload. We load, shoot, chronograph, and watch for traditional pressure signs and over the years come to recognize what is safe and what is not through thousands of rounds. When you see the same load doing 200 fps faster in one barrel vs. another, cases last a long time, powder lots change but results are the same, etc, you gotta know SOMETHING interesting is going on!

I'm gonna have to stop using my Speer #3 to develop loads with....

Casey

You are cherry picking data and it proves nothing other than you are a bit biased towards the .280..

-Lou [/quote]

Lou, I think you missed my point, there is very little published data for the two rounds that is not biased in favor of the round with the higher sammi max spec pressure.

This is the reason why the data in the new Speer manual shows higher velocities in 7mm-08 and 308 than 280 and 30-06 respectively. The data for 280 and 30-06 are held to saami max pressures of 50000cup or 60000psi. 270, 7mm-08 and 308 are all loaded to higher pressure levels. If we load the 280 and 30-06 to the same level as the 270(54000cup or 65000psi) then we can make unbiased comparisons. At present, current data is guilty of cherry picking on an institutional level because of liability issues, not any real difference in safe max pressures in modern rifles in these rounds.

We have not really been discussing the 30-06 vs. 280 vs. 270 with regard to velocity but you have raised the issue. In point of fact if we load all three rounds to max pressure in 24 inch barrels with a common weight bullet then the results we observe go something like this:
270 150 grain bullet 2950 fps
280 150 grain bullet 3050 fps
30-06 150 grain bullet 3150 fps

Furthermore if we select 3150fps as a target velocity then we find this can be reached as follows:
270 130 grain bullet 3150 fps
280 140 grain bullet 3150 fps
30-06 150 grain bullet 3150 fps

The data to achieve this level of performance is easier to find in 270 because of saami issues discussed earlier, but data to load 280 and 30-06 to this same safe level of performance exists.

So don't accuse me of bias or cherry picking, I am only relating the experiences of people like me who understand the concept of loading all three cartridges to their maximum potential.

In short, it agrees with the principles of science which govern pressures, gases and volumes to expect these events to occur as they do. To suggest that smaller bore rifles can produce the same velocity as a larger bore rifle when all other factors are equal is to misunderstand the concept.

+1

The only limitation on the '06 getting there might be limited by case capacity...but a search to find just the right burn rate of powder would likely get you there (65Kpsi) at to 3150fps with a 150. But I have never tried it. Certainly in modern guns, the '06 should also be safe to shoot at 65Kpsi, though like the .280 SAAMI says 60Kpsi for obvious reasons.

Or, we could all re-read Mule Deer's 2006 article about the perfect velocity (aka 2,700 fps) and then just go huntin'. Sensible thinking makes all this moot.

scott

JB's work aside, I'm not shooting any .280Rem at 2700fps...not gonna do it, no way in hell! I also don't think there's anything particularly sensible about half-steppin' it with any rifle cartridge. 2700 is a right fine velocity in a .284 caliber round...such as the 7-08 or 7x57...but not a .280Rem.

Couldn't have said it better, myself. If I wanted a 7x57, I'd have one instead of a 270 or 280.

MM

Fair enough, gents...as long as you've read the article (HANDLOADER, December 2006).

Beware, though: It actually makes sense. Dialed in 2 inches high at 100 yards, it still shoots flat enough out to 400 yards (2 feet low), and inside 100 yards it won't unnecessarily grind up a lot of meat. For my personal purposes, that sounds about perfect. Granted, I'm just meat hunting, and the longest shot on our place is a bit under 200 yards. Personally, once I levelled with myself about the actual ranges at which I usually hunt, I somehow got off the velocity train. I used to have a sleeper car all to myself on that train.

scott

MM,

I say that sittin' here with a big time jones happenin' for a 7x57...still when I fill that void in my life...the 7x57 will be put through the paces and will live up to full MODERN potential!

WOW... I just sat here for 20 min. and read this entire thread, and there is some great info in it. The one piece of the puzzle that I see missing (and the reason I went .280AI vs. 270AI) is the availability/variety of Match Grade and VLD style bullets in the 7mm. There are a bunch of bullets in 7mm that have BCs in the .600 range... not too many .277 bullets even break .500. Load up that .280 with a 168 VLD in the 2800 range... and it becomes a very potent killer out past 300 yds. That might not matter to an Eastern Whitetail hunter... but the decreased wind drift and retained velocity advantage the .280 packs makes me a little more comfortable when the wind is howling out here in the West. I decided I was going to shoot one gun, at everything... and the .280 is my choice (all be it in the AI version). I think either one has proved its worth in the game fields of the world. ~JT

[/quote]

270 150 grain bullet 2950 fps
280 150 grain bullet 3050 fps
30-06 150 grain bullet 3150 fps

In short, it agrees with the principles of science which govern pressures, gases and volumes to expect these events to occur as they do. To suggest that smaller bore rifles can produce the same velocity as a larger bore rifle when all other factors are equal is to misunderstand the concept. [/quote]

I understand your point exactly, I am just saying you are exaggerating what the effect of the larger bore of the .280 has over the .270 by 2x%. That was the whole point of what I was saying not that one should not expect some velocity gain. Maybe you are not getting my point about .30-06 vs. .280 vs. .270. If a .30-06 could get 200 fps greater velocity given the same bullet weight (which I also do not agree with..I think it's more like 150 fps), the .280 would not be halfway between. Whatever velocity gain you would get, the .280 would be less than half and probably a quarter of what you could get from necking the case up to .308 vs .284.

Mule deer wrote an article a while back on how case capacity, bore diameter, etc... affect velocity (HL 241). The bore diameter rule was potential velocity increases at
one-fourth (1⁄4) the difference in the area of the bullet�s diameter. .277 vs .284 this would be a 1.28% velocity increase. How do your numbers look now following this rule:

270 150 grain bullet 2950 fps
280 150 grain bullet 2988 fps
30-06 150 grain bullet 3124 fps

If you want to translate that to 140 grain bullets:

270 140 grain bullet 3050 fps
280 140 grain bullet 3089 fps

These numbers look more in line with what I would expect and you can see the larger bore of the .30-06 having a more substantial affect on velocity because the area for gas to push on is larger.

The funny thing is if you look at .280 & .270 factory load data, 150 gr bullets is typically loaded 2850 vs 2890 and and 140s are 2960 vs 3000. Based on the above rule, it looks like they are loaded to similar pressure and I think this makes sense as .280 loads were jumped up at some point, and .270 loads were reduced in the last 20 years. One of Mule Deer's other rules was that muzzle velocity increases (or decreases) at one-half (1⁄2) the difference in bullet weight. If I look at the original .270 factory load that was loaded to 3160 fps and max pressure (there is plenty of historical to show original .270 velocities were hot) and apply the 2 rules combined (1/4 rule for bullet diameter, 1/2 ruld for bullet weight), I come up with:

.270 130 gr bullet 3160 fps
.280 140 gr bullet 3082 fps

-Lou

There's a perfect solution to the issue of how fast a 280 should reasonably go within acceptable pressure limits. It's called the 7mm Rem Mag........

+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.

This whole discussion is insane, BUT it's lasted for how many pages? JB's "only rational argument" was within the context of trying to find any REAL difference between the two cartridges. Ammo availability is a REAL difference. Whether YOU would loose your ammo or not isn't the point.

Stupid people annoy me.....

NO, what's insane is some damned hight and mighty GW coming in here and pouring water on a perfectly good fire, by using logic to difuse an damn good argument fueled by gun loonies debating the finite differences in 2 cartridges whoes only real difference is the .007" difference in bore diameter! Damn JB....DAMN him!

Thanks, John! I feel better now.........

Case Closed.

+1

We are not really having this discussion, are we? Please tell me no.

Expat

I think it's time to move on to ".243 Win vs. 6mm Rem."

Reloder 28,

I believe he brought 3 boxes of .280 ammo. Some was used up when a scope went crooked (I believe one of his daughters fell on it), some was used up chooting at coyotes, and some was used up when his wife shot quite a few at a distant "wounded pronghorn" that turned out to be a white rock.

The word you really needed was "sown," not sewn. Sewn means needle and thread. Illiterate people offend me, especially those who have apparently never made a mistake in their life, or experienced enough of it to realize s--t happens.

JB

280 has th e velocity advantage, 270 has the b.c. advantage. neither by much.

I shoot 270's cause they work, can be found everywhere, and I suppose it is the only link between me and normalcy.....if that is a word.

I have only seen a guy forget his ammo one time on a bear hunt. It was a .300 RUM and none was to be found anywhere. Funny thing is the guy had cases, dies, powder, primers, and bullets in a box in the back of his truck and the outfitter had a press. He was reloading some extra ammo "just in case" over at a buddies house before the trip and never took the stuff out before leaving.

I have seen several instances of what MD described. Guys bring a box or 2 of ammo and it gets shot up somehow. Usually a sighting problem of some sort.

-Lou

The 7mm bullets have a significant advantage in the BC department... it's the velocity advantage that's really moot. ~JT

How so? For a bullet of the same weight the .270 in all, but a couple of cases will have a higher BC. If it doesn't, it's the bullet designer who made the decision not anything inherent to .277 vs. .284. Let's look at Federal factory loads... .270 140 Nos Accubond vs. .280 140 Nos Accubond vs. .280 160 Accubond. The Accubond has some of the highest BC of any hunting bullet and the heavier than you can easily get in .270 160 weight is represented. I don't see a significant advantage, at least to 500 yards.

Velocity 500 yards:
.270 140 - 2075 fps
.280 140 - 2096 fps
.280 160 - 2003 fps

Trajectory (500yds w/200 yard sighting)
.270 140 - -39.3
.280 140 - -38.2
.280 160 - -43.1

Wind Drift (500 yds)
.270 140 - 17.4
.280 140 - 17.4
.280 160 - 17.2

How about the 162 A-Max at around .630... or the 168 Berger VLD at around .650? I know the difference is negligable when using the Accu-Bond... but it's the option of the high BC bullets that make the .280 a bit more versitile. Apples to Apples they're the same gun, but it's the availability of 7mm Oranges that make this argument a bit more colorful. ~JT

I'll stay out of this entirely, but of course - THE .270 RULES!

NO! The .280 Rules!

You are comparing match bullets to hunting bullets. If you want to say the .280 is a better long range match gun because of super high BC bullets, then I would agree. My understanding is Berger is working on this problem.

In any case, I would personally rather hunt elk with a 140 partition out of a .280 than a 160+ VLD, A-Max, Matchking, etc... For that matter, if I was going after a 1 load for long range deer I would rather it be an Accubond than any match bullet. Match bullets may kill deer very well, but the design parameters are targets not game. Other guys may have a different opinion based on long success with match bullets on game. I am fine with that, but to me it's not a good comparison for hunting rounds. Anyhow, I just ran the numbers for a 162 A-MAX at 2850 & 150 SST at 2900 and here is what I came up with (200 yard zero, 500 yards):

.280 2170 fps, -39.2" drop, 13.6" wind drift
.270 2087 fps, -39.9" drop, 16.4" wind drift

At 300 yards, the advantage is less than an inch in drift .2 in trajectory. I'm not saying the .280 doesn't have any paper advantages. I'm trying to quantify the "advantages" with unbiased data vs. blanket statements. When I do so, the advantages are very minor which is why the majority say the .270 & .280 do the same thing in the field.

-Lou

I had the choice when I was building a 1903 into a hunting rifle. I just couldn't see building a 1903 into a .280 instead of a .270, though. Nostalgia just wouldn't let me do it. This may be true loonyism, but that's o.k. I never denied being a loony.

Fast Ed

Okay
This thread has convinced me- I am going to build a wildcat in .2805 caliber, exactly between the 270 and the 280, hopefully so I can have a cartridege with the killing power of the 280 but with the lesser recoil of the 270-
Should I neck the 270 case up to .2805 or should I neck a 280 case DOWN to .2805?
Necking the 280 case down would give me more case capacity, but certainly shorter barrel life.

I will be using sling swivels made of depleted uranium, and since I will be making my own bullets, probably between 135.678 grains, and 135.765 grains.
The main use of the rifle will be on Sitka deer at ranges up to 30 yards.
I am selling a 29 BS to raise money for this project if anyone is interested.
Royce

If you reload go .280Rem. If not most DEFINITELY go .270Win. many many more factory loads...............547.

I think I've heard that somewhere before!

Lou,
I selected my sources because they are reloading manuals that others could reference. This seemed to be a more reasonable approach than finding a bunch of data from numerous websites and averaging it all. My point is that the 280 with optimal handloads is about 100fps faster than the 270 with optimal handloads in any given bullet weight. When you find a lot of basically random data and average it you obtain an idea how the cartridges perform with average loads.....Not the optimal loads that I was discussing.

It seems that any data I present that runs counter to your preconcieved notions,you dismiss as biased, untested, or insignificant.

When people point out that the 280 is capable of a little more velocity with bullets of tougher constuction or more accuracy with game worthy match bullets or less wind deflection and drop with its better B.C. in its best long range bullets, you say No, It's not fair to compare them that way.

I have a friend who is a Calvanist, he thinks God made some folks just to damn them. I have attemted to show him that a loving God wants all men to come to Him. No luck, he ain't listening. Doesn't matter how good my argument is, I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't in his mind already.

I wonder if hardcore 270 fans are really just Presbyterians looking for something else to fuss about.

JB, I see your point, ammo availability is everything. Just wondering , Do country stores in your part of Montana stock 9.3X72R ? Eileen wouldn't have one if they didn't,right?

RuralDoc,

I showed data from 2 other 7mms on the same cases as 270 rounds loaded to the same pressure. In the case of 1, the best case velocity from any source and the average of all sources was the same. In the other case, the best case velocity from any source showed a ~30 fps advatage to the 7mm, while the average best case of all sources said it was something like 45fps. I'm not sure how much more optimal you can get than comparing the best case velocity of any source, unless you happen to have only one source that shows a larger than normal best case velocity and it happens to be the way you want it to look. If I only pick the best case velocity from 1 source what does that tell me? If you have reloaded and ran more than 1 gun over a chrony in your life, you should know that a sample of one is worthless to draw any reasonable conclusions about a round. Also, you seem to be the one with the preconceived notion that a .280 should be a certain fps faster than the .270. I asked you a bunch of times where you came up with the 100 fps number and the best I can tell it's from over your chronograph, but now I'm guessing you just want it to be 100 fps. I find it touching a scientist can be so emotional about something and ignore lab pressure tested data.

As far as sources, we are on the internet. Everybody can go to the online sources I mentioned and use them for free. It's very easy unless maybe you are using dialup. In any case, it's a lot easier than driving down to the nearest gun emporium and shelling out $35 for your single source.

I did not say the it was not fair to say a .280 with high BC match bullets shot flatter or had less wind drift or anything of the sort. I actually ran the numbers if you would take the time to read my post. It was very clear there was a slight advantage. I'm not sure how somebody could miss something so obvious. I do stand by the statement if you want to compare the 2 rounds as hunting cartridges, compare hunting bullets. If you want to compare them as match cartridges, compare match bullets. Is that too hard to understand or is it that your argument is better when you take things out of context?

I'm not sure that 7mm bullets are more stoutly constructed than .270 bullets. I have not noticed it over the years. I have shot a bunch of game with Ballistic Tips, Hornady Sp, and Nosler Partitions in both, and have not noticed any difference (like everybody else, except apparently you).

-Lou

Lou,

You asked me to produce objective data that agreed with my opinion that the 280 was about 100 fps faster than the 270 with bullets of the same weight. I provided three sources. Speer manual 8th edition. Nosler manual 4th edition. Nosler manual 5th edition.

I tried to have fun with you but must have crossed the line. I was just trying to make things interesting with a bright guy with a different opinion. Your last post indicates things have turned nasty.

My apologies for offending you, I guess engineers really are sensitive guys after all.

If we are comparing say, 150gr 270 bulet to a 150gr 7mm bullet than yes, the 280 will run faster than a 270.

But if we comapare similar Sd and BC, as with a 150gr 270 bullet to a 160gr 7mm bullet, then I say no, the 270 will generally produce more velocity.

I've chrono'ed a slew of 270's and 280's, and my observation is when I compare them 22 inch barrels tend to favor 270's, 24+ inch barrels tend to favor 280's.

Having said that, I've got a 25 inch Douglas Premium Barrel that thinks it's a 270 Wthby........... But it just seems to be an exceptionally fast barrel.

Casey

I was not offended, so no need for apologies. Engineers, in general, are not sensitive. However, they can be blunt when defending their data. I admit my last post was meant to have a bit of sarcasm. Sorry if it came across as nasty as it was not my intent.

Doesn't the Nos 4 & 5th have the same .280 data/.270 data? I could be wrong as I gave the 4th away along time ago and a buddy has borrowed the 5th and never returned it. The new one is due out in July, so I'm not too worried about it. Speer #8 is based on traditional pressure signs, which have been proven over and over to not be reliable.

This has been a fun discussion, but a bit played out (well, maybe more than a bit). Funny how we can make such a big deal out of 50 fps.

-Lou

Alpinecreek,

I killed my first bull elk in about 1994 on the western slope of Colorado .On the Veitch ranch north of Durango,outfitted by a fellow named Casey. The bull was a nice 4point taken with of all things a 270 with an X bullet. The place was beautiful,right in the shadow of Lone Cone.

I was wondering if you were that Casey.

Britt

No, it wasn't me I have heard of the outfit and ranch though. Lone Cone isn't too far from my home.

Casey

Not to start up any acrimonious exchanges (honestly) but regarding the original question - it seems a bit of a 'no brainer' if one is looking for some a bit 'different' the .280 is clearly the choice.

Regarding any 'theoretical' differences, well I don't see how .007" bullet diameter can possibly make much of a difference in anything. However, if being slightly 'bigger' makes the .280 clearly 'better' in any absolute sense, then clearly necking down is a bad idea, so the .25-06 must just be worthless. Further, it must have been a bad idea to neck down the .30-06 at all, so both the .270 and .280 are worthless. Finally, it must clearly be advantageous to neck up the .30-06, making the .35 Whelan the ultimate logic development of the .30-06 cartridge case, for all purposes. Since none of that is true, and necking up or down has it's own trade offs and compromises, then the .270 Win must be ever so slightly better than the .280 Rem in some regards and the .280 Rem must be ever so slightly better than the .270 Win in other regards.

That being said, in practice they each also have distinct differences. The .270 Win is clearly more popular overall, which has advantages in terms of availability of various rifles chambered in it as well as factory ammunition. For reloaders, there is a wide variety of 7mm bullets available, of various designs. For those that like to 'tinker', the .280 Rem has great appeal as a cartridge that didn't quite live up to its great potential. For those that just want to find a rifle of their choice chambered in a round of that class, preferably at a good price, and likewise easily find factory ammo for it, similarly at a good price, then the .270 Win is the way to go.