Where does the .280 Rem pass the .270 Win?
 

Where does the .280rem excel over the .270win?

Is the .280AI worth considering with hornady loading 280rem superformance?

What would be your ideal barrel length on the 280rem? I'm thinking 22" but wondering how much 23 or 24" would help?

Basically, availability of styles and weights of bullets put the 280 ahead of the 270 .

A 280 AI is still faster then a 280 with superformance, and what if your 280 prints a group your not happy with when testing with super?

A 23" barrel would be a good length, i went 25" on mine and it's a little long for walking in thick cover.

Go with the 280 AI, more performance, less throat erosion, longer brass life. And if go on a hunt somewhere and leave your 280AI ammo on kitchen counter just go get standard 280 and keep hunting.

280 Remington
 

It really doesn't. Bullet diameter of .007" doesn't make a hill of beans. I've been shooting the 280 for about 20 years and reloading all that time. Also, reload for my Dad's 270 & over the chrony shooting the same weight bullets there isn't enough difference to matter. Your best best is to go with a 24" tube as I had a 26" and cut it back to 24" and lost about 40 fps running 140 gr TSX's with the same load. If you're a handloader you might try the AI but if you're not I would stay with the standard. There are quite a few 280 loads out there if you order your ammo. If you want to get it at Wal Mart you won't have alot of luck. If you shoot the AI and want factory loads you're stuck with whats available from Nosler at this point. If you want to be able to buy ammo anywhere at anytime just buy a 270 & you'll be happy & it will make little difference to any animal you shoot at. Plenty of elk, deer, moose, & other critters have been killed with a 270 & with factory ammo available with Barnes bullets it's just as effective as the 280 & this comes from a 280 lover. If I didn't handload I wouldn't buy a 280.

Superpig is right, unless you are a handloader the 270 is a better choice and I too am a 280 shooter. My favorite hunting gun is a Ruger 77 MKII stainless 280 with a 22" barrel. You do not need a barrel longer than a 22" barrel unless you AI. The extra length will be more of a hindrance than given you any kind of useable advantage.

I have had both 22" and 24" barrels on .280 Remingtons and like the 24" better for most purposes. The biggest improvement over a good old .270 Winchester is the ability to use premium heavy bullets at reasonable velocities. I like 7mm 160 grain bullets for game larger than deer, and some guys that I know like the 175 grain pills. If lighter bullets are used in a .280 there is no significant difference between it and a 270.

I do not really see the need in the AI chambering, but you can always get your .280 rechambered into an AI later if you need a bit more velocity (one reason to get the 24" tube).

You dont need anything over a 22" barrel on a standard cartridge, the 280 will benifit a little with a longer barrel but it is not needed, I have killed everything from ground squerills to buffalo with a 22" barreled 280. The little increase in velocity isnt enough to notice unless you have a chronograph, a animal deffinitely will not know the difference. If you hunt heavy timber or steep mountains like here in Idaho, you will appreciate a shorter firearm. I recently took a Remington 700 SPS 243 with a 24" barrel and had it cut down by a gunsmith to 18.5" for that reason, it is way more handy in the woods, kills just as dead and just as accurate, if not more accurate than it was at 24". Is it slower? Yes, but velocity isnt everything, it is still a three hundred yard deer rifle, that is much more pleasant to carry. It is just personal preference, in my older age I learned comfort and covenience is more important than maxing out the velocity. If you want mag velocities and dont mind a 24"-26" barrel buy a magnum.

Using 140 gr bullets in the 270win and the 280 rem there's not a nickel's worth of difference. They are pretty much identical in ballistics. If your a fan of heavier bullets the edge goes to the 280 rem. If your a fan of lighter bullets and trajectory then 270 win has the edge. Like RR said past 500yards the heavier 280 Rem bullets hold a advantage with their higher BC. I'm a 270 fan but I would not hesitate to add the 280 rem into my collection for a medium range target rifle using 162 gr bullets.

Fritz your right in medium to short range hunting situations the shorter barrels work great. I've taken elk up to 365 yards with a 20" 270win and seen another family member take a bull elk at 470 yards with the same rifle. Both elk required one shot. In the tree's they are handier for sure. I shoot a lot of open country and I don't mind getting that 35-40 fps for every inch of barrel added on. Depending on caliber barrel length can sure add to less guess work with trajectory in the field at the 400 yard plus range. Even in run of the mill local shooting matches trajectory sure does give me the speed advantage when shooting steel matches where it comes down to hits vs. time. I love simplicity give me a flat shooting accurate rifle with a simple scope and before most can get the animal ranged it's on the ground. That's just how I was taught old school on trajectory. Speed kills but accuracy is king. Combine them both and that's dangerous.

The difference is not worth worrying about.If you reload you have a slight edge with the .280 whereas .270 factory ammo is sometimes a little easier to find for some.I've been loading/shooting the .280 a few years now but factory ammo for it is easy to come by in my area.

The Remington Catalog 2003 includes a "Centerfire Rifle Velocity Vs. Barrel Length" table that shows the following velocity changes for barrels shorter or longer than the test barrel length:

MV 2000-2500 fps, the approximate change in MV per 1" change in barrel length is 10 fps.
MV 2500-3000 fps, the approximate change in MV per 1" change in barrel length is 20 fps.
MV 3000-3500 fps, the approximate change in MV per 1" change in barrel length is 30 fps.
MV 3500-4000 fps, the approximate change in MV per 1" change in barrel length is 40 fps.


The 45th Edition of the Lyman Reloading Handbook also has a table showing Center Fire Rifle Velocity Vs. Barrel Length. Their figures apply to barrels between 20 and 26 inches in length and agree with the Remington figures. The Lyman table shows the following approximate velocity changes:

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 1000-2000 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 5 fps.
For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 2001-2500 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 10 fps.
For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 2501-3000 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 20 fps.
For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 3001-3500 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 30 fps.
For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 3501-4000 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 40 fps.

According to the charts, the difference in a 280 with a 22" vs. 24" barrel is about 40fps. Like I stated before, not enough to make ANY noticable differences at ANY hunting senario.

Charts are only a guide line for most shooters. Some shooters actually get out there and test this for themselves. For most 270 win 1-10" twist barrels depending on the powder it will run 35-40 fps per inch. HUGE difference when talking 20" vs 26" barrel. HUGE. Field tested beats computer data every time.

Never mind if it's in a book it has to be set in stone. And if you hear it on the internet it's gotta be the truth.

I actually have tested the 223, 280, and the 243, I posted the charts because they DO show what I have found to be true.
Here is the rest of the data published by Remington and Lyman that shows the effects of barrel length on the 270.
The 43rd edition of the Lyman reloading Handbook gave some concrete examples of velocity loss for specific calibers and loads. The Lyman technicians chronographed some high velocity cartridges in rifles with barrels ranging in length from 26 inches down to 22 inches with the following results:

The average loss for the .243 Win./100 grain bullet was 29 fps per inch.
The average loss for the .264 Win. Mag./140 grain bullet was 32 fps per inch.
The average loss for the .300 H&H Mag./220 grain bullet was 25 fps per inch.

For standard high intensity cartridges in the same test, the Lyman technicians chronographed the cartridges in barrel lengths ranging in length from 24 inches down to 20 inches with the following results:

The average loss for the .270 Win./130 grain bullet was 37 fps per inch.
The average loss for the .270 Win./150 grain bullet was 32 fps per inch.
The average loss for the .300 Sav./180 grain bullet was 17 fps per inch.
The average loss for the .30-06/180 grain bullet was 15 fps per inch.
The average loss for the .35 Rem./200 grain bullet was 11 fps per inch.

The 270 is a cartridge that does benifit from a longer barrel, it is actually a bit overbored, any overbored round like a 6mm-06, 25-06, or 270 benifits from a longer barrel, the bore is actually too small for the case capacity. Increase the bore on the same case, like a 280, 30-06, 338-06, or 35 whelen and the velocity loss is a lot less with a shorter barrel.

I read from another poster on another forum.
"Personally, I see no need for a barrel longer than 22" on a cartridge burning 60grs of powder [give or take a few grains] and no need for a barrel longer than 20" if burning 40-50grs of powder.

I've shot alot of guns with short barrels and standard 22" barrels, and velocity lose is nothing to worry about and the critters die just a quickly when shot correctly".

I could not agee more, he has hit it right on the head, from what I have personally seen.

There is also a point when you can have too much barrel length, it will actualy cause lower velocities because of friction and bullet drag.

Personally I load for accuracy and dont really care what velocity it is pushing. I have killed enough animals over the years to know that 100fps doesnt kill any deader or bullet drop isnt enough to matter at normal hunting ranges. (300 yards and under, or even at 500 yards or under, for that matter.)

What powders did they test with?

Did they test both fast or slow burn with the different weight bullet in each lenght?

That was the average, I am assuming the average means all powders tested and that is how they came up with the average. The bullet weights are listed that they tested with.
There always seems to be a way to justify a arguement, huh?

I would get the .280AI with a fast twist barrel and be happy with it. Shoot heavier bullets with ease. The 280 AI is a dream rifle of mine tho.

My rifle would wear a 24" barrel even for shooting in the big woods of S.eastern MB. If I wanted a rifle for the bush it wouldn't be a 280AI it would be a 7x57mauser.... or the AI variant

Because you assumed,...yes and posted it as the gospel. And you have no idea if those tests were with factory ammo or reloads and whether they used powders fast or slow burn powders with the different bullet weights.

And considering that lyman's test mirror Remington's ammo we can "assume" that they tested with factory or equal spec reloads.

Yeah, I assumed you knew what average meant also, I guess I should have known better. I would not think that Lyman would do tests with factory ammo considering that they are a company that deals with only reloading components and publish data from a test using factory ammo in there reloading manual really doesnt make sence, does it?. The tests mirror Remingtons test because it was a average, that means, incase you dont know what average is, that there was some loads that showed more than the average and some that were less than average, they took all results and devided by the amount of different loads used and came out with a average for that caliber and bullet weight. Yeah there is going to be different loads that show different, that is the reasoning behind taking the average, it gives you a general idea of what to expect. Also if you look at the results on the chart for the 270, you will see that they are very similar to what Blackelk says about the 270, which goes back to the reasoning of having a average, basicaly it tells you what to expect using that weight of bullet.

ugh, glad the decision isn't soon, the idea is to rebarrel a ultralight rifle and turn it into a sheep style rifle, very light,

270win, 280rem, 280ackley I keep bouncing back n forth, already have a 270win and some ammo, but that's hardly a reason to get another or not to.

I'm thinking 22 or 23 barrel, assuming 280ack, what would 1 inch really matter? since I'm not talking 22 vs 26 etc... just 22 vs 23? almost makes me think weight would be more important than the 30fps? although both would be negligible