.270 vs .280

[CBH Australia]

I don’t think the .280 is so common in Australia. The .270 is so availability is handy to source ammo.
I started a thread on 7mm cartridges what’s your thoughts?
I learned about the .280, and the ..280 ai and then the 7x64 that might just shadow the previous 2 coming close to 7mm Rem Mag without the recoil. All propositions for handloading of course.
I have a 7mm-08 because I liked the idea but still use a .308 and so do many is Australia.
I’m not sure 7 thou makes a difference or if we should hunt with .30’s
I hired a 7mmRM in South Africa and it worked well.
Suitable projectile, loading and shot placement within “ideal” ranges for the cartridge capability will deliver results. I don’t think 7 thou will be noticeable even with the slight velocity increase in the .280
If you want something a little less common there is no disadvantage if you have good ammo.
I think it’s all personal preference or our desire to select something based on our perceived ideal.

 

[Newboomer]

Not familiar with 270 or 280 but from what I've read they are very close ballistically. I've used 7RM for pg from springbok to zebra with Barnes 160g TSX out to 268 yards. Deadly accurate and one shot kills. It's my go to pg gun for all except eland and buf.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Thank you @Newboomer it is always good to hear from one with years of experience.

If you don't mind my asking what is you preferred cartridge for eland. Given the mass of the creature I would hazard a geuss that one would require a stout offering to humanely hunt them.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Re-invention of the wheel. Which is how great cartridges are created, I understand that. In this case 270 vs 280, I have no idea why the 280 was created. Wildcats be wildcats. There is a long list of cartridges that spawned from other cartridges that became phenomenal creations. I love the 6mm Remington but it doesn't really have that much of an advantage over the 243 really. I'm glad someone created the 6mm but it wasn't a necessity to fill a gap. I guess thats where I am going with my little rant here. Just because me or anyone else has an opinion on any said cartridge, in the end its just shit for an opinion. If you like it and it does what you bought it too do, then its the right one for you. Regardless if there is a "better"....

It is/was Remington vs. Winchester in many cases. When one came out with a cartridge in a given caliber, then the other had to. I guess they felt they had to protect their market share?

 

[Inline6]

If I were building a hunting rifle that was a do it all, my choice would be a 280AI. But like most I have choices and I like my guns haha can't have just one.

 

[Tra3]

I hunted with a .270 from my youth until recently when I learned that buying a new firearm is like buying a shot of tequila, they always seem to come in multiples.
My complaint about the .270 is that in Midwest woods deer hunting you are going to get a lot of bloodshot meat. Shots beyond 100 yards are better. Knowing that, I haven’t taken the 7 mag for a deer hunt in the woods. The 7 mag’s new gun safe buddies like a 6.5CM seem better suited for deer.
So back to my point: get both. the .270 for longer range and the .280 for heavier bullets at closer range.

 

[Inline6]

6.5CM is a good round everything from a whitetail to nalgai have been taken with it in my family.

 

[Ray B]

I recall reading a chapter, I think by Jack O'Connor, where he discussed the 280 Rem. It seems Remington was seeking a cartridge that would exceed the 270 while working through a standard length action. the process lead through the 280 Rem as an intermediate step in the development of the 7mm Rem Mag, which was originally going to be called the 280 Rem Mag; but shelved due to possible confusion (which did happen when the 280 Rem was renamed the 7mm Express). For years the standard factory loading for the 270 were 130 & 150 gr, while the 280 had 139 to 175 gr. The 270 had the flatter trajectory while the 280 boasted better penetration.

 

[Mr. Zorg]

If the 7X64mm Brenneke had come across the Atlantic to North America shortly after its 1917 debut, both the .270 Winchester and .280 Remington might not have made their way past some wildcat status. The 7X57mm Mauser existed before thrm all, and the 7mm-08 grew from a wildcat based on the .308 Winchester and its progenitors in 1980.

There's a whole world of "what ifs" in the last 150 or so years of rifle cartridges. But we have today what we have today.

I'm not a reloader but I find I have reasonable access to imported 7X64mm Brenneke ammunition, especially offered in multiple brands under the RUAG umbrella.

I have quite a selection available in 7mm-08 and that cartridge appears to have room to grow with the latest Einchester StaBALL 6.5 powder. Too early for that to have enough experience base.

I'm considering selling my 7X57mm full stock rifle at some point in the not-too-distant-future pending further exploration of 7mm-08 potential. I'll probably keep my .270 Winchester full stock carbine even if I never hunt with it. And none of the game I've killed with my .25-06 Remington thus far would have died any more quickly with the same shot placement by any larger diameter bullet.

 

[greyfox]

Marketing, Plain and Simple - sell guns. a 308 will bounce off an animal but a '06 will drop them dead and a 300 mag will drop them and their brother even deader.

No animal is going to take a shot from a 6mm/6.5/7mm/277/308 from a well constructed bullet, hitting in the vitals, traveling at 2700+ fps and be able to tell you which bullet,maker, cartridge, barrel length, action type, etc... it was.

Buy what you like, learn to shoot it,

 

[Scrumbag]

As others have said, if you want a slightly heavier bullet a 280 Rem / 7x64 is where it is at. Can make a difference if pigs are your intended quarry. (Some places in Europe say 7mm minimum for boar, 270W being 6.8mm)

Scrummy

 

[Ryan]

Thank you @Newboomer it is always good to hear from one with years of experience.

If you don't mind my asking what is you preferred cartridge for eland. Given the mass of the creature I would hazard a geuss that one would require a stout offering to humanely hunt them.

Not sure Newboomer's opinion but here's some solid info on eland calibers. https://www.africahunting.com/threads/hunting-eland.219/

HUNTING Eland

 

[DG870]

Both cartridges are, in my opinion, excellent cartridges. I’ve used a 270 for nearly 50 years on deer and coyotes. I grew up reading Jack O’Connor’s articles and saved to buy my first 270 while I was in high school. When I got out of school and had better jobs I accumulated different rifles and have shot deer using 22-250, 243, 6.5 Swede, 257 Roberts, 30-06, 7x57, 7 mag, and 20 years ago picked up a 280 as a back up rifle for a
Wyoming deer Hunt. I’ve used the 280 using 175 grain bullets on pigs in Texas and 139s for deer with excellent results.
As I started reloading 40 years ago I started using 130’s in the 270 but moved to 140 as I liked the heavier bullets performance on bigger mule deer. I used 139’s in the 280 so performance was basically the same.

The 280’s advantage is the excellent selection of 7mm bullets. You can step up the horsepower depending on the game being hunted.

I always come back to the 270 using 140 grain bullet as my favorite rifle for mule deer in the area that I hunt. I think the selection of the bullet used based on the game being hunted and the average distance of the shot is more important than the difference between a 277 vs a 284 inch bullet.

 

[Red Leg]

Among similar rounds, it is all about bullet weight and design.

I think the selection of the bullet used based on the game being hunted and the average distance of the shot is more important than the difference between a 277 vs a 284 inch bullet.

Exactly!

 

[bruce moulds]

interestingly the 280 was never developed to compete directly with the 270, but indirectly yes.
it was never designed as a bolt action round.
Remington had a semiauto and a pump action that they wanted a round that could compete with the 270 but run at lower pressure.
voila, the 280.
at lower pressure, it did compete with the 270.
this might well have hampered it as a bolt action round, but handloaders had an answer to that.
bring pressures up to 270 levels, and suddenly the 280 was in front.
in the meantime, pressure was quietly reduced in 270 factory loads, and reloading manuals eased off on their max loads for 270.
then some ammunition suppliers started loading the 280 up a bit.
280 is now considered a boltgun cartridge, and it suits this job well.
Winchester did a similar thing with the 284, aiming at 270 performance in lever and semiauto actions of 308 length.
they fattened the 308 length case to get 30/06 type capacity and we had the 284.

any of these 7mm rounds will kill big pigs well with 140 gn bullets, and shoot flat.
the 284 starts to suffer with heavy bullets requiring seating into case capacity in a 308 mag length.
I think I recall that the 280 has a little more case capacity than the 7x64, giving it a slight edge at equal pressures.
bruce.

 

[DG870]

I’ve read somewhere that when Winchester was developing the cartridge based on necking down the 30-06 case they wanted to go to use the .284 bullet but they wanted to go high pressure, 54,00p cup, and they were afraid that folks would rechamber 7mm model 93 mausers to the new cartridge and blow them up so the went to the .277 diameter to prevent this. Anyone else read this?

 

[Scrumbag]

interestingly the 280 was never developed to compete directly with the 270, but indirectly yes.
it was never designed as a bolt action round.
Remington had a semiauto and a pump action that they wanted a round that could compete with the 270 but run at lower pressure.
voila, the 280.
at lower pressure, it did compete with the 270.
this might well have hampered it as a bolt action round, but handloaders had an answer to that.
bring pressures up to 270 levels, and suddenly the 280 was in front.
in the meantime, pressure was quietly reduced in 270 factory loads, and reloading manuals eased off on their max loads for 270.
then some ammunition suppliers started loading the 280 up a bit.
280 is now considered a boltgun cartridge, and it suits this job well.
Winchester did a similar thing with the 284, aiming at 270 performance in lever and semiauto actions of 308 length.
they fattened the 308 length case to get 30/06 type capacity and we had the 284.

any of these 7mm rounds will kill big pigs well with 140 gn bullets, and shoot flat.
the 284 starts to suffer with heavy bullets requiring seating into case capacity in a 308 mag length.
I think I recall that the 280 has a little more case capacity than the 7x64, giving it a slight edge at equal pressures.
bruce.

Interestingly enough, the vast majority of 280 rems I have come across were in France and in Remington semi-autos. Usually ancient.

Scrummy

 

[Stephen Ausband]

Anything you can kill with a 280 factory load can be killed just as easily with a 270 factory load. There's simply no enough difference to quibble about. Your range acquaintance with the story of the 280 being vastly superior may be one of those guys who does a lot of "theoretical hunting" (also called day-dreaming). Given equivalent rifles, both cartridges are accurate at long range, flat shooting, easy for anyone to shoot well, and very efficient killers of game. If the 280 has an advantage, it's for those who reload, and especially for those wanting to use very heavy-for-caliber bullets. If the 270 has an advantage, it's in the fact that if your luggage gets lost you can walk into any store that sells ammo and find lots of fodder for your rifle.

 

[Major Khan]

I am a .270 Winchester man myself , @Skinnersblade . You already know the story about my client , Tom Bolack bagging his 503 pound royal Bengal tiger with a .270 Winchester calibre 130 grain Silvertip soft point bullet and a single frontal heart shot . We did not even have the modern heavy 140 and 150 grain bullets back in those days ( or , if they existed , then l never saw clients bring any. )
That said , l have no experience with the .280 Remington so l should not be too critical towards it. I am certain that it must be a good cartridge . Based on my layman's knowledge of ballistics , l really do not think that you will notice a difference in the field in practical terms.
Your shooting range companion is probably 1 of those people who just like to gloat " Mine is bigger than yours " .

 

[bruce moulds]

if a 270 will do it, a 280 will do just that little bit better.
for the same sectional density, the 280 bullet is about 10 gns heavier at the same speed.
bruce.