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.