DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,314
- 5,979
The 7-08 will haul the mail to the yodel dogs.
7mm08 v 280
- Thread starter ajvigs
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
6mm Remington
Ammo Smith
- Feb 27, 2006
- 5,240
- 522
I'm with all the folks who have spoken up so far, you cannot go wrong with either one. I have never owned a 7mm-08, but I had a 280 Remington that I really liked. I killed my largest elk with it using a 140 gr. Partition. Just for personal reasons I would pick the 280, but they both are great.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
The fastest load that I could find in the Hodgdon manual for the 160 grain bullet in the 7mm-08 was 2690 fps.
The fastest hunting load that I use in my .280 Rem (now my Grandson's .280 Rem) is 58 grains of IMR 7828 SSC, Fed 215 Mag primer with a Partition 160 grain bullet. The velocity chrono's 3010 fps at 15 feet, so add about 25 fps to get actual (3035 fps). That is the real difference (345 fps) between a 160 grain, 7mm-08 and a 160 grain, .280 Rem for those who desire to hunt elk with a .280 Rem. BTW, this is with a 22 inch barrel on the .280 Rem, Browning A-Bolt.
The fastest hunting load that I use in my .280 Rem (now my Grandson's .280 Rem) is 58 grains of IMR 7828 SSC, Fed 215 Mag primer with a Partition 160 grain bullet. The velocity chrono's 3010 fps at 15 feet, so add about 25 fps to get actual (3035 fps). That is the real difference (345 fps) between a 160 grain, 7mm-08 and a 160 grain, .280 Rem for those who desire to hunt elk with a .280 Rem. BTW, this is with a 22 inch barrel on the .280 Rem, Browning A-Bolt.
bullet
Handloader
- Dec 26, 2007
- 4,973
- 8
Well have owned both and the 280 is a fine cartridge but I choose the 7mm08 over the 280. 1. On average the 7mm08 cartridge is more accurate and much easier to find accuracy with a greater number of bullet choices and makes. 2. If a 24" barrel is used on the 7mm08 and you use powders with burn rates like W760, H414 and RL-17 you will have 280 velocities even with 160gr bullets (my M48 TGR 24" barrel is driving 160gr Speers at 2818 to 2824fps using W760) 3. Driving a 140gr over 2900fps or a 160gr 2800gps with the 24" barrel and a light gun like the TGR superior in my opinion to the 280, but the 280AI in a TGR has outstanding velocities. After owing rifles in both cartridges (although my 280's were Remington not TGR's) I would choose the 7mm08.
- Thread starter
- #28
I will be using it here in Florida for now where the shots will not typically be far, maybe on some farms might get a long shot but I am sure the 7mm08 will handle it.
bullet, I may have to get some of those recipes from you, as I think a 160grn bullet would be bad medicine for the hogs here
bullet, I may have to get some of those recipes from you, as I think a 160grn bullet would be bad medicine for the hogs here
I'm a big fan of both calibers and you wont go wrong with either one! the one thing the 08 has over the 280 imo is ammo selection. If you were to go out of state and forgot too bring your ammo along chances are you'll have no problem finding 08 ammo vs the 280.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
bullet":2mvmad14 said:
"You can not make a silk purse from a sow's ear" My grandmother imparted this pearl of wisdom to me over 60 years ago and it is still true. You got me thinking about wasting my time even trying to write about my practical history and experience with a caliber in this discussion because no one takes my experience seriously! Accuracy is relative and any rifle that shoots less than MOA at 300 yards is accurate, period! So relative accuracy gets lost in the practical reality of big game hunting accuracy. "Smaller is more accurate" only counts in varmit calibers but not within the same caliber of hunting rifles and it is at best a generalization with modern, highly accurate rifles for hunting game.
Also, back in my drag racing days, there was a saying, "Displacement always beats everything else"! The same is true in shooting. You can switch powders and play with different ones until forever and displacement stills wins! You can easily drive a .280 (not even the AI version) to 3035 fps with a 160 grain bullet, I even gave you the receipe. You can not attain that velocity safe pressures with a 160 grain bullet in a 7mm-08, at least none that I am aware of. Plus the longer bullets are way down in the 7mm-08's powder space, not so much with the .280.
Not singling you out but these threads get so circular!
I have both and load them for different purposes
The 7mm-08 is a Sako Finnlight that I have worked up 140 gr AB loads. Thinking more deer sized game.
The 280 Rem is a Remington XCR that I have worked up 160 AB loads. This is my wet weather rifle. Figure the 160 AB will work on anything: deer, elk, black bears. The XCR make a nice wet season rifle.
Did you know it rains in western Oregon in the winter!!!
The 7mm-08 is a Sako Finnlight that I have worked up 140 gr AB loads. Thinking more deer sized game.
The 280 Rem is a Remington XCR that I have worked up 160 AB loads. This is my wet weather rifle. Figure the 160 AB will work on anything: deer, elk, black bears. The XCR make a nice wet season rifle.
Did you know it rains in western Oregon in the winter!!!
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,314
- 5,979
orchemo":gnoaszzn said:
No! :shock: Surely you jest! The two cartridges will do all that they are designed to do. For most hunting situations, the 7mm-08 will deliver the goods. I'm partial to the 280 primarily because I've owned several. The slight increase in case capacity allows for somewhat higher velocities and generally permits use of heavier bullets. All told, either of the two will serve the hunter well.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
I do know that it rains in western Oregon in the winter, maybe because I own a piece of property there?
I also know that I have not learned much from the gun writer community recently. For years, I read these guys magazine columns and feature stories in the shooting magazies thinking that maybe I would actually learn something useful from these guys that might make my shooting better, rifles more accurate or at least teach me something that I did not know about the capabilities of a particular rifle caliber. I got to thinking about this with this thread about the 7mm-08 vs. .280.
Now, for the record, I have never owned a 7mm-08 but I have owned (3) .280's which includes a Remington Mountain Rifle and two A-Bolt Browning's. This over a period of 40 years. The first Remington Mountain Rifle that I owned was when I lived in Georgia and used it for local whitetail deer with 140 grain bullets at about 2900 feet per second. At that time, the gun writers had me convinced that was the niche of the .280 and it was not capable of being any more than what they said it was. At least with 140 grain bullets.
It was not until I started experimenting with 160 grain bullets in the .280 that I fially learned somehing useful about this caliber and believe me, it did not come from any gun writers! I had bought 3 pounds of IMR 2828 SSC for my .340 Weatherby Mark V. I also already used this powder in my 7mm Rem Mag with 160 grain bullets to good advantage.
While thinking about other uses for this IMR 7828, I started thing about how underloaded the .280 Remington is by the factories. I understand the reason for this, it is because Remington released this rifle as a Model 760 caliber and not for the Model 721, bolt action. So, as a result, they held back on pressures to below 50 KSI and forever held back this case as a competitive caliber the the .270 and/or 7mm Mag. Not only that but the case had more capacity because the shoulder had been moved .050 inches forward on the .280 Remington case and nobody bothered to recalculate the new loads for this case with higher pressures and with greater capacity of a moved shoulder. The entire gun writing community missed the boat on this change for the better and continued to chew on their pipestem and ignore this unexploitied change.
The bullet that I was interested in testing was the 160 grain 7mm bullet in the .280 Remington because this bullet had ever been relegated by the gun writers to 2800 fps and nobody even bother to do any load development on this bullet to see if that was the true limit for the .280 Remington or not? So, I started at the approved load limits of the loading manuals to see where I was with the 160 grain bullet.
I was at about 2800 fps and pressures were very mild. The Powley Computer told me to go up a couple of grains with this bullet and IMR 7828 and I did. Velocities went along and approached 2900 fps with no pressure signs. So next, I calculated the actual powder space of the .280 case and compared it to the 7mm Rem Mag case. This comparison told me to go to 58 grains of IMR 7828 SSC which would still be under 60KSI pressure which in a bolt action should be good to go. I did this and all of the sudden, I had a .280 Remington (no AI or tricks) which was giving me velocities just over 3000 fps with no pressure signs, flat primers or extractor impressions on the brass cases and with 8 grains less powder then the Rem Mag.
Why hadn't this work been done by one of the ballstic guru's years before? I am no saying that we don't need the 7mm Rem Mag but we could have gotten the same results with a smaller case and less powder in the plain old .280 Remington!!!
I also know that I have not learned much from the gun writer community recently. For years, I read these guys magazine columns and feature stories in the shooting magazies thinking that maybe I would actually learn something useful from these guys that might make my shooting better, rifles more accurate or at least teach me something that I did not know about the capabilities of a particular rifle caliber. I got to thinking about this with this thread about the 7mm-08 vs. .280.
Now, for the record, I have never owned a 7mm-08 but I have owned (3) .280's which includes a Remington Mountain Rifle and two A-Bolt Browning's. This over a period of 40 years. The first Remington Mountain Rifle that I owned was when I lived in Georgia and used it for local whitetail deer with 140 grain bullets at about 2900 feet per second. At that time, the gun writers had me convinced that was the niche of the .280 and it was not capable of being any more than what they said it was. At least with 140 grain bullets.
It was not until I started experimenting with 160 grain bullets in the .280 that I fially learned somehing useful about this caliber and believe me, it did not come from any gun writers! I had bought 3 pounds of IMR 2828 SSC for my .340 Weatherby Mark V. I also already used this powder in my 7mm Rem Mag with 160 grain bullets to good advantage.
While thinking about other uses for this IMR 7828, I started thing about how underloaded the .280 Remington is by the factories. I understand the reason for this, it is because Remington released this rifle as a Model 760 caliber and not for the Model 721, bolt action. So, as a result, they held back on pressures to below 50 KSI and forever held back this case as a competitive caliber the the .270 and/or 7mm Mag. Not only that but the case had more capacity because the shoulder had been moved .050 inches forward on the .280 Remington case and nobody bothered to recalculate the new loads for this case with higher pressures and with greater capacity of a moved shoulder. The entire gun writing community missed the boat on this change for the better and continued to chew on their pipestem and ignore this unexploitied change.
The bullet that I was interested in testing was the 160 grain 7mm bullet in the .280 Remington because this bullet had ever been relegated by the gun writers to 2800 fps and nobody even bother to do any load development on this bullet to see if that was the true limit for the .280 Remington or not? So, I started at the approved load limits of the loading manuals to see where I was with the 160 grain bullet.
I was at about 2800 fps and pressures were very mild. The Powley Computer told me to go up a couple of grains with this bullet and IMR 7828 and I did. Velocities went along and approached 2900 fps with no pressure signs. So next, I calculated the actual powder space of the .280 case and compared it to the 7mm Rem Mag case. This comparison told me to go to 58 grains of IMR 7828 SSC which would still be under 60KSI pressure which in a bolt action should be good to go. I did this and all of the sudden, I had a .280 Remington (no AI or tricks) which was giving me velocities just over 3000 fps with no pressure signs, flat primers or extractor impressions on the brass cases and with 8 grains less powder then the Rem Mag.
Why hadn't this work been done by one of the ballstic guru's years before? I am no saying that we don't need the 7mm Rem Mag but we could have gotten the same results with a smaller case and less powder in the plain old .280 Remington!!!
- Nov 4, 2004
- 25,162
- 8,419
Both are excellent rounds with the velocity edge going to the 280 because of the larger case.
JD338
JD338
The difference in case capacity between the 7-08 and .280 is about 16 grains H2O. To claim that the 7mm-08 does not give up anything in velocity to the .280 is absurd. That's about the same volume that separates the .280 from the 7mm Rem. Mag... so is the 7mm-08 the 7mm Rem Mag's equal?
You can load any cartridge hot. If you load a 7mm-08 hot and compare it to a .280 with relatively low pressure loads, it can equal out. If you load them both hot, you can bet the one with an extra 25% of powder is going to come out ahead. The law of diminishing returns certainly applies, but I would say the .280 is going to conservatively give you 100 fps.
I feel they are both fine rounds, but they are not equal.
You can load any cartridge hot. If you load a 7mm-08 hot and compare it to a .280 with relatively low pressure loads, it can equal out. If you load them both hot, you can bet the one with an extra 25% of powder is going to come out ahead. The law of diminishing returns certainly applies, but I would say the .280 is going to conservatively give you 100 fps.
I feel they are both fine rounds, but they are not equal.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
Nobody ever reads what I spend so much time trying to type and explain. Why do I bother? The actual difference between the 7mm Rem Mag and the .280 Remington with the 160 Nosler Partitions bullet is 8 grains of IMR 7828 SSC.
- Nov 4, 2004
- 25,162
- 8,419
ROVERT":2qtuayzs said:
Same as the 308 vs 30-06
JD338
Oldtrader3":2kll4ys6 said:
I read what you wrote and was agreeing with you for the most part, Charlie. Still, the fact that the 7mm RM holds 8 more grains of that particular powder means that it will be able to push the bullet faster when loaded to the same pressure.
Similar threads
