Why not .280 Remington?
#11
Why wasn't the .280 more popular originally...?
Name changes...?....Here is the real story.
Quoted from OL, written by Jim Carmicheal..
Bad Rumors
The reason shooting soothsayers of that rustic era were asking “why?” was because the new .280 Remington was wedged between two of the most popular big-game calibers of all time: the .270 Winchester and the .30/06. Did the .280 have something to offer that these immensely popular calibers did not? A comparison of ballistic tables certainly doesn’t indicate that the .280 had any special magic. Its listed velocity for a 150-grain bullet was 2,810 feet per second, a not-exactly-breathtaking 10 fps faster than the .270 with same weight bullet, and a fairly significant 160 fps slower than the .30/06 with 150-grain factory loading.
As it happened, about the time of the .280’s introduction I’d discovered that I could get away with reading gun magazines in my high school classes simply by encasing them in a large notebook and gripping a pencil as if I was diligently taking notes. Thus while Miss Crookshanks waxed romantic about Shelley or Keats, I could immerse myself in the wisdom of an O’Connor or Page. This pursuit made no contribution whatsoever to my grades but it somewhat prepared me for the hardscrabble years that were to follow.
According to what I learned during those classroom studies, the .280 was on the fast road to wherever it is that cartridges go when they die young. In my own innocent judgment it was a wallflower that lacked the glamour of the much-touted .270 or the purposeful dignity of the .30/06, which is to say it never made the Top 20 list of rifles I planned to own when fortune came my way. Similar conclusions were reached by legions of hunters and shooters everywhere. The .280’s prospects were further reduced when word got around that Remington purposely “loaded it down” so the gun could be safely chambered for its recently introduced Model 740 autoloading rifle. This curse dogged the .280 for years and is occasionally repeated even today.
Several years ago I became intrigued by this chapter in the .280’s history and checked out the “loaded down” rumor with a few of the older heads at Remington. As with many rumors from the shooting industry, there’s a grain of truth to this one, but the real facts I gleaned tell us a lot more
Unlike earlier autoloaders such as Remington’s M81, which were limited to mild cartridges such as the .30 and .35 Remington, the M740, which was introduced in 1955, was designed for rip-snorting calibers such as the .30/06. It was a successful rifle and would have been even more so had it been chambered for the .270 Winchester, but it wasn’t. And the word going around at the time was that the M740 couldn’t handle the 270’s pressures. And here’s where the strange saga of the .280 gets particularly interesting.
Not counting some of Remington’s interoffice politics, personal opinions and jealousies regarding the .270 during the 1950s, I learned that the M740 and .270 actually did not make a good match. Not necessarily because of the .270’s high pressures, but because the M740 tended to be finicky about what it was fed, its gas-operated system being reliable only when adjusted to rather specific pressure levels.
The .270 loads of the day, I was told, tended to develop varying pressure levels, which in turn could have resulted in the M740’s erratic operation. Thus the .280 was not so much “loaded down” as loaded to specific pressures compatible with the M740. Apparently, it isn’t often noticed that the M740 was also chambered for Remington’s new .244, a hot round that, like the .270, generated pressures over 50,000 PSI. In 1960, when the M742 replaced the M740, it too was catalogued sans the .270.
The reason shooting soothsayers of that rustic era were asking “why?” was because the new .280 Remington was wedged between two of the most popular big-game calibers of all time: the .270 Winchester and the .30/06. Did the .280 have something to offer that these immensely popular calibers did not? A comparison of ballistic tables certainly doesn’t indicate that the .280 had any special magic. Its listed velocity for a 150-grain bullet was 2,810 feet per second, a not-exactly-breathtaking 10 fps faster than the .270 with same weight bullet, and a fairly significant 160 fps slower than the .30/06 with 150-grain factory loading.
As it happened, about the time of the .280’s introduction I’d discovered that I could get away with reading gun magazines in my high school classes simply by encasing them in a large notebook and gripping a pencil as if I was diligently taking notes. Thus while Miss Crookshanks waxed romantic about Shelley or Keats, I could immerse myself in the wisdom of an O’Connor or Page. This pursuit made no contribution whatsoever to my grades but it somewhat prepared me for the hardscrabble years that were to follow.
According to what I learned during those classroom studies, the .280 was on the fast road to wherever it is that cartridges go when they die young. In my own innocent judgment it was a wallflower that lacked the glamour of the much-touted .270 or the purposeful dignity of the .30/06, which is to say it never made the Top 20 list of rifles I planned to own when fortune came my way. Similar conclusions were reached by legions of hunters and shooters everywhere. The .280’s prospects were further reduced when word got around that Remington purposely “loaded it down” so the gun could be safely chambered for its recently introduced Model 740 autoloading rifle. This curse dogged the .280 for years and is occasionally repeated even today.
Several years ago I became intrigued by this chapter in the .280’s history and checked out the “loaded down” rumor with a few of the older heads at Remington. As with many rumors from the shooting industry, there’s a grain of truth to this one, but the real facts I gleaned tell us a lot more
Unlike earlier autoloaders such as Remington’s M81, which were limited to mild cartridges such as the .30 and .35 Remington, the M740, which was introduced in 1955, was designed for rip-snorting calibers such as the .30/06. It was a successful rifle and would have been even more so had it been chambered for the .270 Winchester, but it wasn’t. And the word going around at the time was that the M740 couldn’t handle the 270’s pressures. And here’s where the strange saga of the .280 gets particularly interesting.
Not counting some of Remington’s interoffice politics, personal opinions and jealousies regarding the .270 during the 1950s, I learned that the M740 and .270 actually did not make a good match. Not necessarily because of the .270’s high pressures, but because the M740 tended to be finicky about what it was fed, its gas-operated system being reliable only when adjusted to rather specific pressure levels.
The .270 loads of the day, I was told, tended to develop varying pressure levels, which in turn could have resulted in the M740’s erratic operation. Thus the .280 was not so much “loaded down” as loaded to specific pressures compatible with the M740. Apparently, it isn’t often noticed that the M740 was also chambered for Remington’s new .244, a hot round that, like the .270, generated pressures over 50,000 PSI. In 1960, when the M742 replaced the M740, it too was catalogued sans the .270.
Name changes...?....Here is the real story.
Name Changes
This sudden glamorization of the .280 was not lost on the potentates at Remington, who now realized there was life for the caliber well beyond the limitations imposed by autoloading rifles. Something that would give the .280 a new lease on life, they reckoned, was to glamorize it with a new name. Just calling it the .280 sounded so, well, ordinary. After all, it was a 7mm, so why not give it some continental pizzazz by calling it the 7mm/06? This made pretty good merchandising sense because Remington had already done well for itself by adapting two popular wildcats: the .22-250 and .22/05. So why not a 7mm/06? It was also a legitimate claim because wildcatters had, in fact, been necking .30/06 cases down to 7mm for decades.
Accordingly, there was a run of M700 rifles and ammo marked 7mm/06. Problem was, the .280 wasn’t a true 7mm/06. During its development the shoulder length had been increased by about five hundredths of an inch as a safety measure so it couldn’t be fired in .270-caliber rifles. But now, if an unsuspecting handloader fired necked-down ’06 cases in Remington’s rifle, there’d be a potentially dangerous headspace situation. So the 7mm/06 name was quickly discontinued and the rifles and ammo were recalled. Some rounds are still in circulation, however—and are considered genuine collector’s items.
Still determined that the .280 needed a more glamorous name, Remington rechristened it the 7mm Express. This has a pretty nice ring to it, but again there were unintended consequences. The 7mm Express tended to get confused with Remington’s 7mm Magnum, another potentially dangerous situation. So the folks at Remington gave up on the name change and the .280 has been that ever since.
This sudden glamorization of the .280 was not lost on the potentates at Remington, who now realized there was life for the caliber well beyond the limitations imposed by autoloading rifles. Something that would give the .280 a new lease on life, they reckoned, was to glamorize it with a new name. Just calling it the .280 sounded so, well, ordinary. After all, it was a 7mm, so why not give it some continental pizzazz by calling it the 7mm/06? This made pretty good merchandising sense because Remington had already done well for itself by adapting two popular wildcats: the .22-250 and .22/05. So why not a 7mm/06? It was also a legitimate claim because wildcatters had, in fact, been necking .30/06 cases down to 7mm for decades.
Accordingly, there was a run of M700 rifles and ammo marked 7mm/06. Problem was, the .280 wasn’t a true 7mm/06. During its development the shoulder length had been increased by about five hundredths of an inch as a safety measure so it couldn’t be fired in .270-caliber rifles. But now, if an unsuspecting handloader fired necked-down ’06 cases in Remington’s rifle, there’d be a potentially dangerous headspace situation. So the 7mm/06 name was quickly discontinued and the rifles and ammo were recalled. Some rounds are still in circulation, however—and are considered genuine collector’s items.
Still determined that the .280 needed a more glamorous name, Remington rechristened it the 7mm Express. This has a pretty nice ring to it, but again there were unintended consequences. The 7mm Express tended to get confused with Remington’s 7mm Magnum, another potentially dangerous situation. So the folks at Remington gave up on the name change and the .280 has been that ever since.
#12
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,964
Likes: 0
From: Rocky Mountains, Colorado
The 270 and 280 bounce off those darn saber tooth elk.....
I can say I HAVE witnessed some shots on elk with a 270 that I WISHED had bounced off!
It would have made for a much happier story!
Just my experience.
#13
Fork Horn
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
From: oregon live in texas
all i want remington 2 do is make new for one year is a 700 bdl in wood in 280 rem and ill buy 2 of them but beeen wating for awhile they did do it in cdl but hard 2 find now
#14
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,925
Likes: 0
From: Baileysville, WV
ORIGINAL: ELKampMaster
I can't speak to the 280.... with the 7mm bore and a better bullet selection (more "heavy for caliber" options)it soundslike an improvement.
I can say I HAVE witnessed some shots on elk with a 270 that I WISHED had bounced off!
It would have made for a much happier story!
Just my experience.
The 270 and 280 bounce off those darn saber tooth elk.....
I can say I HAVE witnessed some shots on elk with a 270 that I WISHED had bounced off!
It would have made for a much happier story!
Just my experience.
Do you feel that a larger caliber would have helped on bad hits? Or isthe under.30 cal classthe only one capable of bad hits? You know you cant blame a bad shot on the caliber. Theres no bad guns...only bad shooters...
#15
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Gunsare like golf clubs. there's one best for every specific application! Realistically, most of us in this forum just like guns. It doesn't have to be rational, its just what we like. Perhaps that's really the only rational behind creating more new magnum cartridges as is so popular these days. The .280 , and other cartriges like the .264 Winchester are really excellent examples of why there really was little need to create a new .270WSM or .25WSM etc... Sure they're short, but to actually make use of their potential you need a longer barrel. So much for weight savings! We had plenty of choices to kill anything we wanted before they came around but we all enjoy the introduction of yet another choice. If nothing else, we can ponder on what rifle we'd like to see it chambered in to add to the collection! Personally, I like the old cartidges that are being forgotten. Why not keep them alive? Now, if I could get that .280 Remington in a Sako......
#16
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Thanks for this posting. Weird how things happen. If Remington had stuck to a bolt action the cartridge may have had a better chance. It may have a better chance now if it was chambered in a 700 CDL instead of the 700 Mountain Light. I like the Mountain Light series, but the barrel is sure to heat up pretty fast contributing to accuracy issues. Its a specific needs light rifle and the .280 Remington is more of a "do it all" type round.
#17
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,667
Likes: 0
From: fort mcmurray alberta canada
The .280 , and other cartriges like the .264 Winchester are really excellent examples of why there really was little need to create a new .270WSM or .25WSM etc...
#18
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!
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!
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.
#19
Eldequello,
I am not one to usually question your wisdom, however according the article I quoted above,(based on Remmingtons own statements), your statement concerning thereason for the .280 being loaded down is not technically correct.
As you seem very interested in these types of matters I would like hear your thoughts on this matter...
Basically according to this authority, the .280 was not in fact "loaded down" to work in the autoloaders because the autoloaders "cannot stand", the pressure. In reality the autoloaders could have withstood more pressure. However, their operation was dependent upon a specific pressure, and that pressure was lower than the standard pressure produced by a "normally" loaded .280 shell.Therefore it was not in fact a safety issue, only a matter of functionality...
Any thoughts?
I am not one to usually question your wisdom, however according the article I quoted above,(based on Remmingtons own statements), your statement concerning thereason for the .280 being loaded down is not technically correct.
As you seem very interested in these types of matters I would like hear your thoughts on this matter...
Several years ago I became intrigued by this chapter in the .280’s history and checked out the “loaded down” rumor with a few of the older heads at Remington. As with many rumors from the shooting industry, there’s a grain of truth to this one, but the real facts I gleaned tell us a lot more
Unlike earlier autoloaders such as Remington’s M81, which were limited to mild cartridges such as the .30 and .35 Remington, the M740, which was introduced in 1955, was designed for rip-snorting calibers such as the .30/06. It was a successful rifle and would have been even more so had it been chambered for the .270 Winchester, but it wasn’t. And the word going around at the time was that the M740 couldn’t handle the 270’s pressures. And here’s where the strange saga of the .280 gets particularly interesting.
Not counting some of Remington’s interoffice politics, personal opinions and jealousies regarding the .270 during the 1950s, I learned that the M740 and .270 actually did not make a good match. Not necessarily because of the .270’s high pressures, but because the M740 tended to be finicky about what it was fed, its gas-operated system being reliable only when adjusted to rather specific pressure levels.
The .270 loads of the day, I was told, tended to develop varying pressure levels, which in turn could have resulted in the M740’s erratic operation. Thus the .280 was not so much “loaded down” as loaded to specific pressures compatible with the M740. Apparently, it isn’t often noticed that the M740 was also chambered for Remington’s new .244, a hot round that, like the .270, generated pressures over 50,000 PSI. In 1960, when the M742 replaced the M740, it too was catalogued sans the .270.
Unlike earlier autoloaders such as Remington’s M81, which were limited to mild cartridges such as the .30 and .35 Remington, the M740, which was introduced in 1955, was designed for rip-snorting calibers such as the .30/06. It was a successful rifle and would have been even more so had it been chambered for the .270 Winchester, but it wasn’t. And the word going around at the time was that the M740 couldn’t handle the 270’s pressures. And here’s where the strange saga of the .280 gets particularly interesting.
Not counting some of Remington’s interoffice politics, personal opinions and jealousies regarding the .270 during the 1950s, I learned that the M740 and .270 actually did not make a good match. Not necessarily because of the .270’s high pressures, but because the M740 tended to be finicky about what it was fed, its gas-operated system being reliable only when adjusted to rather specific pressure levels.
The .270 loads of the day, I was told, tended to develop varying pressure levels, which in turn could have resulted in the M740’s erratic operation. Thus the .280 was not so much “loaded down” as loaded to specific pressures compatible with the M740. Apparently, it isn’t often noticed that the M740 was also chambered for Remington’s new .244, a hot round that, like the .270, generated pressures over 50,000 PSI. In 1960, when the M742 replaced the M740, it too was catalogued sans the .270.
Any thoughts?
#20
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,813
Likes: 0
From:
Quoted from OL, written by Jim Carmicheal..
Long time agoCarmicheal wrote an article all about how he went brn bear hunting around the islands around Kodiak. He went on and on about all the "useless dudes" (my words) that flew around in airplanes, spotted a bear, landedandstalked it. He went on to say this wasn't real hunting ect.. ect.. yada, yada, yada.. (i'mNOT advocateing this)
Then he went on to tell "his" story of how he cruised all around the islands in the "heated comfort" of a large boat with a cabin drinking hot coffee, warm foodect.. spoting them! Then they would take a dingy to shore for the stalk...
Personally, i can't see any difference in these two waysof hunting. The way i see it, one way isn't hunting anymore than the other, and i wrote him and told him so. He wrote me back quite "unhappy" with me thinking he had an easy hunt, and also for telling him "both" the boat and the plane were just transportation and made fora "much easier" hunt.
Anyway, he refused to print my letter, that said he didn't work any harder for his bear than the guy in the plane.
Now, to be honest, the guy in the plane actually worked "harder"!! You can't land just anyplace you want with the plane, unlikehaveing a boat, and sending the hunter off with a dingy and motor to shore every time you see a bear close enough!!
I never thought much of that guy after that, and what he says doesn't go very high on my respect scale..
Drilling Man


