.270 vs .280

[257Roberts]

270 Winchester vs. 280 Remington.
The debate continues.
I like the 270 because of our restrictions here in Southern Ontario.
Other than than I really see no differance. If we could only interview our kills.
The the truth would be known, or would it?

 

[BIGREDD]

I thought for my 7000th post I would kick this perrenial favorite back to the top. Probably a lot of newbies don't even realize that there are some misinformed hunters that actually use .280 cal rifles on game.

 

[senior]

I thought for my 7000th post I would kick this perrenial favorite back to the top. Probably a lot of newbies don't even realize that there are some misinformed hunters that actually use .280 cal rifles on game.

T R O L L I N G ??

I see just as you were mistaken in your estimation on which caliber is better
You also got your post number WRONG !! that's #7001




Give up you can't argue truth

 

[BIGREDD]

You do realize that the post count goes up on every post you ever made don't you... see now it is 7002... The inability to count is common among .280owners as well.
Seriously Senior... I think it is time for you to give up that .280... spring is coming and it would make a great tomato stake for your garden. It'll give you a great excuse to go out and buy that .270 you secretly desire.

 

[senior]

Well maybe your right REDD

Seeing as I'm not going moose hunting this fall I have no need for a BIG GAME GUN!!
I could probably make do with a varmint caliber like the 270
You know...I could shoot mice, squirrels maybe even a coon or porky if I got close enough of course !!! And used premium bullets

 

[DarrylDB]

Not again you two...

 

[John Y Cannuck]

When are you two going to fess up and buy a 30-30?

 

[Ltbull01]

.280 - hands down! Better bullet selection means you can use it for more game. 160 or 175 grain bullets with great BC and decent muzzle velocities. 270 is just a bit too light for bigger critters like bear, elk and moose - in British Columbia anyway.

 

[LeePeterson]

Can a 280 be used for hunting in southern Ontario? If not the 270 will own it.

 

[DarrylDB]

.280 - hands down! Better bullet selection means you can use it for more game. 160 or 175 grain bullets with great BC and decent muzzle velocities. 270 is just a bit too light for bigger critters like bear, elk and moose - in British Columbia anyway.

Really, hands down you say?
because 7 thousanths of an Inch is going to make the world of difference on big game. so is the difference between a 150 gr bullet, and a 160 gr bullet travelling at nearly identical velocities. If you want something heavier, buy a 30-06. Too light for bear elk and moose is the 270?

I think the Doctor needs to reduce your meds.

 

[DarrylDB]

Can a 280 be used for hunting in southern Ontario? If not the 270 will own it.

Yes Lee the 280 can be used for big game in all of the rifle WMU's, but in some areas, its too big to fit under the 275 restriction for small game/varmints (which the 270 does).
I've got a 270 in the stable, and really, I have no use for a 7mm. When its above the Dual purpose southern ont limit, go big, or stay home
Why have a 7mm when I can have a 30 cal?

 

[NAA]

I've got a .270 so I don't need a .280... anyway got the 7mm's covered with a couple of 7mm-08's and a 7x57mm...

 

[Ardent]

Really, hands down you say?
because 7 thousanths of an Inch is going to make the world of difference on big game. so is the difference between a 150 gr bullet, and a 160 gr bullet travelling at nearly identical velocities. If you want something heavier, buy a 30-06. Too light for bear elk and moose is the 270?

I think the Doctor needs to reduce your meds.

OK, I'll say it too, louder; HANDS DOWN

For those of us who appreciate ballistics, there is no .257" bore, there is 6mm and 6.5mm, and as such, there is no .277" bore, there is 7mm! The continued interest in the .277" bore perplexes me...

 

[Ardent]

Why have a 7mm when I can have a 30 cal?

This one's easy too; ballistics

Then again I punch much more paper past 600 yards than fur, so I have a bias.

 

[BIGREDD]

I just want to point out that there have been almost 250 respondents to this poll and the .270 is winning by 7%.
What is the relevance of this you might ask?
Only that Senior will use Gibsons instead of milk on his CornFlakes again this morning.

 

[senior]

I just want to point out that there have been almost 250 respondents to this poll and the .270 is winning by 7%.

Well considering how long the 280 has been in production compared to the 270 is plain to see how strong the following is there is a reason

What is the relevance of this you might ask?
Only that Senior will use Gibsons instead of milk on his CornFlakes again this morning.

AND YOUR POINT HERE IS ?!?!??

 

[DarrylDB]

OK, I'll say it too, louder; HANDS DOWN

For those of us who appreciate ballistics, there is no .257" bore, there is 6mm and 6.5mm, and as such, there is no .277" bore, there is 7mm! The continued interest in the .277" bore perplexes me...

This one's easy too; ballistics

Then again I punch much more paper past 600 yards than fur, so I have a bias.

Tell Bonecollectors wife there is no 257 bore. If I recall correctly, she does/did quite well @ 1000 yards with a 117 BTSP in the hunter class.
Something of a womens record in BC for a while?

And for the 99% of people who could care less about splitting hairs (which is EXACTLY what your doing) and shoot most of their game inside of 100 yards, (which subsequently is where atleast 90% of game is shot if guys actually carried rangefinders) a bullet with a BC of over 400 or higher is irrelevant.
Tell you what, bring your 7mm out, and I'll bring out my 270 HUNTING rifle out, and we'll shoot a few groups @ 400 yards. (Which once again, is much farther than 95% of hunters are capable of shooting) If your 7mm makes that much of a difference, I'll buy it on the spot.
My last 7mm didnt, and thats why I sold it in favour of a 270 (eventually)
Ardent, your in a different category as you said, but put your self in the shoes of most guys who hunt rather than Prescision shoot.
Ballisticly splitting hairs isnt their game.
but if you lived in Southern Ont, and wanted to varmints @ the distance you punch paper, you'd be SOL with your 7mm. (#### out of luck )
The 270 wins out here because its versitile, and capable. And BTW, who is shooting an Amax for big game anyway?
Your turn

 

[Swifty]

I've had both and couldn't tell the diff.between one and the other.More bullet weights in .280 i guess .

 

[John Y Cannuck]

I just want to point out that there have been almost 250 respondents to this poll and the .270 is winning by 7%.
What is the relevance of this you might ask?
Only that Senior will use Gibsons instead of milk on his CornFlakes again this morning.

But a third of respondents don't really give a F**K

 

[Ltbull01]

Really, hands down you say?
because 7 thousanths of an Inch is going to make the world of difference on big game. so is the difference between a 150 gr bullet, and a 160 gr bullet travelling at nearly identical velocities. If you want something heavier, buy a 30-06. Too light for bear elk and moose is the 270?

I think the Doctor needs to reduce your meds.

Abso-friggin-lutely. Remington bestowed special powers on the 280 which can only be broken by the sacrifice... Maybe my meds are a bit low.

Anyway, BC, sectional density, bullet weight selection for big critters (1800 lb moose, 700 lb elk) make the .280 a 'better' choice - not because of the .007" difference. And, if you're inclined, you can bore out the 280 Rem to an 280 Ackley for darned near 7MM mag performance! The wee 270 is good for those southern Ontario deer and plinking.