The Guns & Ammo Network

Cartridge Fight: .270 Win. vs .280 Rem.

by Brad Fitzpatrick • March 5, 2013 • 4 comments

270-Win-vs-280-RemI can’t say anything about the .270 Winchester that hasn’t already been written unless I lie. Introduced in 1925, the .270 is a necked-down .30-06 that holds .277 diameter bullets. The darling of the late Jack O’Connor, legions of fans are willing to go to fisticuffs to protect the good name of the .270.  Don’t believe me? Walk into the Seven Devils Saloon in Riggins, Idaho, and tell the patrons that the .270 isn’t worth much as a big game rifle. At the very least no one will buy you a beer.

Unlike the .270 Winchester, the .280 Remington has been struggling almost since its inception in 1957. It also utilizes the .30-06 as a parent case, and as it’s necked down to .284, its bullet is exactly .007 inch larger than the .270. But the latter enjoyed a 32-year head start, and the .280 suffered from some bad fortune—one being a name change from .280 to 7mm Express then back to .280, the other being the introduction of the instantly popular 7mm Remington Magnum.

The .280 has spent most of its life pinched between the popular .270 and the 7mm Remington Magnum, and it competes against several other commercial 7mms as well: the blazing fast 7mm STW and 7mm Remington Ultra Mag and the low-recoiling 7mm-08 chief among them.

With all this going against it you’d think the .280 would have shuffled into obscurity, but this hasn’t happened. Why? Well, let’s remember the .280 is very closely related to the .270, and the .270 formula works well.

Anything that you can do with a 130-grain .270 can be done with a 140-grain .280. The longer, heavier bullets available for the .280 give it a higher ballistic coefficient, and when loaded with 175-grain bullets the cartridge offers a sectional density of .310, meaning it will penetrate in heavy game—although this can be hampered by the .280’s velocity.

From a ballistics standpoint this gives the .280 a slight advantage over the .270. Which one you ultimately choose depends on whether you prefer the tried-and-true .270 or you root for the underdog .280.

Hits-and-misses

In Ammo
  • http://www.facebook.com/jerry.poparad Jerry Poparad

    For thin skinned big game I use the .270 and for the heavy big stuff I use the 7×57. The .280 is even better but some guns do not have a fast enough twist for the 175 grain bullets usually the 7×57 does. Another caliber that beats both is the 6.5×55 Swedish Mauser with the original fast twist military barrel as it out penetrates both the .270, 7×57 and the .280. Since most realistic hunting ranges are really well under 300 yards any of the above calibers will do. Any longer ranges and the average hunter simply is not skilled enough to have any business shooting any farther than 300 yards.

    Years ago Warren Page used the 7mm Mashburn Magnum with the 175 grain bullet with a .22 inch barrel and got an astonishing 3,000 fps which was an over load for this cartridge. At the same time period Jack O’Connor used the .270 with a 130 grain bullet at about 3,120 fps. Despite the lighter weight bullet of 130 grains he shot even grizzly bears with it. So much for the Elmer Keith big bore bull crap. Agnes Herbert used the 6.5 Mannlicher cartridge with the 160 grain bullet at about 2,300 fps and again killed big dangerous animals on 3 continents, Alaska, Africa and the Caucasus.

  • D. Griffith

    I own a 280, 270, and 6.5 swede. I can not discern any difference in lethality on South Carolina deer. I reloadhave and I shoot light for caliber Barnes TSXs in all three. I shoot 120 grain TSXs in the 280 at 3300 fps, 110 grain TSXs in the 270 at 3400 fps. Both kill like lightning. My opinion is that you can’t go wrong with either download south. A 160 TSX in a 280 at 2800 fps should handle everything but brown bear.

  • Eric

    I had a 270 Win, it was accurate, easy to find bullets and brass for, and could have taken anything I was good enough to hit with a well-placed shot. A gunsmith friend made a 280 Rem, basically as a custom rifle, and it is more accurate than the 270 was. I like the heavier, handloaded bullets from the 280 that go as fast as the lighter bullets from the 270. Either chambering is going to do well, provided you do your part.

  • Dale Bailey

    I think it is agood thing I read this after I renewed my subscription!