- Status
.280 fan here........ have owned 270's and 30-06's is there a real difference in on game killing performance in the field ? Well honestly I can't say because anytime I made a proper shot with any of them I filled my tag. When I made a poor shot the results were also the same with the trio. With todays new powders in a strong bolt rifle loaded to modern pressures that the case is able to take, the 280 is an excellent round that can stay with the 270 if you want something flat shooting for deer hunting or something that hits hard and punches deep like the 30-06. The 280 really shines with the 160 AB ( at least mine does) 0ver IMR-7828 shoots very flat and is closing in on 2900 fps in my rifle. This year I have a 175 Partition load worked up over 7828 and it is giving me 1/2" 3 shot groups. Come November first I will be out hunting with a moose tag, elk tag, whitetail and mule deer tags in my pocket and I know that the 280 will work all the way around for any of them. I will also have my 35 whelen with me for moose and elk but as it always seems to go for me. I will be working my way up to get a shot at a nice buck and a moose or an elk will appear when I have the 280 in my hands but no problem it will fill the bill.
Just a matter of choice for most guys and nothing to loose any sleep over some of us just like going against the status quo so we pick the 280 :mrgreen:
Just a matter of choice for most guys and nothing to loose any sleep over some of us just like going against the status quo so we pick the 280 :mrgreen:
Yes, Yes. I know guys love the 280. Who knows, when it comes time to re barrel my beloved 270, maybe I will choose the 280.
I know on paper it has some slight advantages. But in the real world of big game hunting I just can't say I buy it. Just not between a 140 grn 270 or a 165 grn 30-06. But I'm listening, and trying to figure out where the love comes from. :lol:
I know on paper it has some slight advantages. But in the real world of big game hunting I just can't say I buy it. Just not between a 140 grn 270 or a 165 grn 30-06. But I'm listening, and trying to figure out where the love comes from. :lol:
nvbroncrider
Handloader
- Aug 20, 2011
- 3,085
- 4
If Remington wouldn't have dropped the ball the 280 would have the popularity today the 270 has. Like has been said it just splits hairs between the 2. Since I had the 280 first I will never need a 270 or an 06. Now if I didn't handload it would be vastly different as the 280 factory rounds are cream puffs since they must be safe in the 740 and 742 actions.
- Thread starter
- #25
A
Anonymous
Guest
BK":1yl2m6u8 said:
Hey thanks Elmer... :wink:
The bottom line is wildcatters experimented to see if they could improve on something that didn't need to be improved on (although I like less recoil, alot less recoil, but has the SAME performance as the aught 6). The .270 and Jack O'Connor, killed alot of game with 130 grain bullet alone. Doesn't seem that was enough fer ol Elmer coz he swore you needed more frontnal area and sectional density. Was he that bad of a shot? He was a handgunner if I recall, guess that explains it. I figured I could let the Ol' .270 shine once again in my posts ONCE you all admitted what the truth really is about all these OTHER cartridges.... preference (like a kid in a toy store, "I want that one mommy, but Johnny, you already have one, but this one's better mom.) I read alot of handloading manuals that said, "if you want better performance then you need to step up to a magnum but the improvement is only marginal". I can see that's based upon yuse guys experiences....(yeah I'm from NJ).LOL
The bottom line for more performance for normal hunting experiences, where they expire isn't crucial, is well served when shot placement is a definate given. On the other hand where Jack had waaaay many more oppritunities to take game than the average hunter, who like myself who only has 3 days a year to hunt whitetail from a blind in Pennsy, the pressure isn't there to make offhand, steep angle, questionable,... an animal that may fall down a revine, or off a cliff, or whatever.... a cartridge that will hit harder than average. So yeah, I can understand why some use the mags. It took me awhile to realize why one would need a beefier cartridge for certain types of hunts, when it would save a ton of work tracking and recovering a critter, only to sacifice a front quarter.
Anyway... does what I say sound right? :roll: :wink: Wasn't Remington and Winchester rivals?
Why didn't the military just keep the 30-40 and let it be? NOW that was a definate improvement.. the 06'. So much that the US had to pay royalties to Mauserwerks.....
nvbroncrider
Handloader
- Aug 20, 2011
- 3,085
- 4
I'd much rather see 100 people in the field with an 06 or 270 that puts enough time into shooting that they know there limits both physically and with there cartridge. Than see a single person with the biggest baddest magnum out there but can't stand to shoot more than 3 rounds out of it and may not put the bullet within a 15 feet of there target. There is nothing worse in my mind. If you can put the time in and can shoot your big magnum accurately and proficiently than so be it. That's where I think the line in the sand is drawn. IMHO.
- Thread starter
- #27
A
Anonymous
Guest
nvbroncrider":2wukyyak said:
I hear that...great point.
There's alot of guys from my club who only zero in just before hunting seaon. My wifes Uncle uses a 7mm mag and says the 06 isn't enough... :roll: and he's one to admit he's NOT that great of a shot. Ummm ok.. some people you can't persaude. Another guy had a 300 win mag to hunt deer with. "This accuracy isn't there, must be the ammo..." I reached over and felt his fluted barrel and said the barrels hot.. "oh yeah... he said. So we jibberjabbered abit a bit and his group tighted up... :shock:
An intersting historical sidenote visa vie the .30-06 class of cartridges... At the onset of WWI the british nearly adopted a 7mm service round similar to the .280 rem in the P14 "Enfield" rifle but settled on keeping the old .303 brit rather than convert to a new round during wartime.
The M1 Garand was originally slated for a .276 cartridge but with warclouds once again gathering in Europe the decision was made to stick with 30-06.
I agree that there is not much the 280 will do on whitetail sized game the .270 won't do and not much it will do on heavier game the 30-06 won't do, but I still say neither will do BOTH better. I think if Jack O'Conner had a 280 at his disposal, folks would wax poetic about that round. If I remember correctly from old articles I read, he was fond of the 7X57 mauser round also but Winchester probably payed better.
Maybe I am just a maverick. The only gas station caliber I own is my M1 Garand in 30-06 and my wife's .308 win Savage Left Hand (If only we could have afforded a Tikka 6.5X55 at the time...).
The M1 Garand was originally slated for a .276 cartridge but with warclouds once again gathering in Europe the decision was made to stick with 30-06.
I agree that there is not much the 280 will do on whitetail sized game the .270 won't do and not much it will do on heavier game the 30-06 won't do, but I still say neither will do BOTH better. I think if Jack O'Conner had a 280 at his disposal, folks would wax poetic about that round. If I remember correctly from old articles I read, he was fond of the 7X57 mauser round also but Winchester probably payed better.
Maybe I am just a maverick. The only gas station caliber I own is my M1 Garand in 30-06 and my wife's .308 win Savage Left Hand (If only we could have afforded a Tikka 6.5X55 at the time...).
"Doesn't seem that was enough fer ol Elmer coz he swore you needed more frontnal area and sectional density. Was he that bad of a shot? He was a handgunner if I recall, guess that explains it."
I don't think Elmer was a bad shot. IIRC, he competed at Camp perry on more than one occasions and grnered a few medals. He even came very close to winning the Wimbledon Cup. :shock: IIRC, the guy that won ony had one of two more shots in the X ring.
The reason Elmer believed in heavy bullets with large frontal area is most of he time he hunted in dark timber where shots usually were at spooked animals and raking shots sometimes a bit of the norm. Seems like Jack mostly hunted more open country where cartridges like the .270 would be more appropriate. Also, later in life Jack's hunts were mostly guided.
Now regarding the .280 Rem. along with the .270 and 30-06, I have rifles chambered to all thre round, the .280 a recently built custom on a 1908 Argentine Mauser. What little work I've done with it so far is showing me it's a very accurate cartridge with the few bullets I've tried. First loads with the 175 gr. Hornady spire point shot into just under an inch and the 160 gr. Speer Grand Slams into .80" IIRC. Right now I'm just trying to get a feel for what the rifle likes. probably won't do a hunt with it until next year.
Right now, my 7x57 Mauser and .35 Whelen are the ones getting the main play, especially the Whelen. :wink:
Paul B.
I don't think Elmer was a bad shot. IIRC, he competed at Camp perry on more than one occasions and grnered a few medals. He even came very close to winning the Wimbledon Cup. :shock: IIRC, the guy that won ony had one of two more shots in the X ring.
The reason Elmer believed in heavy bullets with large frontal area is most of he time he hunted in dark timber where shots usually were at spooked animals and raking shots sometimes a bit of the norm. Seems like Jack mostly hunted more open country where cartridges like the .270 would be more appropriate. Also, later in life Jack's hunts were mostly guided.
Now regarding the .280 Rem. along with the .270 and 30-06, I have rifles chambered to all thre round, the .280 a recently built custom on a 1908 Argentine Mauser. What little work I've done with it so far is showing me it's a very accurate cartridge with the few bullets I've tried. First loads with the 175 gr. Hornady spire point shot into just under an inch and the 160 gr. Speer Grand Slams into .80" IIRC. Right now I'm just trying to get a feel for what the rifle likes. probably won't do a hunt with it until next year.
Right now, my 7x57 Mauser and .35 Whelen are the ones getting the main play, especially the Whelen. :wink: Paul B.
Desert Fox
Handloader
- Aug 14, 2006
- 1,965
- 3
oneshot":1qvpx2d0 said:
.007"
BK, you just made enemy here. :lol:
IMHO, the 280 has a slight advantage over the 270 if both are loaded to max SAAMI pressure. With that said however, the 280 is more versatile than the 270 because it has better bullet selection.
- Thread starter
- #32
A
Anonymous
Guest
Desert Fox":d2qht9gi said:oneshot":d2qht9gi said:
.007"
BK, you just made enemy here. :lol:
IMHO, the 280 has a slight advantage over the 270 if both are loaded to max SAAMI pressure. With that said however, the 280 is more versatile than the 270 because it has better bullet selection.
you call one bullet weight a major advantage....? :shock: :roll:
Remington didn't have a cartridge.. Winchester did.... hence .280 was born....
"Having been released 32 years after the .270 Winchester, it had somewhat unspectacular sales; Remington renamed the cartridge in 1979, calling it the 7 mm Express in an attempt to increase sales"
Remington just wanted a piece of the action..... period.
The .280 is not more versatile... comapring the 6mm remington before they changed the twist from 1:12 to 1:10, the .243 was more versatile.. .243 was a good example of versatility.
Here 4 rifle companies that do not offer .280 remington...
http://www.remington.com/en/products/fi ... dl-dm.aspx
(you would at least think REMINGTON would offer the .280)!!!!!
http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/mode ... CANCLASSIC
http://www.ruger.com/products/m77Hawkey ... odels.html
http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/ ... mid=535109
I understand these companies don't offer the .280.. why not?
Once you eliminate the impossible(the .280 being more versatile), whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth"
RiverRider
Handloader
- Dec 9, 2008
- 1,454
- 107
oneshot":2zh653nv said:
Don't forget the wildcatters came up with it first.
Comparing the .277" 160-grain bullet to the 7mm 175-grain bullet...maybe it's all subjective, but a bullet that's heavier by 11% is just that.
Can you really tell the difference in the field between a .300 Win Mag and a .300 Weatherby? Can the game tell the difference? Which is the better cartridge, and why? I suggest that the Weatherby is more cartridge than the Win Mag and has more to offer. The .280 is ahead of the .270 on the same grounds.
- Thread starter
- #34
A
Anonymous
Guest
RiverRider":3lg3dlfl said:
Ok... great.
it's not maybe... it is all subjective.
No.
No.
Neither, Roy Whetherby wanted to push a cartridge in his rifle line to make people like you buy it. :mrgreen: :wink:
No it's not. You want it to be, though don't you? :wink: Hahahaha
And it is, because of a difference that doesn't mean squat, but that little difference must mean something to you because if it didn't we wouldn't be arguing about it would we?
Your truck has the radio control in the steering wheel, mine doesn't..... but I can still raise the volume just the same.... :mrgreen:
Roy Wheatherby rifles cost more because they shoot a half inch tigher group than my Savage, but they BOTH kill deer don't they? :shock:
Lust doesn't draw me to things... usefulness does. :grin:
In the end, there are a ton of great cartridges, and many of them have overlap with more common/readily available options.
We are hobbyists. Logic and necessity are not our drivers.
In 99% of hunting situations, a factory rifle, with factory ammo will perform superbly.
But being adequate and sticking with the known/safe/boring isn't really what got most of us into this hobby. Today is a good example.. I spent the better part of a morning playing around with seating depth on two rifles/loads. Assuming zero value for my time, I probably spent north of $50 bucks and was extremely happy that I shaved about .20" off a few loads.
The effort versus reward proposition is terrible.
And you know what, I'll probably do it again next weekend.. just... because.
We are hobbyists. Logic and necessity are not our drivers.
In 99% of hunting situations, a factory rifle, with factory ammo will perform superbly.
But being adequate and sticking with the known/safe/boring isn't really what got most of us into this hobby. Today is a good example.. I spent the better part of a morning playing around with seating depth on two rifles/loads. Assuming zero value for my time, I probably spent north of $50 bucks and was extremely happy that I shaved about .20" off a few loads.
The effort versus reward proposition is terrible.
And you know what, I'll probably do it again next weekend.. just... because.
- Thread starter
- #36
A
Anonymous
Guest
Logic and necessity is my driver.
I spent the better part of a morning in church.
The effort versus reward proposition is gonna be tremendous. :mrgreen:
I love my hobbie but I love my Lord Christ more.
Desert Fox
Handloader
- Aug 14, 2006
- 1,965
- 3
I think I said versatile.
RiverRider
Handloader
- Dec 9, 2008
- 1,454
- 107
oneshot":8ud31r8m said:RiverRider":8ud31r8m said:
Ok... great.
it's not maybe... it is all subjective.
No.
No.
Neither, Roy Whetherby wanted to push a cartridge in his rifle line to make people like you buy it. :mrgreen: :wink:
No it's not. You want it to be, though don't you? :wink: Hahahaha
And it is, because of a difference that doesn't mean squat, but that little difference must mean something to you because if it didn't we wouldn't be arguing about it would we?
Your truck has the radio control in the steering wheel, mine doesn't..... but I can still raise the volume just the same.... :mrgreen:
Roy Wheatherby rifles cost more because they shoot a half inch tigher group than my Savage, but they BOTH kill deer don't they? :shock:
Lust doesn't draw me to things... usefulness does. :grin:
:roll:
6mm Remington
Ammo Smith
- Feb 27, 2006
- 5,278
- 708
- Thread starter
- #40
A
Anonymous
Guest
that's all I get after all this... you roll your eyes.
Have fun with your 280...
:mrgreen:
Have fun with your 280...
:mrgreen:
- Status
