.270 vs .280

Which do you prefer?

  • Total voters
    436
Canuck525 said:
Many of you are assuming I am above safe operating pressure based solely on my velocity . Velocity is a factor BUT the most important parameters to look at are CHANGES in case demensions before and AFTER firing( particularily at the web which is VERY important), along with any visible and tactile changes( visible rings, cracks ,sticky bolt etc etc.).You can't go on just one aspect but gather all the quantitative and qualitative evidence and make an informed interpretation. Based on these criteria I am within safe limits.
I had a factory 270 which was dangerous without getting anywhere near max loads by the book as a result of a defect in manufacturing. If I had just loaded to the book I may have taken my head off. Also, I once had a 7mm mag that would reach max pressure well below what the book indicated.
How do guys load for wildcats?
If anyone depends solely on a book for safe reloading practices without knowing how to read signs then in my opinion they shouldn't be reloading.
I was taught at a very young age how to reload. My father was an avid hunter,varmiter and occassionaly shot target. He fired thousands and thousands of rounds per year.All were loaded on a single stage press. He taought me for atleast 10 years every time he reloaded until I was allowed to reload on my own. SO I actually had a lot of experiance before I even loaded my first shell unassisted. I said I have 27 years experience reloading.I was wrong.I have 29 years reloading on my own plus those 10 years apprenticing on top of that.
Also the fact that I have never had a mishap or even wittnessed one lends strong credibility to my position.
There is much more to reloading than following a book.You had better know how to work up a load and if you can't read signs of pressure you may just want to reconsider handloading.
Click to expand...


There is so much wrong here that its tough to know where to begin. Because your maximum loads have no built in safety margin, the only rounds you know to be safe are those that your rifle has survived firing. A weak piece of brass, or a slight change in case volume and you will experience a problem. Most of us, particularly with hunting rifles, would prefer to rely on a proven load that will work at anytime of the year in any weather, with brass built within normal tolerances. Using such a load under a variety of conditions gives us the confidence we need to have in our rifles from a marksmanship point of view.

With regards to the idea that your procedures are safe due to the fact that you have never had a failure reminds me of the guy who jumps from the roof of a tall building. As he passes each floor he says, "So far so good, so far so good, so far so good!" Those of us who understand the problem know that the outcome is obvious.

Another red flag here is that you admit that you have continued to use a rifle with a defect that affects its safe use. Another is that you appear to routinely exceed the loads that result in a sticky bolt, thus your procedure is reckless, without any safety margin what so ever for that one piece of weak brass. Reading the brass is a risky way of determining that your pressure is safe. What is your basis of comparison? Often alloys are changed and a piece of brass that is harder or softer than the one you use as a base line will respond differently at any given pressure.

Velocity is a safer method of determining the safety of a load for one particular rifle. If a loading manual provides a maximum load with a velocity of 2850, you will know that you are getting close to maximum pressure when you near that velocity provided your rifle's internal dimensions do not fall outside SAAMI specifications. Conversely, if you are working up a load with regular increments in powder charges, a plateau in velocity indicates the maximum load. This is true in the case of straight wall or tapered cases, large or small cartridges.

I have had occasion to work up loads when no published data has been available. Determining a safe starting load when there is no published data is not hocus-pocus, but it does fall into the domain of the advanced handloader. I believe it would be irresponsible to repeat those procedures here when there are so many new reloaders following these pages. I will say that I come at the problem from more than one directions, and I must have more than two different calculations agree before I proceed. Should someone need data that is not readily available call the Sierra tech line.
 
Anyways, I will not post further as the concept of quanitative and qualitative data and the interpretation there of does not seem to register.
 
While not an unreasonable comparison, the best range of bullet weights would make the .30/06 the hands down best choice on that particular case size. A better comparison would be what should be expected from a midweight bullet in each caliber. A 130 gr .277, a 140 gr .284 and a 165 gr .308 all have similar sectional density, ranging between from .242 to .248 within any given bullet type. The .270 will shoot the flattest at normal hunting ranges with the least amount of recoil. The .284 might buck the wind better across normal hunting ranges, and the additional mass of the .308 bullet might produce better penetration on a big game animal. Frankly I think its a wash because the differences between all 3 rounds is too small to matter. All 3 cartridges have been used on a wide range of big game with great success, all 3 cartridges are accurate when chambered in good quality rifles, and all 3 cartridges have their followers and detractors. Ammunition is more likely to be found in .270 and the .30/06 in small town hardware stores, but this is a small disadvantage for the .280 unless you forget your ammo at home.
 
Funny how people keep getting into circular debates. The fact of the matter is that one is not better than the other. You trade something for something else.

Ex:
bullet weights. .270 can go lower than .280, BUT .280 can go heavier than .270.

.270 is flatter shooting, but .280 bucks the wind better.

etc...etc...etc...

The arguments about availability though are convincing, plus the southern ontario rifle restriction.
 
drvrage said:
Funny how people keep getting into circular debates. The fact of the matter is that one is not better than the other. You trade something for something else.
Click to expand...


BigRed's intent with this thread was to make a parody of just that.

This thread was never meant to be serious though. That is why people who took it seriosly got jacked up so bad.
 
Ltbull01 said:
.280 has a better bullet choice for both factory and handload options. .280 wins out for sure.
Click to expand...
I doubt very much you'd find more factory ammo options for the 280. You might find some heavier bullets, but not as many overall.

If I was shooting factory ammo only, I'd pick the 270.
 
Claybuster said:
For those of us in Southern Ontario the .270 is the clear winner due to the caliber restrictions.

I've lots of experience with the .270 and haven't seen a reason to acquire a .280 even if I were hunting elsewhere. Besides I can buy the .270 Winchester at a Canadian Tire just about anywhere. The .280 isn't nearly as easy to find.

With 110 grain V-Max handloads for coyotes, 130 grain Ballistic Tip for deer and a 150 grain Partition or similar bullet for bigger game, the .270 does everything I need it to do.
Click to expand...
QUESTION. I have 110 G V Max and can,t find reload data for RL/RX 19 or 22 (ideally 22) powder. Can u help?. Thanks
Yogibear - Yellowknife
 
yogibear said:
QUESTION. I have 110 G V Max and can,t find reload data for RL/RX 19 or 22 (ideally 22) powder. Can u help?. Thanks
Yogibear - Yellowknife
Click to expand...


Alliant's website lists 62 grains RL-19 as max with a 100-grain bullet. You can use that as a guideline for the 110, just reduce a bit.
They don't recommend RL-22; it's more a heavy-for calibre powder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom