quote:

Originally posted by schromf:

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.

I, too, have, somewhere, a few of the 170 grain round nosers for the .270.

I think Ray and I are the only ones that ever bought them....they haven't been marketed for about 30 years now.

I wouldn't buy them today anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
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???

Dogcat. I have one of that model rifle in 7x57 and it is an absolute tackdriver. I shoot some very hot loads in that rifle, coming very close to .280 Rem. velocity.
One thing I have noticed on mine is that the barrel copper fouls very easily.
When I first got the gun, I was assured by the seller, a person I've known for years and is about as honest a gun trader as you'll ever find, that the rifle was extremely accurate. Well, I didn't thin five inch groups was accurate, but I glass bedded the gun and gave it a decent trigger job. Still no help, and I was beginning to think my friend had pulled a fast one. All the action screws were tight as were the scope mount and ring screws. Now, it couldn't have ben the scope. That was a brand new Leupold 4X. Well, I swapped scopes and yup, it was a bad scope and the rifle was really extremely accurate with most loads going in under a half inch and the worst at .75".
I just found another Winchester Featherweight push feed in .257 BOB and I've only tried two loads in it. The remington factory ammo was total junk, but the one handload I tried did 1.25", which I consider not to shabby for the first effort.
Personally, I don't think you ned a new barrel, but it might take a bit of bedding work and a trigger job to help that rifle out. I don't care for that hot glue bedding system Winchester uses and I rebed mine with proper glass bedding material. I have found, in several guns, where that hot glue has crumbled and doesn't do squat in holding the recoil lug solidly, as it should. You might want to look into that.
Paul B.

Paul,
Thanks, I will go that route and see what happens. I switched scopes recently and am not happy with the Zeiss Conquest vs. my older Leupold. I will try a different Leupold and see what happens as well.

I think that some forget another page in this book that is something called the 30-06. For my money the 30-06 negates any advantage the 280 has over the 270 because it is an outstanding round with the 180 grain bullet and has been long before either the 270 or 280 saw the light of day. That being said when the 270 first appeared it was with the 130 grain bullet and that is still my bullet of choice for this rifle. The 150 grain bullet came along when many people complained the 130 was just to destructive on deer. It seems rather strange to us in this day in age but back then few people reloaded and factory rounds were the norm.

When you really look at things I believe you could say the 280 started a trend of the factories coming out with cartridges that really didn't cover any new ground at the time of their beginning. Today we take that for granted because there really are no spaces that need covering, yet the factories still come out with something new.

I've had several rifles chambered for each and as Ray said it always seemed to me that the 270 was easier as a rule to load for and a bit more accurate. I now own just one 270 and no 280s and am quite content.

My .280 was not my choice. My wife bought it for me after my guns were stolen. She went to the gun shop, asked the salesman what a good gun and came home with a .280. If I were buying, I would get a .270 or an 06, but like the .300 Win Mag the best - right now.

However, I have killed more game with the .280 than any other gun - so I am a .280 fan now.

Your comments are dead on as I feel the same way about the WSM cartridges and the variations off the .416 (Rem Mag, Rigby, Hoffman, Dakota, etal.).

Ray said once awhile back that "give me a .30-06, some 220 grain bullets and I will anything on the planet". I would prefer a .375 for that task, but would be happy with the .30-06 as well.

Lots of fun to discuss however.

.270 Win

270 is a joke, it won't kill anything and has terrible ballistics and no bullet selection.

Thats right, the second most popular caliber is also one of the most efficient.. Few "regular" calibers are not improvable, the 270 AI does little more than the 270, but the 280 AI is head and shoulders over the standard 280. Gota hate that!

Also who wants a all American caliber, I prefer one of them Euro millemeter calbre. (Ha Ha, no offence meant, Euro Dudes)

Hey Vapodog:

Here we go again, I love the 270. I guess you can figure that, I like the (as you know) 35 Whelen over the 338-06 as well.

Boy do you and I differ.

Jerry

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Eden:
Hey Vapodog:

Here we go again, I love the 270. I guess you can figure that, I like the (as you know) 35 Whelen over the 338-06 as well.

Boy do you and I differ.

Jerry

It's not as though someone said one's mother had committed atrocities against motherhood by giving birth to one.

I truly suspect we could have a great laugh over an elk hunt campfire.

I, of course will be toting a .338-06 and a .280 as backup.

quote:

Thats right, the second most popular caliber is also one of the most efficient..

Acutally the .280 is the more efficient cartridge.

Vapodog:
You are right, we could have quite a nice time sipping scotch, and talking about one cartridge or another, while sitting around an elk campfire. Only problem is, I can't get drawn for a darn tag. I have a small hope, that I may get a landowner tag in New Mexico this year, but it looks slim. It seems New Mexico has cut way down on the landowner tags, thus creating my problem. The guy who lets us shoot prairie dogs on his ranch, has promised us some tags, but only after his professional hunter has had his choice.

Still like the 270 Winchester though, it is real hard to beat with a 130 grain bullet, at top vels. You know I don't buy that bullet selection argument. The problem with a gun that shoots too many bullets: who needs more? One gun, one bullet, thats my philosophy.

Jerry

quote:

One gun, one bullet, thats my philosophy.

I am a little more flexible than you on this, but not much, I usually cook up two loads one heavy, one velocity related medium. I don't have much use for a light.

If I can only pick one, its going to be the heavy, and I don't know where that puts the 270.

I've probably killed more variety of Big Game with the .280 Remington than with any other cartridge. It is extremely affective with 140 or 150 gr premium bullets on game up to and including Moose and Elk. I've loaded for a few and have only run into one that was real fussy about what it was fed.

Today though, I would choose the .270.

Chuck

quote:

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

RXM

Could you come say that in my thread?



Anyway, I have wanted a 280 for quite awhile.

My local shop just took one NIB in on trade. It is a Rem 700 classic from a few years ago. Hmmmm.

I like the 7's. My 7mm-08 and my 7mm Rem Mag are my most accurate rifles and have killed most of my deer with them. You know how it is when you get confidence in a particular bullet, caliber or rifle....you stick with it and reach for it instinctively.

[/QUOTE]
You know how it is when you get confidence in a particular bullet, caliber or rifle....you stick with it and reach for it instinctively.[/QUOTE]

That, my friend, is exactly how I feel about my .270.

RXM

My first deer rifle was a sporterized military Mauser in 7x57mm, my second was a .280 Remington. Why on earth would anyone need a .277" caliber? At the time, was there nothing else like it? Why did Winchester engineers choose this groove diameter? I read somewhere that if Chas. Newton had been successful in business, there would be no .270 Winchester. We'd all be shooting .256 Newtons, but since factory ammo wasn't available any more there was a marketplace void for a long-range thin-skinned game cartridge, and thus the .270 Win. was introduced. I would surely like to know who thought up that bullet diameter, because it required all new tooling. But really, there's no practical difference between the two. Both are excellent cartridges.

It must have been divine intervention to invent the perfect caliber 270 Winchester.

Thank God for the .277. ..

Strawboss you are exactly right. There was already a 7mm, a 6.5 & the .30. So WW comes along w/ a marketing ploy, something "new & improved", a .277 bore! Really, why? The .280 was & still is a slightly better cart. Remington just screwed the pooche when marketing it. The .270 & 06 will live a long life in the hands of the many non handloaders. For the rest of us, there is the wonderfull .280!

Strawboss. According to an article by John Wooters years ago on the .270, he made some comments on how China was experimenting with a 6.8x57mm cartridge. Yup, a .270 caliber round. Winchester apparently got a contract to make up ammo and experimented with the bullet on the 30-06 case necked down and the rest was history. Now just how accurate that tale is, I don't know, but it is interesting to contemplate.
Paul B.

The 270 has better sectional density and ballistic coefficient than the 280, for the same weight (Barely). They go back and forth on velocity and powder charge weights, always around 3 grains and 50 fps.

So no real difference, just preference.

"Personally I believe the .270 to be inherently more accurate than the .280 or at least that has been my experience."

The smith that runs CPR Gunsmithing said that the leade is wrong on the 280's and he, of course, knows what the best leade is. The leade on a 280 is not the same as other similar cartridges.

As to the question my answer has been neither. I started and stayed with the 30-06. Now I have accumulated a couple of 270's. Nice cartridge. Almost all of them are nice.

If I had to choose between the two I would pick the 270. Since the choice would occur in 2005 the 270 that I would choose would be the 270 WSM.

quote:

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....

I would have to give the slight nod to the 280 on paper for the scholarly types.

quote:

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

So why is it still so popular?

It works, and in the field there is little difference in performance.
It it still popular because: see previous.
It is still popular because of availability of product and sales.

I can tell you why I bought a 270 Win 22 years ago.
1) Because my Dad used a 270 to shoot two big whitetails that I had to stare/drool/dream over while growing up. My neighbor used a 6.5-06 and my Dad always shot bigger deer/antelope while I was growing up. So, the 270 had to better, right?

2) Jack O'Connor, need I say more. Yes, it was marketing at it's finest, but to repeat again. The cartridge works. I personally think it is probably the best deer cartridge out there. And if it didn't work, do you think it would still be around?

3)After learning the hard way that a 243 Win is not a great deer cartridge. I was duly impressed by the first and subsequent deer I shot with my first 270. It was a great confidence builder for a young hunter that had a couple of bad experiences.

So paper ballistics give a slight edge to the 280, sentimental edge goes to the 270 Win.
My confidence lies with the 270, it just plain works.

I have never owned a .280 but I would not hesitate to buy one. I does have a slight edge via the availability of heavier bullets.

The .270 is my favorite and I have the utmost confidence with it because it has always worked for me. I feel the .30-06' and the .280 are more versatile though.

Ive just pulled more long range hits with
the beloved .270 because I have packed it more and shot it more.

For what its worth it has worked since 1925.

I have one of each. I've always heard that they are very similar. My 270 has a 22 inch barrel,my 280 has a 26 inch barrel. My 280 has a lot more recoil than the 270.
I think a handloaded 280 loaded with 140 gr bullet will outperform a 270 loaded with a 140 gr bullet. When it comes to factory loads they might be similar but if you handload you'll get more out of that 280 than the 270. Don't get me wrong, I love my 270 but I'm one of those that thinks the 280 is the better of the two.
Since I handload it doesn't really matter which one is more easily available. I haven't shot an animal with a factory round in over ten years. I always bring a spare rifle sometimes two. Some of the folks are right you are beating a dead horse on this topic. I'll take the 280.

As there is no possible winner of this thread subject, I offer, IMHO, the 280 is the better round by far. And despite what others may say, the 35 Whelen is the better choice for a larger bore. That said, as in my opening sentence, no game animal will know what whacked them!

What Zeke said!

I like two quotes by a pair of magazine writers that I almost always enjoyed reading.

Finn Aagaard-"Quite a cartridge the old 270, it may even be almost as good as O'Connor said it was!!"

John Wotters-"The 270 makes both my under-rated and over-rated cartridges. It performs far better than it really should, but no round can possibly be as good as some folks say the 270 is!!"

I myself, will rest with the theory that it is almost as good as O'Connor said it was.
***************
The .270 & 06 will live a long life in the hands of the many non handloaders.

I suspect they both will live a great life among the handloaders, including this one, also.

Both are super cartridges and what I would call "reasonable" rounds. Meaning they do their job without the fuss of magnums, which in a lot of cases isn't needed. They are so close ballistically that either is a fine choice and it's really a choice of which number you like. I prefer the 280, no good reason, other than it shoots the same bullets as my 7-08. Having said that, I usually hunt with a 270, as guns are easier to find in that caliber. I've used a .280 for deer and it does it's job with ease.
I just can't see any real difference between the two rounds, both shoot flatter than the '06, and in my mind are a better choice.
So pick your poison and keep on shootin'.

I killed my first elk with a .270, in fact my boy will use that same rifle (my father's gun) for elk this year. On the other hand, much like the 30-06, it isn't unique or original enough to suit me. I bought a .280 Rem in a Win. Model 70 and it is a sweet gun to carry, it kills well, and I have confidence in it. We are splitting hairs here, but its fun!

I am pretty partial to the .280 I have a 16 year old Remington Mtn rifle in it and just bought a Rem CDl from JAB on here for my second one. Looking forward to it arriving.

That being said the .270 is also an excellent round. Is allmy Dad ever hunted with and is what I killed my first deer with. I bought my .280 because it gave me a wider selection of bullets to handload and a little better ballistics. Personal preference but those were my reasons.

My mtn rifle likes 52 grains of IMR4350 shoots excellent three shot groups. Won't do more than that because of the light barrel. Looking forward to trying the Accubonds it. Just haven't been able to find them. Ordered them yesterday from Cablea's since they we backordering them and midway wasn't.

Bet no one has seen a 280 do this!

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3221043/m/329100953

Actually Ray, my lt.wt. .280 has shot several groups smaller @ that same distance, who says the .280 is finicky to load for?

fred,

The target is not a "group" - As I was changing the scope setting!

If your rifle is as you say try setting out some golfballs at 300 yards and post us a pic if you hit one.

Dogcat

Consider yourelf lucky. I have owned a couple Featherweights that grouped in the 3-4 inch range with the light factory barrel. I don't own them anymore!

If I was buying today, I wouldn't buy either one if I had to make do with one rifle.

My experience is similar to smallfry's. but I started out with the '06 instead of a .280. Once owned nine of them at the same time, which I shot/used regularly. Always looked down on the .270, saying" What can it do that the '06 can't do better?"

So, for the first 27 years I shot and hunted, I never even bought or tried a .270 of my own.

In 1974, I somehow ended up with a .270 Mannlicher-Schoenauer in a trade. Didn't like the action in that long of a cartridge, so took the rifle to the Calgary, Alberta gun show, where I swapped it straight across for a pre-'64 M70 FW, also in .270 chambering. Thought "What the H---? Might as well give it a try."

Took it on a couple of mule deer hunts on the ranch, just about 40-odd miles SW of Calgary. Two shots, 2 nice, very dead, mulies. Since then, have shot more deer and 6 elk with it. Don't really like it as a primary for elk, but for deer, it is a great round. Mine will shoot the 130 gr. bullets in 1-1/4" at 200 yards pretty consistently, so have no reason to look for better hunting accuracy.

Last year, I bought my first .280. It is an "armoloyed" Mauser action, Hart barrel, custom stock with lots of very nice checkering, M-70 style safety, Timney trigger, custom bottom metal. Was built for one of the Houston Astros pitching staff, but I ended up with it, believe it or not, for $225 (before adding sights). Took a little tinkering, but I found one load that will shoot 5-shot groups of about 1/2" at 100 yards fairly often. Still have never taken it deer hunting, though it has gone antelope seeking. Still carry the .270 FW for deer.

But, if I had to choose a rifle for a first hunting rifle shooting deer sometimes at fairly extended range, but also capable of using heavy bullets sometimes for bears too, think I'd start right where I did the first time, back in the late 1940's,....with the old '06.

I like being a .280 snob. As a matter of fact many of us discuss our disdain for the pedestrian .270 win rather frequently at the Yacht Club or at Bushwood between rounds of golf.
I'm A member of the .338-06 club as well.

And.......FredJ338 I have heard he has a TATTOO of his .280 Custom he adores it that much.

Truthfully I like having something different. Have a Wby ULW in std .280 and a Rem 700 with a 26" Douglas in .280 AI. Both have shot well from the start and have performed flawlessly. The Rem 700 when it was a std .280 made two trips to RSA and took several heads of antelope and a couple of wildebeest too.

Any REAL difference between the .270 and .280 Rem on game? Probably not.

FN in MT

formerly the poster known as Frank Nowakowski

quote:

Originally posted by jocamp64:
It must have been divine intervention to invent the perfect caliber 270 Winchester.

Thank God for the .277. ..

Oh come on, like .007" really makes that much difference?

If the .280 had come out first in the (now obsolete, remember, most of the industrialized world is on the far superior metric system) English caliber designation, why would anyone design a cartridge shooting a bullet .007" smaller?

Sold the 7mm Mag. when I discovered the 280 would do the same thing without all the recoil and noise.

The 280 rules!

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Sold the 7mm Mag. when I discovered the 280 would do the same thing without all the recoil and noise.

The 280 rules!

Ain't that the truth.....that's also why my .300 mags are for sale and i'm now shooting a .30-06

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Sold the 7mm Mag. when I discovered the 280 would do the same thing without all the recoil and noise.

The 280 rules!

Uh--oh! Here come the 7mm Mag "loonies"!