HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - Why not .280 Remington?
View Single Post
Old 03-26-2006 | 01:35 PM
  #18  
eldeguello's Avatar
eldeguello
Giant Nontypical
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,270
Likes: 0
From: Texas - BUT NOW in Madison County, NY
Default RE: Why not .280 Remington?

ORIGINAL: JagMagMan

The .280 was born as the 7MM Express, and reborn as the .280. It is becomming very popular in my area. The ballistics are not far behind the 7MM RM, so if I didn't already have the 7MM RM, the .280 would be my choice!
Actually, the .280 REM. started out as the .280 REM., was having a hard time in the marketplace.It wasthen re-named the "7mm EXPRESS REMINGTON"(in that order, NOT "REMINGTON EXPRESS").

After being renamed, it did no better sales-wise, and the new name caused a lot of blockheads to THINK IT WASTHE SAME ROUND AS THE 7MM REM. MAG.!, which had arrived almost immediately after the .280. (Even though one was much fatter and has a belt that is plainly visible!!)

So, in their infinite wisdom concerning such matters, Remington re-re-named it BACK to .280 Remington! So this round has been called .280 REMINGTON TWICE in its' career.

As Jagman says, it is an excellent cartridge, probably the very best (under .338 caliber, anyway),ever made from .30/'06 brass, but ONLY if you handload for it, as it has always been underloaded by Remington due to the semi-auto rifles they chambered for it. These riflescannot stand the heavy charges of slow powders which are necessary to get the most out of it.
eldeguello is offline  
Reply