if there were no cartridges like either of them to choose from and both were just introduced and both were available in the model rifle you liked....

the .270 Winchester with the max bullet weight of 150 grains and the .280 with a max bullet weight in 175 grains.

Both shooting 130, 140, and 150 grain bullets the same velocity.....but the .280 able to also shoot heavier bullets.....

Would anyone choose the .270 Win?.......

So why is it still so popular?

So why is it still so popular? It is still popular because the 270 has always had a very strong following which has nothing but carried it forward in its future sales. The .277 bore, for its popularity, probably has the least number of commercial cartridges to choose from... unique in a way. Your question is prefaced by "if there were no cartridges like either of them to choose from and both were just introduced and both were available in the model rifle you liked" this negates the entire history of both. I think Remington handled the 280 poorly from the beginning and I think the 270 had an already good reputation... in a nut shell.
I grew up with a 280 in AK and grew up hating the 270. Now I no longer own a 280 and absolutely love the 270. My choice was a practical one I thought... I owned a 280, a 7 mag, and shot my friends 270. We hunted side by side for years and between the 3 rifles (yes even the 7 mag) there wasn’t 2 turds worth of difference in penetration and time of death from deer to moose (until the 300 win mag at least). Well kile sold me his 270, it shot better than all three so I sold the 7 and 280.
I view the 270 in just the opposite light as the 280/7 mags... I see the 270 as a cartridge that has great capability with the least amount of fuss between the 3.

quote:

Would anyone choose the .270 Win?.......

So why is it still so popular?

No

Jack O'Connor

This whole thread is great.... the "What great calibers do you just not like?" thread is fully of impassioned 270 haters... I was one of them... god I cant tell you how much I hated that cartridge. Probably one of the only earth shaking cartridge turn arounds in my life.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

Would anyone choose the .270 Win?.......

So why is it still so popular?

Yes

it shoots flatter and has a greater sectional density for the same bullet weight, always seems like with the slower powders like IMR 4831, RL 22 or 25, H 4831 that just when you are on the verge of getting somewhere with the 280 that you run out of room, especially with the 160 or 175, and the 270 fills up at just the right volume for the bullet you're loading.

All the 270's I load for (7) are not hard to make shoot good and the only two 280's I've reloaded for were problematic. Probably just coincidence or anecdotal evidence but my experience.

Don't get me wrong, I think the 280 is an excellent caliber but I view it as closer to the 30-06 than the 270.

I would buy the 270 first, 280 second.

The 280 will actually drive the same bullet weights slightly faster than the 270win which provides more energy.with the added ability to use heavier bullets,I would choiose the 280.

Here's the graphic you've all been waiting for.



They are almost the same round. Similar bullet weights and similar performance. The differences are so miniscule that it isn't worth arguing about. But this is the internet and some people argue over some of the stupidest stuff online. 270 vs 280 is one of those topics.

This is my opinion. your opinion may vary.

ZM

Shoot a lot of 175 grainers in your .280?

I didn't think so.

.270 for me... I know O'Connor told Carmichel that the .280 was a better round than the .270, but I don't think the difference in performance is enough to really fret about.

I have shot a .270 for ~30 years now, and it is still my "go to" cartridge. I may never get to take another elk, and may never get to go to Alaska. If I do, I intend to be toting a new .35 Whelen. (I know, I know... But I want one, okay!?)

All that said, I think the .270 is inherently accurate, it kills like a magnum without magnum recoil, and you can walk into any store in the country and buy ammo off the shelf, in case you dork up and leave your precious handloads at home...

And the only .280 I ever worked with was a post-64 model 70. I couldn't get any better than roughly an inch and a quarter with it at 100, even with handloads. My BDL .270 will put them all in the same hole if I do my part, and I am talking about 100s, 130s and 150s. They all shoot to the same point of impact, and all into the same hole...

O'Conner made the .270 popular and along with the fact that the .270 is a Winchester cartridge. Now if the .280 was a ..280 Winchester and came in the mod. 70...

quote:

the .270 Winchester with the max bullet weight of 150 grains

Make that 160 grs. because Noslers 160gr. Partition .270 bullet is a hell of a good killer.

IMO there is not enough difference to argue about.

I have been shooting a 270 since the '50's and bought my 1st 280 in '67. And for 25 years it was my primary rifle.

All else being equal, for deer, I'd lean toward the 270.

And if I were after bigger game (elk), I'd probably take something bigger than either.

But we're splittin' hairs here... and today, I think the bullet is more important than the cartridge.

I prefer the classic circa 1925 270.

The why's:

It was an early and intelligent adaptation of the 30-06 case.

The 270 does anything that needs doing in Montana.

If more than the 270 is needed, a heck of a lot "more" than .008" and a few grains of lead is required.

The 270 is the classic Western round.

The 270 is not a European 7mm.

I'm an American.

The 270 was invented by Winchester, not Remington.

The 270 is available world wide.

The 280 is hardly available anywhere.

I don't want to be lumped in with the "280 snobs."

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

Would anyone choose the .270 Win?.......

So why is it still so popular?

The answer to your question is simple:

Cause its the best damn deer cartridge in the world!

Yeah basically what Brad said and a couple of more.

First off being able to shoot 175's is of no meaning to me. I am gonna use one load for all comers, and if I was using a 280 it would not be a 175. It would be a 150 TX.

And secondly Uncle Jack would kick my buns if I went to a 280 instead.

And thirdly IMO the 06 Improved (what I call the 270) is about all I'll ever need for most all comers. If I need more I'll go to my 340 not a 280 with a couple of more grains.


Mark D

I own, use and love both; I consider these to be the two best HUNTING cartridges for almost everything here in B.C. yet invented. Actually, I think that I NEED another .280 and may just get one next spring.

Unless you specialize in trophy Elk or hunt exclusively in densely populated Grizzly country( I do), these rounds can do it all and are easy to hit with. One of the finest hunters.rifle shots I ever knew, a man who shot a HUGE amount of big game in B.C. in the glory days had exactly ONE cf rifle, a P-64 STD. in .270 and he killed dozens of Elk, Moose and several Grizzlies with it.

Don'[t know too many .280 shooters who use the 175's. These days with most of the premium bullets tending to be in the mid-heavy weight area, I don't see the 175gr. bullet in the 280 being a big advantage. I'm also one who doesn't think any deer,elk,moose could tell you which one hit him.

quote:

I don't want to be lumped in with the "280 snobs."

I have been shooting the 7mm long before it became popular. Been on many a hunt where nice rifle, wierd caliber was the prevailing mood in camp. Whether the 7mm is riding any popularilty wave of the moment I could care less. I'll still be shooting it after the wave is gone, if god graces me with the years.

What got me interested in the 280 was Fred Huntington the founder of RCBS. Many years ago I figured out that anything Fred Huntington used and/or developed was at a minimum a very good round, most were just plain excellent. In simple he knew a thing or two, and I am glad I paid attention.

Any arguement about the 270 vrs the 280 is monumental waste of time, both are good rounds, I have and will use both.

I still favor the 280, but a lot of that is because I have other 7mm's and when I go to the reloading bench I have a box or two of 270 bullets at most, while I have a shelf dedicated to 7mm stuff.

Fireform,

Yes I use 175 bullets, a "lot" is a relevant term, Kootney and I hunt either side of the Canada and US Border, and that is grizzly country. The Canadian side has more bears and our side has pockets of bears, my favorite elk country is in one of those pockets. When I am hunting that region I use 175 gr bullets, bad news for me is I only have a couple of boxes of Barnes originals left, and somewhere in the next year or two I going to work on a suitable replacement.

quote:

I don't see the 175gr. bullet in the 280 being a big advantage. I'm also one who doesn't think any deer,elk,moose could tell you which one hit him.

For deer there is zip benefit, and my bullet of choice is the 150 gr Nosler. Moose aren't real tough, elk are tougher by far, coupled with their ability to present really bad shots more often than not. For both a 160 gr in the 280 is probably a better balanced load, but for up close I want to plow through a grizzly that is PO'd at me for just being on the same hillside give me the 175 gr. The 280 is by no means a optimal bear stopper, and any edge is better.
In truth its about 50/50 whether I pack the 280 when I hunt there anymore, I like that rifle a lot, but I like the authority of my 30 Mag, pretty much a toss of a coin decision on my part.

My foray into the 280 world was a custom mauser that began as a 270. It never shot with the laser like precision the 270 did but it was still adequately accurate. I for some reason could never form the attachment I had for the 270 so I pulled the barrel and replaced it with a new 270 barrel that is still on the rifle. Fact is that If I can't get it done with a good 150 grain bullet in the 270 then maybe a jump to the 338 is warranted.

It's like choosing between a brunette and a blonde...it's a matter of personal preference. Personaly, I would choose the 280.

This is the same as .338-06 or .35 Whelen. In reality they are one in the same. The .280 hits a bit harder up close on bigger game w/ heavier bullets, but not enought to really matter. The .270 will shoot a tiny bit flatter, but again, not enought to really matter.
It's just everybody has a stinking .270. Every one of my uncles & cousins, about 9 total, shoot this round & just think it kills better than anything, bah! I still say, if the .280 came out in the M70 first, the .270 would have died a slow death much like the .264RM or .264WM. Besides, I like being a .280 snob , we band of 7mm brothers.

Both are equally effective on the dead horse...but, I'll take the .280 everytime!!

Match it up based on bullets of comparable SECTIONAL DENSITY and the difference is practially zero. Yeah, you can get a 175 grain .284 bullet, but so what? If a 160 grain Nosler Partition from a .270 isn't going to kill something, than I doubt you'd whack it with a 175 gr .284 either.

A lot of people seem to want to argue that one or the other is better and then dream up a batch of reasons to prove their point. I think they decided which one they liked and then structured the arguments to support the choice. Compare them objectively and then toss a coin. Or just buy the one you want. There is no practical diffence.

RXM

I don't think there is any practical performance difference between the two.

All else being equal and myself being a handloader, I would lean toward the .280 for the greater bullet selection. How much of this greater selection I would actually use is up for debate.

But this is the real world. I went with a .270. The reason? Ammo availability. Check any store that sells ammo and see how many loads are available for each. This and this alone is what made the decision for me.

quote:

a stinking .270

???

What he said!!!

I have both and like both. I use the .280 on elk and the .270 on mule deer and other stuff. Why? I really do not know, I just do it.

I debated that very thing for 30 years, then when the .270 WSM came out I got one and absolutely love it. I didn't need it but now certainly wouldn't swap it for love nor money. Good shooting.

I have never desired to own a rifle chambered for the .270 Win. I own 2 rifles chambered for the .280 Remington.

Winchester FS ammo
the 270w 140fs starts at 2950fps.....@300yds2211v/1519e
the 280r 140fs starts at 3050fps......@300yds2221v/1533e

So close,So is their ability to take game.

the 140gn BT starts off at 2950 and 3050 also, but for some reason, the 280 has about an 8% energy advantage at 300yds(1898 against 1755). Would not stop me buying a .270. But there is something I like about a 160NF,FS,TSX out of the 280.

For whatever his opinion is worth, when the .280 first came out Townsend Whelen was stil around, tested it, and thought it a bit better than the .270. I think the title of the article, either in American Rifleman or Gun Digest, was "A Little Better Cartridge" or something like that. For whatever my famous and distinguished opinion is worth, if you handload the .280 is rather more versatile. If you don't handload, there is a much greater variety in factory .270 ammunition.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
Winchester FS ammo
the 270w 140fs starts at 2950fps.....@300yds2211v/1519e
the 280r 140fs starts at 3050fps......@300yds2221v/1533e

So close,So is their ability to take game.

the 140gn BT starts off at 2950 and 3050 also, but for some reason, the 280 has about an 8% energy advantage at 300yds(1898 against 1755). Would not stop me buying a .270. But there is something I like about a 160NF,FS,TSX out of the 280.

Your comparison really isn't appropriate because you're comparing bullets of different sectional densities. If you want to use the 140 grain .284, then the equivalent bullet in .277 would be the 130 grain. If you line them up that way, I suspect that there would be even less difference between the two.

I figger that the right response to the "why" question as to which side of this particular fence you fall on would be "just because" or "that's just how I feel, dammit!"

Trying to find rational reasons for your choice on this one just muddies the waters.

RXM

Both rounds have advantages, none of which are worth a grain of salt when your talking 130-150 gr bullets. There just isn't enough difference to agrue about.

In the 270's camp I give the nod to ammo availability, as long as your not looking for over 150 gr ammo.

In the 280's camp it has a benefit of heavier bullets.

Before the 270 fans jump up and get excited about the heavy bullet comment, I see exactly one 160 gr bullet for the 270, the Nosler. I am a big fan of Noslers, but not all rifles are, if you can't sort these out your out of luck for heavy stuff.

But this really is a pointless discussion, both are excellent rounds, neither really excels as a varmit round in my mind, and neither is in the magnum class of cartridges. My selection would favor the 7 bore, but put two rifles side by side in 270 and 280, my decision to buy would be 98% about the rifle, the 2% about cartridge would be a flip of a coin.


The heavy bullet arguement really doesn't handicap the 270 much, 130-150 gr bullets are all thats required. I don't see much point in the 27 cal Mags, in this class the lack of heavy bullets is a big handicap. The 7mm Rem and Weatherby mag beats the pants off the 27 mags because there is 175 bullets available.

Sometimes, the pointless discussions are the most enjoyable.

RXM

quote:

Originally posted by rxmoore:
Sometimes, the pointless discussions are the most enjoyable.

RXM

And it doesn't get any more pointless than this!

ZM

Personally I believe the .270 to be inherently more accurate than the .280 or at least that has been my experience...I see absolutly no difference in killing power or trajectory between the two...I have shot may 170 gr. Speers in my .270 but found the 160 gr. Nosler outpenetrates the 170 gr. Speer besides I am about out of 170 gr. speers....

Bottom line is if you have a preference its just in your head and there are no facts to place one over the other, none...

Both are excellent cartridges and you could even toss my favorite of the all, the 30-06 in that bucket, and a few others as a matter of fact....

Let's find something more serious to argue (discuss?) about. How about, how many agels can dance on the point of a pin? Otr maybe, where does fire go, when fire goes out? Not good enough? Well then, how about how much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

To answwer the original question though which stated that both rounds were new and had NO history, which would I choose? Probably the .280 considering the better array of bullets for reloading.
Methinks however, for the average shooter and non-reloader, the .270 is probably the betetr choice. The .280 is handicapped by Remington's decision to put it in pump guns and semi-autos, thus forcing it to be underloaded. They screwed up the same way with the .35 Whelen, damn 'em.
For me it's no big deal. I have rifles in both the .270 and 280 and I like 'em both. I'll use the .280 for fairly flat land hunting as it's too heavy for mountain hunting and the .270 is at least a pound less. To be perfectly honest, if I had to choose between the two, I'd pick neither, but go with a 30-06.
Paul B.

Question to you all on the .280

I have a M70, Featherweight in a .280, push feed. I have never gotten what you would call excellent accuracy with it. My best groups are 1 1/2" with 150gr Nosler Partitions. I have tried other ammo with similar or worse results. I talked to my gunsmith and he suggested that the lightweight barrel on the featherweight may be the problem. He suggested swapping barrels but that will require a little stock work.

What do you all think???

quote:

I have shot may 170 gr. Speers in my .270

Ray, Is this out of a secret stash of yours? I don't see that bullet listed by Speer anymore.

Your and Allen comments about the 280 have me a little apprehensive right now as I am deep into a 280 build. I have another rifle in this and its a serious shooter but I am listening in the background. I certainly hope its like my experiences with the 300 Win mag which I have never personally had any decent luck with, but I know others have. I am not looking for benchrest quality but I do want a Nosler 150 gr to give me around .75 MOA +/- a little. Bullet brand can even budge, I will look to Swifts, Woodleigh, or North Forks if I can't sort out the Noslers.

And I am still PO'd that Barnes dropped all their originals, I have used these for years and I am down to my secret stash of these.

dogcat, are you shooting factory stuff? I have a very light wt. bbl. .280 & when I'm having a good day it will stay under 1moa w/ many diff. loads. If you are handloading, give H4831sc or IMR4831 a try under the 140-150gr bullets. IMR7828 is the powder for my .280 under 160-175gr bullets, not bad w/ 150gr either.
145gr Speer GS o/ 59gr IMR7828 is 2950fps form my 23" bbl. 57gr under a 160gr NP gives me 2800fps. Both loads shoot just under 1moa most days, sometimes I can coax them under 3/4moa.