Swampdog

Tanzian,I really don't know much about the .280.What are the obvious advantages over the .270? Is it the B/C of the .284 projectile as opposed to the .270 ? I mainly shoot a 7 mm Rem. Mag. I always figured the .280 and the 7 were ilke a .243 and a 6mm Rem. One being stock and one being hot rod..... Thanks,Alton BTW I have never been much of a .270 fan.I guess I should have been shooting 150gr. instead of 130's If I am going to shoot a 150 it will be in the 7

Swampdog

pkfd7535,If you are still looking for a .280 rem. There are several on www.gunsamerica.com

tanzian

The BC is a start but the major reason are simply the larger frontal area of a .284 bullet and the fact that the .280 can handle every bullet weight that the .270 can plus others up to 190 gr. The .270 is marginal for larger big game where the .280 can handle it all with ease cept the largest bears. Handlaoded, the .280 can approach the 7mm Rem mag without the extra muzzle blast and recoil.

cardboardkiller

You guys are just making it harder for me to sell mine.

jeffk

Hey tanzian, it's Jack O'Connor. Please note spelling. And just what is it the 280 can do "a whole lot more" [your words] of than the 270? I've owned both and respect both but do you really think .007" of bullet diameter on basically the same case makes any practical difference in the field. Sounds like you're suffering from 280 "Hype" [your word again].

Briman

I have to agree with Tanzian, the .270 is overrated and certainly doesn't have the versatility of a 7mm cartridge.

I find it interesting to note that the .308 line of cartridges have just about every common bullet diameter except .277, why the 7mm-08 and .260 Remington are popular but there isn't a comercially available .270-08 speaks volumes.

James B

I have the NEF 26 inch barreled 280. Its a very good shooter. I paid 190.00 for it with a 4X40 scope on it. I love the 280 and the 270. Very little difference but the 280 has a little more range of bullet. The prformance of the 270 speaks for itself it performed every tast asked of it since 1925. I quess the best thing I can say about the 280 is that I have owned three of them and have shot quite a bit of big game with them. So far nothing has taken more than two steps before going down. The reason in my opinion it that they have plenty of retained energy and are just a very shootable gun, easy to place your shots well with. This could hold true with many calibers but for me the 280 has been a good hunting partner.

idahoelkinstructor

I have owned both, the .270 is a great deer gun, ok for elk, the .280 is great for both because it can handle heavier bullets. My first elk when I was 14 was killed with a .270 at 350 yards away. I fired 7 shots, and hit him 5 out of the seven, I didn't even know I had hit him until the last and final shot hit his spine and he fell. I was using factory 130 grain bullets, not the best for elk, but they were promoted by Jack O'Conor. Like others have said with handloading the .280 is almost equal to a factory 7mm Rem. Mag. Not trying to bad mouth the .270 becaues it will work, but the .280 will work better!

tanzian

Please forgive the mispelling of Mr. O'CONNORs name. If you think that the .270 and .280 have the same case you had better look again. The .270 is a direct decendent of the .30-06. The .280 more resembles the 7x64 Brenneke and it takes a well trained eye to tell the difference. The case of the .280 has had the shoulder shoved forward so some dolt doesnt try and chamber it in a SMALLER .270. It also allows for an increase in case capacity. And yes that .007 does make a difference when it comes to practical field applications. In the 7mm Bullets there is a much larger selection of weights and designs allowing you to shoot up to a 190 gr bullet in the .280... a real difference when it come to larger game such as moose, elk, and larger bears. The 7mm Bullets also have a ballistical advantage over the .277 bullets when it come to BC and for a given weight SD as well.

I have done extensive load development for both the .270 Winchester and the .280 Remington. Dont get me wrong... The .270 is a fine round but when the chips are down and I am dropping several grand on a hunt, the .280 is getting the call every time. The .270 might do it but the .280 will do it... and do it better on larger game. When it come to smaller deer species it is six of one a half a dozen of the other.

Practical field expierence:

I was a sublet tag holder on a moose hunt in 2001. I was following the main tag holder on his hunt... Him with a .270 loaded with factory failsafes and me with my .280 loaded with 190 gr bonded core bullets from a now defunct bullet maker( sure glad I got a rather large stash of them). He made a broadside shot on a very nice bull at 90 yards right behind the shoulder. The bull did not even flinch just turned to face us and began swinging his nice rack form side to side looking as if he was thinking of a charge. I raised my .280 and fired hitting the bull in the lower center of his chest. He dropped at the shot. Upon skinning this fine animal we found the .270 pill lodged just under the hide on the far side.... and it had done some decent damage but not enough to drop him. My shot had gone through the bull from end to end, exiting just below the center point of his right ham... that is alot of moose to plow through and leave the massive wound channel that it did. This very incident is the reason I am sold on the .280 Remington.

jeffk....

I firmly stand by my statement that the .280 can do more then the .270... and I have the field expierence to back it up... over 20 years in the hunt and still going strong.

tanzian

Sorry, but the facts are just the facts....lol

My suggestion is keep it for you main gun in that range and keep your .270 as a back up. The only real reason I keep more then one .270 is that my wife likes to shoot them as they are about at her acceptable recoil threshold with 130 gr bullets. That and two of my three .270s were my grandfathers.