View Full Version : Anyone know much about the .280
TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT
February 12, 2006, 04:38 AM
Has anyone had any experience with a .280? I am trying to figure out why would there be a need for such a round since it is between a .270 and a .30-06 in performance. Any comments good or bad welcome I just want to know more about it.
February 12, 2006, 05:40 AM
was Rems I think, renamed 280 the 7-Express is a 30-06 necked down to 7mm, nice accurate round good sectional density with 7mm, capable of taking most game and a bit less on the shoulder than 7mm rem Mag. 7 mm bullets generally have the best sectional density of any of the popular calibers.
February 12, 2006, 07:52 AM
280 is an -06 necked down to 7mm, just like the 270 is an -06 necked down to .277".
As far as I know the 280 was an attempt to get 270 flat trajectories with high SD AND have the availability of heavier bullets. 270 tops out at 150 grains for most bullet companies and 7mm at 175.
On deer and elk I have seen shot with 270, 280, 284, and 30-06 there isn't much if any difference when heavy for caliber bullets are used.
February 12, 2006, 08:09 AM
IIRC Jack O'Connor said that Remington got it "right" with the .280 (unlike his beloved .270). Which I though was complete heresy at the time! :)
February 12, 2006, 09:10 AM
Good cartridge. Remington fuddled it at the beginning by low pressure loads for the semi auto offering. For a period of time it was called the 7mm Remington Express. The 7mm (.284") dia projectile is arguably more efficient maintaining down range velocity. We are indeed splitting hairs though.
Like all of the cartridges based on the 30-06 it will offer many advantages to the handloader. Provided he has a modern bolt action rifle.
February 12, 2006, 10:31 AM
Yep. An argument could be made that it's the best all-around hunting cartridge ever developed, simply because it splits the difference between the two most popular hunting cartridges in history, the .277 and .30-'06. Lots more bullet choices in 7mm than in .277. But, OTOH, it's so close to 30-'06, you could ask why. The answer is that bullets have better BCs for typical hunting weights.
February 14, 2006, 04:58 PM
I SHOT A MEDIUM SIZED MULEY BUCK WITH A .270 LAST SEASON AT ABOUT 75-100 YARDS AND IT DROPPED IT INSTANTLY. HIT IT IN THE CHEST. AND I WAS SURPRISED AT THE SIZE OF THE WOUND. IT LOOKED BIGGER THAN THE LAST DEER I SHOT WITH MY 7MM REM MAG. :confused: WIERD. BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE A GREAT CALIBER FOR ME. I WOULD IMAGINE A .280 WOULD DO ABOUT THE SAME.
February 14, 2006, 05:10 PM
I am very fond of the 280. My pet rifle is a Ruger M77 Varmint barrel 280. It honestly will put 'em all in the same hole - MOA easy (not that I'm that great of a shot, but I've watched my father-in-law lay 'em all in one hole). I have shared custody of that particular rifle (til I inherit it.) I'm playing with the idea of getting a 7-08 with a heavy barrel; but I wouldn't feel slighted at all if I only had one rifle for the rest of my life and it was that 280.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.