I’ve been experimenting with 280 rem for 7 years plus now and it’s my fav caliber because it’s so versatile. . I have couple 270 win and love that caliber but 7mm Bullets are sweet spot bullet. I even have 280 ai kimber but still gravitate to that 280 rem. That 168 ABLR is a great elk dropping load with high BC, high accuracy, lower recoil than a magnum, and 140 accubond is awesome for muley and smaller animals because it’s so fast accurate and drops game quickly with awesome penetration from a long way. My 700 rem stainless bdl with some upgrading is very accurate with both loads, and is a beautiful rifle. Remington really dropped the ball on that one even as they made up for it with 7mm rem mag. Great video
I have been using a 280 Rem since 1980 and have found it excellent. I handloaded for about ten years for it as it was a very mild performer with factory ammo. oh yah, it was mild as it was factory loaded for the Rem 740 and 760 rifles. After about 91 factory loadings were made for modern bolt action rifles and are magnificent rands. I have taken moose, elk, black bear and several dozen whitetail and mule deer with one antelope buck thrown in. It is accurate and deadly on all those animals. I have no experience with a 270, however one of my hunting partners has one and recently upgraded to the 280 only because he believed it had greater potential at greater distances. Time will tell. No one can go wrong with the 280 Rem!!
The 280 REM was underloaded so its operating pressures were compatible with the REM pump rifle it was introduce for. When you compare the factory Hornady ELD-X loadings, 145gr 270 & 150gr 280 ( like for like sectional densities and G1 BC) they are very close in MV 500 yard retained velocity and 500 yard energy. The 270 makes sense if you want to use 130gr to 150 grain bullets and the 280 workss for 150 grain and heavier bullets.
My first rifle I purchased on my own in 1979 was a Remington 700ADL chambered in .270 Winchester. One year later I was persuaded and was converted to a diehard.280 Remington hunter/shooter/loader. I had several other rifles chambered in various cartridges but always reached for the Browning BARs and A-bolts chambered in .280 Remington during primary hunting season. It was only 6 or 7 years ago I converted to the .280AI.
You should work up a 270 win load using the barnes 110 gr ttsx and do a vid. I think you will be impressed with the numbers including max point blank range.
Love my 270s. LOVE my 280 Rem. AND, about 10 days ago, tagged a deer with my new 280AI (although I cheated - just used factory Norma 160 Tip Strike 280 Rem, fireforming, since I have a ton on hand and the Bartlein barrel liked it too)
When the 280 was designed by remington.it was made to shoot out of box magazines and slide action pumps.to fit in these actions.they stuff the bullets past the proper seating depth.to shorten bullet length.A mistake made by Remington so instead of seating the bullet farther out and making a magazine to correct this.they pushed these 740 and 742s into production without fixing all the mistakes the design team made.longer action.bigger box magazine bullet seated farther out.to proper seating depth. If Remington would have done this.The 280 would have been alot more versitle than the 270.shooting heavier bullets better than the 270 for less blood shot meat at close range.because the 280 shot alot heavier bullets at that time.the 270 shot 130 to 150 grain bullets.0ot of the 740 and 742 models it had the proper seating depth.Nobody knows why they didn't do this for the 280 Remington that would shoot heavier 165 to 175 grain bullets for less meat destruction because of the slower volocities of these heavier shells and actually the 7mm bullets were more abundant than 270.from wide use all over the world in Europe .
I think that might have been my comment. I really didn't mean to be snarky. I've had a 280 since the early 90s. Got sucked into it's "advantages". Though true, they are mostly scholastic. We rifle looneys love our minutiae! There isn't a deer that walks this earth that could tell the difference between it and the 270. Truthfully, wish I'd gotten a 270 for it's availability. Love the channel and keep it coming.
The standard 280 is already an improved cartridge with the shoulder pushed forward to increase case capacity. Remington sacrificed the 280 for the 7mm Remington Magnum simply to defeat Winchesters 264 Magnum .For me , the standard 280 is the best medium game cartridges on planet Earth that never was. I would like to do testing like PO Ackley did back in the day. He tested cartridges with varying powder case capacities for bore size . He would reach a point of diminishing returns within the pressure limits of the rifle and ammunition. The brass case is the weak link in strong modern bolt actions. Primer and Case heads will blow out before the action would fail normally unless one is loading fast pistol powders. He did not do that . He would use the powders that gave the fastest velocity and then go up in powder charge until the cases or pressure testing equipment showed over pressure. He concluded every bore size had a maximum case capacity. That's why he did not think much about improving the 220 Swift. The best improved cartridge was the 250 Savage Ackley improved. If I remember correctly. He thought the 270 Winchester was slightly over bore for its powder capacity. One can possibly get different results than PO Ackley because powders available today did not exist when he did his experiments. He did use 50 BMG powder for necking down the 378 Weatherby magnum cases. I'd say the 280 is with in 100 fps of the 7mm mag when loaded to equal pressures. I may be wrong, but not far off. The velocity difference at most would not exceed the velocity of a Daisy BB gun. Most hype with wildcat cartridges and Magnums come extra long test barrels and over pressure loads. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
What we find interesting is the fact that you are getting 165 grain bullets to group well out of a standard .270 1:10 twist. That is a lot of bullet for a .277 bore. Given the lowered velocity, I would say that is probably the limit for the .270 Winchester case capacity. Gonna need a mag case or at least an AI case to squeak more out of ..277.
@@ReloadingWeatherby nope never saw the need with a 280 and 30-06. Less bullets available to load in a 270. I sure will owe one of these days only with. I have been looking at a 270 pre 64 to add to my collection though
I inherited a German made 270 Weatherby Magnum about 8 years ago. Picked up a couple of boxes of ammo . Now i can't find anything . I think I'll have to start reloading just for this one cartridge . It will definitely be cheaper . Disappointed you can't even get it from Weatherby .
Well for myself when l bot my last rifle and l am a sako guy l wanted a 280 so badly but that year Sako quite making 280 in a Sako 85 so l hot the 270 and they both are very good . I do have other Sakos in different cal . I still to this day really like the 280
Most of you are forgetting that the 280 factory rounds are loaded at lower pressures than the 270. This is due to the fact that the 280 was introduced in Remington pump and semi automatic rifles. For s..ts & giggles, fire 5 rounds of 280 as fast as you can and catch the last ejected brass in your hand. Now do the same with a 270, your going to wish you hadn't with the 5th 270 brass however you wil not get blistered by the 280 round. Now handload a 280 at the pressures for a modern bolt action rife (higher than book, but safe and close or same as a 270) and I can guarantee you that no 270 built, with any comparable bullet or twist rate will hang with a 280 period. I can also guarantee you that no deer will know the difference from a well placed projectile from either. However, the 280 is a better balanced cartridge and is a more versatile cartridge.
Have both but use a 270win. No real preference for me but i use 270win, 308win, 30-06 only becuse they work and its all about logistics of factory ammo and reload components. I thought about even getting an 6.5creed for this reason but honestly i dont need it. Guess im not much of a cartridge guy. But i do like 338's.
Darn near splitting hairs Objectively speaking, the 280 is more versatile based on the fact of bullet selection The 270 is catching up in the VLD bullet department and it’ll be interesting to see how that plays out in time Honestly, either is an excellent cartridge I personally prefer the 280 tho
I've got both Browning safari 280 and Remington 270's. Both are the cats meow for most any game I've used them for. Both perform great. My Browning safari 308 is nice too.
The .280 had a 1:9 twist barrel whereas the the .270 had a 1:10 twist. Give the .270 a 1:9 barrel twist ratio and the heavier bullets will work just fine. A custom .270 with a faster twist barrel ad having a hand loaded round using the 160 grain bullet the results will be the same. These two rounds are like the .243 Win and the 6mm Rem. The twist rate on the barrel determined the size of bullets and thus how versatile the round became.
Hmmm. I’ve found that good hunting bullet design, sectional density and velocity kill game, not BC. Seems there just too much emphasis these days on BC which really means fractions of inches at 300, 400 or 450 yards.
Their test barrels are different lengths. 24" for the 270 and 26" for the 280 rem. I'll stick with the 270. For me it is 59 grains of H4831 with a Sierra 130 gr Gameking btsp out of a Weatherby Vanguard.
If you look at the Hornady book. The velocities are identical. However Hornady is using a 24 inch barrel with the 270 and the 280 is using a 22 inch barrel. You will still get a little more velocity with the 280 Remington with the same length
@@ReloadingWeatherby fair. I'm sure Jack O connor played a huge role in the popularity of the cartridge. Anyway you slice it, it has good performance, moderate recoil, plenty of options with factory ammo and if you are a hand loader, components are relatively easy to find.
@ronlowney4700 Are you liking your own comments Ron? I've always said the 280 is dead. You have been the one saying the 270 is more powerful and is more versatile... when it's not
@@ronlowney4700 Ron, I don't delete your comments. If your comments don't show up... it's RU-vid doing it. It's not the first time RU-vid does this kind of thing.
It would be costly, but building a couple of rifles in both calibers that were identical in every way except cartridge might be the only way to see which is the best performing.Edit: 26" Magnum length barrels would probably be darned enlightening in regards to top end loads for both.
You managed to shoot 165gr. bullets from your .270 Win with a 1:10 twist?! I'm flummoxed that It managed to stabilize. I cannot even get 150gr. Pills to stabilize! And just recently I recently found out all copper CX bullet ALSO keyhole from my .270.
You know, the only thing necessary for .280 to have a comeback tour is one gun and one ammo company to partner up and do it. I think you could sell a veritable mountain of economy.280 rifles just as long as there was economy .280 ammo. White box target ammo and blue box deer ammo at affordable prices would just possibly create another Creedmoor phenomenon. What we seasoned shooter citizens forget is that what we heard about 50 years ago is unknown to 2 generations of younger riflemen and women. .280 and .270 deserve equal billing really.
I had a stainless ruger m77 mrk 2 in 280 Remington. I used imr 7828 and a 175gr bullet and was about 2900fps over the chronograph. Very close ballistics to my 7 rem mag. I then had the chamber reamed to 280 improved and actually lost about over 100 fps. Not what I expected but it was interesting nonetheless.
Technically with the same length barrels, the 270, 280, and 30-06 are all gonna shoot the same grain weight bullets at the same velocity. Therefore whichever bullet has the higher b.c will technically win in down range performance giving the edge to the 270.
@matrix5175 So the reloading data is wrong? 30-06 can shoot a 150 gr 3050 FPS. 270 Win can only shoot a 150 gr at 2900 FPS. With my 22 inch barrel in my 270 I get 2800 FPS with a 150 gr. With a 22 inch barrel in 30-06 I'm pushing a 150 gr bullet 3000 FPS.
@@ReloadingWeatherby I’m talking about simple physics here, not reloading data differences. I’ve loaded 150 grain bullets in my 24” 270 to between 3000-3050 fps. I understand there are differences between reloading data information, but the physics of it means the caliber doesn’t matter. Only the weight of the bullet and the amount of powder pushing that weight matters. If we use the same powder, the case will hold the same amount of powder whether it’s a 270, 280, or 30-06 and pushing the exact same weight of bullet, i.e. 150 grains, all three will shoot that bullet the exact same velocity.
The reason for longer length on the 280 is probably so one couldn't be chambered in a 270 chamber. It would be a pressure problem. A 270 in a 280 chamber would be like throwing a hotdog down a hallway. I Shoot 270 Weatherby Mag. Christ Bless!
How much real difference is there between a 0.277" bullet & a 0.284" bullet.. in near identical cases with near identical powder loads, using the same powders (i.e. H4350, hunter, ect...) What i would call a difference is a 0.308"+ bullet with a 80gr+ capacity (300 Win, 300WBY, the bigger 338's) vs a 6.8mm-7mm bullet with a 60ish gr capacity. They'll all do the same thing.... However I believe 06 sized case with a 6.8mm-7.62mm bullet is the perfect balance of power, recoil and availability. Atleast its not a 6.5 Creedmoor 😂😂😉
Had a Rem.700 Mountain Rifle in 280 and handloaded 120 gr. Nosler BT Partition with 55 grns. of IMR-4350. Results; 1/2'' groups at 100 yds. and deadly on Whitetails! Have a 700 Classic now in the same caliber. Also owned 2- 243's ( Weatherby- Vanguard VGL & Rem. Model 4) and a Win.70 XTR Featherweight in 270. They excel in 130 gr. imo. (the 270) I will stick with my 280 Rem. Personal preferences of course. Love 30-06 but don't love the recoil and especially the noise!
I have 270 rifles, and I have 280 rifles. My boys and I use the 280 rifles on our hunts more than the 270 or any calibers. I have no problems getting bullets, powder, and brass for the 280. I could jump up to the 7mm mag, but I don't like the looks of the belt on the magnum base.
If you run the 280 Rem at the same 65k psi as the 270 Win (and I don't see why you couldn't), the 280 does beat the 270 because it can run heavier bullets, and the 270 bullets have lower BC for the same weight. Also, because the 280 has a bigger rear end for the expanding, burning powder to push against, it gets up to speed quicker and/or can hit higher muzzle velocities for the same bullet weight.
The load manual shows the 270 data with a 24" barrel. The 280 with a 26" barrel....With the same barrel length there's actually not that much difference between the two. Virtually identical performance.
When folks look at a legacy cartridge, the frame of reference is the technology/design from the time that cartridge was produced. The 280Rem or 280AI will shoot the EXACT same bullets as the 7mm PRC. So, what if we revised a legacy cartridge using the same approach as designers used on 7mm PRC? It's practically gaslighting to use a newer design ogive bullet with a very high BC, pack the case full of the latest powder technology, barely seat the bullet and claim the new cartridge is superior. Again, take the same approach with either of the 280 calibers and I bet it would be revolutionary...obviously, you'd need to make changes to the chamber as well.
270 v 280? Let's face it, for practical hunting distances it just doesn't matter. They'll do the same thing. 270 ammo being much more readily available and less expensive. In reality the 280 was another marketing failure by Remington.
The .280 might have a slight ballistic advantage over the .270...but at normal hunting ranges, the difference is so small as to be negligible. Terminal performance will be so close to identical that there's no real point in arguing about it...unless you just like to argue, in which case have at it.😉
🤪 Despite What You May Think, I Really Don't Take Pleasure in "Correcting You" Austin! But, It is My Duty To Do So: 1.) It Isn't An "Honest Comparison" When You Use a 24" Barrel for the 270 Winchester and a 26" Barrel for the 280 Remington Magnum! So, Take 50 ft/s Velocity Off Your Velocity Numbers For The 280 Remington! 2.) You Claimed That The Highest B.C. Bullet for the 270 - in a 150 grain Bullet was 0.591 - Even Though I Told You in Your Last Video That It Was the 150 grain "Badlands Bulldozer 2", With a B.C. of 0.710 for the 270 Caliber! So, Run the Numbers Again, This Time With Only 50 ft/s Velocity Difference and See What You Get With The Higher B.C. 0.277 Bullet? 3.) What You See is the 270 is Flatter Shooting, Has Less Wind Drift, Has a Higher Bullet Velocity, And More "Down Range Energy"! 4.) In This Video, You "Conveniently" Never Looked Past 400 Yards - But, If You Did At 500 yards, What You Would Find is that the 270 Winchester Carries 150 more ft lbs of energy, 0.7" less drop, 2.7" less drift, and the bullet is moving almost 100 ft/s faster! Though, Using All The "Correct Information", The 270 Still Wins at 400 yards too! 5.) Using the Correct Velocity of a 24" Barrel the 280 Remington, With the 168 Grain Nosler ABLR bullet (B.C. of 0.616), Nosler Says They Get 2,803 ft/s Muzzle Velocity With It! But You, Meanwhile With Your 22" 270 Winchester Barrel and the Slightly Higher B.C. 0.277 Bullet of 0.620 - Using the 165 Grain Nosler ABLR - Have Gotten a Faster Velocity of 2,811 ft/s! So, The 280 Remington Has Shown to Have Absolutely No Advantage Over the 270 Winchester At Any Of These Bullet Weights! Thanks For "Proving My Point" With Your Own Data! 😂 6.) If I Was Customizing a Rifle, I Would Get a "Cryogenically Treated Barrel" That Would Add Another 50 ft/s to 60 ft/s to My 270 Winchesters Velocity Too 7.) Using Your Own Data, I Already Showed You That the 270 Winchester is a "1/2 Mile Elk Cartridge"! What More Do You Really Need and Think Your "Missing Out On", Austin? 8.) For You That Say The 284 Has A "Real Advantage" over the 270 in Regards to Frontal Bullet Diameter - Calcuating the Difference Between the Two We Find (Even Using a Bullet With A 2.5 Times Expansion) That The Actual Difference is Less Than 5% and Produces Only a 0.0193" Larger Diameter Wound Channel Hole! Is That Going to be a "Significant Difference" in Killing an Animal? I DON'T THINK SO! 🤣
If you're going to use an extremely high b.c. custom bullet for the 270... why don't we use that same bullet in the 280 Remington? So a 270 Win with a 150 gr Badlands Super Bulldozer at a velocity of 2900 FPS at 500 yards has -44 inches of drop and has 1718 ft.lbs. The 280 Remington with the 160 gr Badlands Super Bulldozer at a velocity of 2900 FPS(24 inch barrel) at 500 yards has -44 inches of drop and 1817 ft.lbs of energy. Nice try Ron... anything the 270 can do, the 280 does better. Always fun talking with you.
😃 So, Absolutely No Difference in Drop? 😳 So, The Laws of Physics Don't Lie Austin - And, As More New And Heavier High B.C. Bullets Come Out For the 270 Caliber (Which We Will Soon See More Of, As New Cartridges Are Being Developed In The 270 Caliber) - The 270 Will Be Even More Dominant! The Caliber Already "Wins" In The Most Overlapping Bullet Weights (And, 17 TO 3, in 5 grain Bullet Weight Increments) - and In Having Higher Bullet B.C. and Sectional Densities in All But 3 Comparable "Hunting Bullet" Weights (Two of Which Aren't Yet Made For the 270 At All - But Not That They Couldn't Be Made and Made Better)! It Currently Has Both Lighter and Heavier "Hunting Bullets" (Monolithic Solids and Bonded Bullets Too)! So, Your Running Out of Room On the Upper Most Bullet Weights to Make Any Argument At All Austin, For Anything (Because This Rifle Case Can't Effectliy Handle Much Heavier Bullets Than Are Already Being Made For Either Chambering)! You Have Tried To Gloss Over "These Facts" Austin (It is Still 17 to 3 for the 270 Caliber, and Soon Will Be 19 to 1)! Will It Make Any Difference in the Final Results of A Dead Elk or Deer? Nope! But The Consumers Have Already Spoken And The 280 Remington is As Dead As "Your Arguments"! ☠ HELL, EVEN REMINGTON THEMSELVES HAS STOPPED CHAMBERING RIFLES FOR IT, SO WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? 🤣 Soon, It Will Be As Rare As The Woolley Mammoth! 🐘
.007 of an inch in diameter. Thats the difference. If you have dark colored hair you hair is about .004 of an inch. Not much difference. Pressure and bullet weight and bbl length all equal the 280 will shoot slightly faster. If you reload you have a big advantge in bullet selection. If you shoot factory ammo 270 is much easier to find. Thats the difference.
@@jmgates09the 270WSM is a lost cause, because there is zero new 270WSM ammo or brass being made. I just got done trying to source some. $100 for bad, old stock Winchester ammo. Nope.
280 Rem is just a copy of 7x64 in Europe, in that time 7x64(7x65R) Brenneke was really popular and because of that someone tried to make something the same for another part of the world, so I don't know what to say, if 7x64 is a good caliber, than 280 Rem must be also ... 270 Win is something else, smaller bullet diameter, lighter bullets but it is okay for everything, people shouldn't be afraid of lighter bullets, they all do almost the same job, so I think there is no animal who can see the difference between 280 Rem and 270 Win if the bullet placement was where it should be..
Versatility is a user-level determination. Anyone making absolute claims is being a pedant, because where one person values factory ammo versatility, another guy/gal hand loads, and values greater availability of componentry and the better ballistics.
Unfortunately Remington only copied the 7x64 Brenneke which was developed in 1917. Although not very popular here in the States it is still widely used in Europe and rifles chambered in 7x64 Brenneke are more of a novelty or collectors item than used. I, however, have one I shoot often and hunt with. The throat in the 7x64 is considered a little long compared to the .280 Remington but load data is identical.
Wonder if you had a point to comparing a European cartridge to what started as a wildcat in the very early 20th century. Brenneka ammo wouldn't be available at the time so it would've failed miserably in America.
@@jk-kr8jt FYI the 7mm Wildcats, ie the 7mm Gibbs, .285 OKH, 7mm-06, & 7mm-06 (Mashburn) were not developed until the 40’s and 50’s. Chances are there were wildcaters of 7mm in an -06 cartridge in the 20’s but nothing of note that stuck around or of any significance. And just FYI; part of the failure of the 7x64 Brenneke here in the States was the lack of available ammunition, but that was only part of its failure to takeoff, lack of available rifles chambered, import restrictions after WWI were among the others but, by no means, comprehensive. The lack of available ammunition for the 7x64 made it a handloading prospect for those that had them. You probably ought to know the facts of history and the historical data.
I ended up with some 280 REM brass and decided to make up some 280 REM rounds using Hornady load data up to the max charge. Even at the max 280 REM charge, there was a lot of room left in the case. Remington neutered it.
