.270 vs .280
- Thread starter BIGREDD
- Start date
Mornin REDD 
"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 ... and the data that everyone lists are the safe pressures for the different cartridges ... should we equalize all cartridges to the same pressure regardless of how they were designed just to compare them "
Don't know why the data is like that :?: I have heard it's because the 280 was designed for the Rem auto. Which would make some sense in that it should be a weaker action but then it's also chambered in the 270 :roll:
Ken Waters wrote this after talking of the performance of the 280 " Another nice feature is that it does this at pressures of 50,000psi and under"
I just reviewed the Horn #1 manuel & it has one listing @ 2900fps for the 150gn bullet while the 280 has four with 154gn bullets :!: You will also notice that the 280 does this with 2" less barrel length :shock:
I'd say they give the edge to the 280
Another blerb from K Water compairing the 7RM, 284, 280 & 270 " If the 280 Rem isn't the best of these, it's certainly one of the best. Look at it this way, Although the ballistics tables indicates these four cartridges to be about equal in all respects, there are things that aren't shown in those well-worn charts. They don't tell you, for instance, that the 280 develops lower chamber pressures than a 270, or that it feeds more smoothly than many 284's. there is no mention in those columns of its recoil being less than that of a 180-grain 30-06, nor does it tip yu off to the fact it's 284 groove dia provides a greater expansion ratio that the 270s .277" dia. True, the sectional density of 280 bullets is slightly less than that of equal weight 270 slugs, but not by much," etc...etc.. fingers are sore :arrow: :|
All this proves that there's no reason to NOT load the 280 to the same pressure as the 270 they use the same case! You don't shoot 45-70s @ factory 1200fps out of a guide gun do you :?: well at least most don't :roll:
Now outta Horns vol#2 ballistics 270--150 @ 2900 (remember only one load did that) at 300yds 1796ft lbs.
The 280 with 4 loads into the 2900s, energy at 300yds is 1787ft lbs, & with 2" less barrell. I'd say if everything was equal the 280 would win there to
Off to work Later
"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 ... and the data that everyone lists are the safe pressures for the different cartridges ... should we equalize all cartridges to the same pressure regardless of how they were designed just to compare them "
Don't know why the data is like that :?: I have heard it's because the 280 was designed for the Rem auto. Which would make some sense in that it should be a weaker action but then it's also chambered in the 270 :roll:
Ken Waters wrote this after talking of the performance of the 280 " Another nice feature is that it does this at pressures of 50,000psi and under"
I just reviewed the Horn #1 manuel & it has one listing @ 2900fps for the 150gn bullet while the 280 has four with 154gn bullets :!: You will also notice that the 280 does this with 2" less barrel length :shock:
I'd say they give the edge to the 280
Another blerb from K Water compairing the 7RM, 284, 280 & 270 " If the 280 Rem isn't the best of these, it's certainly one of the best. Look at it this way, Although the ballistics tables indicates these four cartridges to be about equal in all respects, there are things that aren't shown in those well-worn charts. They don't tell you, for instance, that the 280 develops lower chamber pressures than a 270, or that it feeds more smoothly than many 284's. there is no mention in those columns of its recoil being less than that of a 180-grain 30-06, nor does it tip yu off to the fact it's 284 groove dia provides a greater expansion ratio that the 270s .277" dia. True, the sectional density of 280 bullets is slightly less than that of equal weight 270 slugs, but not by much," etc...etc.. fingers are sore :arrow: :|
All this proves that there's no reason to NOT load the 280 to the same pressure as the 270
they use the same case! You don't shoot 45-70s @ factory 1200fps out of a guide gun do you :?: well at least most don't :roll: Now outta Horns vol#2 ballistics 270--150 @ 2900 (remember only one load did that) at 300yds 1796ft lbs.
The 280 with 4 loads into the 2900s, energy at 300yds is 1787ft lbs, & with 2" less barrell. I'd say if everything was equal the 280 would win there to
Off to work
Later Thanks for proving my point again
Who cares what the pressure is as long as it is safe.... and who is Ken Waters :lol:
I just reviewed the Hogdon #27 data Manual and it lists five 150 grain loads for the .270 that are over 2900fps and only one for the .280... I have four other manuals that are all similar as well ... and for data lists the barrel lengths should all be 24 inches unless otherwise specified :roll:
Recoil is less.... where in the recoil charts does it say that? Expansion ratio? How is that relevant to which is better? This "Waters" guy fails to impress me senior :?
finally he says something I can agree with... thanks for proving my point again
Now you are scaring me senior... this proves nothing.... and you surely don't recommend loading over Maximum safe loads... there is every reason not to load to the same pressure from one caliber to another... Ka-Boom :shock:
Sure...Wind me up.. then leave for work :roll: :wink:
My Horn does specify the 270 with 24" & the 280 with a 22". I don't have your manuel but if it doesn't specifiy what length barrel they got those figures from I would be suspect as to actual validity :!:
From me "All this proves that there's no reason to NOT load the 280 to the same pressure as the 270 they use the same case!"
"Now you are scaring me senior... this proves nothing.... and you surely don't recommend loading over Maximum safe loads... there is every reason not to load to the same pressure from one caliber to another... Ka-Boom "
:shock: are you saying the 280 with the SAME basic case & in the same rifles should NOT be loaded to equal pressure as the 270 :?:
Sure...Wind me up.. then leave for work :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now I'm off to work Later again
But I'll be back
From me "All this proves that there's no reason to NOT load the 280 to the same pressure as the 270 they use the same case!"
"Now you are scaring me senior... this proves nothing.... and you surely don't recommend loading over Maximum safe loads... there is every reason not to load to the same pressure from one caliber to another... Ka-Boom "
:shock: are you saying the 280 with the SAME basic case & in the same rifles should NOT be loaded to equal pressure as the 270 :?:
Sure...Wind me up.. then leave for work :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now I'm off to work
Later againBut I'll be back
senior said:
Aren't most, if not all .280 rem cases nickle plated? (because the round was designed for an autoloader?) So it probably would feed slightly better than the other rounds in brass cases.
BTW I'm getting a rifle chambered for .270. Why? Because its plenty for deer, and the likelyhood of me going moose hunting is pretty slim.
the only reason the 280 runs at slightly lower pressures is because it was introduced in a Jam-O-Matic...in a bolt action they can be loaded up the same, I don't believe 280 brass is made "weaker" so that should not be a problem.
Gatehouse said:
I wrote this on page 4 or so...
Senior, you are still having trouble grasping that the .280 was designed to work at lower pressures than the .270 because you are not thinking about the correct RIFLE!!! :wink:
the 740 was never chambered in the .270, it was chambered in .244, .308, .280 and 30-06.
It was built from 1955-1959.
Elvis owned one in .280, BTW!
As stated the .280 rem was introduced in the 740 Remington auto-loader in 1958... and the jamomatic has been chambered for the .270 as well.
Interestingly enough Remington still chambers the new Model 7400's in .270 caliber but they no longer offer a .280.... :shock:
I think if you look at all the data you will find that the average Max load for a .270 runs about 1000 CUP's over that of a .280... this is not a great deal... and all things being equal many handloaders load hotter than factory-loads and sometimes hotter than listed Max-Loads
My whole point is that for the purposes of comparison you cannot limit one calibre to listed Data and then use over Max-load or speculative Data for another... :roll:
I realize that there are exceptions to every rule and all rifle data is subjective regarding different firearms and types of manufacture...the 45/70 and the 6.5X55 come to mind :idea:
But generally speaking it is not a good idea to reccomend any load over a Max load or to load at higher pressures than any cartridge was designed or advertised to operate... how anyone can argue with this logic is beyond me :? I know people and there are a few people on this site that have had catastrophic failures and destroyed firearms and suffered injuries while reloading...
Interestingly enough Remington still chambers the new Model 7400's in .270 caliber but they no longer offer a .280.... :shock:
I think if you look at all the data you will find that the average Max load for a .270 runs about 1000 CUP's over that of a .280... this is not a great deal... and all things being equal many handloaders load hotter than factory-loads and sometimes hotter than listed Max-Loads
My whole point is that for the purposes of comparison you cannot limit one calibre to listed Data and then use over Max-load or speculative Data for another... :roll:
I realize that there are exceptions to every rule and all rifle data is subjective regarding different firearms and types of manufacture...the 45/70 and the 6.5X55 come to mind :idea:
But generally speaking it is not a good idea to reccomend any load over a Max load or to load at higher pressures than any cartridge was designed or advertised to operate... how anyone can argue with this logic is beyond me :? I know people and there are a few people on this site that have had catastrophic failures and destroyed firearms and suffered injuries while reloading...
"My whole point is that for the purposes of comparison you cannot limit one calibre to listed Data and then use over Max-load or speculative Data for another... "
Agreed Certainly wouldn't do that! So you are saying the Horn reloading manual is speculative Data with over max loads :shock: I like to use it for caliber comparisons because at least they use the same brand (Horns) bullets which of course we all know can be a big factor!
"I realize that there are exceptions to every rule and all rifle data is subjective regarding different firearms and types of manufacture...the 45/70 and the 6.5X55 come to mind "
Agreed So after looking at all those manuals, why would you pick the data from the most conservative to use for specs :roll: when your using one of the stronger actions :?:
I never recommend even Max loads :arrow: I've seen manuals that have been TO HOT
"Senior, you are still having trouble grasping that the .280 was designed to work at lower pressures than the .270 because you are not thinking about the correct RIFLE!!!"
I understand that completely I just never figured there was a big differance between the 740 jamo... & the next model to come which did chamber the 270 :arrow: so is the following model that much stronger :?:
Agreed
Certainly wouldn't do that! So you are saying the Horn reloading manual is speculative Data with over max loads :shock: I like to use it for caliber comparisons because at least they use the same brand (Horns) bullets which of course we all know can be a big factor!"I realize that there are exceptions to every rule and all rifle data is subjective regarding different firearms and types of manufacture...the 45/70 and the 6.5X55 come to mind "
Agreed
So after looking at all those manuals, why would you pick the data from the most conservative to use for specs :roll: when your using one of the stronger actions :?: I never recommend even Max loads :arrow: I've seen manuals that have been TO HOT
"Senior, you are still having trouble grasping that the .280 was designed to work at lower pressures than the .270 because you are not thinking about the correct RIFLE!!!"
I understand that completely
I just never figured there was a big differance between the 740 jamo... & the next model to come which did chamber the 270 :arrow: so is the following model that much stronger :?:senior said:"
"Senior, you are still having trouble grasping that the .280 was designed to work at lower pressures than the .270 because you are not thinking about the correct RIFLE!!!"
I understand that completely
No idea...
But thge lower pressuere was Remingtons reason for introducing the .280. If they thought the 740 would handle the .270's pressure, presumably they would have used it, since it was already an established, good selling cartridge.
SuperCub said:BIGREDD said:
That's actually a pretty shrewd move by Remington........................
Cuz they don't want to chamber a lousy gun with a good caliber, so they used the .270 instead
SC..........................
OUCH!!!
SuperCub said:BIGREDD said:
That's actually a pretty shrewd move by Remington........................
Cuz they don't want to chamber a lousy gun with a good caliber, so they used the .270 instead
SC..........................
My hero :arrow: SuperCub nice one
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
