semi custom 700 Titanium in 280 for me, I got talked into a 7mag years ago instead of the 280 so scratched the itch finally. its perfect right in between the o'connor and the 06 - so ill never need either of those and wont miss 'em one bit.
280 rem popularity
- Thread starter Kelly and Beth
- Start date
^^^ The difference between the two is .007", basically the depth of the rifling. Arguing that one is superior to the other is really splitting hairs. If Winchester had been on the ball and adopted the 7x64 Brenneke, which was introduced 8 years prior to the .270, then there would be no .270 or .280 Rem. today.
My personal preference in 7mm is the original 7mm, the 7x57 Mauser.
Bigfoot 870
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Because the .270 Win was developed many years prior. Had the .280 Rem been developed first, the .270 likely wouldn't be near as popular. I'd say that it's mostly a timing issue.
Getting rid of a .270, to buy a .280, would be like getting rid a truck that has 300 HP, to buy a truck that has 310 HP. I suspect that only a few would do it.
Getting rid of a .270, to buy a .280, would be like getting rid a truck that has 300 HP, to buy a truck that has 310 HP. I suspect that only a few would do it.
Great point Bigfoot... Keep both and let time and experience decide which one sees more daylight...!
Same story with the .308 Norma Magnum,except they didn't make ammo at the same time they released the guns ..........so along comes the .300 Win Mag with factory ammo.......the rest is history.Pete + repeat....I still like my FN 98 Browning NM......Harold
I was also once an impressionable young lad and my first CF was a Win 70 .270 .4X Leupold.............Shot everything from antelope to moose with it and the 130gr bullet /57gr IMR4831...... furthest being a cow moose at 600 yards hit twice... heart and 3" higher in the lungs.....walked 30 yards and took a nap.Harold
I have a sako 75 in .280 rem and a kimber 8400 montana in .270. If I know I will be more stationary or driving alot i grab the .280 (kimber has a blind mag so not so useful as a truck gun) but if i am walking alot I grab the kimber as it is about 2 lbs lighter. Calibre dosn't really cross my mind when comparing the rifles. The difference between the two performance wise is negligible. 280 has the edge as far as cool/rare factor but I prefer the kimber's action over the sako's.
There is absolutely no reasonable reason for this, but the 270 would the LAST cartridge I would carry in the woods. I would take the 280 any day hands down! I know there is less than very little separating them, it is just a stupid thing for me. I like the variety of bullet weights and styles offered to the 7mm caliber much more than the 270.
Just me, and I know I pretty dumb at times!
Just me, and I know I pretty dumb at times!
nowarningshot
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Not sure what the performance difference is between a 270 and 280, or for that, between a 280 and 7 mag. I would imagine individual rifle accuracy and reloading would make up most of the difference. The difference would be what 100ft/sec between them.
It simply was not popular because it was trying to replace a very popular, existing caliber in the 270. Metric designations had a negative connotation years ago, as the 7x57 and 8x57 had been shot at American GI's. So about when this was introduced as the 7mm express, the now deceased old guys would not have embraced it.
It simply was not popular because it was trying to replace a very popular, existing caliber in the 270. Metric designations had a negative connotation years ago, as the 7x57 and 8x57 had been shot at American GI's. So about when this was introduced as the 7mm express, the now deceased old guys would not have embraced it.
dgradinaru
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- British Columbia
Now im not partial to any of these calibers....the 270Win in a Winchester m70 Sporter or featherweight with CRF would seem to be more of a classic combo. Well proven platform and great caliber. The 280 is not classic in my opinion......but rather a workhorse type of caliber...at least for me. A Ruger Hawkeye with CRF in 280 Rem would be the rival for the other mentioned setup. I would be hard pressed on choosing from those two platforms and calibers......like mentioned by others, were splitting hairs here. Both are practical calibers and well proven.....same can be said with 7x57,7x64, 7MM rem Mag.
dgradinaru
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- British Columbia
remove. Double post.
While I was waiting 2 1/2 years for my Zastava stainless in 7x64, there was a Ruger Hawkeye in .280 sitting at a dealers for a long time. I was really tempted to cancel my order on several occasions and just buy the Ruger but I'm glad I didn't. The 7x64 and .280 are identical (I use 280 load data) but I ended up with something a little less common.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I have and like the 7mm Winchester (.270), while bullet selection with the .280 sounds nice I've found it trumped by the factory ammo on the shelf for the .270 / 7mm Win. For those of use short on time the .270's hardware store availability accross the continent is a pleasure, plus on the hand loading side some remarkable bullets available now in .270. BCs are equalling the 7mms, in the odd case passing as with Nosler's new offering.
- Location
- Saskatchewan
Neither the .280 or the .270 should exist IMHO. the 7x46 predates them both, and got the concept right from the beginning. The 7x64 has always been loaded to full pressure and speed unlike the .280, and did not suffer from a "re-naming" attempt just to get attention. The 7x64 shoots 140 grain bullets a touch faster than a .270, and can be loaded with a better selection of bullets for larger heavier game, unlike the .270 which is limited to 160 grains max. I have two 7x64s, never owned a .270 or .280 but have used some. They're good, just not as good.
