Whats the difference between a .280 and a .270?.........

245

Replies

  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Yeah, squeezing a bullet down 0.007" in a normal rifle wouldn't be a problem, normally. Shouldn't do it on a regular basis, but probably no damage from doing so. However, chambering the extremely powerful .280 Remington in a rifle chambered for .270 Winchester would probably end in the rifle disappearing in a cloud of steel confetti so fine that none could be recovered without a powerful magnet. The look on the shooters face would be priceless; left holding a rifle stock devoid of any part of action or barrel. Just Bang!, POOF!, and an extremely puzzled look on his face. :rotflmao:

    Yeah, right, :roll:
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,118 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Yeah, squeezing a bullet down 0.007" in a normal rifle wouldn't be a problem, normally. Shouldn't do it on a regular basis, but probably no damage from doing so. However, chambering the extremely powerful .280 Remington in a rifle chambered for .270 Winchester would probably end in the rifle disappearing in a cloud of steel confetti so fine that none could be recovered without a powerful magnet. The look on the shooters face would be priceless; left holding a rifle stock devoid of any part of action or barrel. Just Bang!, POOF!, and an extremely puzzled look on his face. :rotflmao:
    I saw that happen once. The RoadRunner got away that time too! :tooth:
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    orchidman wrote: »
    That's because 270 owners always stick their neck out when their calibre of choice is disparaged............


    Yeah says the man with the pink blush on his face that shoots the 7mm-08,:tooth:

    .......:roll:........:wink:.......:blah:......:tissue:........:uhm:.......


    :rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    One other difference is the SAAMI max pressure. 280's is 58,740 PSI and 270's is 65,000 PSI (per QL)[/QUO]


    In truth and you know it, a good modern bolt gun, Rem. 700, Win. 70, Savage 110, Ruger 77, ETC. you can hand load a .280 right up there with the .270 Win. and never have a peep of a problem. There's nothing magical about either one of these cartridges except they are very good at dispatching deer size game and hogs at relatively long distance, 300-400 or so yards. That difference in SAAMI Pressures I think is two fold. For one, in 1925, smokeless powder technology was in its infancy. The .270 loaded with a 150 grain bullet would do about 2800 out the muzzle, and with the slowest powder of the day, it probably pushed that 65,000 PSI pressure pretty close. And the .280 Remington when first came out was chambered in pumps and autos mostly, and so factory ammo was loaded down to prevent extraction problems. and factory ammo probably wasn't even capable of 50,000 PSI in those days. Nowadays a .270 with a 150 grain bullet and a max load of slow modern powder probably doesn't hit 60,000 PSI. And a .280 similarly loaded is probably close to that.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    But I gotta tell you nay sayers, I prefer my .270 to anything else, because it just kills em more deader!

    :rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,672 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »


    In truth and you know it, a good modern bolt gun, Rem. 700, Win. 70, Savage 110, Ruger 77, ETC. you can hand load a .280 right up there with the .270 Win. and never have a peep of a problem.
    Didn't say it mattered, in a modern bolt gun. OP asked for differences, and that is one FACT not previously mentioned.
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,816 Senior Member
    O.K., I'll be serious for a minute(because being serious for a minute is all I can stand).
    For the .30-06 the 150 grain spire point is probably the most popular factory loading for anything short of bears. My Rem. 700 has a long throat and HATES 150 grain bullets, but does very well with the 180 grain spire points.
    For the .280 and the .270, most guys I know use the 135 grain factory loadings. They are fast, perform well on deer sized game, and the trajectory is a lot better for the ballistically challenged.

    A deer on the receiving end of any of those three will notice no difference, quality of the bullets being equal.

    The .280 would have been more popular if it had been introduced in bolt actions first. Remington semiauto rifles and pumps can't stand the pounding of some cartridges, so they are downloaded to take into account the action strength. Just look at the .30-06 for an example. It is downloaded at the factory due to the age of some of the rifles shooting it. A lot of other factory rounds chambered for older rifles are done likewise.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,486 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    One other difference is the SAAMI max pressure. 280's is 58,740 PSI and 270's is 65,000 PSI (per QL)

    I wonder if this has to do with the initial offering of firearm for the .280. I believe that Remington initially offered the .280 in their semi-auto of the time (can't remember the model), whose action wasn't considered as strong as that of the traditional bolt action the .270 had been chambered in for decades. Also, Remington loaded down the .280 to accommodate the lower pressure, and this resulted in lesser performance (or at least so perceived). The upshot is that the .280 fell out of favor with lots of shooters.

    This is one of the reasons I have been told for the .280 taking so long to achieve the popularity it now enjoys.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    I wonder if this has to do with the initial offering of firearm for the .280. I believe that Remington initially offered the .280 in their semi-auto of the time (can't remember the model), whose action wasn't considered as strong as that of the traditional bolt action the .270 had been chambered in for decades. Also, Remington loaded down the .280 to accommodate the lower pressure, and this resulted in lesser performance (or at least so perceived). The upshot is that the .280 fell out of favor with lots of shooters.

    This is one of the reasons I have been told for the .280 taking so long to achieve the popularity it now enjoys.

    I don't know if it was a strength issue as mucn as it was a functionality issue. I've read plenty of places that the old 740 and 742 were plenty strong (Albeit somewhat poorly designed) but they lacked the strong camming action to extract a stuck case, so the ammo was never loaded up to the round's or even the rifle's potential.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • jaywaptijaywapti Senior Member Posts: 4,492 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    :uhm:

    A .280Rem bullet is larger than a .270Win bullet.

    To which I said , Yup your right. To clarify we all know that a .280 Rem. is actually .284 in dia. which makes it a 7.2mm , but the actual bore dia. of 7mm is .2756 . The only 7mm cartridges that I know that states the true dia. is the .284 Win., & the .285 OKH. The actual bore dia. of a .270 is .270 which makes the .280, 7mm-08, etc. larger than a .270
    Nuff said

    JAY
    THE DEFINITION OF GUN CONTROL IS HITTING THE TARGET WITH YOUR FIRST SHOT
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Only queers and sissies (and women) use the .270.


    ......Look Stew Head, I posed this question, because I want to know the difference between the two!!!...Ballistic,s BC, sectional density, foot pounds of energy, when the objective is accomplished, etc., etc., etc.,,, If Ya don't Like the cal. it all good and OK.. My son and I both own a .270 and are thinking about buying a pair of .280's to go hunting this year in the Rockies Mountains this year!!!!!!!!!!!!!Last thing we want to do it git caught on a big game hunting trip unprepared!!!!!!!!
    ....................We will take both cals. with us, but we both prefer the .270,,,,,If ya don't have anything to say other than calling me a queer or Sissy Woman then I would you donot post on this thread... I assure you Sir I is neither, nor a trans!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    The .280 is actually a 7mm at .284. The .280 started out as the 7mm Remington Express, and was finally renamed the .280 Remington. It is based on the .30-06 case, like the .270 Winchester, which is really .277. Bullet selection for the .280 is much superior in comparison to the .270, but the .270 bullet selection is improving.

    The .280 is a fine and versatile cartridge capable of taking anything in North America.
    The .270 bounces off coyotes, and really infuriates groundhogs shot with it. Groundhogs asked have said it hurts like being snapped with a big rubber band and stings a bit.
    :tooth: :tooth:
    mag.

    ......tennmike I have a 7mm, mag. bolt action Winchester!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Forgive me for being dense, but I am getting what you are trying to tell me!!!!!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    Don't believe this, Robert. Everyone knows that groundhogs can't talk.

    ..........got that right JeryBobCo
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,052 Senior Member
    ......Look Stew Head, I posed this question, because I want to know the difference between the two!!!...Ballistic,s BC, sectional density, foot pounds of energy, when the objective is accomplished, etc., etc., etc.,,, If Ya don't Like the cal. it all good and OK.. My son and I both own a .270 and are thinking about buying a pair of .280's to go hunting this year in the Rockies Mountains this year!!!!!!!!!!!!!Last thing we want to do it git caught on a big game hunting trip unprepared!!!!!!!!
    ....................We will take both cals. with us, but we both prefer the .270,,,,,If ya don't have anything to say other than calling me a queer or Sissy Woman then I would you donot post on this thread... I assure you Sir I is neither, nor a trans!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Dear Lord, princess, you haven't noticed in the 4 years you've been a member that what CPJ said is a common statement about those who use the .270? Put down the purse and clean out the sand.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    ......Look Stew Head, I posed this question, because I want to know the difference between the two!!!...Ballistic,s BC, sectional density, foot pounds of energy, when the objective is accomplished, etc., etc., etc.,,, If Ya don't Like the cal. it all good and OK.. My son and I both own a .270 and are thinking about buying a pair of .280's to go hunting this year in the Rockies Mountains this year!!!!!!!!!!!!!Last thing we want to do it git caught on a big game hunting trip unprepared!!!!!!!!
    ....................We will take both cals. with us, but we both prefer the .270,,,,,If ya don't have anything to say other than calling me a queer or Sissy Woman then I would you donot post on this thread... I assure you Sir I is neither, nor a trans!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    It's ok robert, He's the guy that shoots a Wanna Be .270! So if he shoots a gun less powerful than a woman's gun, where does that put him? :rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    :cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::tooth::beer::agree::that:
    snake284 wrote: »
    It's ok robert, He's the guy that shoots a Wanna Be .270! So if he shoots a gun less powerful than a woman's gun, where does that put him? :rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
    :mad: :agree:


    .............I own a 7mm mag., 30-06, 30-30, .243, .223,.270., etc.,etc.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    :cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::tooth::beer::agree::that::mad: :agree:


    .............I own a 7mm mag., 30-06, 30-30, .243, .223,.270., etc.,etc.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


    .................Maybe cpj needs to stick with .22 or BB guns????????????????????????????????
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    .270 owners are throwing parties tonight over the SCOTUS opinion on gay marriage.
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    ......Look Stew Head.................. My son and I both own a .270 and are thinking about buying a pair of .280's to go hunting this year in the Rockies Mountains this year!!!!!!!!!!!!!Last thing we want to do it git caught on a big game hunting trip unprepared!!!!!!!!

    Buy a pair of .303s, they seem to cope ok in the far north.


    jaywapti wrote: »
    To which I said , Yup your right. To clarify we all know that a .280 Rem. is actually .284 in dia. which makes it a 7.2mm , but the actual bore dia. of 7mm is .2756 . The only 7mm cartridges that I know that states the true dia. is the .284 Win., & the .285 OKH. The actual bore dia. of a .270 is .270 which makes the .280, 7mm-08, etc. larger than a .270
    Nuff said

    JAY

    Reprise time;

    The .275 Rigby.........the measurement of a 7 mm rifle's bore across the lands.

    European 7 mm cartridges have a 7.24 mm (0.285 in) groove diameter.................You know.......... where the 7mm Mauser came from.

    American 7 mm cartridges have a 7.21 mm (0.284 in) groove diameter.

    .270 Win.?

    7.036 mm groove diameter.

    Which is closer to a true 7 mm?

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    I had a .275 Rigby in an original Mauser, but traded for a 7mm Mauser because it was easier to get ammo for it.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    I had a .275 Rigby in an original Mauser, but traded for a 7mm Mauser because it was easier to get ammo for it.


    :spittingcoffee:

    Wine on the keypad.

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,564 Senior Member
    Dear Lord, princess, you haven't noticed in the 4 years you've been a member that what CPJ said is a common statement about those who use the .270? Put down the purse and clean out the sand.

    Ok. New funniest post of the thread.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,564 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    I'll give you one guess as to why I say only queers and sissies shoot the .270.

    Because it's true?
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,564 Senior Member
    ......Look Stew Head, I posed this question, because I want to know the difference between the two!!!...Ballistic,s BC, sectional density, foot pounds of energy, when the objective is accomplished, etc., etc., etc.,,, If Ya don't Like the cal. it all good and OK.. My son and I both own a .270 and are thinking about buying a pair of .280's to go hunting this year in the Rockies Mountains this year!!!!!!!!!!!!!Last thing we want to do it git caught on a big game hunting trip unprepared!!!!!!!!
    ....................We will take both cals. with us, but we both prefer the .270,,,,,If ya don't have anything to say other than calling me a queer or Sissy Woman then I would you donot post on this thread... I assure you Sir I is neither, nor a trans!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I love our job. After all these years...........it's still so easy.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,486 Senior Member
    ......Look Stew Head, I posed this question, because I want to know the difference between the two!!!...Ballistic,s BC, sectional density, foot pounds of energy, when the objective is accomplished, etc., etc., etc.,,, If Ya don't Like the cal. it all good and OK.. My son and I both own a .270 and are thinking about buying a pair of .280's to go hunting this year in the Rockies Mountains this year!!!!!!!!!!!!!Last thing we want to do it git caught on a big game hunting trip unprepared!!!!!!!!
    ....................We will take both cals. with us, but we both prefer the .270,,,,,If ya don't have anything to say other than calling me a queer or Sissy Woman then I would you donot post on this thread... I assure you Sir I is neither, nor a trans!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Robert, based on what you just said, I think I would go with something other than a .280. It's not that much different than the .270. It will launch a heavier bullet, with a better BC, than the .270, but at a lower muzzle velocity. Seems to me that it's six of one, half dozen of another in the performance category.

    If you're looking for a real step up from the .270, consider a 7mm Remington Magnum or one of the 300 mags. That's about the point where you'll really see a difference in performance.

    I'm assuming that your Rocky Mountain hunt will include elk. If not, why not just stick with a .270? It's certainly enough to handle any mule deer that ever walked this planet, and with good shot placement and bullet construction there's not an elk in the world that can stand up to it.

    Unless you just really have a hard on for a .280, I don't see much of a reason to get one.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    Buy a pair of .303s, they seem to cope ok in the far north.





    Reprise time;

    The .275 Rigby.........the measurement of a 7 mm rifle's bore across the lands.

    European 7 mm cartridges have a 7.24 mm (0.285 in) groove diameter.................You know.......... where the 7mm Mauser came from.

    American 7 mm cartridges have a 7.21 mm (0.284 in) groove diameter.

    .270 Win.?

    7.036 mm groove diameter.

    Which is closer to a true 7 mm?


    Thank you Shush!!!:up:.....:cool2:.....:cool2:.....:wink:
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    [/B][/B]

    Thank you Shush!!!

    My great pleasure mate, all's fair in love and war.

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    Robert, based on what you just said, I think I would go with something other than a .280. It's not that much different than the .270. It will launch a heavier bullet, with a better BC, than the .270, but at a lower muzzle velocity. Seems to me that it's six of one, half dozen of another in the performance category.

    If you're looking for a real step up from the .270, consider a 7mm Remington Magnum or one of the 300 mags. That's about the point where you'll really see a difference in performance.

    I'm assuming that your Rocky Mountain hunt will include elk. If not, why not just stick with a .270? It's certainly enough to handle any mule deer that ever walked this planet, and with good shot placement and bullet construction there's not an elk in the world that can stand up to it.

    Unless you just really have a hard on for a .280, I don't see much of a reason to get one.


    In light of your post JerryBob, I tend to agree. I have both, but it's not because I need both. I just like the .280 because it's a real classic and it's in a different style of rifle than my .270. Where my .270 has a thinner rather shorter 22 inch barrel and is fairly light, my .280 has a 26 inch tube and it's a heavy sporter contour. Which one I take hunting depends on what sort of hunting I will be doing. If I might be walking around the .270 is my choice. If I'm sitting in a blind looking at long range shots, the .280 might be it, although I'm not afraid to take a longer shot with the .270.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Then why'd you guys get so bent when we were poking holes in your pretty red coats whilst hiding amongst the forest?


    All I have to say is...













































    Bollocks.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTiV7b9Zxj_Z78bU2VsSADXXrtz14ViCAEagMEnqiGEtg0r6Ga4

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,052 Senior Member
    Dear forum....

    I'm sorry for the photos in shush's last post. I was young. I needed the money. I thought I had gotten all those pics off the internet, but I was wrong.
    Overkill is underrated.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.