280 Rem

[jim dab]

I see that Ruger's new Hawkeye has come out with a 280 Rem. Sadly not a cartridge you see being chambered very often. I don't want a whip thin barrel so I'm kind of hooped.  I'm a admitted Remington fan but am willing to give Ruger a chance. I have a 6.5 Ruger being built as I type this so I should give something back to Ruger. What kind of accuracy should I be expecting?? I do handload.

Jim

[flintlock]

I'm not sure if you mean .280 vs say, .270 or Remington vs Ruger....

One of my brothers has used the .280 since the early 80s, first in a Browning Stalker and recently in a Remington 700...He doesn't reload but both rifles were plenty accurate for big game hunting, in the 1 1/2 inch range at 100 yards...The Remington does seem to be a little more accurate, but he is using the Remington 140 Ballistic tips, in the Browning all he ever shot were the 140 CoreLokts...

My other brother has a tang safety Ruger and a 700 ADL, both with 3x9x40 Leupold VX-IIs on...I sighted in both rifles for him using the
Federal Premium 130gr Sierra GameKing SPBT...You can't tell any difference in the accuracy of either gun, they also shoot in the 1 1/2 inch range at 100 yards...

If you reload you should be able to beat what they are doing...Great round...

[jim dab]

Thanks Flintlock but just a general question on how accurate the new Hawkeys are.

Jim

[billm08]

I had a 77 MKII stainless in 280 (I wish I still had it).  I polished the trigger and changed the springs and that gun shot sub-moa very consistently.  If you look at the ballistics the 280 (7mm) bullet is alot more efficent in the wind than a 308 bullet.  The bullet weights in the 7mm seem more sutied to deer than a 270  (139 - 175) as opposed to 130 -150 grain.  I personally like the 280 for an all around rifle.

[deltecs]

I had a 77 MKII stainless in 280 (I wish I still had it).  I polished the trigger and changed the springs and that gun shot sub-moa very consistently.  If you look at the ballistics the 280 (7mm) bullet is alot more efficent in the wind than a 308 bullet.  The bullet weights in the 7mm seem more sutied to deer than a 270  (139 - 175) as opposed to 130 -150 grain.  I personally like the 280 for an all around rifle.

I personally own a Ruger Mark I in .280 Rem, which I like very much.  However, to compare the advantages of a .280 Rem over that of a .270 is beating a dead horse.  Whatever, the one will do, so will the other.  It is strictly a matter of personal choice between the two, and not for any ballistic advantage.   The .270 can shoot the same sectional density bullets, albeit slightly smaller in weight and diameter, at the same velocity or better than the .280.  Both cartridges have available bullet selections more than sufficient to cover almost all of NA big game.  With a diameter of only .007" of an inch, I defy anyone who has been handed just one bullet from either, could tell accurately tell if it was a .280 or .270 without some other reference.  If you cannot tell the difference in your hand, how is the game going to distiguish the difference when both bullets are traveling at or near the same velocity?

[rex6666]

My question is why does the 7mm-08 seem to be more popular than the
280? 280 has bullets from 139 to 170 factory.
I am thinking seriously about a Ruger compact in 280 since the have discontinued the frontier.
anyone had any experience with the compact?

[dpe.ahoy]

I own 3 7mm-08s and 3 280s.  The smaller 7's kick a little less, let the boys use them and I use the 280 most of the time.  My favorite go-to is my Ruger M77 with the tang safety.  She got 6 deer for me this year.   DP

[DC]

I just bought a MK II Ruger, RM Elk Edition in 280 Rem.. I have mine in a Hogue overmolded aluminum bedded stock.  My first trip out to a quarry was really windy so I wasn't able to come up with any group sizes.  However, when I put the cross hairs on a very small white rock about 150 yards away, (measured), and squeezed one off, the rock dissapeared.  Other semi official sighting in shots left me with a huge grin...just thinking about it now does the same.  I  love both the rifle and the cartidge. 

With the cartridge, you get the choice of a ton of bullet types, makes, weights etc.  You get close to 7mm mag performance without the noise, the hammering etc.  In fact, this is now my favorite ever rifle / round combination.

[kombi1976]

Why is it that almost every company these days seems to be making super light bbls?
I have to admit that I was interested in the 280 Rem too but the combination of the boat paddle synth stock and the light bbl makes it quite unappealing.
A stainless synth rifle with a sporter bbl profile, not a light bbl, would be very welcome.
Even the Rem LSS doesn't weigh much and it has a laminated stock.
Ya gotta think that bbl has gotta be a toothpick!

[Graybeard]

Remington is now chambering the LSS Mtn. Rifle in .280 Remington. It does have a light weight barrel but it's not a whip thin one and all of them I've owned have been quite accurate. I think they are also chambering the CDL in .280 now.

[kombi1976]

Nope, the LSS is the only model in 280 Rem, which I reckon is crazy.
It's unfortunate that the company that owns the designs of the most successful 7mm magnum and the 7mm-08, popular because it'll fit in a short action, also own the 280 which is viewed by most a 270 Win in a slightly bigger coat.
And unfortunately Remingtons are well overpriced here in Australia.......the Mountain LSS is AUD$1915.
I'm not a fan of the M700 as it is and even if I had that sort of money for about the same price I could buy a RWS Titan 6, a good European rifle, in 7x64 Brenneke.
Here in Oz unless you really like Rems people don't bother buying them.
The extra dollars aren't viewed as being worth it when there are other alternatives.
Pity Ruger doesn't make chamber 280 Rem in their No1-B Sporter.

[George Foster]

Just for what it is worth I have shot tighter groups with my Ruger MarkII's than I have with some of my heavier diameter Remington rifles.

[Graybeard]

Model 700™ Alaskan Ti also but wow what a price on that.

[High Brass]

Not a Hawkeye but a Ruger M77 mk II (in 280 Rem). My understanding is that the Hawkeyes use the same barrel making technology/procedures as the latter mk II's so this post still should help, hopefully  .  Mine started out as a SS/lam stock version and from the box shot Factory 150gr. Remington ammo into an inch or so at 100 yards.  Handloads did better with 140gr Remington PSPCLs (bulk from Midway-USA) and 139gr Hornady SSTs.  Powders used then were IMR 4350 and IMR 4831.   I've shot 6-7 deer with the 139gr SST/IMR 4831 combo from 40-220 yards with no problems.  Groups were under 1" at 100 yards and the few times I shot them on paper at 200 yards were not much bigger. I can't remember exactly but around 1 1/2" at 200 yards.  Chrony'd the load at 3K fps out of the factory 22" bbl.  Right now I'm loading H-4350 and 139gr Hornady SP (flat base) and over several range trips I get an AVERAGE of 1/2" for three shots at 100 yards.  This is with a 6x scope and heavy duplex reticle with me shooting.  A better shot would probably do better.  Load chrony's at 2880 fps.  Slow, but very accurate/consistant.  I will admit that H-4350 may not be the best powder to use with 139/140gr bullets if top velocity is a concern.  I'll be using it as I have almost 8lbs of it and it works fine.  One thing I will comment on is the barrel itself.  It cleans up super quick. I've shot 50+ rounds at a range trip and the barrel just doesn't hug copper.  So I have an accurate rifle that isn't picky about ammo, gives velocity concurrent with book data (if you account for a 22" bbl), and doesn't foul hardly at all.  What's not to like?  Good luck, hope this helps.