Thank you, from the BaitShop Boyz! |
age old "discussion" again.... |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |
Irish Bird Dog
.416 Rigby Too many Joined: 01 March 2009 Location: Midwest Status: Offline Points: 5511 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 24 May 2018 at 22:43 |
.270Win vs .280Rem........and the best choice of these two calibers is.......read the report posted here to see the result.........
Head to Head: .270 Winchester vs. .280 Remingtonby Philip Massaro - Friday, May 18, 2018 It’s the battle of the aught-six offspring. The .30-06 Springfield has spawned many children from .22 caliber wildcats all the way up to the .40 calibers, but it’s the medium calibers that have enjoyed most success. Our calibers from .257-inch up to .338-inch have served us well for decades, but the .277-inch, 7mm, and .308-inch calibers have gotten the lion’s share of work from deer hunters. But between the .270 Winchester and the .280 Remington, which offers the best performance for the hunter? Let’s take a look at what makes them tick. It was the .270 Winchester that was the first commercial cartridge based on the .30-06 Springfield case, introduced in 1925 in the Model 54 Winchester. The case is slightly longer than the .30-06—the .270 actually has the same length as the earlier .30-03, at 2.540-inch—and represents one of the early ‘fast’ cartridges to come onto the scene. In spite of the fact that telescopic sights were not unpopular, but unreliable, the cartridge quickly developed a reputation as a flat shooting cartridge that was perfectly suited to the open plains and mountain hunting. The original load—and the load that is still the most popular—was a 130-grain bullet at 3140 fps, though it was later reduced to 3060 fps. This combination was embraced by several gun writers, most notably Outdoor Life’s Jack O’Connor, who championed the cartridge for decades. O’Connor took that cartridge and hunted all sorts of game, from sheep and antelope to elk and bears, with good results, and the advent of reliable telescopic sights showed the true long-range capabilities of the cartridge. It’s just about perfect as a deer/sheep cartridge, and the heavier 150-grain bullets—with proper shot angle and placement—handled larger game like elk and moose. The cartridge was relatively easy on the shoulder, and deer hunters flocked to it (especially with O’Connor’s never-ending endorsement); to be honest, if you were hunting nothing but deer, the .270 Winchester may be one of the perfect cartridges. It uses bullets weighing between 90 and 150 grains, and does make one of the all-around cartridges for most hunters. The .280 Remington was next to gain commercial status, being introduced by Big Green in 1957. It is nothing more, and nothing less, than the .30-03 case (and even the .270 case) necked to hold 7mm bullets, and that’s a good thing. The 7mm, or .284-inch diameter, bullets offer a good range of weight for the hunter, topping out at 175 grains. The 7mm bullets are one of the few that can rival the .30 caliber range, and there are those who feel the Sectional Density of the 7mm bullets will surpass the potential of the .30 caliber slugs. In spite of all that, the 32-year head start that the .270 Winchester had made a huge difference in sales, and the .280 never really took off. It plodded along for a couple decades, with a quiet, yet fervent, following, but sales comparisons showed that the .270 had the much larger portion of the market share. In the late 1970s, the cartridge went through a couple of name changes, first to the 7mm-06 Remington, and subsequently to the 7mm Express Remington. With the 7mm Remington Magnum firmly rooted in the shooting world, confusion abounded, and in 1981 the cartridge went back to being called the .280 Remington, which in my opinion should have stayed from the beginning. Which of the designs is better? Or maybe I should ask the question this way: if both were released today, which would prove the more useful round? Let’s look at the similarities first. Both can be housed in virtually any style of rifle, from autoloader, to lever to bolt and beyond. Both have a good case capacity for their caliber, sending their respective projectiles at very useable velocities, offering good trajectories without punishing either shooter or barrel. With modern bullets, both are fully capable of taking most of North America’s game animals, and a good portion of Africa’s plains game. With a minimal diameter difference—0.277-inch vs. 0.284-inch is not much to argue about—and a case capacity that is nearly identical, the race is definitely a tight one. Both use the Springfield 0.473-inch case head, and both maintain the 17˚-30’ shoulder of the parent. I give the edge to the less-popular .280 Remington for one reason and one reason only: the available bullet weight. Unlike the .30 calibers, which rarely use the heaviest 220-grain hunting bullets, the 175-grain 7mm bullets make a great choice for elk, moose and larger African antelope. It’s the twist rate of the .270 Winchester that precludes it from using bullets heavier than 150, or in some cases 160 grains—though the latter won’t always stabilize—and that probably hearkens back to the earlier design. Like the .22-250 Remington, the designers of the .270 Winchester (presumably) didn’t envision our current obsession with the long, heavy-for-caliber bullets. There are some heavyweight bullets for the .270 Winchester—namely the Berger Extreme Outer Limits Elite Hunter—but they require a twist rate faster than the normal 1:10”; however, the 7mm cartridges, if equipped with a similar twist rate, could use the same bullet at 195 grains. The weight advantage definitely goes to the 7mm. With the same weight of bullet, the .280 Remington will better the velocity of the .270 Winchester every time, even if just by a small margin. I’m well aware that the sheer number of .270 rifles will guarantee the future success of the cartridge, but coming from a design standpoint, the .280 Remington may just be the most efficient of the Springfield offspring. |
|
Irish Bird Dog
NRA Life/Endowment 2nd Amendment Supporter |
|
Wing master
Administrator AKA StraightShooter Joined: 10 June 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7481 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
As you might know, I am a .270 fan boy.
But I do admit that a .280 is probably a better caliber. The .280 seems to do good with the Ackley shoulder angle. Wing master
|
|
I have always considered myself to be quite the bullshitter, But ocasionally it is nice to sit back and listen to a true professional......So, Carry on.
|
|
BEAR
Administrator Joined: 07 September 2013 Location: Appalachian Mtn Status: Offline Points: 13734 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Shucks...I don't have a 280...dog gon it!
but I don't have a 270 either!
|
|
jsgbearpaws1
.416 Rigby Joined: 02 March 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3599 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
270 is an adequate game getter for sure. 280 ......unless you have a mess of '06 cases laying around and just want one, no other reason not just to get the 7mm rem mag. The 7's are a bit more versatile in weight and loadings. Factory ammo is cheap for both 270 and 7mm mag, not so with the 280 as it's nowhere near as popular. .270 is a good choice for youth, women and old farts who are recoil sensitive, but can still hit the vitals with ease. Realistically, the 7 is just a hair better at everything, but if you are building a .270, a faster twist barrel to shoot the heavier and longer VLD's is a simple matter and that hair gets a bit thin. You can't really go wrong with either.
|
|
...oh yeah! thats gonna hurt!
|
|
TasunkaWitko
Administrator aka The Gipper Joined: 10 June 2003 Location: Chinook Montana Status: Offline Points: 14749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'm sure both are great, but my own preference would be for the .280.
I should add the caveat that I own neither, but something about the .270 always rubbed me the wrong way; there is no special reason for it, just an ingrained and admittedly irrational dislike, similar to my disdain for the Dallas Cowboys, but not as bad.
|
|
TasunkaWitko - Chinook, Montana
Helfen, Wehren, Heilen Die Wahrheit wird euch frei machen |
|
BEAR
Administrator Joined: 07 September 2013 Location: Appalachian Mtn Status: Offline Points: 13734 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You get the 270 win IF you hunt deer and smaller things.
You get the 280 rem IF you hunt deer and bigger things. People hate the 270 because of JACK O'CONNORS' constant rants about its superiority. I logged on this thread cause I thougght it said "old Age Discussion"!!! lost in Buffalo again.
Edited by BEAR - 19 December 2018 at 08:01 |
|
Irish Bird Dog
.416 Rigby Too many Joined: 01 March 2009 Location: Midwest Status: Offline Points: 5511 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I am a fan of the 7mm bore which throws me into the .280 fan club. Always interesting to see the comments when this .270W vs .280R question comes up.....no doubt Jack O'Conner, whom most of us grew up reading....was a very big factor in the .270W popularity over the years....and as yonkers we maybe got caught up in his glowing writings on the subject.
|
|
Irish Bird Dog
NRA Life/Endowment 2nd Amendment Supporter |
|
Tikkabuck
Administrator **Robert E. Lee IV ** Joined: 10 June 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8740 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Never had a need for a .280 ,the .270 always handled everything I pointed it at, then the 270 WSM came into play , and I've happy as a clam since . And then the 7mag is in the far corner of the safe, so the .280 to me is just redundant . Give me my .270's ,and my 7-08's I'm happy . No science here just proof on the wall and the table .
On another note ,I always liked reading John Wooters . Edited by Tikkabuck - 21 July 2018 at 14:10 |
|
God,Mother,Country,and Hot Rods. Done with political crap.LOL
|
|
lizard
.30/06 SpringField Joined: 17 February 2016 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 301 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Speaking of long time outdoor writers; does anyone remember Don Zutz? He was the shotgun writer for "Fur, Fish, and Game" for many years. He also wrote for several other publications.
|
|
Trigger Control is knowing when not to pull it.
|
|
Irish Bird Dog
.416 Rigby Too many Joined: 01 March 2009 Location: Midwest Status: Offline Points: 5511 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I remember Don Zutz and that you knew him long ago. I even remember reading his writings and mostly on shotguns I think.
|
|
Irish Bird Dog
NRA Life/Endowment 2nd Amendment Supporter |
|
Wing master
Administrator AKA StraightShooter Joined: 10 June 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7481 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I still say the .270 is superior. Who needs bullet choices when the 130 grain .270 will do it all?
I've killed everything from prairie dogs to elk with a .270 and only needed one bullet to do it. I do realize this is an old thread. Wing master
|
|
I have always considered myself to be quite the bullshitter, But ocasionally it is nice to sit back and listen to a true professional......So, Carry on.
|
|
BEAR
Administrator Joined: 07 September 2013 Location: Appalachian Mtn Status: Offline Points: 13734 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
well, we're old guys!
|
|
BEAR
Administrator Joined: 07 September 2013 Location: Appalachian Mtn Status: Offline Points: 13734 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
best magazine old writer was Cory Ford.
|
|
jsgbearpaws1
.416 Rigby Joined: 02 March 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3599 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
.270 Winchester....Americas .375 H&H.? More like the 7x57 of America. Marginal at best on moose, and no where near enough for the big bears , buffies, and muskox. Yea yeah yeah, heard all the bs it's been done before stories too. Ethical and been done are entirely two different subjects. I would no more attempt to tell someone the 22 lr. is adequate because its been done then to give my kid a dirt bike and tell them to jump a canyon because it's been done before. .270 does everything in the medium in small range of critters very well and has supplied many a wall with trophy and freezer with food. .280 is just a hair,(actually not even a course hair) bigger, but with more selection in heavy for caliber projectiles. I still wouldn't recommend a 7mm for big stuff even in the biggest 195gr. variants. I have 3 7's in the safe at the moment and love them on deer sized game,(just not up close). Even shot some white tails with the .270 with pretty much the same results in close. Fast pills in close meets bone = less meat for freezer. You western fellas have the room for faster medicine and the need to reach. At distances beyond our normal ranges those fast and flat rounds slow down to where they are a whole lot more reliable and just plain perform on medium sized game.
|
|
...oh yeah! thats gonna hurt!
|
|
Wing master
Administrator AKA StraightShooter Joined: 10 June 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7481 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I can't argue with your point JSG, but I have killed many a elk with a .270. That's probably the biggest animal I will ever hunt. Moose tags in this area are few and far between.
I wouldn't mind hunting black bear some day though. Wing master
|
|
I have always considered myself to be quite the bullshitter, But ocasionally it is nice to sit back and listen to a true professional......So, Carry on.
|
|
jsgbearpaws1
.416 Rigby Joined: 02 March 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3599 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Don't get me wrong Wing, the .270 is impressive on pretty much all the deer.
Now I can go into a full rant on ethics when it comes to moose but that's not what this thread is about. .270 will do just fine on black bears though if you put it where it needs to go. 35 remmy has taken more black bear as well as the 30-30 then any others in the US. Just remember for a good broadside and their heart is similarly placed to where ours is if we walked on fours. They are not that tough to kill, but if you try an anchor, those bones will destroy a bullet. Fella last year smacked a little 60 pound year old cub with a 300 win. mag. square in its front shoulder. 180 gr. AMAX broke the bone but failed to go anywhere afterwards. Flipped the poor cub for some barrel rolls for 30 feet or so before it hobbled off for a few hundred yards to a fellow hunter he was with that finished it off....with a .357. Just have to have a good working knowledge of how a bear is put together. They are for most intents and purposes about as tough as a deer just with bones that are as tough as cattle. I prefer the big and slow bullets for them as I've seen what fast ones do and am not impressed. |
|
...oh yeah! thats gonna hurt!
|
|
Wing master
Administrator AKA StraightShooter Joined: 10 June 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7481 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
JSG
If I ever get a chance to hunt black bear what do you recommend for a rifle caliber? I have a 30-30 but not too many other rifles that are slow and heavy. Maybe this would be an excuse to buy another rifle. Wing master
|
|
I have always considered myself to be quite the bullshitter, But ocasionally it is nice to sit back and listen to a true professional......So, Carry on.
|
|
jsgbearpaws1
.416 Rigby Joined: 02 March 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3599 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Oh this is a can of worms!
Inside of a hundred? That ole' lever is just fine. Slugs are great too. I would recommend loading for the 30-30 though and ditch the corelok's. There are many a .30 in either JHP or plated in the 170 grain + group. Past the hundred yard/meter mark, just about any will work that offers a consistent weight retaining expanding projectile in the 150gr+ range. So depending on your style and environment you have a lot of offerings available. The ole' .270 would make the list if the manufacturers would make a nice 150-165 gr. VLD gameking or X-bullet. I know there is a cult like following of those who love the coreloks. I get it, they perform on deer quite well and have done so for decades and generations of hunters. Bear ribs are just a shade tougher then deer. Think pig vs cow. They are all just as squishy on the inside. Seen quite a few over the years that separated from jackets and fell apart after just a mere nick of a rib on deer. Find yourself fortunate enough to cross track with a blackie in the 400+ range and those ribs and distances to vital squishiness become a bit more apparent. |
|
...oh yeah! thats gonna hurt!
|
|
jsgbearpaws1
.416 Rigby Joined: 02 March 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3599 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Got side tracked and should Segway this to another thread that Bear just started. Keeping with your lever, the 71 in 348 is a helluva hammer!
|
|
...oh yeah! thats gonna hurt!
|
|
BEAR
Administrator Joined: 07 September 2013 Location: Appalachian Mtn Status: Offline Points: 13734 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Staying with this thread, either the 270 or the 280 are fine for black bear. My son shot a blackie in NB 3 years ago, with his m700 in 270. it went 20 foot, no lungs. got that skull in my man cave.
I've killed bears with 308, 260 Rem, 8x57, and 9.3x62...and yes BIG Griz with 416 magnum. For black bears I like the 8x57 or 9.3x62. Scopes are important, lighted reticles very good. It is near impossible to find a black crosshair on a black fur ball. And certainly, I'd shoot one with my 348, but it doesn't sport a scope.
|
|
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |