.270 vs .280

[flat8]

I'm biased, but after my .375 (I doubt I'm alone on this forum), my .270 Win would be the second last gun I'd part with. It's just a magnificent round.

 

[Hillbilly Marine]

From what I have seen in action there is no difference between the two. My brother used a model 700 in 7mm express while I used a Ruger M77 in .270. He chose his because he got it for a song, not the chambering. I chose mine because I read to much O'Connor. We never saw any difference in performance but he had a harder time buying ammo.

 

[Denvir Tire]

On my very first deer hunt in Vermont I changed my wet pants during lunch. The wet pants had the three .270 rounds I was planning on using in the front pocket. The crew I was hunting with had already had their fun with the new guy, flatlander etc. so i kept my mouth shut while driving to the next push, but I had to tell my buddy who had invited me.
He promptly shouted out that Bill has forgotten his ammo...
We pulled up in front of the local country store, I threw a $20 bill out over the tailgate, a green box of .270 something grains was thrown in, one hour later I had my first ever Whitetail.
True story

You can get 30/06 .270 and 12 gauge ammo anywhere, any time......

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Good evening gentleman I was at the range recently sighting in my new to me .270, while there another gentleman was also sighting a browning leaver action .22. We got to talking as ones generally does when two gun owners are togeather and he told me the .280 is a far superior round to the .270. Given that this is my first sub .30 rifle I was unsure if he was just bias as he owned a .280. So I decide to pose the question to you all. Is there any Benefit to the .280 Over the .270?

Given that they are both using the same parent case and if my math is correct there is only .007 thousandths of an inch different I find it hard to believe one could be vastly superior to another. But I stand ready to be proven wrong if there is information to the contrary.

Skinnersblade
The difference between the 270, 280 & 30/06 debate has been going on for years. The 270 shoots flatter the 280 does everything the 270 does and most of what the 06 does. The 06 handles bullets up to 240 grains.
Pick which you like they all kill with the right bullet and placement. A good 150gn in the 270 is supposed to be able to handle up to moose from what others say. I can't speak from experience.
If you want something with more oomph you could always rebarrel to 35 Whelen.
Cheers mate Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

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"....

35 Bore
Couldn't have said it better my self.
Just because you like A and I like B who cares as long as we're happy and our choice does the job.
Cheers mate Bob

 

[shark_za]

My opinion on this is based on what I have seen while out hunting with friends and chatting with others on hunting trips.
The .270 is a caliber that invokes much emotion, most people from the Bushveld north hate it while people from the Cape cant sing its praises any louder. It really sees no middle ground.
The .280 is better for general hunting with its ability to shoot heavier bullets like the 175gr. People using 130gr .270's in the bushveld gave it a very bad reputation as a meat waster and some even lost or had to track animals for a long time when light bullets failed on shoulder bones.
.280 is more general purpose while the .270 is a specialist long range hunting load. If you want to shoot a 130gr bullet then do so in a .270, leave the .280 for heavier 160-175gr bullets.
(Then I say .280 I am really saying 7x64 interchangeably)

 

[leslie hetrick]

in over 65 years of hunting I have taken all kinds of game in many different lands with many different calibered rifles. as I reload I have found myself using a fairly light Winchester model 70 crf a 7mm mag, you don,t have to load it too balls to the wall every time. I load from 7-30 waters-7mm08-280 speeds to a 162 A-MAX at over 3000 fps and a 175 over 2900 fps if needed. I could also live with a 300 WM loaded the same way.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Thank all of you gentleman for reviving this thread I find the information most informative.

 

[bruce moulds]

My opinion on this is based on what I have seen while out hunting with friends and chatting with others on hunting trips.
The .270 is a caliber that invokes much emotion, most people from the Bushveld north hate it while people from the Cape cant sing its praises any louder. It really sees no middle ground.
The .280 is better for general hunting with its ability to shoot heavier bullets like the 175gr. People using 130gr .270's in the bushveld gave it a very bad reputation as a meat waster and some even lost or had to track animals for a long time when light bullets failed on shoulder bones.
.280 is more general purpose while the .270 is a specialist long range hunting load. If you want to shoot a 130gr bullet then do so in a .270, leave the .280 for heavier 160-175gr bullets.
(Then I say .280 I am really saying 7x64 interchangeably)

while I prefer the 280, I will always defend the 270.
the guys who say that the 270 is a greater meat destroyer need to think further.
firstly, whatever you use, if you want meat, don't put any bullet where meat is.
this means select your shot and go for head/high neck or lungs.
lungs are particularly good, as the meat is well bled out.
the varmint like properties of the nosler partition suit these shots well.
which raises the point of bullet choice.
do not blame the 270 calibre for incorrect bullet choice.
a reasonable bullet that is not explosive is the Woodleigh protected point if you must shoot where meat is.
the 270 with 130 gn bullets is similar to a 280 with 140 gn bullets, both shooting as flat as each other, and the 280 being a slightly better killer, using similar bullet construction.
a 270 with 150 gn bullets is similar to a 280, similarly with the same type of bullet.
than the 280 takes over with a 175 gn, which with readily available bullets the 270 cannot equal.
bruce.

 

[ILCAPO]

My 2 cents worth... I grew up reading Jack O’Connor and have used the ,270 a lot. However, Jack also wrote an article extolling the virtues of the .280. His successor at Outdoor Life, Jim Carmichael is a huge advocate of the .280. I’ve long been enamored with the .280 however, have seldom used it. Something I hope to rectify.
IMO, you could probably shoot 100 animals with each and not notice much of a difference. The ability of the .280 to handle 160 gr and 175 gr bullets with relatively high B.C. gives it a slight edge for larger game like kudu or elk.
In the .270, I now use the 130 gr Barnes TSX almost exclusively. So far, in the .280, I’ve only used the 140 gr Nosler Partition. Both have given excellent results on deer size game.

All comments I've seen are true. In a nutshell, they are very similar, with the .270 Winchester having the advantage of far greater commercial ammunition availability, and the .280 Remington having the advantage of taking heavier bullets. One thing to add here is a relatively recent change in the market. The .280 Ackley Improved -- P.O. Ackley's typical modification of blowing out the taper in the case and moving the shoulder forward, making it steeper, which increases the -06 case capacity by 5 percent. Ackley's "improved" cartridges are found across the spectrum, from .22 calibers through most medium bores. However, in 2008 the .280 Ackley Improved was commercialized. Although the selection is limited, you no longer have to rely on custom-built rifle makers. Several commercial makers offer rifles chambered in this caliber.

The advantage? With lighter bullets (140 grain), the .280 AI virtually matches the 7mm Remington Magnum in velocities using considerably less powder. The advantage? Far less recoil. Of course, if you hand load the 7 RM, you're back out ahead. But considering what I've seen the 7 RM do already, my question is how much power do you need? I think the 7mm Remington Ultra Magnum is going overboard.

I plan to build a .280 AI using a Belgian FN Mauser action I bought some years ago and which is still sitting in my safe awaiting a worthy project. Would I do so if I had a .270 Winchester? Perhaps, but not because of need, but just because.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

while I prefer the 280, I will always defend the 270.
the guys who say that the 270 is a greater meat destroyer need to think further.
firstly, whatever you use, if you want meat, don't put any bullet where meat is.
this means select your shot and go for head/high neck or lungs.
lungs are particularly good, as the meat is well bled out.
the varmint like properties of the nosler partition suit these shots well.
which raises the point of bullet choice.
do not blame the 270 calibre for incorrect bullet choice.
a reasonable bullet that is not explosive is the Woodleigh protected point if you must shoot where meat is.
the 270 with 130 gn bullets is similar to a 280 with 140 gn bullets, both shooting as flat as each other, and the 280 being a slightly better killer, using similar bullet construction.
a 270 with 150 gn bullets is similar to a 280, similarly with the same type of bullet.
than the 280 takes over with a 175 gn, which with readily available bullets the 270 cannot equal.
bruce.

In my experience when I choose to put the bullet where the meat is Generally I don't care the meat is there. Ive intentionally shot high in the shoulder on multiple occasions.

 

[bruce moulds]

the commercial so called 280 ackley is not actually an ackley.
the true ackley is a crush fit on a factory case when you close the bolt.
this allows use of std factory ammo in the ackley chamber.
the commercial version has longer headspace, so that you need to put a false shoulder on a 280 case and/or seat bullets into the rifling to safely fire a factory case in that chamber.
yet another commercial stuffup.
the 280 shoulder is 0.050" forward of the 30/06 and 270.
bruce.

 

[ILCAPO]

the commercial so called 280 ackley is not actually an ackley.
the true ackley is a crush fit on a factory case when you close the bolt.
this allows use of std factory ammo in the ackley chamber.
the commercial version has longer headspace, so that you need to put a false shoulder on a 280 case and/or seat bullets into the rifling to safely fire a factory case in that chamber.
yet another commercial stuffup.
the 280 shoulder is 0.050" forward of the 30/06 and 270.
bruce.

I understand there were a number of variances, but whatever SAAMI settled on, it provides an option which is a little different than the standard Remington or the .270. That was the point. That said, the ammo is expensive, so best if the owner reloads.

 

[bruce moulds]

you raise a good point about handloading.
the factory 280 ackley is loaded to higher pressure than the factory 280 std, hence the big appearance in improved ballistics.
bring the 280 up to its potential and the difference in performance is reduced.
one thing std cases do is feed from the mag better than 40 degree shouldered cases, particularly in controlled round actions.
thus the plot thickens.
bruce.

 

[shark_za]

do not blame the 270 calibre for incorrect bullet choice.
bruce.

All fair comments Bruce.
I see this a little different and look at the lowest common denominator when it comes to caliber performance.
For every one who brings their 130gr .270 to the thick bushveld you will find someone shooting 300m with a .303 on the plains. People are going to do less than optimal things all the time.
Asking the general population to shoot animals in the head/neck leads to a lot of wounded animals.

Its almost a specialist chambering as .270 needs special bullets, placement and shooting scenarios to really shine. This is true when it comes to African hunting conditions.

 

[ILCAPO]

you raise a good point about handloading.
the factory 280 ackley is loaded to higher pressure than the factory 280 std, hence the big appearance in improved ballistics.
bring the 280 up to its potential and the difference in performance is reduced.
one thing std cases do is feed from the mag better than 40 degree shouldered cases, particularly in controlled round actions.
thus the plot thickens.
bruce.

Yes, because the .03-06 case was pretty efficient in the first place according to P.O Ackley. There is only a 5% increase in case capacity using said modifications. Some other cartridges got better results, with some, I understand, reaching 15% increases. Now that does quite a bit.

If I recall correctly, I think the 250-3000 (.250 Savage) was one of those cartridges which really benefitted from the mods.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Yes, because the .03-06 case was pretty efficient in the first place according to P.O Ackley. There is only a 5% increase in case capacity using said modifications. Some other cartridges got better results, with some, I understand, reaching 15% increases. Now that does quite a bit.

If I recall correctly, I think the 250-3000 (.250 Savage) was one of those cartridges which really benefitted from the mods.

ILCAPO
Just remember that loaded to the same pressure you only get a 1% increase in velocity for every 4% increase in powder.
E.g. 280 150 gn bullet you get say 2,900 fps the same will get 3,000 in the 280AI.
Bob

 

[Saul]

I have always been a fan of flat shooting, lower recoil round (please do not tell my 338 RUM), but I for some reason have never liked the 270. I really cannot say why, but there has always been something about cartridge that I just do not like. I have always far preferred the 280 and I do most of my hunting with a 280 AI.

 

[bruce moulds]

Yes, because the .03-06 case was pretty efficient in the first place according to P.O Ackley. There is only a 5% increase in case capacity using said modifications. Some other cartridges got better results, with some, I understand, reaching 15% increases. Now that does quite a bit.

If I recall correctly, I think the 250-3000 (.250 Savage) was one of those cartridges which really benefitted from the mods.

yes 250 savage and 22/250 rem, 7x57 and 257 Roberts, 220 swift , all gain from improving due to a lot of case capacity gain.
the 308 win is not worth improving.
bruce.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

yes 250 savage and 22/250 rem, 7x57 and 257 Roberts, 220 swift , all gain from improving due to a lot of case capacity gain.
the 308 win is not worth improving.
bruce.

Bruce
What about the 22/ 250 ,250 savage improved with a slight differences in the shoulder angles. Whoops that's the 6.5 crudmore. Wheel reinventing.
Bob