Keep it up guys!

Only 32 pages until you catch up with the Matchking thread.

ZM

quote:

Originally posted by Zeke:
Keep it up guys!

Only 32 pages until you catch up with the Matchking thread.

ZM

31, you just started page 3!

Paul B, interesting bit of trivia concerning the origins of the .270 Win. of which I was unaware. If John Wooters wrote it, I believe it! It makes sense that a government, i.e. Chinese, contract provided the funds for research and development of such an unusual (at the time) diameter round. I cannot imagine the Winchester execs expending R&D dollars for it as a sporting cartridge, even if they were looking for a successor to the .256 Newton (.264" bullet diameter). However, I think the Newton was a more practical round than the .270 due to it's ability to handle heavier bullets up to 160 grains. It's too bad it was a commercial failure, but I think Newton is somewhat vindicated by the proliferation of 6.5 mm cartrridges available today. The .260 Rem. and 6.5 x 55 mm Swede come to mind, not to mention the various 6.5/06 wildcats, and the newer 6.5/284 Norma. Each can be just as effective in the field as a .270, and the .280 Rem.

I'll give that a try Ray, can't play golf worth a damn anyway.
No Frank, no tat of the .280, but I do have a picture under my pillow.

Isn't the 280 a renamed 7mm Express?

So much for the superior system of the rest of the world.

As for .007 less, "less is more".

to get back to the original question the way it was phrased...the 280 wins...reality...unless you are a person who takes pride in doing things different and loves to reload...the 270 wins. practicality vs an ideological or mental thing feeling your 280 is better than the 270 when you pull the trigger.

but agreed...no other cartridges with so little diference between them has ever been overdone as the 270 vs 280 schtick. if i did own a 270 i would have custom bullets made though...just to feel different

i think vapodog did this on purpose...it is called cartridge baiting...OOOH! got another one...he is a fisherman dont forget

quote:

i think vapodog did this on purpose...

Actually I really wanted to read responses to the age old question.

I'm of the opinion that the .280 is so much the better cartridge that I really don't understand the overwhelming favor to the .270.

The simple fact that for all loads up to the 150 grain they're identical and then add the dimension of the 175 grain bullet to the .280 and it's a no brainer.

A very many folks have voiced their disagreement to this I'm now rethinking my decision to build a .280

I think the newer premium bullets also have done away with some of the incremental credibility to the .280 as the .270 shines better than ever and it's possible that if one thinks he needs more then the .280 just isn't the answer.....look way up the line to the .338.

Vapo, build the .280, you won't be dissapointed. Besides if the newer monometal bullets make the .270 better, won't they also make the .280 better too?
The only reason everyone lavishes all the high praise on the .270 is tradition; "my grandpa hunted everything w/ one & that's good enough for me". Yes there is little diff. between the two but why have vanilla when you can have vanilla w/ fudge sauce? Now if you don't handload then the .270 is for you.

quote:

Originally posted by jocamp64:
Isn't the 280 a renamed 7mm Express?

So much for the superior system of the rest of the world.

As for .007 less, "less is more".

Actually, yes and no. The original name was the .280 Remington. Sales were sluggish, so Remingting souper it up by an advertised 100 FPS and called it the 7mm Express Remington. That's the headstamp on the casing sitting at my computer stand. Then, people started sticking them into 7mm Rem. Mag.s with the ensuing kabooms, so Remiongton went back to calling it the .280 Remington. They probably downloaded it back to the original specs as well.
The exact headstamp on the case says, "R-P 7MM EXP REM."

Paul B.

As I remember the only reason Remington developed the 280 was because the preasure curve of the 270 was too abrupt for reliable use in the 740 autoloader.
I think Charley Waterman told me that

I don't have a 280 and don't have a use for one right now. My 270 Feather weight wood stock is a real deer killer but so is my 7mm and my 30/06
Right now I'm not into any of these rifles because I'm into bear hunting so my 300 Win., 300 RUM and 338 RUM are the ones I'll use for bear.

quote:

Actually I really wanted to read responses to the age old question.

I'm of the opinion that the .280 is so much the better cartridge that I really don't understand the overwhelming favor to the .270.

The simple fact that for all loads up to the 150 grain they're identical and then add the dimension of the 175 grain bullet to the .280 and it's a no brainer.

A very many folks have voiced their disagreement to this I'm now rethinking my decision to build a .280

I think the newer premium bullets also have done away with some of the incremental credibility to the .280 as the .270 shines better than ever and it's possible that if one thinks he needs more then the .280 just isn't the answer.....look way up the line to the .338.

DITTO - Seems to me that if you need (want) more than a 270 you should step up to at least an 06. This is starting to border on the "One Rifle" discussion.

Build the 270 and if you find you "need" more add a 375! This way you'll get the enjoyment of building twice!

Actually they're both useless... the 7x64 Brenneke is far superior!

quote:

Actually they're both useless... the 7x64 Brenneke is far superior!

actualy...this made me think...vapo...you are a reloader...since you wont be buying factory ammo do the 280 if that is what you want...or do the more exotic like the 7x64 brenneke... i do like the brenneke plus most folks will go "huh" after you say it...if they know what it is than you just made a friend (from my understanding the brenneke and 280 rem are balistic twins...just do the 280 for cheaper brass )

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

I'm of the opinion that the .280 is so much the better cartridge that I really don't understand the overwhelming favor to the .270.

I have never owned a 280. I have a 7mag that shoots just fine. When it came to rifle cartridges, I had never even heard of the 280 until after I owned a 7mag. (I was 21). I do own 3 270s. To me a 280 was just a waste when the 7mag is around. I do not feel that the 280 is that much better than a 270. I would be happy to shoot any animal with a 270 while anyone else prefers the 280 in the same application, we each choose our own bullets. Guaranteed, I'll kill just as efficiently as anyone else. And I'll be happy to put my money where my mouth is.

I do not mean to sound offensive on the "waste" comment. Quite frankly, many cartridges can fall into that catagory. It is all about preference. For example, I have no interest in a 25.06, 280, 22-250, 7STW, 7RUM. There are others, but by choice, I feel that some cartridges are simply a waste, including some, not all, of the short mags and supershorts. Like the fellas at Sierra stated, "why did they ever make them?!!"

Asking the readers to ignore the history of both the 270 and 280 as it ultimately influences our preference is rather like asking a jury to ignore the last statements of a witness even though it may have been pertinent to the outcome of the trial.

The .270 will do anything I need a medium caliber rifle to do, and ammo is everywhere. Resale is much easier with a .270, and for me .280's seem to be more finicky to load for.

This string'll spark up some conversation The difference between the two is 0.007" bullet dia and - I believe - 0.050" shoulder position (maybe the angle is different too). Otherwise they are nearly identical and the animal you shoot won't know better. From my personal perspective choose the 280 Rem if you handload - there are more bullet choices and choose the 270 Win if you do not handload - there are more factory load choices. Else, if you find a really good deal on a really nice rifle chambered for either- buy it.

quote:

Resale is much easier with a .270

That I am not so sure about, and I think its the other way around. I just bought a CRF original Winchester 70 in 280 it was sold the momemnt it left the hands of the original owner. They made a lot more 270's and nice 280's don't have resell problems.

Yeah there are some ugly new Remingtons chambered in 280's that are slow movers, but I think this is rifle related, same rifle in a 30-06 or 270 isn't setting the world on fire in sales records either.

The 280's real problem nowdays is rifles chambered for it, they are scarce.

I have also not experienced these being finicky to load for either, I own two, and this is a cosmopolitan round to load for in my experiences. Very straight forward, I have worked exclusively with solid Base bullets, and when I get time I am going to work with some boattails. About 1/2 of the 270's I worked with in the past didn't like boattail bullets, very rifle specific, but my favorite old Model 70 never shot a good boattail load the whole time I owned it, always better accuracy with the flat bases.

The heavier bullets issue has nothing to do with the intrinsic capability of the .270. The "problem", if you want to call it that, is that the .270 was marketed for a long time as a high-velocity, flat shooting round, and it is still perceived that way. People who bought .270s want that high velocity, so they want loads with 130 grain bullets, or 150 grains at most. They don't want to fool around with 160-170 grain bullets even though the cartridge is perfectly capable of driving them.

Think about it--if the 6.5 can handle 160gr bullets and the 7mm can handle 175s, isn't it obvious that the maximum bullet weight for the .270 should be about 170 grains? This hasn't come to pass, not because the cartridge won't accomodate it for some reason, but because that is not where the ammo companies perceive the demand in that caliber. My .270s have no trouble with the Nosler 160 grain bullet, and if there were a good 170 grainer out there I would give it a go.

Now that bullet technology has advanced to the point of Accubonds and TSX bullets and A-frames, the whole thing becomes a moot point IMO. There is nothing the .280 can do that the .270 can't do just as well with one of those 150 grain bullets.

I don't mean to preach or patronize anyone as I am quite certain there are a lot of people on this forum more knowledgeable then me. I was reading in "Cartridges of The World" by Frank Barnse and he brings up an important point. The shoulder on the 280 Rem is moved forward to prevent chambering 280 ammo in a 270 win rifle but 270 ammo WILL chamber in a 280 rifle. Not good. You will have 0.50" headspace. I don't want to read about bad new on the forum. I know a lot of you buy a lot of rifles like me and may end up with both in your collection. I already have a 270 and would not likely pass up a good deal on a 280. I'm glad I now know about this.