|
Why not .280 Remington?
I read an article on this cartridge and checked out the ballistics. I can't really understand why this cartidge isn't more popular. Remington only chambers one of its rifles for this round??? Opinions?????
|
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
The .280 is an excellent choice! It has suffered the same fate of the 6MM Remington! It was introduced at a time when another popular caliber was becomming the rage!
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! |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
I believe the .280 was originally designated as such. I bought a brand new one, a 725 Rem. which I still own, in 1963. It is stamped as "280 Rem.". Some years later, it was redesignated as 7mm Rem. Express, in an effort to follow market directions, and increase sales. Later, the designation was changed back to "280 Rem". It's enough to befuddle a professor. Anyhow, they are a tremendous round, and I think the original intent was to give Remington a cartridge to compete with Winchester's (read Jack O'Conner's) .270. It did so woth minor acceptance at first, but has come to be a very well-respected round.
|
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
I believe the .280 was originally designated as such. I've harvested caribou, blk. tail and white tail deer, blk. bears ect.. with mine, and it's always worked very well. With handloads useing NP's, icould easily live with mine as my only big gamecartridge, for the lower 48 for the rest of my life... Drilling Man |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
I've always prefered it over the 270 Win. because of the heavier bullets available for it for "bigger", big game animials.  and just a little bigger still is the 30-06, where it all began, i.e. before folks started downsizing it. |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
ELKampMaster,I'm notknocking the .30-06 as I own one. Check the ballistics of the 140gr .280 Remington Express Corelockt against the .30-06 150gr of the same bullet type and it looks as though the .280 Remington has more energy overall and shoots flatter???? I'm referring to the Ballistics calculator at the Remington web site. Just seems to me that Remington should be sticking to it's guns with this round. (Pun intended!) I really am surprised that they don't have other model 700's chambered for it. [:-]
|
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
Remington blew it when they introduced this cartridge in pumps and semi autosinstead ofin a good bolt action.THey also didn't have O'connor promoting it like the 270win did.
|
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
I have a .270, a .280, two 30/06s (I had a 25/06 as well but someone "anonymously borrowed it from my truck" several years ago [:@]) as well has two 7Rem Mags. Inside of 300yds there isn't a deer alive that can tell you the difference between any of them when a quality bullet is stuck where it is supposed to be. Of those 7 rifles the most accurate is the .280 but it is from the Remington Custom shop so it should be, the rest are stock rifles with little or no mods done too them (one of the 06s was worked and it comes mighty close too my Custom Shop on the range!).
If you want to take "Texas heartshots" on em at 450yds then buy something else (my 300Wby and Lazzeroni Warbird excell at such shots!) or if you STRICTLY hunt in timber and shoot less than 100yds then you don't need much more than a "tutty tutty" or a 35Rem. BUT since when was being practical and only owning one gun fun? ;)My wife doesn't play well with other women so for me I have to get my "multiple desires" answered by firearms. I love my .280 and killed my biggest whitetail with it (a 154inch 14ptr from MO) and continue to use it on occasion. To honestly make an effective arguement for a .270/.280/30-06 over one or the other I feel is a complete waste of time. I have NEVER lost an animal with either caliber that was properly hit. If game larger than the largest whitetails (KS, MN, WI, CAN.) or caribou are on your menu then of the three I would pick the 30/06 and shoot 180 triple shocks from it. BUT in all honesty the .280 with quality 160s will do essentially the same thing! Good luck, RA |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
You hit the nail on the head red! My pal has a 280 and is enamored with it. Good for him. I bought a 270 as my first rifle and had to listen to him tell me how inferior it is when compared to his 280. Bull, They're all in the same ballpark and are all based of the ole 30-06. 280 is an excellent choice and I wouldnt mind having one, but as long as that pal of mine has one, I feel the urge to lovingly annoy him by not hunting with one myself. What is best? Owning all three!
|
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
The 270 and 280 bounce off those darn saber tooth elk.....
|
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
Why wasn't the .280 more popular originally...?
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. 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. |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
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. |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
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?
ORIGINAL: ELKampMaster 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... |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
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......:eek:
|
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
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.
|
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
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... |
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! 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. |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
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? |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
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 |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
I didn't bring it up...Legally I have to qoute the source, or both myself and the board can be liable for copyright infrigment if a reasonably large piece of an article is reposted and not at least quoted in that manner.
I have in fact been notified by an author in the past concerning just such an issue as it relates to these pages. In reality, I would have prefered not to quote the source at all. The reason of course being that the name of theauthors really has nothing to do with the facts as they relate to the story. Of course if you think the article is factually incorrect then that would be a legitimate complaint about the author as it pertains to the subject. |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
JC, I appreciate you quoting the source. Nothing wrong with that. I also appreciate what DM said regarding gun rag writers. I don't take every thing they say as gospel either.
================================================== = DD, Gasp, what a leap! Do you feel that a larger caliber would have helped on bad hits? Or is the under .30 cal class the only one capable of bad hits? You know you can’t blame a bad shot on the caliber. [Don't fly off to extremes, I don't advocate larger cartridges to allow for sloppy shooting, rather, I advocate them as they allow more of a safety net.] Theres no bad guns...only bad shooters... There is no God given guarantee that good shooting will always occur each time on the hunt. (except on the Internet) It isone proud hunter who implies thatHIS bullets go absolutely to the mark every time AND that anyone on any given day that fails that standard is judged incompetent or “bad”. In the field, "caca" sometimes happens and as the tracking joblooms, questions enter one's mind.The obvious questions beyond “how can I take that shot back?”are…. Whatkind of "coverage"did I allow myself for that kind of human error?.... What are myodds of acquiring that animal, given what I chose to carry into the woods today? IMHO, with a 270 on elk, the answer isone'scoverage is “not much.” "A hunter should not select a caliber and bullet that will kill when everything goes right, rather, should choose ones that will kill when everything goes wrong". [CE] |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
Good enough for me. Thanks for the responses!
|
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
Originally by Doe Dumper: Good enough for me. Thanks for the responses! |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
My God, stop the presses!!! How could I EVER been so foolish as to mis-name the 7mm Express Rem. as the 7mm Rem. Express!!!! My sincere apologies to all who may have suffered because of my fat-fingers!!!!
We all should know that the 7mm Express Rem. (a now defunct nomenclature for a current produced cartridge) and the nomenclature for the 7mm Rem. Express, ( a never-produced factory round ) are best left to the imagination. My sincere apologies, once again. |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
Hi Aimiable:
You can buy the Sako in 7x64 Brenneke, which the .280 duplicates. I believe the 7x64 Brenneke predates the .280 by fifty years. The Speer Manualsstate thereloading data is interchangeable. The 7x64 is one of the most popular rounds in Europe (no military cartridges available to the public, eg .30-06, .308, .223, 7x57 etc). I purchased one about a year ago (Sako AV) and just found one in the fiberclass model that I would like to purchase. I have been using the 156 gr Oryx and it has become my go-to gun for coyotes. It is a great round for those yotes and probably goats as well. CE |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
Aimiable
BTW, Huntington's has Norma 7x64 cases for $50/100, which is a steal. Also, I would not buy the Beretta/Sako model that requires a key to start. Look for a AV or Fiberclass, should go for $900/$1,100 respectively. Good luck, CE |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
ORIGINAL: aimiablerooster Now, if I could get that .280 Remington in a Sako......:eek: |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
Hi Trail:
Thanks for posting that link. I had been looking at this one: http://www.sako.fi/ In any event, you still need to push in the clutch and turn the key toget those Beretta things to fire. CE |
RE: Why not .280 Remington?
No problem Colorado. Yeah, I’ve looked at both links before and find the Beretta page has more info...
|
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 07:25 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.