Probably Replacing the 30-06 - Page 3

GeauxTide · January 19, 2019, 12:15 AM

Have re-barreled 2 with Shaw 280 Rem in 24" and 26". I reload, so the choice was easier. Most 140gr bullets can go 3050 and shoot 1/2". If I didn't load, it would be the 270.

Bfglowkey · January 19, 2019, 08:21 AM

I guess I may have not seen this but the question I ask:

Are you reloading or factory ammo?

If you don't reload then honestly with all the math as a factor the 270 is the way to go. Factory ammo is much more readily available if you need to run to the corner for a sudden hunt of opportunity. Now if you handload then its back to the math board lol.

I over analyze and crunch numbers too....nature of my job in the Air Force. Just be sure to include common sense along with the math. My father wanted a more obscure cartridge and I was able to build him one....now since we live 1800 miles apart and he doesn't reload himself, he is limited to what I can produce for him. He loves it to death but ended up back with his 30-06 due to factory ammo availability.

I am interested which you end up with since I have enjoyed the thread. keep the rest of us nerds / enthusiasts posted!

10-96 · January 19, 2019, 08:47 AM

Quote:

I am not asking for feedback on which caliber/bullet weight I should choose, only curious in feedback on my methodology in comparing the cartridges.

Your maths are way over my head. However, I am a big fan of process simplification. Here's my take: If the .30-06 has served you well, and you feel a change is in order, my humble opinion would be to consider the 7.62x63.

Yeah, I know.

kilotanker22 · January 19, 2019, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10-96

Your maths are way over my head. However, I am a big fan of process simplification. Here's my take: If the .30-06 has served you well, and you feel a change is in order, my humble opinion would be to consider the 7.62x63.

Yeah, I know.

Do I sense some Sarcasm here? LOL. The 30-06 is 7.62x63.....

reinert · January 19, 2019, 12:08 PM

I have three '06s, two M700s and an Eddystone M1917 (for all practical purposes, that's a Remington, too). I'm a hunter, and all my shooting and reloading is for that purpose. I love the '06, it's all I need for the game I hunt, generally it's elk with the '06. Really, I don't need anymore rifles, am at the age where I truly have what I need for firearms.

That being said, and being an old guy, and if I had the inkling and the disposable cash to do it, without a second thought, I'd contact Kenny Jarrett and put in an order for a bare bones Beanfield Rifle in .280 Remington (a.k.a. 7MM-06 and/or the 7MM Express Remington). Wouldn't have another thought about it. I had a Ruger M77 in .280 Rem quite a number of years ago, but had to sell it. Wish I wouldn't have had to...old guy thoughts, nothing more.

10-96 · January 19, 2019, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Do I sense some Sarcasm here? LOL. The 30-06 is 7.62x63.....

Sarcasm? Nah, just a high probability for a goofy sense of humor. :0

RC20 · January 19, 2019, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Eddystone 1917 or all practical purposes, that's a Remington, too

I am sorry break this to you, its really Enfield P14 modified to shoot 30-06.

More correctly, its an Enfield P13 that spawned two children, the P14 and the 1917.

Eddsytone was just a stand alone mfg site that did not make guns before nor after. The relationship to Remington was pretty odd.

reinert · January 19, 2019, 03:36 PM

Hey RC20,

My old "Enfield" '06 says this right on the receiver, and right about where the cartridge headstamp would be on a loaded round with the bolt closed:

U.S.
Model of 1917
Eddystone
S#......

My particular M1917 was mfg. in August of 1918. From my understanding on the rifle, the Eddystone name on the receiver meant that it was mfg'd at the Baldwin Locomotive Works in Eddystone, Pennsylvania, a subsidiary of Remington(Remington of Delaware Corp.). I understand, too, about the Brit P-14s and the .303 business and arms being in dire need for the Great War.

I've had this rifle for more than 20 years, and always enjoy showing it off to hunting cohort buddies. Whoever "sporterized" the old rifle did a fine job on it.

Anyway, I have a paper I printed off a long time ago, and I thought I might add a comment from it to go with this:

"Confusion in Rifle Nomenclature"

"Modern collectors and purists are quick to point out that referring to the M-1917 Rifle as a P-17 or an Enfield is incorrect. British .303s were referred to as P-14s, but they then point out that this is "British-Speak" not U.S. nomenclature. To this I must answer, "Well, yeah, but..." How the confusion and intermixing of terms came about is perfectly understandable if you know how the rifles came by their names."

From: Dick Culver, "The U.S. Rifle, caliber .30, M1917" (2003)

I'm certainly open to any corrections you may have on my old '06, and where it came from. Here's the Dick Culver article I referenced:

www.odcmp.org/503/rifle.pdf

reinert

One other thing to your comment on "The relationship to Remington was pretty odd." I'll just add this from the Culver article that probably made my misunderstanding of what Remington outfit it was that helped with the war effort:

"The P-13 was redesigned to handle the .303 cartridge, and re-designated the P-14 Enfield Rifle. Rather than tool up to produce the new rifle themselves, England contracted with Remington and Winchester to build the P-14 for them in the United States. Remington even formed another corporation, "Remington of Delaware," to speed up the process..." At Eddystone, Pennsylvania. So, was the "Remington" company in the article not the Remington Arms Co.? Help me out here, I'd like to get that cleared up. I also understand (according to Culver) the P-13 was an experimental rifle in .276 cal., redesigned to handle the .303.

RC20 · January 20, 2019, 06:54 PM

I like discusssin this as its great for others and possible learning both ways.

While it was said in some jest, having researched the Baldwin facility, only Remington Delftware managed it (or took contracts) , but the whole operation was setup by Baldwin.

As near as I could determine, no Remington personal were involved. That is why I state an

Quote:

odd

relationship.

Remington/Eddystone/ Winchester made the P14, but it was wholly off British design. Contract manufacturing would be the right term in my view.

While it was an amazing undertaking, there was no R or W design in those rifles.

Rather than redesigned, I would say modified for 303 and 30-06 (chamber different and the feed parts, bolt head)

The P-13 was a .276 Caliber rifle with a new rimless high pressure modern cartridge. Very few were made. That made it the perfect change to 30-06 high pressure (303 was of course not an issue)

The P-14 was retooled for the 303 (WWI was on and they decide not to change ammo) The US faced the same but less immediate situation prior to WWII and had the M1 modified to 30-06 form a 276 caliber.

The P-17 (yes I am one of those) is either descended directly from the P-14 or is a fraternal twin. I think of more as a fraternal twin as the base for both was the high pressure P-13.

Realistically, other than a stamped name, there were no difference between R,W,E.

All were made from the same metal, same specifications etc.

Oddly, there are some miner stock difference in the grasping grove and the bolt recess. Why? Not a clue. They do cross bit just fine.

Vicki lynn · January 20, 2019, 09:03 PM

The Remington 30.06 has always been my favorite riffle for deer hunting.

natman · January 21, 2019, 11:49 AM

1) I'll assume your 30-06 barrel is indeed worn out. I'd give it a good cleaning and shoot it again before I scrapped it though.

2) The 270 WSM is a non-starter for your situation. You'd require expensive bolt face and magazine work to get it to function and you would end up with a 270 WSM in a long action, which makes no sense at all.

3) Both the 280 Remington and the 270 Win are fine cartridges, but there isn't enough real world difference between them to overcome the ammunition availability advantage of the 270.

reinert · January 21, 2019, 12:03 PM

Hey Vicki, welcome to TFL. I've always favored my Remington 30-06's, too. The 30-06 Springfield round should always be around as long as there's shooters and hunters; a venerable tried and true caliber (IMO).

Hey RC20, this has been a good little confab about the M1917-P-17, Ol' '17 Enfield and whatever else it's been called through the years beginning with that Brit Pattern-13, and who made them, and where they were made. I've used the article I mentioned earlier as a reference guide for me since I printed it off many years ago. I thought it was quite thorough, and was about all I cared to know about my old Eddystone.

The Eddystone/Baldwin Locomotive Works/Remington of Delaware Co. and then, the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Company (which company I'd never heard of before), is truly an amazing story. It turns out that my Eddystone, M1917, which I found was mfg'd in August of 1918, would have been made by the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co. during their time producing the M1917. I found this article below (just yesterday) that was written in August of 2018 (a hundred years to the month and year of my rifle's existence) and thought it quite good; an update to what I had for reference. The article was written with much reference to the Remington Society's write-up entitled, "The Story of Eddystone." The intricacies of the whole story of arming the Brits, and us, "U.S.," with rifles for the "Great War," involves J.P. Morgan and also Col. John T. Thompson (sub-machine inventor) who resigned from the U.S. Army to oversee construction of the Remington facility in Eddystone, and then remained in management as Works Supervisor there until he re-entered the service. (from the Remington Society's, "The Story of Eddystone.")

http://tincanbandit.blogspot.com/201...h-baldwin.html

At the end of the article I've given here above, you can click on the refence to the Remington Society for "The Story of Eddystone," if you want more info on the M1917.

So, RC20, the article I referenced earlier by Mr. Culver never mentioned the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co., nor did Julian Hatcher in his classic Notebook on the "Brief History of the Enfield, U.S. Rifle Caliber .30, Model of 1917 (Hatcher's Notebook, P-12). So much went on at the Eddystone facility; rather staggering, really (IMO).

I guess then, my Eddystone was made during the time of Midvale Steel's run of the M1917, but on the equipment that Remington of Delaware set up, at the Baldwin Locomotive Works being under the supervision of John Thompson himself at the time when all this started under the satellite company of Remington of Delaware (at least that's how I understand it!). So right or wrong, I'm sure I'll still think of my "centenarian" Eddystone as a Remmy...Ha!

And to the OP, if I was personally going to change to a different caliber besides the '06, I'd still opt for the .280 Remington.

And a parting shot here on the M1917:

"Purists will tell you that calling the M1917 Rifle an Enfield or a P-17 is patently wrong, but common usage and habits die hard. Although we like to think of our armed forces meeting the Bosche using our tried and true "Ought Three Springfields," the truth is somewhat different. While our "official" service rifle remained the M1903, usage data from the era will tell you that approximately 2/3rds (some say 3/4ths number[s] would not be correct until the end of hostilities) of the American Divisions in France were equipped with the M1917 Enfield." (from the Culver article)

Excerpt from Alvin York's Diary:
May 21, 1918

LeHavre, France: "So we got to France at LeHavre. There we tuned in our guns and got the British guns...I didn't like the British guns so well. I don't think they were as accurate as our American rifles. Ho ho."

I would guess that was the '03 turned in for the M1917.

stagpanther · January 21, 2019, 12:10 PM

I have just about all the 06 spawn except the 30-06 itself. My 300 win mag with good brake shoots like a pussycat--so I never bothered getting a 30 06.

RC20 · January 21, 2019, 01:43 PM

reinert:

Agreed, the 1917 got the sort end of the stick publicity wise. The Sherman was a great tank, it did not look great and got dissed. So it goes, we can hope to change that and the Sherman is now getting its due.

If despite all the evidence (sigh) you want to think of your Eddystone as a Remy, so be it. I did try (another big sigh)

Quote:

LeHavre, France: "So we got to France at LeHavre. There we tuned in our guns and got the British guns...I didn't like the British guns so well. I don't think they were as accurate as our American rifles. Ho ho."

I would guess that was the '03 turned in for the M1917.

That is a myth that likely will never die. The US troops working for a time with the Brits were issued SMLE as the ammo issuance was a problem for 30-06.

One of the researchers has gone so far as to dig up the transit and transport records and the 1917s (with which they trained) were shipped overseas with Sgt York and they were reunited with the 1917s when they went under the main US command (attachment to Brit and French groups were for purposes of getting initial combat experience - they had found all new groups did not do well without it)

I will dig up the Link on that report.

RC20 · January 21, 2019, 01:51 PM

Quote:

I've been having problems with my 30-06 hunting rifle and have decided I will replace it or rebarrel it.

Cleaning with Carbon Killer 2000 and or Bore Tech Eliminator would likely find its just fouled. Few cleaners get all the carbon out and it builds up.

A 30-06 is good for 8,000 rounds, 20 years of hunting would not do that.

We had a family Sako 270 that my brother (who is a good shot) could not get to shoot. I took it on as a project - while my re-loads did better than factory, the best I could do was 1.5 inches.

It had alwyas been cleaned and oil after use, but that was 50 years of Hoppees (yep 50) and it had a serious carbon build up.

That was the hardest gun I had to clean, layer on layer of carbon (very little copper) . But it took it out, it now shoots 3/4 to 7/8 MOA with a course cross hair hunting scope and the stock trigger (pretty stiff but good for hunting and I was not going to disturb it)

The CK2k is very good on carbon. Bore Tech is very good on copper and decent on carbon.

Drizzle either on a nylon brush, though to the muzzle, drizzle once more (I used an eye dropper) and then 4 strokes , last one out the muzzle, drizzle again, bring all the way out, run a patch through.

After 100 rounds it takes me about 4 cycles with CK2k to clean a gun.

It took me about 2 days off and on to get the Sako clean.

bamaranger · January 23, 2019, 04:51 AM

ndking,

The weak link in your process as I see it, is using published velocities as a base line for your calculations. Individual rifles can vary widely in the velocities they generate, even using the same barrel length with the same ammo.

In recent years I finally acquired a chronograph, it has has been an eye opening experience. Most of my loads do NOT make the velocities I was expecting as derived from loading tables, and certainly from published data. As a classic example, most mfg's will state that their .270/130 combinations will make 3000 fps +. Well, ....not my .270. Admittedly, handicapped with a 22" bbl, it is not optimum, but will serve as an example.

From a practical standpoint, I'd avoid .270 WSM as the WSM's are on their last legs already. Feeding the rifle could be a real problem. Since velocity and numbers matter to you, I'd only select a 24" bbl rifle, as the longer tube should boost velocity if all holds to form. A .280 splits the difference with .270/.30 on paper should be the answer. Again though, .280 is not a common cartridge off the shelf in a lot of stores. Modern premium bullets supposedly can take the .270 into another dimension for bigger game like elk, but I've never shot an elk, or likely ever will.

ndking1126 · January 24, 2019, 11:12 AM

If anyone is interested, I couldn't leave well enough alone and ran the numbers for a 150gr 30-06. The average velocity was 2946 fps and came back with the least amount of recoil. Considering the weighted score, it finished in second, barely passing the 270WSM. I was surprised by that.

The only caveat would be the wind drift @ 400 was quite poor (13.4"). Because the cartridges were generally close in wind drift, I didn't include that in the comparison. Certainly the poor performance would drop the 150gr in the overall standings if I were to add wind drift. I could see myself working up a 150gr load to shoot deer with, but I don't see using it on elk unless it was a Barnes TTSX or similar and I'd likely have to cap it at 300 yards because of velocity requirements.

Quote:

using published velocities as a base line for your calculations.

Bamaranger, you're not wrong. Unfortunately there's no good way to do that other than buy a rifle, dies, bullets and cases in each caliber and find out actual velocities. The finances don't allow for that, so I had to come up with numbers some how. Averaging maxes from a reputable company that (in theory) loaded each round with the same methodology and loading practices was the best way to deal with the uncertainty in my opinion. Others have mentioned that I could have used numbers from other companies like Hodgdon or Alliant, and they are right. I actually tried to run the numbers using velocities from Hodgdon, but they listed the 280 Rem 150 gr at about 300 fps slower.. so low that it didn't pass the common sense test. After researching, it looks like the 280 is one of the rounds that is hindered by lower pressure because of the Rem 742 couldn't handle it. Of course, that's just what I read on the internet and don't have any way to verify it. I recently bought a chronograph and so far my experience has mirrored yours. My 243 was shooting a particular factory ammo 160 fps slower than advertised and my 30-06 shot Remington factory ammo at 80 fps slower. It was 33* outside, so that probably explains away some of the delta.

RC20 · January 24, 2019, 07:28 PM

Keep in mind that unless you are shooting one of the 3500 to 4000 fps calibers, all of them are going to have a large drop regardless of wind. The 270 (as much as I like it) has it to.

At 400 yards its 26 inches or so starting at 3060 fps (130 gr)

http://gundata.org/blog/post/270-win-ballistics-chart/

So compared to your half that 13 inch drift (which is not a given and drop is?)

ndking1126 · January 24, 2019, 08:29 PM

RC, I think what you are saying is that the drop may be the more important thing since we know itll have to be accounted for with distance. Wind may or may not be there so it could be of lesser concern.

If that's what your saying, distance is a known variable. I have a range finder and itll give me exactly how far away the animal is and even how many degrees of angle the shot is at. With good ballistics data for my rifle and bullet combo, I can easily adjust for drop. Wind, on the other hand is an unknown. It may be blowing 7mph to my left where I am and then 13 mph strait forward 200 yards away from me. For me, wind drift is a greater problem to overcome than drop.

bamaranger · January 25, 2019, 06:55 PM

I dunno. The .280 is not necessarily hindered by low pressure, a quick check seems to indicate that it operates at slightly less pressure than the '06. As you know, the 7 series rifles from Rem all were chambered in'06. And the .270 is only a tad behind both in operating pressue. So the 7 series rifles should handle the .280 easily.

The .280 had a murky start, and has never really had a big following or noted as a successful cartridge. It even had a different names when first released in '57. As the .280 is little more than an '06 case necked to 7mm, I have to wonder if Remington didn't purposely keep it loaded down, so as to not impede (or anticipation of the release of) on the success of the 7mm Mag, which was released just 5 years later, in '62.

All that is speculation on my part, and my source, Wiki, may or may not be right in the figures and dates.

Red Devil · February 13, 2019, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamaranger

I dunno. The .280 is not necessarily hindered by low pressure, a quick check seems to indicate that it operates at slightly less pressure than the '06. As you know, the 7 series rifles from Rem all were chambered in'06. And the .270 is only a tad behind both in operating pressue. So the 7 series rifles should handle the .280 easily.

The .280 had a murky start, and has never really had a big following or noted as a successful cartridge. It even had a different names when first released in '57. As the .280 is little more than an '06 case necked to 7mm, I have to wonder if Remington didn't purposely keep it loaded down, so as to not impede (or anticipation of the release of) on the success of the 7mm Mag, which was released just 5 years later, in '62.

All that is speculation on my part, and my source, Wiki, may or may not be right in the figures and dates.

Well...

As for Cartridge Chamber Pressures...?

.30-06 Spg. (60,000 PSI)
.280 Rem. (60,000 PSI)
.270 Win. (65,000 PSI)

As for why?

"The .280 Remington, also known as the 7mm-06 Remington and 7mm Express Remington, was introduced in 1957 for the Remington model 740 and 760 rifles..."

These were semi-automatic and pump-action rifles, lacking the camming action of a bolt gun. Hence the lower (.30-06) pressure.

The .270 Win., however, was introduced as a high performance bolt-gun (Model 54) cartridge.

Red

Red Devil · February 13, 2019, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC20

Keep in mind that unless you are shooting one of the 3500 to 4000 fps calibers, all of them are going to have a large drop regardless of wind. The 270 (as much as I like it) has it to.

At 400 yards its 26 inches or so starting at 3060 fps (130 gr)

http://gundata.org/blog/post/270-win-ballistics-chart/

So compared to your half that 13 inch drift (which is not a given and drop is?)

But, instead of sighting in at 100 yards, you sight in at +3"@100 yards? (262 yards zero/22" scoped barrel/2990 muzzle velocity)

The drop at 400 yards is only 15", or a top-of-back hold.

Red

ndking1126 · February 13, 2019, 03:21 PM

I have made my decision and even spent some money! I bought a used Savage 110 with a beat up wooden stock for cheap. I'll refinish the stock and try to resell for a couple of bucks. Even if it doesn't sell, it still sounds like a fun project.

I am going to buy a Bell and Carlson sporter style stock, as I have been really happy with my Medalist. I've got a few other miscellaneous items taking up space in my gun cabinet to sell and hopefully I'll have enough for the new barrel. I'll buy it before too long either way.

I'm going with 280 Rem. I'll buy a Shilen from NSS because I like Shilen and they are one of the few companies left that offer blued match barrels - happy to do my part in showing there is still demand for them, haha. Right now I'm planning on 24" and heavy sporter. The rifle, as it sits is in 30-06 with a sporter barrel on it. I'll see how it balances and looks in the B&C stock and make a final decision on length and contour.

Thank you for all the comments and input! I'm really happy with the decision and I can't wait to get it all together.

Drm50 · February 13, 2019, 04:19 PM

Remington is one to beat a dead dog. They did the same with 244/ 6mm Rem. The 243 blew it out of the water. The 280/ 7express is same thing. The 270 is hard to beat in its class. It's a fad thing just like all the 6.5s now popular. Unless military adopts one they will
be dead dogs too. There really isn't such a thing as a bad cartridge, only bad rifles. The right twist on good action should produce good results. I've had a couple 280s both 700 Rems. They were ok but not enough different from 270 to make any difference.

ndking1126 · February 13, 2019, 04:27 PM

270 and 280 are very similar animals, that's for sure. I like the heavier bullets available to the 280 as I hope to hunt elk again one day. I reload, sotwhat's on the shelf and how much it costs isn't a real consideration for me. (270 is the obvious winner there.)

There's no doubt in my mind the 6.5s are here to stay. I read on multiple websites the Special Operations Command selected the 6.5C as their intermediate sniper round. But aside from that the public consumption of the round is enough. It makes so much more sense than the last fad (the magnums) for the majority of people who buy it. Of course, the magnums are here to stay, also. I'm not speaking negatively of them.

January 20, 2019, 09:03 PM	#60
Vicki lynn Junior Member Join Date: January 20, 2019 Location: USA Posts: 7	Favorite The Remington 30.06 has always been my favorite riffle for deer hunting.

January 21, 2019, 11:49 AM	#61
natman Senior Member Join Date: June 24, 2008 Posts: 2,607	1) I'll assume your 30-06 barrel is indeed worn out. I'd give it a good cleaning and shoot it again before I scrapped it though. 2) The 270 WSM is a non-starter for your situation. You'd require expensive bolt face and magazine work to get it to function and you would end up with a 270 WSM in a long action, which makes no sense at all. 3) Both the 280 Remington and the 270 Win are fine cartridges, but there isn't enough real world difference between them to overcome the ammunition availability advantage of the 270. __________________ Time Travelers' Wisdom: Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.

January 21, 2019, 12:10 PM	#63
stagpanther Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2014 Posts: 11,789	I have just about all the 06 spawn except the 30-06 itself. My 300 win mag with good brake shoots like a pussycat--so I never bothered getting a 30 06. __________________ "Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill *I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!*

January 23, 2019, 04:51 AM	#66
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,312	spread sheets and the weak link ndking, The weak link in your process as I see it, is using published velocities as a base line for your calculations. Individual rifles can vary widely in the velocities they generate, even using the same barrel length with the same ammo. In recent years I finally acquired a chronograph, it has has been an eye opening experience. Most of my loads do NOT make the velocities I was expecting as derived from loading tables, and certainly from published data. As a classic example, most mfg's will state that their .270/130 combinations will make 3000 fps +. Well, ....not my .270. Admittedly, handicapped with a 22" bbl, it is not optimum, but will serve as an example. From a practical standpoint, I'd avoid .270 WSM as the WSM's are on their last legs already. Feeding the rifle could be a real problem. Since velocity and numbers matter to you, I'd only select a 24" bbl rifle, as the longer tube should boost velocity if all holds to form. A .280 splits the difference with .270/.30 on paper should be the answer. Again though, .280 is not a common cartridge off the shelf in a lot of stores. Modern premium bullets supposedly can take the .270 into another dimension for bigger game like elk, but I've never shot an elk, or likely ever will.

January 24, 2019, 07:28 PM	#68
RC20 Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 7,014	Keep in mind that unless you are shooting one of the 3500 to 4000 fps calibers, all of them are going to have a large drop regardless of wind. The 270 (as much as I like it) has it to. At 400 yards its 26 inches or so starting at 3060 fps (130 gr) http://gundata.org/blog/post/270-win-ballistics-chart/ So compared to your half that 13 inch drift (which is not a given and drop is?) __________________ Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not

January 19, 2019, 12:15 AM	#51
GeauxTide Senior Member Join Date: April 20, 2009 Location: Helena, AL Posts: 4,424	Have re-barreled 2 with Shaw 280 Rem in 24" and 26". I reload, so the choice was easier. Most 140gr bullets can go 3050 and shoot 1/2". If I didn't load, it would be the 270.

January 19, 2019, 08:21 AM	#52
Bfglowkey Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2018 Posts: 302	I guess I may have not seen this but the question I ask: Are you reloading or factory ammo? If you don't reload then honestly with all the math as a factor the 270 is the way to go. Factory ammo is much more readily available if you need to run to the corner for a sudden hunt of opportunity. Now if you handload then its back to the math board lol. I over analyze and crunch numbers too....nature of my job in the Air Force. Just be sure to include common sense along with the math. My father wanted a more obscure cartridge and I was able to build him one....now since we live 1800 miles apart and he doesn't reload himself, he is limited to what I can produce for him. He loves it to death but ended up back with his 30-06 due to factory ammo availability. I am interested which you end up with since I have enjoyed the thread. keep the rest of us nerds / enthusiasts posted!

January 19, 2019, 12:08 PM	#55
reinert Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2008 Posts: 646	I have three '06s, two M700s and an Eddystone M1917 (for all practical purposes, that's a Remington, too). I'm a hunter, and all my shooting and reloading is for that purpose. I love the '06, it's all I need for the game I hunt, generally it's elk with the '06. Really, I don't need anymore rifles, am at the age where I truly have what I need for firearms. That being said, and being an old guy, and if I had the inkling and the disposable cash to do it, without a second thought, I'd contact Kenny Jarrett and put in an order for a bare bones Beanfield Rifle in .280 Remington (a.k.a. 7MM-06 and/or the 7MM Express Remington). Wouldn't have another thought about it. I had a Ruger M77 in .280 Rem quite a number of years ago, but had to sell it. Wish I wouldn't have had to...old guy thoughts, nothing more.

January 19, 2019, 03:36 PM	#58
reinert Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2008 Posts: 646	Hey RC20, My old "Enfield" '06 says this right on the receiver, and right about where the cartridge headstamp would be on a loaded round with the bolt closed: U.S. Model of 1917 Eddystone S#...... My particular M1917 was mfg. in August of 1918. From my understanding on the rifle, the Eddystone name on the receiver meant that it was mfg'd at the Baldwin Locomotive Works in Eddystone, Pennsylvania, a subsidiary of Remington(Remington of Delaware Corp.). I understand, too, about the Brit P-14s and the .303 business and arms being in dire need for the Great War. I've had this rifle for more than 20 years, and always enjoy showing it off to hunting cohort buddies. Whoever "sporterized" the old rifle did a fine job on it. Anyway, I have a paper I printed off a long time ago, and I thought I might add a comment from it to go with this: "Confusion in Rifle Nomenclature" "Modern collectors and purists are quick to point out that referring to the M-1917 Rifle as a P-17 or an Enfield is incorrect. British .303s were referred to as P-14s, but they then point out that this is "British-Speak" not U.S. nomenclature. To this I must answer, "Well, yeah, but..." How the confusion and intermixing of terms came about is perfectly understandable if you know how the rifles came by their names." From: Dick Culver, "The U.S. Rifle, caliber .30, M1917" (2003) I'm certainly open to any corrections you may have on my old '06, and where it came from. Here's the Dick Culver article I referenced: www.odcmp.org/503/rifle.pdf reinert One other thing to your comment on "The relationship to Remington was pretty odd." I'll just add this from the Culver article that probably made my misunderstanding of what Remington outfit it was that helped with the war effort: "The P-13 was redesigned to handle the .303 cartridge, and re-designated the P-14 Enfield Rifle. Rather than tool up to produce the new rifle themselves, England contracted with Remington and Winchester to build the P-14 for them in the United States. Remington even formed another corporation, "Remington of Delaware," to speed up the process..." At Eddystone, Pennsylvania. So, was the "Remington" company in the article not the Remington Arms Co.? Help me out here, I'd like to get that cleared up. I also understand (according to Culver) the P-13 was an experimental rifle in .276 cal., redesigned to handle the .303.

January 21, 2019, 12:03 PM	#62
reinert Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2008 Posts: 646	Hey Vicki, welcome to TFL. I've always favored my Remington 30-06's, too. The 30-06 Springfield round should always be around as long as there's shooters and hunters; a venerable tried and true caliber (IMO). Hey RC20, this has been a good little confab about the M1917-P-17, Ol' '17 Enfield and whatever else it's been called through the years beginning with that Brit Pattern-13, and who made them, and where they were made. I've used the article I mentioned earlier as a reference guide for me since I printed it off many years ago. I thought it was quite thorough, and was about all I cared to know about my old Eddystone. The Eddystone/Baldwin Locomotive Works/Remington of Delaware Co. and then, the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Company (which company I'd never heard of before), is truly an amazing story. It turns out that my Eddystone, M1917, which I found was mfg'd in August of 1918, would have been made by the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co. during their time producing the M1917. I found this article below (just yesterday) that was written in August of 2018 (a hundred years to the month and year of my rifle's existence) and thought it quite good; an update to what I had for reference. The article was written with much reference to the Remington Society's write-up entitled, "The Story of Eddystone." The intricacies of the whole story of arming the Brits, and us, "U.S.," with rifles for the "Great War," involves J.P. Morgan and also Col. John T. Thompson (sub-machine inventor) who resigned from the U.S. Army to oversee construction of the Remington facility in Eddystone, and then remained in management as Works Supervisor there until he re-entered the service. (from the Remington Society's, "The Story of Eddystone.") http://tincanbandit.blogspot.com/201...h-baldwin.html At the end of the article I've given here above, you can click on the refence to the Remington Society for "The Story of Eddystone," if you want more info on the M1917. So, RC20, the article I referenced earlier by Mr. Culver never mentioned the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co., nor did Julian Hatcher in his classic Notebook on the "Brief History of the Enfield, U.S. Rifle Caliber .30, Model of 1917 (Hatcher's Notebook, P-12). So much went on at the Eddystone facility; rather staggering, really (IMO). I guess then, my Eddystone was made during the time of Midvale Steel's run of the M1917, but on the equipment that Remington of Delaware set up, at the Baldwin Locomotive Works being under the supervision of John Thompson himself at the time when all this started under the satellite company of Remington of Delaware (at least that's how I understand it!). So right or wrong, I'm sure I'll still think of my "centenarian" Eddystone as a Remmy...Ha! And to the OP, if I was personally going to change to a different caliber besides the '06, I'd still opt for the .280 Remington. And a parting shot here on the M1917: "Purists will tell you that calling the M1917 Rifle an Enfield or a P-17 is patently wrong, but common usage and habits die hard. Although we like to think of our armed forces meeting the Bosche using our tried and true "Ought Three Springfields," the truth is somewhat different. While our "official" service rifle remained the M1903, usage data from the era will tell you that approximately 2/3rds (some say 3/4ths number[s] would not be correct until the end of hostilities) of the American Divisions in France were equipped with the M1917 Enfield." (from the Culver article) Excerpt from Alvin York's Diary: May 21, 1918 LeHavre, France: "So we got to France at LeHavre. There we tuned in our guns and got the British guns...I didn't like the British guns so well. I don't think they were as accurate as our American rifles. Ho ho." I would guess that was the '03 turned in for the M1917.

January 24, 2019, 08:29 PM	#69
ndking1126 Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2008 Location: Madison, AL Posts: 1,932	RC, I think what you are saying is that the drop may be the more important thing since we know itll have to be accounted for with distance. Wind may or may not be there so it could be of lesser concern. If that's what your saying, distance is a known variable. I have a range finder and itll give me exactly how far away the animal is and even how many degrees of angle the shot is at. With good ballistics data for my rifle and bullet combo, I can easily adjust for drop. Wind, on the other hand is an unknown. It may be blowing 7mph to my left where I am and then 13 mph strait forward 200 yards away from me. For me, wind drift is a greater problem to overcome than drop.

January 25, 2019, 06:55 PM	#70
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,312	pressure I dunno. The .280 is not necessarily hindered by low pressure, a quick check seems to indicate that it operates at slightly less pressure than the '06. As you know, the 7 series rifles from Rem all were chambered in'06. And the .270 is only a tad behind both in operating pressue. So the 7 series rifles should handle the .280 easily. The .280 had a murky start, and has never really had a big following or noted as a successful cartridge. It even had a different names when first released in '57. As the .280 is little more than an '06 case necked to 7mm, I have to wonder if Remington didn't purposely keep it loaded down, so as to not impede (or anticipation of the release of) on the success of the 7mm Mag, which was released just 5 years later, in '62. All that is speculation on my part, and my source, Wiki, may or may not be right in the figures and dates.

February 13, 2019, 03:21 PM	#73
ndking1126 Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2008 Location: Madison, AL Posts: 1,932	For my faithful followers... I have made my decision and even spent some money! I bought a used Savage 110 with a beat up wooden stock for cheap. I'll refinish the stock and try to resell for a couple of bucks. Even if it doesn't sell, it still sounds like a fun project. I am going to buy a Bell and Carlson sporter style stock, as I have been really happy with my Medalist. I've got a few other miscellaneous items taking up space in my gun cabinet to sell and hopefully I'll have enough for the new barrel. I'll buy it before too long either way. I'm going with 280 Rem. I'll buy a Shilen from NSS because I like Shilen and they are one of the few companies left that offer blued match barrels - happy to do my part in showing there is still demand for them, haha. Right now I'm planning on 24" and heavy sporter. The rifle, as it sits is in 30-06 with a sporter barrel on it. I'll see how it balances and looks in the B&C stock and make a final decision on length and contour. Thank you for all the comments and input! I'm really happy with the decision and I can't wait to get it all together.

February 13, 2019, 04:19 PM	#74
Drm50 Senior Member Join Date: November 10, 2014 Posts: 1,382	Remington is one to beat a dead dog. They did the same with 244/ 6mm Rem. The 243 blew it out of the water. The 280/ 7express is same thing. The 270 is hard to beat in its class. It's a fad thing just like all the 6.5s now popular. Unless military adopts one they will be dead dogs too. There really isn't such a thing as a bad cartridge, only bad rifles. The right twist on good action should produce good results. I've had a couple 280s both 700 Rems. They were ok but not enough different from 270 to make any difference.

February 13, 2019, 04:27 PM	#75
ndking1126 Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2008 Location: Madison, AL Posts: 1,932	270 and 280 are very similar animals, that's for sure. I like the heavier bullets available to the 280 as I hope to hunt elk again one day. I reload, sotwhat's on the shelf and how much it costs isn't a real consideration for me. (270 is the obvious winner there.) There's no doubt in my mind the 6.5s are here to stay. I read on multiple websites the Special Operations Command selected the 6.5C as their intermediate sniper round. But aside from that the public consumption of the round is enough. It makes so much more sense than the last fad (the magnums) for the majority of people who buy it. Of course, the magnums are here to stay, also. I'm not speaking negatively of them.