Oh yeah, the .280 is indeed a powerful caliber! But I had the option of either, and after spending weeks investigating them both, I concluded, with the insight of an Alaskan hunter using a .270, there wasn't enough difference to opt for the heaver .280. This Alaskan hunter has taken everything Alaska had to offer with zero problems, including grizzlies. He too advised bullet placement, which is everything. He also shoots below the head in the neck area and they never move again. If however, you hit the heart of a grizzly with a 300 Winchester Magnum, they have been known to still run a great distance before finally dropping. Choose your shot carefully and the results will pay off.

Best regards

As others have stated, the 180grn .277" bullet is either so long that it seats into the grooves (dangerous condition causing excessive chamber pressure), or the bullet has to be seated so deep into the case that the powder capacity is so limited that the velocity is reduced beyond unreasonable levels.

And, again as others have mentioned, the rifling twist rate of production .270win rifles is NOT fast enough to stabilize heavier, slower bullets.

If you want to use a .270 for elk, or black bear, go ahead, it's a very venerable, historically proven cartridge. But at the end of the day, it is what it is. You wouldn't try to force a bullet weight into a .223rem that would supposedly make it useful as a moose rifle. The .270win isn't an "extreme" large game cartridge. It's a middle game to smaller-big game cartridge, it's great for anything on north america except moose and heavy bears (although guys HAVE and continue to use it for those purposes). The world travelling hunter should very likely have a .223, .270 or .30-06, .338Lap or .375 H&H, and a .416 Rigby or .458 Lott... Different sized hammers for different jobs, just like a home builder has a lightweight trim-nail hammer, a framing hammer, and a 9lb sledge hammer.

This is an interesting seven year old thread....even EldeGuello has posted on it!

At the time I posted on this thread I didn't have a .280 Remington....and since that time I've not only built a M-98 in .280 Rem, I've investigated 500 yard trajectories on the .30-06, the .280 Rem and the .270 Winchester....

My conclusions given new bullets (accubonds with very high BC):

The .270 is still an Elk rifle but to 400 yards.....both the .280 and .30-06 have the (traditional) 1500 ft-lb energy at 500 yards (handloaded in all three cartridges) but the surprise is the the .280 Rem with the 160 grain accubond delivers the most "whack" at 500 yards. Therefore, of the three.....the .280 (at least in my studies) is the better choice when retained ft-lb of energy is used as the point of "end of range".

One might ask why the 160 partition in the .270 isn't equal to the 160 accubond in the .280 and the answer is found in the superb ballistic coefficient of the accubonds. The accubond slides through the air more gracefully and retains greater velocity at the extended ranges.....and I suspect a 160 accubond in the .270 might not stabilize in the 1-10 twist.

Just a little kicker for those that are looking to buy an elk rifle!

reloaders have 160 grainers to work with...which is probably about as heavy as you want to go in a .270

Son, after awhile it gets real simple
 

There are over 15 caliber types effective for whitetail deer. It just depends how much money you want to spend on rifles. Some are great for shorter ranges; some for longer. But of the number given, all are effective.
It sure was tough to give up just using the .35 Remington. I payed attention to accuracy and one shot knockdowns in swamps. It wasn't until I got to another state and longer shots, did I get to rifle #2.

Good luck. I always appreciated that the buyer of a lot of different rifles was somebody else.