I'm feeling like the "chart antichrist" again...

I could at one time in my life almost recite the data from the entire Remington ammunition catalog. I think I was so focused on OPD (Other Peoples' Data) that I overlooked something more important - my own data. Probably not a big surprise, as just about every firearm I own has attached to it a different length barrel than Remington tested with, shooting with different environmentals than Remington's tests were conducted under, but my own data was always different - and sometimes SIGNIFICANTLY different - than Remington's.

Long ago, I remember reading quite a few comparisons between the .270 and the .280. Mind you, the .280 was primarily intended by Remington to be chambered in their slide-action and semi-auto rifles, which apparently resulted in some concern over chamber pressures and, IIRC, was suggested as the reason the .280 Remington wasn't performing to the same level the .270 Winchester was. Fast forward to the early 1980s and Remington's rebadging of the .280 as the "7mm Remington Express", which also included chambering it in the M700 line. From the data I remember then, the 7mm Express was a considerably better performer than the old version .280. But, Americans don't seem too interested in anything metric (save the 7mm Remington Magnum), and the name was changed back to .280, liability lawyers made money, and the loadings were once again tamed.

I don't own one, though I know a couple guys who do. I think it's fairly well accepted now that to wring out what the .280 is capable of, one must reload. If you're not committed to reloading, you'd probably be wise to dismiss the .280 and go with either the .270 or the .30-06.

But stop paying so much attention to those charts! Until you know what velocity those factory loads are leaving your rifle barrel at, you really don't know anything for certain. They should have "Performance in YOUR rifle WILL vary" in fine print at the bottom of each page.