Winchester had opened up the .270 Win to .284 diameter & loaded it for bolt action rifles?

Winchester had of opened up the .264 Win Mag to 7MM & had beaten Remington to the punch?

Personally, I think the .280 Rem is superb. No, I don't own one. I do own a 7MM Rem Mag. Reality is the 7MM Rem Mag has nothing on the .280 Rem.

Sectional densities and ballistic coefficients of .284 caliber bullets are as close to perfect as we could expect.

Reality is what a .280 Rem will do so will a .270 Win were we to exclude 175 grain .284 caliber bullets.

Reality is I have no clue of which is the most accurate caliber. I do know that both of my 270 Win rifles & my 7MM Rem Mag will shoot very tiny groups.

Reality is I need no other rifles than my 2 .270 Wins.

Chewin' cartridge cud on a rainy day whiles away the day & beats watching TV.

By "of" you mean "have" in the caption?

As a foringer i did not learn that lingo i school so i'm a little confused!

Well said! Another one of those, could’a, should’a, would’a.....aspects of life! memtb

Clearly the 270 never needed to happen, but at the time it was introduced, metric cartridges were not common or popular due to the anti German feelings after WW1. Everywhere else in the world, the 7mm bore size was much more popular for good reason.
The 280 is a better cartridge in every way, and so is the 7mm mag. Yes, slightly better than a 280; not much.
270 might be good for small deer, I suppose; never owned one and do not intend to.

People do realize the difference between the diameter of the 270 and the 7mm is only .007 I hope.

correct, so why did they invent the 270 when we already had the 7mm?
they could have just used 7mm bullets and called it the 277.

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
correct, so why did they invent the 270 when we already had the 7mm?
they could have just used 7mm bullets and called it the 277.

Well, technically Winchester didn't invent the .277, it had been used by Mauser for the Chinese 6.8X57 cartridge. Most of the"experts" claim it was used by Winchester to avoid the public's distrust of metric cartridges. Is that true?, who knows.

dpcd,
The 270 never needed to happen???? FOR that matter neither did the .280, 7x57, 257 Robts. 338-06m, 35 Whelen, and a host of others,,,

WE HAD THE 30-06! I AGREE WITH YOU BUT YOU STOPPED TOO SOON.

quote:

270 might be good for small deer, I suppose; never owned one and do not intend to.

I'm not a big fan of the 270 Winchester but I've seen many elk dropped with 1 shot from them. In this day and age of the AR-15 and the 223 quest for big game bullets, the 270 Win is a 450 Nitro.

quote:

Originally posted by EMP3:
Winchester had opened up the .270 Win to .284 diameter & loaded it for bolt action rifles?


Personally, I think the .280 Rem is superb. No, I don't own one. I do own a 7MM Rem Mag. Reality is the 7MM Rem Mag has nothing on the .280 Rem.

The 280 was originally developed as the 7mm-06. Do some research. It's an interesting story.There is actually some Remington brand boxed ammo in 7mm-06 labeled as such.

What if Winchester had learned from Remington's foul up with the 7mm-06 and moved the shoulder out on the 7mm WSM thus releasing the 7mm version with the 300 & 270 WSM?

When loaded to similar pressure in the same length barrels, the 7mm Mag doesn't beat the 280 out by much.

Hi Atkinson,

You're 100% right. All that needed inventing was invented when the US Army gave birth to the .30Govt06. But that wouldn't have been fun. We needed offspring for debating purposes.

As long as men have imaginations, theories, motivation, & financial support we'll continue to see newbies introduced that'll be measured by the '06.

I will cop to having shining affinity for the .270 Win although, on paper anyway, I think the .280 Rem has a slight edge. That edge won't translate to a hill of beans if the man behind the gun can't shoot.

I'm good with whatever cartridge a hunter wants to use. He knows best what's right for him. But the '06 will do everything a mega magnum can except snipe game a mile away. and game sniping ain't hunting. At least that's how I see it.

When I was a teenager a looking for my first big game rifle, the "old timers" steered me towards the .270 Win because the '06 was too much gun for a young hunter. I've seen first time rifle buyers parting ways with their $$$ for .300 WM rifles. I have no regrets going with a .270 Win. It was excellent advice. I still have it & I'll never part ways with my 45+ year-old Model 700 .270 Win. To this day that magnificent rifle will print .25" at a hundred. I have a couple Sakos, but when it's hunting time I reach for my oldest and bestest[sic] rifle friend.

BTW, I was shocked that a poster would belittle the amazing, spectacular, superb, add more glowing adjectives to the omnipotent .270 Win. I believe that is un-American and comes dangerously close to heresy ;-)

Hi The Dane,

Yep. Your grammar is better than mine. "Have" would've been the grammatically correct verb. However, and this is a HUGE however, I was born in the totalitarian state of California, specifically LA County. I grew up in Orange County, which is where I live. I learned to speak slang before English. Were I in college now, I would be able to file a discrimination claim arising from professors insisting upon proper grammar.

The more I shoot other cartridges, the more I appreciate the 270 Winchester.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
dpcd,
The 270 never needed to happen???? FOR that matter neither did the .280, 7x57, 257 Robts. 338-06m, 35 Whelen, and a host of others,,,

WE HAD THE 30-06! I AGREE WITH YOU BUT YOU STOPPED TOO SOON.

You got that wrong Ray.
The 7x57 in the 1893 Mauser that the Spanish were armed with in Cuba on San Juan Hill was what induced you yanks to upgrade from the 30-40 and bring about the 30-03 then the 30-06. So in fact the 30-06 never needed to happen when we had the 7x57!!!!!!!!!

Then we're down to the 8x57.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Then we're down to the 8x57.

That's what I hunt with.


Loaded to adult pressure with Speer 200gr Hotcor bullets in a modern M98 action, it hits like the hammer of Thor and shoots + or - 3" BPR to 280 yds.

You'll never coax a contrary word outta me about the 7x57 or 8x57. Both have done it all in game fields all over the world.

But for me, I'll stick with the .270 Win. If I thought I needed more gun, I'd probably go with the unjustly underrated .338-06. If I needed more than that, I'd go with the .45/70 Gov't. The .45/70 is an amazingly powerful cartridge.

I love lightweight, fast handling rifles that are easy to carry. I need a 15 pound rifle like I need a lobotomy...and no funnin' 'bout the lobotomy thing ;-)

Yes, we did need the '06. No, I don't own one. It is the gold standard of big game cartridges. It is the cartridge by which all other big game cartridges are measured.

What dpcd said.

Maybe Winchester once bought a job lot of odd-ball barrel-drilling bits - they do have a history of choosing strange groove sizes (.277, .338, .378 and .427-inch), not that it did them much harm.

Remington, on the other hand has a tendency to pick too-slow rifling twists and I suspect that really has been a problem.

it sends many of us out on searches for those too slow twist rifles.
they have a use..

the world could have stopped at the 7 and 8 mauser the 0-6 was redundant before it even got started when the 8 come out.
they could have just went with the 30X57 which would have also killed the 308 project before it was needed.
it would have also simplified the choice in rifle receiver lengths down to one single proper sized receiver.

Ray Atkinson has it right except--Without the .270 Jack O'Connor had nothing to write about except the 30-06 which other writers were writing about. The .270 wouldn't do anything the 30-06 wasn't, but other writers weren't writing about the .270. Had he said that, his stories wouldn't sell so he had to make it "flat shooting" hard hitting yada yada yada. Past 500 yards with same bullet weights, it is a little flatter than a 30-06.

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
it sends many of us out on searches for those too slow twist rifles.
they have a use..

Yes. In the case of Remington’s 1:12 .244 vs Winchester’s 1:10 .243, Winchester’s twist won because it would stabilize longer bullets.

Remington saw their (slow) 1:12 twist .244 as primarily a varmint round. I well recall the ads in the centerfold of the American Rifleman showing pictures and extolling the virtues of it wrt groundhogs. And . . . oh yeah . . . you could also use heavier (=longer) bullets to kill deer, so it really was a dual-purpose cartridge. (I believe Remington loaded a 90 grain SP for that purpose.)

Winchester’s marketing strategy was different. They sold their cartridge as a deer cartridge, but it was entirely great for varmints . . . so it was a dual purpose cartridge, too. You could get factory loads with slightly heavier (=longer) bullets for the .243 than the .244.

Even though there wasn’t a spit’s worth of difference between the .243 Winchester and the 1:12 Rem .244 wrt their suitability for deer or varmints, Winchester grabbed market share.

Remington ultimately re-issued the .244 with a 1:10 twist, but called it the 6mm remington.

By that time the damage was done: Winchester’s .243 had become the standard and there was no need for a duplicate (even though it was slightly better).

I had a 6mm Rem with a 1:12 (Gary Schneider) barrel. Before I shot it out, it was stunningly accurate with light bullets. But it would key-hole bullets of 95 grains and heavier (=longer).

Am I wrong in thinking the 280 Rem and their .35 Whelen rifles have also given trouble with the heaviest bullets?

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Am I wrong in thinking the 280 Rem and their .35 Whelen rifles have also given trouble with the heaviest bullets?

If my age-addled memory is working, Remington used 1-10" for the 280 and 1-16" for the Whelen. But Remington has a history for bad decisions, nothing new here.

quote:

Originally posted by EMP3:
Winchester had opened up the .270 Win to .284 diameter & loaded it for bolt action rifles?

then we would have had the 7x64 brenneke, which predates the 270

quote:

Originally posted by EMP3:


Winchester had of opened up the .264 Win Mag to 7MM & had beaten Remington to the punch?

interesting thought -- but both are overbore, and are 100% interchangable in terms of mission

quote:

Originally posted by EMP3:

Personally, I think the .280 Rem is superb.

you misspelled 7x64 (grin)

quote:

Originally posted by EMP3:
No, I don't own one. I do own a 7MM Rem Mag. Reality is the 7MM Rem Mag has nothing on the .280 Rem.

Sectional densities and ballistic coefficients of .284 caliber bullets are as close to perfect as we could expect.

until one goes to .358 bullets ..

quote:

Originally posted by EMP3:
Reality is what a .280 Rem will do so will a .270 Win were we to exclude 175 grain .284 caliber bullets.

nothing that the 7x64 didn't do, decades before either, with heavy bullets

quote:

Originally posted by EMP3:
Reality is I have no clue of which is the most accurate caliber. I do know that both of my 270 Win rifles & my 7MM Rem Mag will shoot very tiny groups.

in almost all cases, the nut on the trigger does more for inaccurate shooting than the cartridge .. every last rifle i have ever owned can shoot smaller groups than I have shot with it ...even my unlimited bench gun, which i could, on a good day, shoot in the 2s, my wife can shoot in the 1s ..

quote:

Originally posted by EMP3:
Reality is I need no other rifles than my 2 .270 Wins.

you misspelled 7x64 again

quote:

Originally posted by EMP3:
Chewin' cartridge cud on a rainy day whiles away the day & beats watching TV.

Remember WHEN the 280 and 35 were born and WHAT bullets were available then compared to today AND the expectation of which bullet was de rigueur for hunting for various calibers back in the day. The 280 at 1-10 will stabilize bullets up to ≈1.3" - 1.4" long depending on the MV. The two that I built JUST handled the Horn 175 gr but sprayed the longer 175 Sierra SPBT even pushing the velo...BUT...I usually shot 100-160 gr as a matter of course. MOST people have NO clue WHY various gun/ammo makers do what they do...but are quick to judge without really thinking the story through.

I built my 28 Nosler, basically the same case volume as a 7mm STW, with a 1-7 just to shoot the 1.65" 196 gr Berger EOL's at a MV of ≈3100-3150...It probably could handle a slightly longer/heavier bullet to 1.85"and maybe 205-210 gr but that would mean a turned, mono-bullet probably...haven't look just yet...and maybe a 1-6 would be better for the Mono's...I don't know for certain as I haven't actually tried.

We ALL have opinions...some based in massive fact...some based on something we read on the 'net WITHOUT any actual experience...and everything in-between.

We ALL live and learn...DAILY and hopefully.

Good Hunting

quote:

Originally posted by NONAGONAGIN:
Remember WHEN the 280 and 35 were born and WHAT bullets were available then compared to today AND the expectation of which bullet was de rigueur for hunting for various calibers back in the day. The 280 at 1-10 will stabilize bullets up to ≈1.3" - 1.4" long depending on the MV. The two that I built JUST handled the Horn 175 gr but sprayed the longer 175 Sierra SPBT even pushing the velo...BUT...I usually shot 100-160 gr as a matter of course. MOST people have NO clue WHY various gun/ammo makers do what they do...but are quick to judge without really thinking the story through.

I built my 28 Nosler, basically the same case volume as a 7mm STW, with a 1-7 just to shoot the 1.65" 196 gr Berger EOL's at a MV of ≈3100-3150...It probably could handle a slightly longer/heavier bullet to 1.85"and maybe 205-210 gr but that would mean a turned, mono-bullet probably...haven't look just yet...and maybe a 1-6 would be better for the Mono's...I don't know for certain as I haven't actually tried.

We ALL have opinions...some based in massive fact...some based on something we read on the 'net WITHOUT any actual experience...and everything in-between.

We ALL live and learn...DAILY and hopefully.

Good Hunting

How does your 28 Nosler shoot? I am having one built to shoot the Bergers as well...

From Hodgdon’s website:
24” precision pressure barrels
150-grain Partition bullets

.280 Remington: 2822 fps @ 55,600 psi
7 mm Rem Magnum: 3081 fps @ 58,800 psi

Clear advantage for the magnum (over 200 fps after pressure corrections), which most shooters without an axe to grind have always known. This doesn’t take anything away from the .280, under most conditions it will work just as well as the magnum. But facts do demonstrate the true difference between the two, and they aren’t really very close.


.

quote:

Originally posted by Dead Eye:
The more I shoot other cartridges, the more I appreciate the 270 Winchester.

The more I hunted with the .270 the more I appreciated the 30-06, .308, .260, 7mm-08, ........
Fewer bullet weights to choose from in .270 and it never seemed to perform well enough to me for the powder it burned to get the velocity it produced.
I know lots think it's God's gift to shooters, but I can't see it.
Bullet diameter just isn't different enough from what else is out there, back when it was introduced and now.
Bullet diameter isn't it's problem though. It doesn't matter what powder you put in it either.
It will never be the 06 or the 6.5 that is so loved by competition shooters and hunters and especially bullet and rifle manufacturers here in the U.S.A.
And in my opinion, for good reason.

Hi Jeff mills,

The .270 Win needs only 2 bullet weights: 130 grain for Rocky Mountain mule deer and 150 grain Partitions for everything bigger ;-)

An often cited reason for buying an '06 or .308 Win is huge array of available bullet weights. However, I've never known a hunter to use more than 2 bullet weights, often just one: the one that shoots best.

I had a hunting friend who's now in Heaven. He hunted with a 7MM Rem Mag. He used 175 grain bullets exclusively, from deer to elk, it was all hunted with 175 grain bullets, factory loads. Another 7MM Rem Mag hunting friend who's also in Heaven hunted everything with 154 grain Hornady exclusively.

Another 7MM Rem Mag hunting friend uses only 150 grain factory loads for everything.

Yep, the 7MM Rem Mag is right popular.

The 160 grain Partition outta a 7MM Rem Mag will flat work on biggest bulls. But were I to hunt elk again with my 7MM Rem Mag, I'd use a 150 grain Partition.

Sighting in different bullets takes a lotta time, And my 7MM Rem Mag shoots very ting groups with buck fifty grainers.

Hi Tx Nimrod,

Your post provoked me to thinkin', an activity I'm been known to engage when other options ain't available.

I can safely get get 3200+ FPS using 150 grain BallistiTips outta my 7MM Rem Mag with a 24" barrel using a Nosler book load. If a 280 Rem is shy by 200 FPS of the 7MM Rem Mag, to what would the extra 200 FPS translate in range?

At Rocky Mountain altitude, cheese on a ham sandwich is heavy. If I could find a lightweight .308 Win carbine, I might be coaxed outta my beloved .270 Win rifles.

They are all good rounds. Cant really think of a bad one. Might not be good for the purpose at hand but they are all fun, if nothing else.

"Very interesting". How come the .280 died?
Great thread. Really took off .
roger

quote:

If I could find a lightweight .308 Win carbine

All it takes is money and a little research.

for those that might have failed to notice the intentional insertion of levity, there was a great deal of tongue in cheek humor, while playing along with OP ...

the facts being what they are, guys, i am largely a big bore shooter -- in a single rifle and round, i can have as much "power" difference, with the same bullet, as a 7remmag,

really, 200 fps doesn't mean BEANS -- how can I stand by that? that's really easy.. use a max point blank calc
here's one http://www.shooterscalculator....oint-blank-range.php

200 fps, with a moderate BC is about 15 yards difference .. with a high bc, about 18 yards ...

so, back to my point, the 7x64, which predates most all 30-03 kittens, except the 30-06, does it all, without being grossly overbore (like most of our mags) and in a nice package -- and i like heavy for caliber bullets at moderate speed .. so, yeah, just my opinion .. and i really like the option for light bullets going faster

bless winchester for the 270, as it is also an excellent round ..

but, what we are dealing with here is marketing .. Winchester COULD NOT have released a german round shortly after WWi -- it wouldn't have been accepted .. tada...

The 270 was introduced quite a while ago. What maybe before partitions, TSXs or Sciroccos. Before RL19 or 22. Before HS-Precision stocks and nightforce scopes. Somewhat flatter trajectories, a little less recoil, a little "cool factor", it did fill a niche as a western deer cartridge. It is easy to look back with what is available now and wonder WTF were they thinking. I still love the .270. It is a boringly perfect for anything 600 pounds and down with the right bullet. Cheap to shoot and load for, easy on the shoulder and best of all with a 270 as a deer gun it is easy to justify needing a 338 for bigger and 22 or 6mm for smaller. An American classic that still has the effectiveness to be in this discussion with all the followers in it's class as the best choice to spend your money on. I'd say Winchester new their customers mind. Any MM in front of the 06' back then would have been a mistake.

I actually think the .277 caliber/bullet diameter is more perfect for 140-150 weight bullets than the “7mm”. The difference may not be quantifiable beyond initial BC/SD. The difference may well be non existent with mono-metal bullets. However, some folks get all fluttery about cartridge design. I kind of get fluttery about bullet weights. I do not shot mon-metals.

I simply have no use for a 140 grain “7mm”. The “7mm” is for 160-175 grain bullets.

Just like I have little use for anything but 180-200 in a 30 caliber.

I placed “7mm” in quotation marks because the .277 caliber is 7mm. Actually, it is 7.036 mm.

The “7mm” is 7.214.

The measure to of the bore land to adjacent land is .270 on the 270 Win. That is whhere the 6.8mm comes from.

But when we say what caliber is the 30/06 we say caliber .308. We are take this from the diameter of the bullet and measure of the grove to diagonally adjacent grove.

So, in my mind it is only fair to call the 270 a 7mm. So, Winchester, in my mind, came out with the perfect non-magnum 7mm.

I like Craig Boddington, but someone needs to tell him the .270 does not shoot 6.8 mm bullets.

In his book, African Medium Game Cartridges, Peter Van Der Walt identifies a second Masuer 6.8 cartridge instead of the known 6.8 x57mm Chinese everyone cites. That cartridge is the 6.8x60. He did not give ballistics of the 6.8x60. I do not have the book with me, but I think he recorded the 6.8x60mm as being older than the 7X64mm Bernneke. I would half to look it back up.

Yeah, I fell hard for the 270 Win.

the problem here is a bucket of worms has been opened! There simply isn't any practical field difference in any of the mentioned calibers from about the 7x57,308 WCF CLass to the 7x57 7 mag, or 300 magnums for that matter as to killing powder with proper bullets, only difference is how flat they shoot, and that's about 4 inches differnce at reasonable long range..and most of us can wiggle on or off at those ranges even off a bench rest..

Its never bad advise to use a caliber that will penetrate the animal you hunt full length body..whatever that animal might be..

Not enough difference between the 270 and 280 to worry about. Factory ammo you're off with a 270. If you're handloading for a 280, the heavies might give you something. What dies with one will die with the other.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
dpcd,
The 270 never needed to happen???? FOR that matter neither did the .280, 7x57, 257 Robts. 338-06m, 35 Whelen, and a host of others,,,

WE HAD THE 30-06! I AGREE WITH YOU BUT YOU STOPPED TOO SOON.

+1