.270 vs .280
- Thread starter BIGREDD
- Start date
arrrrggggghhhhhhhhhh!
Have we not put a stake through this thing's heart yet?
Sounds like a bad movie, The Return of the Living Dead Cartridge Debate.
But that fellow writing the quoted article is obviously quite intelligent, perceptive, and an all-round class act. :wink:
Doug
Have we not put a stake through this thing's heart yet?
Sounds like a bad movie, The Return of the Living Dead Cartridge Debate.
But that fellow writing the quoted article is obviously quite intelligent, perceptive, and an all-round class act. :wink:
Doug
- Location
- north vancouver
OK, what's going on :? I'm trying to vote but nothing is happening. :?
I think perhaps someone with a 280 is screwing things up for the 270 guys :roll:
I think perhaps someone with a 280 is screwing things up for the 270 guys :roll:
- Location
- The Conservative part of Ontario
Swede :mrgreen:
Good morning John Y!
I just got another Swede in the mail this week, a drop-dead gorgeous model 38, all matching, never seen one in better condition.
Now if it ever warms up to minus twenty or so, I could maybe get to the range! :wink:
Doug
I just got another Swede in the mail this week, a drop-dead gorgeous model 38, all matching, never seen one in better condition.
Now if it ever warms up to minus twenty or so, I could maybe get to the range! :wink: Doug
I like Tony Bernardo... but he needs to do a little more research... he keeps saying the ballistics are better on the .280 but he doesn't quote any data to prove this misguided assumption... thats because the majority of the data clearly points to the .270 as the ballistic superior. :roll:
He certainly does a fair imitation of the old apples and oranges trick when he talks about sectional density... he deftly compares a 175 grain .280 bullet to a 150 grain .270 bullet and lauds the superior sectional density of the .280 ... when we all know and have proven that if you compare bullets of equal wieght in any configuration with these two calibers... the .270 has the greater sectional density and most times a higher ballistic coefficient as well :shock:
He also says and I quote...
Hey Tony I like a .280 as much as the next guy but you should really do some research before you pretend to be a gun writer :idea:
He certainly does a fair imitation of the old apples and oranges trick when he talks about sectional density... he deftly compares a 175 grain .280 bullet to a 150 grain .270 bullet and lauds the superior sectional density of the .280 ... when we all know and have proven that if you compare bullets of equal wieght in any configuration with these two calibers... the .270 has the greater sectional density and most times a higher ballistic coefficient as well :shock:
He also says and I quote...
:? What does he base this assumption on.... As much as I would like to say that a .270 is more accurate than a .280... that would be just stupid... there is no way that you can make this statement regarding either of these cartridges in comparison to each other :!:
Hey Tony I like a .280 as much as the next guy but you should really do some research before you pretend to be a gun writer :idea:
- Location
- The Conservative part of Ontario
Good morning Doug (who's still up) and BIGREDD who just woke up. It's -28C here right now.
I think the Swede is better than both the 270 and the 280.
It's just as accurate, (My old '96 will shoot MOA with issue sights) uses less powder, and for practical ranges, will do anything the other two can do. :twisted:
I think the Swede is better than both the 270 and the 280.
It's just as accurate, (My old '96 will shoot MOA with issue sights) uses less powder, and for practical ranges, will do anything the other two can do. :twisted:
"he keeps saying the ballistics are better on the .280 but he doesn't quote any data to prove this misguided assumption"
That's because the majority of the written data is loading the 280 5--7,000psi less than the 270 :roll: If you want to compare apples to apples then let's do that.
REDD you & I both know the BC diff between the 2 calibers is so small as to make it indistinguishable to any game animal hit at any distance :!:
Now give up you can't have the last word :lol: :lol:
That's because the majority of the written data is loading the 280 5--7,000psi less than the 270 :roll: If you want to compare apples to apples then let's do that.
REDD you & I both know the BC diff between the 2 calibers is so small as to make it indistinguishable to any game animal hit at any distance :!:
Now give up you can't have the last word
:lol: :lol:
- Location
- The Conservative part of Ontario
If you guys are looking for the record for the longest topic, you have a long way to go.
Here's page 68 of the famous Sierra Game King thread on AR.
http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=518103&f=2511043&m=63510355&p=68
Here's page 68 of the famous Sierra Game King thread on AR.
http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=518103&f=2511043&m=63510355&p=68
Why do you suppose all the data says that senior.... do you think it is a conspiracy to make the .270 look better on paper... or could it be that the two cartridges were designed to operate at different pressures :idea: ... and the data that everyone lists are the safe pressures for the different cartridges :idea: ... should we equalize all cartridges to the same pressure regardless of how they were designed just to compare them :? that is not an apples an oranges argument... that would be skewing the data to make an invalid point :? :wink:
270/ .277" 150 Gr. Spitzer B/C .279, S/D .465
7mm/.284" 150 Gr. Spitzer B/C .266, S/D .456
Wanna talk about energy and velocity now senior... Oh wait ... You already lost that lost that argument too :lol:
I don't care about the last word.... as long as I win the debate :wink:
- Location
- The Conservative part of Ontario
By the time you two settle it, I'll have shot them all with my 30-30 :mrgreen:
