280 Remington
 

I'd like to buy a new deer rifle this year. I want a 280 Remington. Who makes them? I can't find one in any of the major manufacturers catalogs. Will I have to look for a used one? Any help appreciated!

I know T/C make 280 barrels for the Encore if that is of any interest to you.

Browning make an XBolt in 280, and Remington make a 700 Mountain in 280.

All of those are in current production. Finding one local, that is another story, but there is always gunbroker.

Or a used one if you'd rather.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=190551741

excellent option there SW, those older mountain rifles are beautiful guns and .280 was a fairly prolific chambering among them...that would be my choice if I was set on .280

The Rem 700 XCR2 also is made in .280. Awesome round, just wish it was chambered in more rifles. I'll probably get one someday!

Try this;

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/defa...87_14246_14279


Hope this helps.

TC's new Venture can be had in a .280 rem!!
check them out I am thinking about the Venture or Marlin xs7s.

You won't be able to get a .280 in the Marlin. The XL-7 is, I believe, only chambered in .25-06, .270, and .30-06.

The XS-7 is chambered in short action cartridges. The 7mm-08 would fill your bill, and although the ammo isn't as commonly found as .30-06 or .308, it's still much more common than .280, at least in the stores I've been to.

There is no advantage of buying a .280 Remington - also known as a 7 mm Remington Express over buying a 270 Winchester.

They both use the exact same shell, they both hold about the same amount of power. The only difference between the two is that the bullet diameter of the .270 Winchester is .277 and the 280 Remington is .284

If you can even see .007 thousandths difference between the two bullets - it would be a miracle. You can get both rounds with the exact same bullet construction - and the exact same bullet weights in hand loads.

The bullet sectional density would be better in theory in the 270 due to the fact that the bullet would be longer and narrower in the .270 compared to the 280. Even that would be splitting hairs.

A normal human hair is about .003 thick.

If you are set on a 280 then nothing else will do.

But, if you don't want to shop much and could settle for the 270 you will be able to find a ton of rifles in that chamber. And if you will never reload then you'll be fine with the 270. The 280 offers a slight advantage in bullet selection, but modern bullet construction makes the difference almost negligible.

Good luck on your search for the 280 you want. A great round for sure, just less owned than the 270, but certainly not less effective.

Pure baloney.....The .280 can be purchased with a 175 grain bullet and the .270 with a 150 grain bullet.

This makes a helluva difference if you're elk hunting where the .270 is in the slim side to start with.....adequate maybe but with little extra margin.

Ya want a .280.....don't settle for a .270!!!!!

Great find Silver Wolf....If I wanted a .280 (I already have one) I'd be all over this one like stink on......you know!

Ill have to agree. I love the .280, but it is somewhat a forgotten cal. with the original being named the 7mm Express led to some confusion. I had a earl model Rem semi auto in 280 and loved it. Wish I still had it.
There will always be 270 ammo availability, not so for 280, so unless you plan to reload, I would go with the 270, which guns are still being built.

I think that Tedee gets the point and Vapo doesn't.

As I said before, I will reiterate - when the 7MM Remington Express came out, two things happened. First it was not widely accepted as a good hunting round in the USA for two reasons.

The first was that we had just gotten out of a World War and people associated Metric Calibers with the enemy's that we had just fought against. Most patriotic Americans didn't want anything to do with those Metric Calibers or the people we had to fight to keep our freedom. So the 7MM Remington Express never sold well.

The second reason why it never did well was because we already had a .270 and a 30-06 which would both do a excellent job and both rounds were as cheap as or cheaper then the 7MM Remington Express.

Again, you have to remember that the only thing that got the good old USA out of the Great Depression was WW II.
The people who lived through the depression had to learn how to save their money for a rainy day and it didn't make much sense to them to buy something that wasn't any better then what they already had. Most people had only one shotgun and one rifle and one .22 and that was all the guns that they needed.

Firearms manufactures - in order to sell more firearms, has to have some sort of gimmick that will attract new customers, some thing that will convince the customer that this new gun is several times better then what they already have. A must own gun of some sort that will do everything from soup to nuts.

With Remington it was everything from the 25-06 to the 35 Wheelen, which were all based all the 30-06 Govt shell.
By the way either way you look at it. The 30-06 is based off the 50 BMG or the 50 BMG is based off the 30-06 Govt, because if you took a blueprint of either cartridge and enlarged or reduced it - it would be exactly the same from one to the other.
Some of our early rockets and jet aircraft was also modeled after the 50 caliber bullet because we knew that it was capable of traveling faster then the speed of sound.

So the only thing that you need to realize is that when the 7 MM Remington Express came out in 1957, bullet construction was not what it is today. Sometimes you needed a special gun for hunting big game and sometimes you needed a magnum caliber for hunting big game back then. Most peoples thoughts were that if a little bullet was good that a big bullet is even better.
I see that it has not changed much in the past 50 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_Remington

What you need to realize is that the 30-06 was originally designed for the 220 gr bullet. The reason why they specified such a large bullet was because in 1903 when the gun was being tested and designed, there were people still alive who fought in the war between the states - or as we like to call it, the war of northern aggression. That whole war was fought with big over sized punkin balls which didn't just penetrate human flesh, it removed whole sections of bone - which lead to so many deaths and so many people loosing arms and legs. The only thing that those old timers understood was a large projectile. Later when it was found that better accuracy could be had by reducing the size of the bullet to 150 gr, that became the industry standard.

The same could be said for the .280

If the .270 is known to have its best accuracy using a 130 gr bullet, how much larger of a bullet are you going to have to use in a .280 to get the same accuracy. Probably 140 gr..

Again, someone here is missing the point.
As the bullet gets larger - it has to go someplace, because there is a limit as to how much bullet you can have past the rim of the shell. This forces the re loader to push the bullet back further into the shell which displaces some room inside of the shell which is used to hold the powder. The .280's advantage is that the shoulder was pushed forward so it could not be chambered in either the .270 Winchester or the 30-06 govt. This gave the shell a little bit more room, which along with a different powder gave it the energy it needed, even if you wanted to shoot a 170 gr bullet out of it.

If all we had to work with was a plain old lead ball - this would be a big concern. But because of the newer style bullets which has everything from special gilding materials to special cores which helps the bullet retain its shape and energy - even after it has penetrated the carcass of the animal we are shooting, there is no reason to be loading up with a bigger bullet that isn't going to do anything except make the round less accurate.

Uhhh - someone didn't check their facts here. I remember when the .280 Remington's designation changed to be "7mm Remington Express", and that certainly wasn't in 1957. Yes, the .280 came out in 1957, but the nomenclature wasn't changed to "7mm Remington Express" until 1979. My copy of Hodgdon No. 26 says:

"...In 1979, in an attempt to revive their dying cartridge (the .280), Remington changed its name to 7mm Express Remington."

Volumes could be written about Wikipedia's errors....

Now, by the late 1970s, another metric cartridge - the 7mm Remington Magnum - was very firmly extablished as a "favorite" in many AMERICAN hunters' arsenals. So, you get Maggie's Drawers for the suggestion about WWII and metric calibers in the context of and the reason for the 7mm Express's low popularity. If that were true, the 7mm Remington Magnum would have suffered the same fate.

What Homers said....

The .280 Rem was the .280 Rem until 1979..Then it was BRIEFLY stamped as the 7mm Rem Express ( because of Rem's success with the the 7mm Rem Mag).. Then it soon became the .280 Rem again..

It's a fine cartridge, and I have killed everything from woodchucks to 1500 lb. Alaska bull moose with mine, at ranges from point blank to 400 yards..

Of course, I could have done the same thing with a .270, with proper bullets..

Mr Deer Hunter must be reading Wilkepedia incorrectly...

I looked up .280 remington...It says ( correctly) that the .280 Rem was introduced in 1957...It also says that in 1979 it was renamed the 7MM Rem Express in an effort to boost sales because of the success of the 7mm Rem mag... It also says that in 1981 it was RE-NAMED the .280 rem because thier ploy did not boost sales...

As far as the 50 BMG being based on the 30-06, I suspect that is a figment of someone's imagination...The only similarities between the two cartridges are that they are are both rimless, bottleneck cases, which could be said about perhaps a couple hundred or more cartridges.. The 30-06s similarity to the 8 x 57 and many other rounds that share the same case head dimensions is much closer...

While you guys were reading Wikipedia - I was around when that cartridge was new,
when most of you were still pooping in your diapers, I was reading books like Shots at Whitetails and books written by Jack O'Connor - such as The Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns, The Big Game Animals of North America, The Art of Hunting Big Game in North America, The Complete Book of Shooting, and The Hunting Rifle..

My dad had about every book that Readers Digest offered written by him from the early 60's on.

If you read Jacks books, you would read that he said that the .270 Winchester was about the most perfect gun ever designed and claimed that you could shoot almost anything except the most dangerous game in the world with either a .270 Winchester or a 7X57 Mauser.

Back in his day, the bullets were not the best and he might have been one of the people who was the most responsible for the bullets that you shoot today. I believe at one time he was a bullet tester for Speer.

It's funny ...Deleted by CalHunter...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG

http://campsmoke.wordpress.com/2009/...-a-generation/

http://www.africahunting.com/content...-o-connor-734/

After reading your post, I'll digress on the 50 BMG 30-06 connection... You have informed me about something I was not aware of...Thank you...

However, I'll still maintain that the relationship between the 50 BMG and the 30-06 are no closer than the relationship between the 30-06 and the 8 x 57, which was developed around 1888 and was the parent case head for the 7 x 57, the 30-06 and many other cartridges that are still in use today...

As far as pulling rank on me , I was well past diapers when the .280 was introduced in 1957, and I wouldn't be surprised if I am closer to your Dad's age than your age... I am a big fan of Jack O'Connor myself, and I remember reading his monthly articles in Outdoor Life, rather than Reader's Digest...

Actually the 7 x 57 pre - dates the "modern" 8 x 57 by 6 years for the .318 diameter ball cartridge, and by 13 years for the .323 ball cartridge (the new improved round).

The 8 X 57, as you said, was introduced in 1888, but the 7 x 57 was introduced in 1892, though many believe it was 1893.

BUT, as for the original intention of this thread ... 280 is a great round, and will put down anything on the North American continent, though there may be better choices for the big and toothy stuff carnivorous.

The present case for the 7.92 x 57 mm ( 8mm) is the same as the one introduced in the 1888 Mauser.. So despite a .005 reduction in bullet diameter, I maintain the 8 x 57 predates the 7 x 57 by 4 years, and that the 7 x 57 was based on the 8 x 57..

Not that it's worth getting into a pissing contest over...:biggrin:.....

OOps!
 

You are absolutely correct, and I had a brain fart in reviewing my own knowledge of dates. I converted 1888 into 1898 in my brain ....
both good cartridges, with the 8 X 57 being the "daddy"

Since the OP's question has been answered and we've gotten OT,I'll add my .02 worth.
To the OP:the .280 Remington is a great caliber.Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
As far as the round going obsolete:not hardly!
Hornady just put out 2 new loads,one being an all copper GMX.A company don't spend money on a has been.The .280 has a balanced selection of loads w/varied weights and premium bullets.
Though I don't yet reload,my manuals say the .280 is a great round for that purpose.It's not just bullet selection.Stronger actions can handle hotter loads.Weaker actions may no longer be in consideration.You may not find .280 ammo just anywhere,but it's not too difficult to find.This round still has a bright future.

Acting like fools? Well, if the best response you can formulate to posting misleading information here is to call names, then it ought to be pretty apparent who the real fool here is.

It remains - Your assertion that the metric designation brought out with the cartridge in 1957 is patently false. It's very clear that the metric designation did not arrive until 1979, well after the .270 had won the popularity contest between it and the .280.

And while Jack O'Connor was a fine writer, and while he did extol the virtues of the .270, your further cites don't change the fact that your initial explanation here was off the mark.

I think we're done here.

Easy read on the .280 Remington for all.

http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.280remington.html

http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/280r.html

7MM bullets come in greater bullet weight ranges than .277 and offer a bit better B.C. and S.D. as well. The .280 Rem. was always a bit underloaded and those who've stepped up to the wildcats like the .280AI get 7MM Mag. ballistics in the lighter bullet weights given equal barrel lengths. Some modern powders today really make the standard .280 Rem. shine.

Pundits have said that if Jack chose to write and elucidate the virtues of the .280 and not the .270, the popularity of the .280 would be cemented today instead of the .270 Win.

PS - It is interesting that Jack was fond of the 7x57 Mauser, a round not too shabby in the all-around department and another fine cartridge.

The .270 (a relic from 1925) was already well planted when the .280 came out.....I seriously doubt that the buying public was going to be swayed from the well entrenched .270.....it's use in American (and other places) big game hunting well documented.....

Had Remington loaded the .280 to the same pressures as the .270, it might have done better but instead got somewhat of a reputation as a handloading proposition. For a lot of folks this wasn't in their environment.

Instead of asking why the .280 did so poorly, one might ask why the .270 sold so well.....because in fact it really didn't do anything the .30-06 didn't do!!!!.....and the .30-06 ammo was available in military surplus all over the place in the '60s!

The .270 got a reputation as a flatter shooting round.....anyone want to say just how much flatter than the .30-06?.....it's not much I can assure you!

For those that KNOW why one succeeded and another failed....let me say this.....you're guessing just the same as I and everyone else!

Play nice gentlemen. Wikipedia sometimes does have problems with accuracy. Get 10 gun nuts together and you're guaranteed at least 20 opinions. A buddy of mine swears by his .280 while I love my .270 and hope to pass that on to my boys. Calling each other names isn't helpful and violates the forum rules. Remember, when you point that single finger at another member, 3 more of your fingers are pointing back at you. Now, as to the "debate" about who is older, I suggest the 2 "older" members settle it at 20 metric paces with birth certificates. :wink::party0005:

If they are as old as they say, which is in my neighborhood, they definitely cannot read birth certificates at 20 paces.:biggrin:

I sure hope one of them is Obama!!!!!

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/19pL9R...es/DrSuess.htm

The Cat in the Hat On Aging


I Cannot See
I Cannot Pee
I Cannot Chew
I Cannot Screw
Oh, My God, What Can I Do?
My Memory Shrinks
My Hearing Stinks
No Sense of Smell
I Look Like Hell
My Mood is Bad -- Can't You Tell?
My Body is Drooping
Have Trouble Pooping
The Golden Years Have Come at Last
The Golden Years can Kiss My Ass!

i gotta disagree with mr deer hunter,280 is much better suited for elk hunting than the 270.jmho

I agree with this and that's why I built mine.....

I haven't seen anyone getting TOO out of line in this thread...

Nobody has shed the kid's gloves yet.... Yeah.. I know THAT expression dates me....:happy0157:.....

One reason I frequent forums like this is for the entertainment value...Nothing wrong with a little give and take...

IMO this thread has stayed pretty civil, with a little good natured badgering involved...

Could always go with a 280 Remington with a belt.. the 7mm Remington Magnum. Same bullets, more oomph. Nothing wrong with the 280. Would make an excellent mountain rifle IMO, as far as being lightweight and having plenty of power. Besides, its bigger then a 270,lol.

Actually, Jack O'Connor agreed that the .280 was a better all round cartridge than the .270...In his later years, Jim Carmichel went to him and was discussing a custom rifle he was having built...Jim had already decided on a .280, but so he wouldn't hurt Jack's feelings, he told him he was getting a .270...Seems Jack jumped up and said "Don't do it, go with a .280, it's a better round"...

Jack liked the .270 simply because it shot a little flatter than the '06 and it kicked a little less...He felt that the average rifleman at the time could handle the reduced recoil a bit better...

Thanks to all of you for your insights and input.

I have considered some of the current production rifles that were mentioned. However, none of them are quite what I want. I don't care for stainless steel rifles (or pistols). I really don't like skinny-barreled mountain rifles either. I just want a regular weight sporter with a decent walnut stock. I know....some of the well known makers made them a few years back. I guess I should have bought one then. I appreciated the thoughts on the 270 caliber. I have a couple of 270's...a Winchester and a Marlin model 7. It's a fine caliber. Just want a new toy to play with! As far as the 7mm Magnum...I avoid magnum cartridges. I owned a couple of Weatherby Mark V's in magnum calibers. Those were some of the poorest shooting rifles I ever owned. I have decided to bide my time...maybe I can find what I want at one of the larger regional gun shows next spring. If I can't, I have a 700 BDL in 30-06 that has a lot or rounds through it. It just might become my 280. Thanks guys!

A rebarrel to .280 is a very good idea and will serve you well.

Best of luck with it.

May I recommend Shilen.....?