.270 vs .280....which do you prefer?

H4831 said:
It is too bad there is so much hype in the shooting world. The 280 should go down in history as one of the all time greats. Instead, the manufatureres come up with every kind of a change of shape of the case, and promote it as needed, if you are really a hunter, just to keep selling rifles.
The men who get paid, plus free guided trips for writing in magazines about all the newest styles and fads, do their utmost to convince you anything but an ultra short case is obsolete and looked down on by any knowledgeble firearm authority. And the sheep out there buy them.
As a result, the fabulous 280 is all but gone. After following this thread I looked today in Canadian Tire. They had a good supply of centre fire ammunition. All the calibres we call common, plus about six or eight magnums, including at least three different short varieties.
But no 280s.


There has been so much hype written about the, obviously good, 7mm magnum. But a lifetime of use in the field would be unable to determine whether one was using a 7mm mag, or a 280.
The 7mm size is probably the most efficient size bore for the 30-06 size case.
Click to expand...

Very well said, H4831. :)
 
Even the .280 was nothing new, the Brits in S.A. and Teddy's roughriders found out the hard way the 7x57 was a very efficient cartridge.
 
Gatehouse said:
I don't think they specify bore diameter in the bison regs. Just energy and bullet weight requirements. Kinda aBS regulation, but there you go...:p
Click to expand...

I thought it did for some reason, or I just assumed that because it mentioned 175g bullet as a minimum (175g and 7mm just clicked in my head) and I'm not aware of any .257, .264, or .277 175g bullets out there.

edit 06/29/09 9:52pm
I rechecked the LEH regs after reading Gatehouse's response and yep he's right, it doesn't say anything about bore size, just minimum bullet weight 175g and energy @ 100 meters


I guess it's a kinda BS reg on the Bison, but if it wasn't there, I could see some one out there using a 22-250 or something under sized for such a creature, and that just wouldn't be a good thing in my mind.

I don't think that factory ammo of today is lower pressured than the 270, I ran some of the factory ammo I started out with through the Chrony (federal 150's @ 2950fps+/-) and it wasn't traveling slower than recorded data of the 270. (same bullet weight)
I am guessing that the factory loads have been adjusted from the days of the 280's introduction in the Model 4 or 742 or whatever it was.

Any how I'm off to work, have a good day everyone.
 
Last edited:
SAAMI spec pressure for the .280 hasn't changed. It always was a good cartridge. Due to its slightly larger diameter, it would have been a bit speedier out the muzzle than the .270 with equivalent bullet weights, had it been loaded to higher pressure.
If you check with experienced handloaders (Jamison, Barsness, etc.) they load the .280 a bit above SAAMI specs with no reservation.
 
I chose neither, and went with the granddaddy of both, the 7x64. Funny how the Americans think they invent everything! Mr. Brenneke's invention preceded Winchester and Remington many years before, and his design did not need improving. I like classics, innovative original designs, and effectiveness. The 7x64 has it all. ( but you won't find the ammo in Wal-Mart!)
 
-JD- said:
Yes from what I've read the 280 was developed and loaded to lower pressures by remington because they were worried that their early semi rifles wouldn't stand up to higher pressures of the 270.
Click to expand...


The 280 was introduced in the 740 semi-auto and then made available in the 721 and 725 bolt actions.

The 740 was also available in high pressure cartridges like the 244 and 308 before the 280 was introduced......so it couldn't be that the 740 wouldn't handle the pressure......

Remington introduced good cartridges but they have zero marketing skill..witness the name switch from 280 to 7mm Express and then back to 280...and for a time it was even called the 7mm-06, although it's not a true 7mm-06 becasue the headspace is .050" longer.........they did the same thing with the 6mm.....introduced as the 244...then 6mm....first 12" twist...then 9" twist.....and then there are the original short fat magnums...the 6.5 and 350....the little 600/660 carbines all but killed both of those....had the 6.5 been chambered in something like the later 700 Mountain Rifle with it's slim stock and 22" barrel it may have worked......it could have been promoted as a short action 270, but no, Remington's crystal ball was on dim......the 350 was a short action Whelen....but in the little 600/660 it was chambered in was more than most guys wanted to hang on to....if it had been introduced in a short action 700 BDL with 22" barrel, which it was later chambered in, it may have had more initial success....
 
Last edited:
I hunted many years with a .270, I bagged many a moose , deer, black bear with it too. The .280 is just a bit better in all respects and I can't see why it isn't more popular.
Elvis had a .280 Remington autoloader back in '57, he knew a good cartridge when he saw one.
 
I have had a number of 270's and a couple 30-06's and 280's. Anything the 270 will do the 280 will do just a little bit better because of the better bullet B.Cs. Also the 280 has a couple grains more case capacity because the shoulder is moved slightly forward to prevent accidently chambering a round in a 270 or 30-06. For the Handloader the 280 has the clear advantage.I have since sold any 270's I have had and am selling off my remaining 30-06's because the 280 is just that good in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom