The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting Re: 270 or 280Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Re: 270 or 280 | Login/Join |
| one of us |
Is there much of a difference?? Or should I say any difference? | |||
|
| <9.3x62> |
Here we go again... No difference with the possible exception of elk or moose, where a 175 might be a nice option. I doubt there is much practical difference between the 270/280 and the 7mm RM either. I prefer the 280, and conjecture that the 270 would be a footnote in cartidge history had the 280 been developed first and at 270 pressures and without such botched marketing. 9.3 | ||
|
one of us |
Quote: Not that the game your shooting at is going to notice, the 280 will give a bit more for bullet selection, if you don't mind short actions, the 7mm-08 will do anything these 2 will do in a shorter package, Jay | |||
|
one of us |
0.007" in bullet diameter 270 bullet weights (grains) - 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 135, 140, 150, 160, 165, 170 280 bullet weights (grains) - 100, 110, 115, 120, 130, 139, 140, 145, 150, 154, 156, 160, 162, 165, 168, 175, 180 No game animal will know the difference hit with a well-placed shot from a properly constructed bullet of appropriate weight from either. | |||
|
| one of us |
On paper the .280 has the slight advantage, in reality I've found .270 to be less finicky about loads. With ammo availablity the advantage is the .270 by a country mile! | |||
|
| one of us |
The only difference between the two you will notice is the abundance of .270 Win factory loads compared to the .280 Rem and the fact you will find .270 ammo anywhere sitting beside the 06 ammo. The .280 had a popularity surge during the 90s, but that seems to have died down with the onslaught of new rounds. I noticed that Winchester & Remington both dropped 2-3 factory offerings the last couple of years and Remington is only chambering in the Mt. Rifle (which is the one I would get anyway). The .270 & .280 are my 2 favorite rounds and I don't think you could go wrong with either. Both shoot the same bullet weights to the same velocity. You can commonly get slightly heavier slugs (for reloading) in the .280, but it does not have the case capacity to make that an advantage over a similarly loaded .270 Win. Kind of the way I look at it is there is not any game in any situation that I would shoot with a .280 that I would not shoot with equal confindence with a similarly loaded .270 (and vice versa). Personally, I would go with the .270 Win, but you would not go wrong with either. -Lou | |||
|
| one of us |
I'm with Lou270 - well said! - mike | |||
|
one of us |
The other shoe to Lou's post is the availability of factory rifles in .270 Win compared to .280 Rem (or 7X64 if you will). Everybody and his aardvark makes .270 Win rifles, not so the .280. I own a .280 Rem (marked 7mm Express Rem if you remember that), and I actually owned a .270 for about 15 minutes once -- another story. jim dodd | |||
|
one of us |
What 9.3 said, if the .280 hit 1st &/or had been marketed better, the .270 would probably never taken off. Even Jack O liked the 7x57. Make mine a .280 just to be different. I always handload, so factory ammo isn't a big deal. | |||
|
one of us |
Quote: I've only tried 3 different bullets to load so far for my 280. 139 Hornadt Iloc, 150 Nosler Btip, 160 Barnes XLC. Excellent results from all three. I got a .45" group with the Btips and the rifle is out of box. This one is not finicky at all.  | |||
|
| one of us |
Wasn't the .280 first developed by Remington to get performance close to the .270 at lower pressures that their pump actions could handle? With modern loads and modern rifles the two are identical, excepting maybe that the .280 has better heavy-bullet potential with the availability of many different 175 gr 7mm bullets. With bullets in the more practical (120-150 gr) range, the two are identical for all intents and purposes. The .270 has a better selection of factory ammo and factory rifles, to be sure. | |||
|
| <9.3x62> |
Quote: Don't forget the wonderful 284 195 gr Barnes or the 277 180 gr Barnes. It is perhaps worthy of note that most bullets heavier than 150 in 277 bore are semi-spitzers or round nose. Conversely, one can get a pointed bullet up through 195 gr in the 284 bore. Still, this will likely be irrelevant on all but the heaviest game that fall within the purview of these two rounds. | ||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Of course! I have a box of the 7mm 195 grain Barnes Originals. I was just taking bullet weights from those available from the mail order houses and wasn't sure if the Barnes Originals were still available. But sure enough there they are still listed on the Barnes website! Thanks for catching that. | |||
|
| one of us |
As with any case that has cartridges based on it using two different diameter bullets, the smaller diameter cartridge will have a slight advantage in effective range on smaller game, and the larger diameter cartridge will have a slight advantage on higher energy delivered through heavier bullets on larger game. With only a .007 difference in the diameters, the operative word here is SLIGHT. The same question/comparison could be made between the .25/06 and 6.5/06, the 6.5/06 and the .270, the .280 and the .30/06, the .30/06 and the 8mm-06 or .338/06, the .338/06 and the .35 Whelan. It all boils down to what is the most appropriate bore size for the game/range/target, not "is one 'better' than another?" | |||
|
| one of us |
9.3x62 said: Quote: VERY True! My 3rd centerfire cartridge was a .280rem. I loved it but ammo was scarce. I don't reload, so I now shoot a .270win. and love it as well. If I ever start to handload though, you can bet I will find a nice bolt gun in .280rem!! If the 7x57 is a classic, the 280Rem deserves to be that much more! | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: | |||
|
| one of us |
Difference is only .007. If I HAD to pick one Id pick the 280. More bullet choices. | |||
|
| <9.3x62> |
Quote: Let me be more clear about my assertion. The 270 is a great round. However, it also has had a priveledged existence being introduced in a good rifle (model 54) and then soonthereafter becoming a mainstay for the soon-to-be legendary model 70. It was well-marketed and was taken a long way by some gun writers, most notably JOC, with endless praise. Praise it most likely deserved, in large part, but praise that could just as sensibly been heaped upon on a 28-06 as a 27-06. Take instead the 280, introduced in the late 50s as a companion piece to an autoloader. Ammo was loaded to somewhat lower levels and with less efficient designs than the 270 ammo of the day. Remington then proceeded to change its name back and forth a few times, creating further confusion, and all of this in the hay day of the magnum era. In the early 60s, along came the 7mm RM and numerous writers to expound its virtues (such as Warren Page), all before the 280 was given half a chance by Remington. The fact that the 280 has been able to rise from such misfortune in the shadow of the 270 and the 7mm Mag(s), and become, by anyone's fair account, a "popular" round today is a testament to its attributes. BTW, I call the 280 "popular" and not a "footnote" as witnessed by the fact that Remington, Weatherby, Browning, Winchester, Sako, Ruger, among others, all chamber rifles in 280. Norma, Speer, Hornady, Federal, Remington, Winchester, among others, all make factory ammo. If this makes the 280 a footnote...  Quote: I had not heard about this anti-7mm sentiment, and am even more surprised that shaving 0.007 off the diameter would make for a profound marketing decision. Moreover, why is it relevant that there weren't any popular 7mm bores (at least in the US at the time); how many popular 277 bore cartidges were around for the general public to "have faith in" back in 1925? Quote: The 280 is more alive in the last 10 years than it has ever been, by an enormous margin. Moreover, this occured, as I mentioned above, in the shadow of these other two rounds; it is this gap that I conjectured that the 270, had it been hampered in the same ways, would not have been able to hurdle, when in fact, the 280 has managed to do so. The 270 enjoyed better timing (32 year head start), famous advocates, WAY better marketing, better ammo, and legendary rifles; the 280 had none of these advantages. Just something to think about... 9.3 | ||
|
| one of us |
Speaking of the .270's great advocate, Jack O'Connor, it should be noted that O'Connor was also very fond of the .280 Remington. He owned three of them. One, a meat-an'-potatoes Remington 742 semi-auto, and two custom bolt actions he had made up in the .280 Rem. He had me beat: I only own two .280s. One, my old Remington 725, and the other, a from-the-ground-up custom by Frank Pachmayr. I've killed from elk down to ground squirrels with mine, and never found them wanting, so long as I shot accurately... and that's what hunting is all about, in my opinion. O'Connor was also very fond of the 7x57 mm Mauser (remember Eleanor's rifle??), and the .30-06. He stressed accurate shooting, above all. FWIW. L.W. | |||
|
| one of us |
The difference between a 280 and a 270 is about like the difference between a Ford and a Chevy. What one will do, so will the other. The difference is really .007" in bullet diameter and I've never seen an animal that could distinguish that level of difference. Tom | |||
|
| one of us |
First of all, I am a .280 fan and was only being sarcastic with my remark about being a footnote. I say the .280 is not popular simply because other than these forums, I've only ever met one other guy that owns one. Manufacturers seem to be dropping the .280 again. Remington, Winchester, and Federal all dropped 2 or so factory loads recently, Winchester no longer chambers it (at least I don't see it in the 04 catalog), and Remington is down to chambering it in only one gun. I was not around in the 1920s, so cannot say for certainty if there was an anti-7mm crowd. I have heard it mentioned many, many times in press as to one of the reasons Winchester decided to go with a unique "new" .277 caliber than the 7mm. 7mm was a European caliber and coming out of WWI, it might not have been patriotic to hunt with it??? By the time the 7mm Rem Mag rolled out in 1962, WWI & WWII were far enough behind us that the general public didn't mind a 7mm. I don't know, but it does not seem far fetched to me given the fact that after the Iraq war anything "French" was doomed in our marketplace (can you say "Freedom Fries"). Quote:"The 280 is more alive in the last 10 years than it has ever been, by an enormous margin. Moreover, this occured, as I mentioned above, in the shadow of these other two rounds; it is this gap that I conjectured that the 270, had it been hampered in the same ways, would not have been able to hurdle, when in fact, the 280 has managed to do so. " I disagree. The .270 did not always have a friendly press or clear sailing. Have you ever heard of a guy named Elmer Keith? He pulled some serious weight and derided the .270 at every opportunity. I don't think I've ever read an article where anybody openly deride the .280. The .270 did not receive friendly press in the beginning either. I have an article in a 1936 American Rifleman on the .270 and the gist was that the .270 was an orphan because nobody wanted it and this was 11 years after it was introduced. Speaking of hurdling... how about the .270 hurdling just about every under .30 cal invented since 1925 that was invented to directly compete with the .270 and offers similar ballistics in some new improved package. To name a few: .260 Rem, 6.5 Rem Mag, .264 Win Mag, 7mm-08, .284, .280, 7mm Rem Mag, .270 Weatherby, etc... The only one of these rounds to be anywhere near as close to the .270 in popularity is the 7mm Rem Mag and most are adrift in obscurity. Heck, the .280 didn't even survive the 7mm Rem Mag Quote: "The 270 enjoyed better timing (32 year head start), famous advocates, WAY better marketing, better ammo, and legendary rifles; the 280 had none of these advantages. Just something to think about..." I don't know about the timing. Seems to me introducing a small high velocity round in a time of big slow ones is not good timing (hence the fact it took the .270 many years to catch on). I do not agree on the famous advocates. The .280 had it's share as well and I would argue more. All of the big hitter gun writers of the 80/90s plugged the .280 profusely, extoling its virtues over the .270. As a matter of fact, Gary Sitton wrote that they had a grass roots campaign going to keep it from getting discontinuted. Not to mention that ol' Elmer himself used it in the form of the .285 O.K.H. I still contend that the 7mm Rem Mag was the biggest factor the .280 never gained popularity. The .280 did not get off to a fast start, but neither did the .270. The .280 was ballyhoed as combining the best features of the .270 and .30-06 and it did not do this. The .280 has the velocity of .270 w/ lighter bullets and has the bullet weight of the .06 with it's heavier bullets, but it does not combine heavy bullets & high velocity like the 7mm Rem Mag, which is apparently what people want in an all around 7mm. I agree the .270 had a head start in term of better guns, but the .280 never got it's chance because more people wanted the 7mm Mag in the Rem 700. This is fun and in all seriousness, I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate. Maybe in the bizarro universe where the .280 came first, we would have the .280 as the one popular 7mm and 42 different .277 cals from the .270 BR to the .270 RUM. -Lou | |||
|
| <9.3x62> |
Quote: My apologies; sometimes those smirks can go either way. I agree, perhaps, that interest peaked in the mid-late 90s, and has waned a bit these past few years. However, if you look at the catalogs (ammo and rifle) as recently as the 80s, the 280 has clearly risen in acceptance by a huge margin since then, even taking the recent minor wane into account. Quote: A new caliber is certainly a believable marketing gimmick, and is probably the main reason (I would guess) that winchester went with it. Still, a 28-06 advertised as 284 bore (leaving aside the 7mm designation) and using the "patriotic" 30-06 case... who knows. Quote: I agree with your observation of the additional rounds design to compete with it; most cannot hold a candle to the 270, but, again, none have the advantages that the 270 has had. The 270 is a great round, that is true, but has been raised from "great" to "legendary" because of timing and good fortune. Quote: There you go again with that "didn't survive" followed by a grin. It didn't hurt the 7mm RM much to be introduced as a companion to the model 700. Quote: The era of fast had already beed ushered in by the time the 270 came out, credit the 250-3000 (and Charles Newton in general) for that. I suspect it could (and if the success of its history is a good metric) it was an ideal way to build on the growing idea that perhaps speed is both effective and marketable. Hold the phone a second here on the advocates. Yes, when the 280 finally got the attention it deserved in the 80s and 90s (30ish years after its introduction), but by that time the 270 had a 60+ year head start and the 7mm mags (multiplying fast at this time) were selling like hotcakes. Consider what these tardy gunwriters would have said to pump of the 270 (as compared to the 280) had their histories been reversed. No tiny power/frontal area advantage to tout; no heavier bullet selection to build an article around; no shorter action or lesser recoil and so on. Could the 270 has arisen in these circumstances? Most all rounds struggle for acceptance, but not very many have a man like JOC holding a 40+ year vigile in their favor, deserved as it may be. IMHO, you are not giving proper weight to the importance of his contribution to the 270's success. He was no ordinary gunwriter, nor was Whelen, for that matter. Quote: I think it is the combo of the 270 and 7mm mags that has kept the 280 at bay (among all the other reasons I have cited). It seems to me that, in fact, it is probably a better choice than either as it splits the advantages of each. I think its a bit incorrect to make it sounds like both the 270 and 280 has a similar amount of difficulty getting off the ground. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a round as deserving as the 280 that had a bumpier road to success (to be sure, not success on the level of the 270, but respectable success nevertheless). I think no small part of the 270s success is that it had a few decades to "get popular" and prove itself before any magnum appeared on the scene; that gave it enviable momentum in owndership and "tradition" and has surely been a foundation for staving off the onslaught of superior medium-bore magnums. Moreover, it really fit a niche market; there were basically no competitors to the 270 (in the pre-mag era), so if you wanted something a bit flatter shooting than an '06, you got a 270. Simple as that. The 250-3000 and 257 Roberts didn't interfer with this; and 6.5mms were even more shunned than 7mms. An enviable position. Quote: The world will never know, but a great round with a great head start in a great rifle with a legendary spokesman without much competition (magnum or otherwise) during its rise to fame went a long way to making the 270 THE 270. | ||
|
| one of us |
"It didn't hurt the 7mm RM much to be introduced as a companion to the model 700." Sorry, if I worded this improperly, I was meaning to say if the .280 turned out to be more popular at it's intro, it could have been the darling of a legendary hunting rifle "aka 700" like the .270 was with the Win M70. -Lou | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I totally agree, that both would have been popular, but my theory that the .280 would not have gained near the popularity lies on the the assumption that the ".280 Winchester" would have been loaded with 140-175 grain bullets and not something lighter to up velocity. Public and gun writer (including J'OC) sentiment has always been that under 140 grain bullets in the 7mms were for varmits and certainly not Elk, while .270 130 grain bullets, due to the higher SD were ideal on deer and OK on Elk. So you could use the same, high velocity flat trajectory load for all game in the .270 where you would have had to switch from a 125-130 to something heavier in the .280 for game larger than deer and lose the trajectory edge...why not stick with the 06? Even 140 7x57 bullets did not survive back then. Hence the reason the original 125 gr .280 load that was there to compete with the .270 quickly died and the 150 grain load always stayed on. No under 140 grain load has ever been popular in any of the 7mms and there have been several from Rem through the years, albeit well after the .270 hit the scene. Jack O'Connor commented that had the .270 been introduced with a 150 gr bullet instead of the 130, it would have been about as popular as the 7x57. I tend to agree and feel this is exaclty the boat the .280 would have been in at the time. Popular, but not enough of a differentiator from the 06 to be extremely popular. You have a good point as to whether a .270 would have faired well had it been introduced in an autoloader. I don't know. I agree that the .270 would not have been introduced at it's original ballistics of a 130 at 3160fps. The .270 has been toned down to 3050 these days because of all the old guns about, so let's say it was introduced with the 130 at 3050 in an autoloader (as well as the Rem M725 bolt gun) to compete with the .280, which time has proven to not hurt .270 sales. I don't think it would have done well out of the gate, but I do think Rem might have chambered it in their Rem 700 line when it came out in 62, which would have been a big boost compared to the .280 since the .280 did not make it into the 700 until 1979. I believe this for a couple of reasons, one being that the 6mm Rem was getting badly beaten by the .243 and the .270 could have been the smaller bore Rem needed to compete and 2 being the .270 was a different caliber than the 7mm Rem Mag, so it did not overlap as much in the big 7s domain as much as the .280 did. Basically, they could of put the .270 into the 700 without hurting the sales of the 7mm Rem Mag and it could take away business from some of Winchesters "milder" rounds that were popping up ala .308, .243, .284, etc... Also, none of the naming confusion would have ever hit the .270 that hit the .280/7mm Express mess that went on. This has been great fun and I've had an excellent time exchanging point of view with somebody so versed in the history of our sporting rounds! -Lou | |||
|
| <9.3x62> |
Quote: Tough call, but you could be right. I think a 130 284, if introduced with and constructed for the 280 would probably have faired just fine. One must be a little careful when comparing sectional densities across calibers, as bullet construction in this narrow difference would likely have been the most relevant property of the bullet. Quote: Wouldn't the 270 "Remington" have been excluded from the 700 until '79 as well, again, if the role reversal is complete? I agree that the 270 "Remington" would have been able to dodge the naming debacle. I think the 24 bores and the 270 are distinct enough in applications that Remington would have not tried to make the substitution you suggest. Also, there would have been considerable risk introducing a new bullet diameter in 1957, especially given that the 1960s was to become the hayday of the 284 bore (thanks to the 7mm mag, and others, like the 284 and because of the momentum the 284 bore would have had if the 280 "Winchester" had risen to consinderable fame.). I think the 270 would never have even made it off the drawing board if the 280 "Winchester" had made it from 1925 to 1957 with even 50% of the momentum that the 270 actually did. I think it would be like trying to sell the 27-08 in the manner I described in my previous post. Now the 24 bores are another gripe I have, but I'll leave that for another day... Quote: I, too, have enjoyed our exchanges very much. It is nice to have a conversation without it turning into an argument, as too often happens on these boards. In fact, all this talk has got me thinking about putting together another 280. I'm working with a 284 and a 7x57 just now... | ||
|
| one of us |
Quote: On the .270 in the 700 thing, I was going on the premise that the roles were reversed (i.e. times of intro, but both still existed). I was thinking the .270 bore might have made it in the 700 at introdution while the .280 didn't because it wouldn't have stolen as much of the 7mm Rem Mags thunder or led to as much confusion/conflict while still providing a milder round to compete with Winchester for the recoil-conscience. I have no doubt that the .270 might have not of made it off the drawing board if the .280 came first, but given similar chain of events, Remington would have had to offer something with ".280 like ballistics" in an autoloader instead of ".270 like ballistics" in the autoloader that spawned the .280. A .277 on the 06 sounds as reasonable as say a .264 on the 06 case (we know Americans don't like those either)? Who knows for sure. Quote: Couldn't agree more. I guess the arguments just shows how much we care about our sport and how personal of a connection we have with it. -Lou P.S. I ordered 150 rounds of new .280 brass today too. Of course, I already had hoards of the more common .270 brass  | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
