This is a question that has probably been beated to death over the years but I would like a concensus as to which is a better all-around catridge, the 270 Win or 280 Rem.

I know the 270 is more popular because it's been around for ever and Jack O Connor loved it; and I know why the 280 aka 7mm Express flopped through the years. However, I would like some practical, objective or subjective reasons why one would buy a 270 over a 280. Thanks

[ 07-21-2003, 23:17: Message edited by: DOCTOR LOU ]

If I had to choose between the two, I'd take the 280. Loaded to comparable pressures, the 280 has a slight advantage (though not enough to make a difference in all likelihood) and has a big-game bullet selection advantage. Plus, I like to root for the underdog - Remington completely and repeatedly botched the marketing of the 280.

I'm still a bit puzzled why the 277 bore was developed in the first place, given that the 284 bore had proven itself for decades (7x57, 7x64 etc.) prior to the introduction of the 270. At least the 257 bore had some history here (25-20, 25-35, 25 Rem etc.) Perhaps the 277 bore has a rich pre-1925, state-side history than I don't know about.

Truth be told, I'd prefer the 7x57 to both. I think Jack's wife said it best when she described the 7x57 as being every bit as effective as the 270 and with noticieably less recoil.

9.3

On paper, the .280 wins as an all-around cartridge, due to heavier bullets (175 grs vs 160 for the .270). In reality: six of one, half a dozen of the other. The .270 is easier to find ammo for.
Good luck with whatever you choose. - mike

For the handloader there is a better selection of bullets available. The 280 will handle much heaver bullets and slightly better BC and sectional density. I certainly agree with the previous posts.

I have rifles chambered for both the 270 Win and 280 Rem. I reload for both and have shot game from as small as coyotes to deer to antelope to caribu and elk with them both. They are both entirely suitable for game of this size, but no larger. They are for practicle hunting purposes balistically identicle. You will frequently hear some shooters/hunters prefer one over the other and for various well founded individual reasons. The 270 had a 40-50 year head start as a factory cartrige over the 280. The 270 was popularized by the writing of Jack O'Conner who use it all over the world and wrote about his exploits in periodicles such as Outdoor Life magazine. He described the 270 as the best sheep rifle, I believe he used it to take multiple "Grand Slams" and shot numerous sheep specis all over the world. He used many other calibers including 7x57, 30:06, 375 H&H and 416 Rigby to take all manner of Alaskan, African and Asian game as well. He also helped popularize the Winchester Model 70 FWT and was a well known supporter of Riflemaker and stocker AL Bisen. The 270 has a certain mystique about it, but is is one of the very best and most popular calibers ever designed. It is chambered by every commercial armsmaker and is probably the number one choice for custom rifles. Both are very easy to reload and provide fine accuracy.

For all practicle purposes they are the same. Given two identicle rifles, one chambered in 270 and one chambered in 280, I would take them both. (I actually prefer the 284 caliber, because of better bullet selection.)

Regards,

[ 07-21-2003, 23:51: Message edited by: alabama ed ]

I assume you mean better allround big game caliber. There probably isn't a dimes worth of diff. between the two. You can push 130gr bullets out of each over 3100fps. The .280 has heavier bullets available. I will never own a .270, but I love my .280. I shoot 160gr bullets & have not taken elk size game but would feel comfortable w/ it out to 250yds or so. Really though, I see no real diff. it's just everyone has a .270 (except me ).

I hate questions like this

I dissagree that the 280 has any advantage over the 270 for numerous reasons:
1) The bullet selection I see as a moot point because EVERY MAJOR BIG GAME BULLET STYLE THAT IS MADE IN 7mm, IS MADE IN .277.
2)Bullet weight and sectional density is also a non issue because... the individual make of that specific caliber and velocity will determine the penetration, and most high penetrating soft points are middle weight homogenized projectiles (X, failsafe).

My first centerfire rifle was a 280, I have since switched to 270s and hardly ever shoot my remaining 280. I SEE NO DIFFERENCE IN NOT ONLY THE 270/280 IN KILLING AND DISTANCE THE GAME TRAVEL AFTER BEING HIT, but same goes with the 300s and 280/270s. The only difference I see between 270/280s and 300s is that the 300s CAN at times penetrate farther after hitting bone at longer distances. I switched to the 270 only because I personaly built two of mine and they were less fussy about what I fed them.

There isn't enough practical difference between them to worry about. The only thing to recommend one over the other is availability and on that criteria the nod goes to the .270.

Hey Savage

9.3

<grin> .007" difference? like big game can tell... hell, they are both under 3/8" of an inch anyway, and are maginal squirrel guns...

jut kinding, fellas... well, mebbe..

the 270 is a fine whitetail/hog gun... that's about it... the 280, with heavier bullets, works through elk/moose/kudu...

at teh SAME SECTIONAL denisity, there is exactly .007 inch between them... and for those that say "deer don't know 100fps" not even a groundhog knows 4 sheets of paper...

jeffe

I've had both, sold my .280. The .270 has a huge advantage in ammo availability, and rifle choice. If I need a heavier bullet, I will grab my 30-06, 8x57, 35 Whelen, or .458win.

This is a question of micro management and that is it--to me this would be very very easy.

Say I have the choice of a 270 or a 280 or you could say a 300 Win or a 7 mag--well then I'd just take the rifle that fit me the best.

Really this is stuff from the 70's and 80's from Peterson mag-something Boddington would of written about.

This and any of the following minutia about the differences between the 2 is a waste of time--oops you got my time------grins...

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dog

There aren't any, hands down the .280 is a winner.

C'mon Mark!!! You can do better than that. You don't want this board to get boooooring now do you??

I have both the 270 and 280 in Remington Classics. The only real difference is their serial numbers.

WN

YAWN....

I have a 270 (150 gr noslers shoot the best in it), my buddy has a 280.

We both have hit the bucks we seen, and killed what we hit. Shot placement is everything. Longest whitetail for me has been about 300 yards - the deer took 2 steps and fell over.

For whitetails they both work, and work well.

what are you intending to do with this gun - 270 or 280?

When the smoke clears from this one , it will be staring you in the face .... 280 , 280 , 280 . Just cause I've got one does that make me bias ? NAW ! mho and jeefeosso got it about right in my " opinion "

[ 07-22-2003, 08:23: Message edited by: Bowzer ]

The .280 wins for one reason: Much greater selection of bullet weights and styles. However, that is not to say that the .270 is not a great cartridge, because it is!! And, in the .270, you have a cartridge which has taken every game animal from Mexico to the Arctic Ocean with just two bullet weights, the 130 and 150 grain!!

i think when winchester built the 270 there was a proprietary cartridge out that was identical to the 280.winchester thought the better to develop something completely different and this diameter that they came up with. i think it also helped in the velocity department to get figures they wanted.
as far as the two are concerned no animal large or small will ever know the difference. if you close your eyes, neither will you.
woofer

Woofer is correct. The 7X64mm/7X65Rmm predate the .280 Rem. by about 75 years, and are essentially the same round....

The difference in bullet selection between the two, which used to give the 7mm an advantage, is not really that great anymore. You can easily get top-notch .277 bullets from 90gr (Sierra HP) to 160gr (Nosler Partition) these days. A good .270 with 160NPs is elk medicine, IMO.

On this same admittedly well-chewed topic, I noticed last night that Midway has the Barnes classic 180gr .277 bullet in stock. Now that's a bullet with some sectional density!

Sorry for the double posting--my computer just started doubling my posts on bulletin boards a couple of days ago, and I have no idea why.

I knew when I saw this topic it would stir up the troups. Well I have owned and shot both and being a handloader for many years I would have to say this comparison is 6 of one and half a dozen of another. Myself I simply like the 270 Winchester and I guess I will alway's own one. But when it boils right down to it Shoot the Caliber you like the best because you are the only person that you have to please.

I prefer the .280 'cause I've got one. I also have a 7x57, several 7-08's, and 2 7mm RM so it helps narrow my bullet collection.
If you have a .270 that you like, don't sell it to buy a .280 or vice versa.
I agree that it was impossible for big green to do a poorer job of marketing the .280 than they did.

Hell, buy them both!

Just don't mix brass - a 270 will chamber in a 280, but not vis versa due to shoulder angle I believe. My buddy got a 270 case stuck in his 280 the first time out because some idiot at the gunstore put a 270 shell in a 280 box - we went back to the gun store and pulled the box of 270's, sure enought, there was a single 280 in the box.

thankfully no harm done.

.270 or .280 ???

NEITHER !!!

7mm Remington magnum beats hell out of them both ........

[ 07-24-2003, 19:38: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

I've had both and have taken game with both. As Mark pointed out there's not a spit's worth of difference between the two. I prefer the 270 for ammo/brass availability, its "Westerness" and other notion's based squarely on the solid ground of nostalgia (grin).

BA

Gotta liven up this thread a bit...

A question we may ask ourselves: "Would the 270 be around if their history's were reversed?"

Suppose the 280 had been introduced in 1925 and the 270 in 1957. Suppose further that the 270 had been introduced at lower pressures and in a semi-auto rifle (as the 280 was). Would the 270 have been able to overcome all the crap that the 280 had to overcome?

I'm inclined to think not, but I am open to the contrary. I think the fact that the 280 overcame a 32-year headstart and the epitome of bone-headed marketing speaks volumes about its merits relative to the 270.

Also, do those who see the 270 and 280 as interchangeable feel the same about Bob and the Swede?

My take is that for strolling through the great white north in Grizz country for Elk sized game I'd most definatley lean toward the 280 with some heavier bullets. Likewise, if the rifles task is to involve some varminting with less likleyhood of its owner becoming an entree then the nod goes to the 270. For everything else inbetween they are essentially the same cartridge.

RSY, thanks for noticing... I really liked that one myself... inspiration hits at odd moments!

I have shot a .270 for years. I always had one in the rack. I have a couple of 280' s I never shot them much. Shot a 7 x57 instead. Now a few years ago a 7 x 64 came my way. Now I like that, and since it shot so well with 160 gr. Nosler Partition Federal Loadings, I bought a couple of cases of it. Works good on the few Carabou I shot with it. There is no difference that I can tell. I suppose you could if you could collect the real numbers of game to make the case. These days with all the real good bullets around, it don't matter a whole lot in what you shoot for a cartridge . You load say a 140 gr fail Safe in the 270 and a 160 gr Fail Safe in the 280 and there will be very little in the way of big game you could not collect.

[ 07-25-2003, 06:40: Message edited by: George Semel ]

Comparing these two calibers against is about the most waisted conversation that anyone could get into....the only real difference is the stamping on the barrel...

Ray, you're right. Nonetheless, I still appreciate everybody's perspective. As far as waisted conversation, I wonder if it will rank up there with the famed matchking debate?

Actually, I think I will send one of my 270s off to my gunsmith and have him make a 35 Whelen out of it, and I will take the 280 on my next mule deer hunt.

[ 07-25-2003, 08:18: Message edited by: DOCTOR LOU ]

Wait a minute. There is a difference between the .270 Winchester and the .280 Remington. The difference is .007". Big @#$%^&* deal. Ray is correct in his observation that arguing about that .007" difference is a monumental waste of time.

ZM

9.3, I think you are right. Due to all of the 7mmm bullets allready avail. if the .280 had been 1st & marketed the same, the .270 would have been DOA. Even though there isn't much diff. I'll stick w/ my .280!

[ 07-25-2003, 22:07: Message edited by: fredj338 ]

270 vs 280...ZZZzzzzzzzzz!