.270 vs .280
- Thread starter BIGREDD
- Start date
I thought this was settled already. The .270 is actually .277 and the .280 is actually .284. So the .270 is only just a little inferior to the .280 
- Location
- north vancouver
PE90SHOOTER said:I thought this was settled already. The .270 is actually .277 and the .280 is actually .284. So the .270 is only just a little inferior to the .280
And then the 30-30 / 30-06 are even 'MO BEDDA' than both of them
- Location
- South Cariboo, BC
I had to vote .270 since the Stevens 200 is available for $299 at SIR in this caliber. :shock:
But don't tell anyone in the 270 vs 30-06 thread I said something nice about that caliber! :lol: :lol:
But don't tell anyone in the 270 vs 30-06 thread I said something nice about that caliber! :lol: :lol:
BIGREDD: You forgot to add...
Where it's the caliber of choice for people that actually require a gun to supply their family reliably with meat for the table
And by the way if you put ceement blocks under the trailer it's now a HOME definatly many classes above a mobile trailer :mrgreen:
And how can all these upstarts come in & vote for one of the two calibers when they plainly state they have never tried or shot a 280 :roll:
I guess we know what their opinions worth :twisted: :lol:
Where it's the caliber of choice for people that actually require a gun to supply their family reliably with meat for the table
And by the way if you put ceement blocks under the trailer it's now a HOME definatly many classes above a mobile trailer :mrgreen:
And how can all these upstarts come in & vote for one of the two calibers when they plainly state they have never tried or shot a 280 :roll:
I guess we know what their opinions worth :twisted: :lol:
- Location
- South Cariboo, BC
senior said:BIGREDD: You forgot to add...
Where it's the caliber of choice for people that actually require a gun to supply their family reliably with meat for the table
And by the way if you put ceement blocks under the trailer it's now a HOME definatly many classes above a mobile trailer :mrgreen:
And how can all these upstarts come in & vote for one of the two calibers when they plainly state they have never tried or shot a 280 :roll:
I guess we know what their opinions worth :twisted: :lol:
Clearly their opinion is worth at least TWO votes on the poll, as they are intelligent enough to see the superiority of the .270 without wasting time and money being dissappointed with the .280!
The only guy I know that uses a .280 can't read, so I know I won't get any crap from him for posting this - but in his defense he built a real roof over his mobile so he deserves respect compared to other mobile dwellers!
Hey BIGREDD, if your ma and pa get deevorsed are they still brother and sister? :lol:
Yep I did...little meat bull moose at 368 yards with my model 70 in 270 using 140 gr hornady...T'was closer than I'm used to... and a nice lil 6 point bull elk at 50 yards. Both 1 shot kills. I love my 270...y'all can keep the cannons....
and a nice lil 6 point bull elk at 50 yards. Both 1 shot kills. I love my 270...y'all can keep the cannons....
nice shootin Vader... but calling the .280 a cannonVader said:Yep I did...little meat bull moose at 368 yards with my model 70 in 270 using 140 gr hornady...T'was closer than I'm used to...
I consider the .280 a .270 Wannabee.
Although I know where there is a mint Sako 75 in .280 right now that has me thinking there is an empty spot in the rifle safe
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Way late at this party but I actual can make a choice. I recently sold my 270 Savage which shoots like a dream and dropped my big mulie buck just fine. Why sell it?
LR ballistics. That's it.
The 270 does not have the type of bullets that excite me for LR shooting. The 7mm has many many excellent choices. Shooting the 7mm 162gr Amax and SST and comparing to the very slippery 150gr SST in 270, there is no comparison.
The 7mm wins hands down (although the 150gr SST will beat just about anything now loaded in the 270). Now this is when ranges extend beyond 400yds and/or the wind picks up. The difference is significant and matters to me.
I bought the 270 because I wanted a hunting rifle in a easy to get factory ammo cartridge in case I lost my ammo during a hunt. The 280 would be a royal pain. however, the ballistics were enough and now I own a 7RM.
Maybe my post should be a 270 vs 7RM thing. Oh well, I think you get the point.
Jerry
LR ballistics. That's it.
The 270 does not have the type of bullets that excite me for LR shooting. The 7mm has many many excellent choices. Shooting the 7mm 162gr Amax and SST and comparing to the very slippery 150gr SST in 270, there is no comparison.
The 7mm wins hands down (although the 150gr SST will beat just about anything now loaded in the 270). Now this is when ranges extend beyond 400yds and/or the wind picks up. The difference is significant and matters to me.
I bought the 270 because I wanted a hunting rifle in a easy to get factory ammo cartridge in case I lost my ammo during a hunt. The 280 would be a royal pain. however, the ballistics were enough and now I own a 7RM.
Maybe my post should be a 270 vs 7RM thing. Oh well, I think you get the point.
Jerry
Not so BigRedd
Actually my second choice would be a 280. I noticed a lot were being polite by saying that bigger is better...splitting hairs as far as I can see between the two....The inference was that most would prefer a much larger charge behind an even bigger bullet to do the job...my point is accuracy above all and shoot what you are comfortable shooting. That little 270 packs a punch and does a very good job on all members of the deer family, (and the odd black bear), using the hornady 140 gr boat tails. I was a little skeptical at first shooting long range but after I killed a wounded elk for someone at just over 400 yards I gained a lot of confidence. I have no problem taking Moose or elk with this rifle at long range. Two 50 inch + and one 48 inch bull moose were dropped in the 400 yard bracket, longest was 460. I practiced many hours and rounds to become proficient with it. I use a 3 to 9 redfield with BDC and it is a lethal combination. It's the only caliber I have ever hunted with other than gramps' 30-30 back on the farm. He also owned a 270 but I was never allowed to use it. After 34 years of hunting with my 270 I would be hard pressed to change and I think i'll even get buried with it ...long as the liberals dont take it away...
Even so I would be still proud to own a 280...just to play with...a solid choice in my opinion...
Actually my second choice would be a 280. I noticed a lot were being polite by saying that bigger is better...splitting hairs as far as I can see between the two....The inference was that most would prefer a much larger charge behind an even bigger bullet to do the job...my point is accuracy above all and shoot what you are comfortable shooting. That little 270 packs a punch and does a very good job on all members of the deer family, (and the odd black bear), using the hornady 140 gr boat tails. I was a little skeptical at first shooting long range but after I killed a wounded elk for someone at just over 400 yards I gained a lot of confidence. I have no problem taking Moose or elk with this rifle at long range. Two 50 inch + and one 48 inch bull moose were dropped in the 400 yard bracket, longest was 460. I practiced many hours and rounds to become proficient with it. I use a 3 to 9 redfield with BDC and it is a lethal combination. It's the only caliber I have ever hunted with other than gramps' 30-30 back on the farm. He also owned a 270 but I was never allowed to use it. After 34 years of hunting with my 270 I would be hard pressed to change and I think i'll even get buried with it
...long as the liberals dont take it away... Even so I would be still proud to own a 280...just to play with...a solid choice in my opinion...
- Location
- The Conservative part of Ontario
Elmer was right.
