Author Topic: The .280 Remington........... (Read 6136 times)

Mac11700 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 02, 2005, 06:08:47 AM »

Quote

why didnt this cartridge get received better by the shooting public? Lawdog [/b]

As far as I can tell...there were several reason it didn't.

Timing...when the cartridge was developed...Winchester ruled the market...and if you wanted a rifle...a Winchester was what most people wanted and bought...and since Remington introduced it first in their model 740 Autoloader...that was the first strike against it.The majority of sales in that period were bolt rifles and lever rifles...it wasn't till much later on that Remington offered in their 760 pump...and 721-725 bolt rifles...then...in 1962 Remington came out with the 7mm Magnum...and then...as now...speed sells rifles...

Marketing...then as today...certain manufactures put restrictions on the dealers as to what products they can sell and the amounts they can get to sell....also..autoloaders weren't in as much demand then...nor were they as accurate as what is being offered today...and Remington didn't push as hard to sell them then thru aggresive sales and media tactics.....a sad fact that remains true today as well..

Comparison...what cartridge was the 280 compared when it came out...even as it is today...the 270 Win...Then...back in 1957...the 270 had already been in the media's and hunter's hands for 32 years...high praise had been lavished on it. and so many wonderful stories had been published about it's virtues..and justly so...because it is still a great cartridge...talk about going up against a rock wall...in stead of trying to sell it on it's on virtues...they tried to say it was better than a beloved cartridge...bad choice...start knocking a favorite...and people will turn against you...even if it can be better...

Factory specs...they speak for themselves...yes...the 280 can be handloaded to much higher pressures...but...high pressure/velocity handloads isn't what sells rifles and certainly wasn't in 1957...having factory ammunition that produces the faster load is...and until SAMMI changes it...it will always be underloaded...just like so many other great cartridges are.....the 45-70 comes to mind on this...

What's in a name...the name change between 1979-1980.. hurt this cartridge immensly...perhaps not to dedicated handloaders...but to the genneral public...Remington in their ignorance tried to pump new life into a lagging sales line by infering a difference of speed...hense the "7mm Express " monicure...and failed miserably...

Handloaders know the virtues of the cartridge...they always have...but till the 280 stands on it's on merits...and till folks stop trying to say it's Better than this cartridge or that cartridge...namely the 270...it will never truely get the respect it should have..

Mac

kombi1976 · « **Reply #31 on:** August 02, 2005, 06:09:32 AM »

You couldn't be more true in terms of performance, Mauser.
Truth is that for the factory-ammo guy the .270 is a God send.
For the reloader the .280 is a much more flexible beast.
Funny thing is that as far as I'm aware the .270's reputation was actually originally born from 130gn bullets and that the .280(like most non-magnum 7mm rounds) excels with 140gn bullets.
I don't doubt that the 150gn and 160gn pills work well but I'd only be using them on bigger game.

while99 · « **Reply #32 on:** August 06, 2005, 06:59:54 AM »

I just picked up a used Model 70 Classic Featherweight in .280 Remington. USRAC, in its wisdom, has seen fit to quit chambering the Model 70 in the .280 cartridge, except for their custom shop rifles. Remington has quit producing the 7600 in .280 and only chambers one version of the Model 700 in .280, again except for the custom shop rifles. My advice is, when you find a good, used .280 at a good price, jump on it. The .280, as good as it is, seems to be falling by the wayside, much like the .257 Roberts, another great-but-sadly-neglected cartridge.

kombi1976 · « **Reply #33 on:** August 06, 2005, 05:39:42 PM »

Quote from: while99

The .280, as good as it is, seems to be falling by the wayside, much like the .257 Roberts, another great-but-sadly-neglected cartridge.

I love the way you think, '99. :wink:

handirifle · « **Reply #34 on:** August 08, 2005, 05:29:22 PM »

Well, I for one, plan to find out.

I like the idea of heavier bullets and larger selection of the 280 over the 270 and since I reload, it will most likely be loaded to 270 pressures like it should have been from the start.

I am sending my H&R Ultra off for a 26" 280 barrel and hope to shoot 160gr accubonds out of it.

The 270 has it's following but I not one of them. Just don't like it, but that is my opinion. The 280 is about the smallest I'd want in bullet dia and it will go nicely with my '06 as will the 338-06 eventually.

Each has it's own strengths, but to ME each one is just that much stronger than the 270. Remember this is my opinion and I'll be loading to 270 pressures. If the same rules hold for velocity being the result of powder burned (pressure)vs the square of the bullet base, then the 280 should pass up the 270 with no problem, when shooting the same weight bullet.

According to the manuals, the 338-06 does just that over the 30-06. Same principal applies.

kombi1976 · « **Reply #35 on:** August 08, 2005, 06:50:20 PM »

Quote from: JD338

Thank goodness for reloading, at least we can load to the true potential of the cartridge.

It's funny you should say that, JD.
Winchester's factory loads, while all only being 140gn bullets, include the C/T Ballistic Silver Tip and Failsafe which are advertised as clocking 3050fps.
Even if they're 100fps slower in reality that isn't to shabby for a factory load. :grin:
But yeah, the 280 is a reloader's paradise. :grin:

Quote from: handirifle

I am sending my H&R Ultra off for a 26" 280 barrel and hope to shoot 160gr accubonds out of it.

I'll be ordering a .280 Handirifle at the end of this year should things go according to plan.
The thought of a 26" barrel is quite seductive, isn't it...... :mrgreen: :sniper:

handirifle · « **Reply #36 on:** August 08, 2005, 08:47:35 PM »

Yes it is!

3584ELK · « **Reply #37 on:** August 26, 2005, 04:32:09 PM »

We have two .280's at our house, one in a Win. 70 FWT and the other is a Ruger M77KRFP. I love the Winchester for everything but elk, I just like bigger ordnance. It has killed well for me, and my daughter loves her Ruger.

What's not to like? It's a nice compromise between the '06 and the 270. I guess I just like something a little different.

kombi1976 · « **Reply #38 on:** August 26, 2005, 10:03:05 PM »

Quote from: 3584ELK

We have two .280's at our house, one in a Win. 70 FWT and the other is a Ruger M77KRFP.

KRFP?

:|

1911crazy · « **Reply #39 on:** August 27, 2005, 12:41:31 AM »

I'm looking at a 280rem mainly because i just got some empty cases and the reloading dies for it. But no one has mentioned the 7mmSTW? The 7mmSTW seems to rule the 7mm nest over the passed over long forgotten 7mm rem mag too. Its the new kid on the block I guess. I like the 7mm mauser its one of the flatest shooters there is. The 7mm is a very good choice for reloading because of the choice of bullets i have plus I have other 7mm's too. I can stock up on one size bullet for all the different 7mm calibers it does have an advantage. I have not been following the new do all super duper calibers these wiz bangs are dreaming up for us. Do these guys who dream up these new calibers ever sleep or are they losing sleep? Do they shoot or hunt too? Geez the market is flooded with all these new confusing calibers right now. Is the 7mmSTW the hottest 7mm on the planet? Is the 7mm mag dead?

I'm in the market for a new toy(caliber) but I like the 7mm line up but i'm not sure which one yet. I want a 280rem too but i also want something else too maybe a 7mmSTW. Any ideas? I chose the 338win.mag. over the 300win/7mm mag mainly because of its power, but i want a something in the 7mm class that performs the best over everything else.

There are some good posts here too like the "MM" in the american market, i agree we here in america didn't have a clue what "MM" mean't even back then there was only "3" metric threads on our american cars(steering wheel, front wheel axel shaft and gererator/alt shaft. But not everyone knew that back then. Maybe that would of scared them too?

kombi1976 · « **Reply #40 on:** August 27, 2005, 05:07:32 AM »

Couldn't say how old the STW is but I don't think it's that new.
Certainly there are more and more rifles being chambered for it, not the least of them the Ruger #1.
Funny thing about 7mm is that there are so many well-known cartridges out there for it.
7-30, 7x33 Sako, 7mm-08, 7x57, 7mm STE, 7x64, 7x65R, 280 Rem, 284 Win, 7x61 Sharp & Hart, 7mm SAUM, 7mm WSM, 7mm Rem Mag, 7mm Weatherby, 7mm STW and more recently 7mm Rem Ultra Mag.
There ya go.
The STW certainly is a thumper though.
I don't think the original Rem Mag will disappear anytime soon.
It and the 300 Win are the biggest selling magnums in the world.
Here's an idea for that 7mm crusher you're after. :grin:
Neck down the 50BMG!!!! :eek:
You could call it 7x99 BigBill. :wink:
The ultimate 7mm wildcat. :mrgreen:

Mac11700 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 27, 2005, 02:09:06 PM »

Quote

Couldn't say how old the STW is but I don't think it's that new.

The original wildcat chambering was designed in 1989 by Layne Simpson a gun writer for Shooting Times magazine...it was adopted as a SAMMI cartridge about 1996...

Mac

JD338 · « **Reply #42 on:** August 27, 2005, 04:32:11 PM »

Quote from: BigBill

I'm looking at a 280rem mainly because i just got some empty cases and the reloading dies for it. But no one has mentioned the 7mmSTW? The 7mmSTW seems to rule the 7mm nest over the passed over long forgotten 7mm rem mag too.
I'm in the market for a new toy(caliber) but I like the 7mm line up but i'm not sure which one yet. I want a 280rem too but i also want something else too maybe a 7mmSTW. Any ideas? I chose the 338win.mag. over the 300win/7mm mag mainly because of its power, but i want a something in the 7mm class that performs the best over everything else.

BigBill,

Have you considered a 280 Ackley Improved? This is a wildcat cartridge based off the 280 Remington but the body is blown out and it has a 40 drgree shoulder. You fire form cases by shooting standard 280 Remington loads and when loaded up, you get 7mm Rem Mag performance.
I just had one made this past spring on a M700 action with a Hart #5 24" flutted barrel. I have a load with the Nosler 160 gr AB at approx. 3000 fps and sub .25" groups at 100 yds. Honest!

Just something to think about. You can shoot 280 Rem factory loads ot 280 AI handloads from the same rifle. This would fill the void you were mentioning.

Regards,

JD338

handirifle · « **Reply #43 on:** August 29, 2005, 08:54:57 PM »

Just curious, here ,what bullet weight in the 7mm compares to the 180gr in 30 cal in sectional density?

JD338 · « **Reply #44 on:** August 30, 2005, 02:44:29 AM »

handirifle,

.308 cal 180 gr has SD .271
7mm cal 160 gr has SD .283

Regards,

JD338

EsoxLucius · « **Reply #45 on:** August 30, 2005, 03:26:00 AM »

A 150 grain .284" at a SD of .266 would come closer to a 180 grain .308" at a SD of .271 than a 160 grain .284" at a SD of .283.

while99 · « **Reply #46 on:** August 30, 2005, 09:15:34 AM »

A 154 Hornady has a sectional density of .271.

Buckeye · « **Reply #47 on:** September 03, 2005, 05:29:01 PM »

The 280 Rem. is a ballistic twin of the 7mm Brennke,which was used by Finn Aaugard as his light rifle for years in Africa,when he moved to Texas the 7mm B , barrel had been shot out ,he replaced the barrel with the 280 Rem.,
I've always considered the 280 Rem. ,270 Win. and the 30-06 and the 7mm Mag. as "peas in a pod. " The 30-06 is my favorite of the Fantastic 4,

Of the 4 I only have a 30-06,in a sporterized Springfield,and since I have a 6.5X55 in a sporterized Swede,I don't see much need of the 270 Win. for my use.
Where the 280 Rem. shines is with the use of 175gr. bullets,thats when it seperates itself from the 270Win. But of the two I'd still pick the 270.

Drilling Man · « **Reply #48 on:** September 10, 2005, 04:55:25 PM »

Many years ago i had a LH 700 Rem. action barreled with a 21" Douglas premium bbl chambered in 7 Express Rem.. I stocked it with some NZ walnut...

I made it up as a "light weight" mountain hunting rifle, and it's been all i expected it to be.

I picked the 7express over the 270 because i was hunting a lot all over Alaska and i wanted to be able to take advantage of 175 NP's if needed.

I picked it over the 30-06 (which i also like a lot) because the 7mm has a bit less recoil.

I've harvested caribou, bear, blk. tailed deer, white tails ect.... I'm very happy with my choise, and if i was doing all over again today, i'd pick the .280 again!!

Drilling Man

Raging480 · « **Reply #49 on:** September 12, 2005, 04:54:34 PM »

You guys are getting me interested. The gun shop down the road has a used Rem 7600 in .280. I think it is composite stocked, for less than $400.

kombi1976 · « **Reply #50 on:** September 22, 2005, 05:40:04 PM »

Quote from: Raging480

You guys are getting me interested. The gun shop down the road has a used Rem 7600 in .280. I think it is composite stocked, for less than $400.

If you like pump guns then go ahead.
The only problem with pumps is that they aren't necessarily as accurate as a bolt gun or single shot and that if you reload you have to full-length resize the cases every time to ensure they feed properly.
Truth is a decent bolt gun is a better proposition.
But as I said before, if you like 7600s then go ahead.

Captain_Obvious · « **Reply #51 on:** September 23, 2005, 02:01:47 PM »

The 280 can launch 160 grain bullets in excess of 2800 fps. It is every bit as good as a 30-06 shooting 180 grain bullets. I think the 270 has gotten a raw deal in recent years. At one time, the 130 grain bullet was advertised at a velocity in excess of 3100 fps MV, with figures up to 3160 being not uncommon. I suspect the 270 WSM wouldn't have done too well if the standard version were still loaded like that.

The 7mm Remington Magnum and 300 Winchester Magnum remain the most popular magnum cartridges in use today because they are both proven in the field, and with the exception of the outsized Ultra-Mags, none of the newer rounds offer any advantages over them, least of all the short mags. In my opinion the 7mm Remington Ultra Mag is a waste of powder. It is just too big of a case for the given bullet weights. The 300 Remington Ultra Mag is a bit better, but it is not especially powder efficient either.

It is amazing to me the way it works with these new rounds. They claim the miracle behind the short mags is the alleged greater powder efficiency due to the shape of the powder column. Yet at the same time, they're pushing these giants that, although they drive medium weight bullets in excess of 3200 fps, it takes a vast amount of powder, per increment, to ahieve this performance. The alleged greater powder efficiency of the short magnums is of no consequence at all to someone who does not reload, and even in reloading, in my experience, is insignificant when measured against the fact that ballistic performance from these rounds falls off more rapidly with rising bullet weight than in the standard mags. Chronograph tests that I've personally done with the 7mm WSM show velocities to be lower than advertised.

Raging480 · « **Reply #52 on:** September 27, 2005, 06:05:46 AM »

He is asking $350 for the rifle. The thing about bolt guns is that I'm left handed, so I don't really have as much of an opportunity to go that route.

Captain_Obvious · « **Reply #53 on:** September 27, 2005, 01:08:24 PM »

JD338 wrote: ''Have you considered a 280 Ackley Improved? This is a wildcat cartridge based off the 280 Remington but the body is blown out and it has a 40 drgree shoulder. You fire form cases by shooting standard 280 Remington loads and when loaded up, you get 7mm Rem Mag performance.
I just had one made this past spring on a M700 action with a Hart #5 24" flutted barrel. I have a load with the Nosler 160 gr AB at approx. 3000 fps and sub .25" groups at 100 yds. Honest!''

The diameter of the bullet-hole left in targets by .7mm bullets is larger than .25'' meaning that you might want to re-measure. The bullet holes, fired from a 7mm-08, 280, and 7mm Remington Magnum all measured about a third of an inch in diameter. :eek:

kombi1976 · « **Reply #54 on:** September 27, 2005, 05:16:17 PM »

Quote from: Raging480

He is asking $350 for the rifle. The thing about bolt guns is that I'm left handed, so I don't really have as much of an opportunity to go that route.

As I said before, 480, if a pump gun is your sort of thing then certainly, buy the thing.
I actually feel a bit sorry for you.
The industry really doesn't offer much in way of alternatives for "south-paw" shooters.
It sounds like this 7600 may be just the deal for you.
They certainly are a quick follow up.
Short of a semi-auto there isn't really a rifle capable of delivering a quicker 2nd shot.
If you have the $$$ go ahead.
You won't be disappointed by the performance of the 280.
And for the record, I only have FL dies so all of my reloading is full length sized.
Post some pics if you get it.

JD338 · « **Reply #55 on:** September 28, 2005, 06:38:25 PM »

captain obvious,

Measurements are center to center. The outside extreams are measured and bullet dia. is subtracted. Example would be as follows:
Extreme outside spread measured at .512" - .284" = .228" center to center.

Regards,

JD338

Captain_Obvious · « **Reply #56 on:** September 29, 2005, 04:48:41 AM »

That figure is not accurate when you measure the exact diameter of a single bullet-hole left in a target by a .7mm rifle bullet. The single bullet holes measure over a quarter-inch in diameter, meaning the group you listed would in fact have to all fit inside that radius or the group would be larger.

JPerryE · « **Reply #57 on:** October 12, 2005, 05:05:53 PM »

I live in Colorado and have hunted here for over 40 years. I loved Jack O'conner's stories about using the .270 Winchester. When I was about 14 I started looking at balistics charts comparing the 270, 7mm and 30 cal bullets. Then I noticed that the 280 could achieve about the same velocity as a 270 with a 10 grain heavier bullet. For my 14th birthday my dad gave me a model 700 Rem barreled action. I used the completed rifle that fall to take a large eastern plains mule dear buck. I still use the antlers for a hat rack. At about 18, I started handloading. I found some 150 gr Norma 7mm boat tail bullets and a few cans of Dupont 4530. I worked up to about 55grains of 4350 and although I've never choronographed the load, charts I've read show about 3,000 fps. After exhausting my supply of Norma bullets, and several dear and antelope later, I started using the 150 gr Nosler partition and 55 gr 4350. With that bullet and powder combination I've taken several elk, all one shot. If I ever draw a moose tag, I may consider a 160 grain Nosler partition.

40 years later, I have many more rifles including black powder. But as long as I'm hunting in Colorado, the rifle I'll take with me for any big game high power season is my old tried and true 280.

anthony passero · « **Reply #58 on:** October 18, 2005, 09:07:08 AM »

Hello shooters;
Colonel Townsend Whelen in the 50s did drop test comparisions of a 7mm 06, a 270 and the 30-06. His conclusions after the test was that of the three, the 7mm 06(280) was the most efficent of the 3. The higher sectional density of the 7mm bullets made it shoot flatter at comparible velocities. He also stated that there was not enough difference between the three to get rid of one to go out and get another. But if one were to start fresh... The name of the article was (A little bit more rifle) and was included in the book "Mr. Rifleman"
Tight groups,
Anthony

Slamfire · « **Reply #59 on:** October 18, 2005, 07:25:19 PM »

Quote from: handirifle

Just curious, here ,what bullet weight in the 7mm compares to the 180gr in 30 cal in sectional density?

A 154 grain 7mm bullet has nearly the same sectional density as the 180 grain .308. Hornady makes a neat one, and I think Remington uses it in their Extended Range line of factory ammo.