|
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
ORIGINAL: jcchartboy 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... 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. Any thoughts? This can result in broken extractors or cartridgesthat have the headstorn off, leaving the rest of the case still in the chamber. Although this damages neither the rifle or the shooter, either occurrance can result in a stoppage at the wrong time. (I have actually seena case head torn off bya Model 742 in .30/'06 which was loaded with a 200-grain bullet and a maximum charge of RE 22. I don't recall the exact amount 0f RE 22. But there was no damage to the gun, just thehead ripped off the case!!) In other words, the "finicky" description refers to the fact that gas port pressures in the 740-series rifles has to be very closeto a specific level for functional reliability and to prevent damage. Thisis comparable to the situation with the M1 Garand, in which slow-burning powders and/or too-heavy bullets can cause operating rod damage due to pressures being too high at the gas port. So, perhaps maximum peak pressures in the early .280 factory ammo were not below those of say, the .270 Win. But medium burning rather than very slow burning powders were used to make sure the pressure had dropped enough by the time the bullet passed the gas port. Note this has a cumulative effect on the maximum attainable muzzle velocities in calibers like the .270 and .280 as well,which is alot likeactually down-loading the ammo to begin with. I am guilty of stating this in an oversimplified way, and your comments are indeed correct. |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
Eldequello,
Thank you for your response. I knew there was really a better explanation to the story. I know from experience that you generally don't speak unless you are certain of your facts. I can clearly see why you never felt the need to go into the full explanation. However, now that you have I personally have a better understanding of the issues. (Which of course was the reason I asked) Thanks again, JC |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
JC -You're quite welcome! I love the .280! And the .270 as well, not to mention the great old 7X57mm!
|
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
Wow...you have got to love Gun people! Ask a simple question and there are so many opinions and angles to the question presented not to mention technical explanations! It just shows you how passionate Gun people are about their hobby. I happen to take interest in some of the old cartidges that seem to be falling to the wayside, but I really don't have anything against the newest cartidges either. I'd like to see a fine cartridge like the .280 survive and I suppose I'd get the Sako Finnlight in .280 if I had anymore room! (I may have to squeeze one more in.)
I want to thank everyone for taking interest in this post and giving their opinions. I hope Remington saw this interest! |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
Well, I have never read so much about so little that meant nothing to so few. IMHO, the .280 Remington is a superior big game cartridge...many have said that Jack O would have rebored all his .270 rifles to this fine cartridge. With modest reloads, it is as fast and asflatas a .270 and as hard hitting as a 30'06 up to 150gr bullets. A perfect deer rifle. So go buy one and enjoy. Regards, Rick.
|
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
ORIGINAL: aimiablerooster I'd get the Sako Finnlight in .280 if I had anymore room! (I may have to squeeze one more in.) |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
I dont think the 280 is going anywhere. Although its following isnt huge...you can see its extremely loyal. Its a damn stout round handloaded.
|
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
ORIGINAL: 48thguns Well, I have never read so much about so little that meant nothing to so few. Huh?? I think I agree, but ain't sure! many have said that Jack O would have rebored all his .270 rifles to this fine cartridge. I've heard several times that Jack tacitly (and un0obtrusively!!) admitted that the .280 was the better cartridge-because of the availability of heavier bullets vs the .270. |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
ORIGINAL: REM7MMAG 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 |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
Since we have brought up O'Connor and Carmichel, I recal a colum written by the later about his meeting the former. At a party Carmichel was introduced to O'Connor and Carmichel proceeded to tell old Jack about a custom rifle he was having built. O'Connor asked him what cartridge it would be in and Carmichel thought he had better say .270 win. (really he was having it in a .280) A while later when there was no one around to overhear them O'Connor told Carmichel that if he was smart he would get his gun in .280 as Jack figured it had a lot more potential for handloading.
Years ago I picked a .264 win. mag. over a 7mm rem. mag. I don't think anything I've shot with the "6.5",would have known the difference. Robin down under |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:33 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.