.280 Rem

[maltbuck]

Just been flicking through some ballistic charts and came across the .280 Rem, which made interesting reading, as it compared favourably with 30-06 and the 270 Win, with the advantage of 7mm bullets for handloads.

 

However, don't quite understand (as I don't handload) if a .284 is a true 7mm, how does a .280 use .284 bullets?

 

Anybody got ist hand knowledge of the .280?

 

ATB

 

MB

[Andrew]

The "280 Remington" fires a .284" bullet. The name, like most cartridge names, is a misleading marketing ploy to make the cartridge sound appealing.(The .270 Winchester doesn't fire a .270" bullet. The 260 Remington doesn't shoot a .260" bullet. The 300 Win Magnum fires a .308" diameter bullet; not a ".300" bullet.) In the 280's case it was hoping to better the 270 Winchester. Unfortunately, it was tanked by some American gun writers who touted the .270 so in the late 1960's it was renamed the "7mm Remington Express" and given some spunky ballistics. It is an excellent cartridge. I have built about a dozen of them on various actions and no one has ever complained about the choice. One customer of mine used his with 120 grain bullets at 3100 fps for pronghorn antelope. He also loaded 175 grain bullets and shot Elk. It's a good one! ~Andrew

[DL.]

I wanted one of these when I was in the market for a rifle,but finding ammo would definitely be a pain in the hoop, I bet even brass would be hard to come by (having said this midway have it). In the end, I went for a 7-08.

[Ronin]

If obtaining brass is an issue for the 280, then consider a 284 Win - you buy 6.5x284 brass and neck it up.

 

Plus the 284 Win has the advantage of being slightly more efficient than the 280 (higher velocity with similar charge weights)

 

Not that there is anything wrong with the 280 Rem.

 

 

(both use 7mm / 284" bullets by the way)

[Ratwhiskers]

Being at this side of the "Pond" you might like to look up it's continental cousin the 7x64 Brenneke. l can push a 120 v-max at 3100+change (it makes foxes go pop!!) from my 7-08 l'd like to see what the long case with 8/10 grains more powder can do.....

[maltbuck]

Thanks all, for the info.

I can feel an itch begining!!, instead of going along the lines of a 6.5x284 or 6.5x55AI.

The round is produced by most factory ammunition manufacturers.

 

But then again there is the 7x64, as has been suggested, and speaking to 1 or 2 retailers readily stocked.

 

Thanks again

 

MB

[Vermincinerator]

Maltbuck,

If you are re-barreling from a 30-06 then the 280 is an excellent choice infact some would say better then the 06'

With bullets of higher BC right up to 180grns easily available the 280 has the capacity to propel these heavier bullets at very acceptable velocities and at pressures somewhat lower then the .284.

In the 1970s the 280 and its improved brother were formidable 1000yd cartridges on the US circuit accounting for many competition wins.

However to realise the cartridges full potential you need to handload, quality brass is available from Nosler Custom.

 

Ian.

[casts_by_fly]

If obtaining brass is an issue for the 280, then consider a 284 Win - you buy 6.5x284 brass and neck it up.

 

Plus the 284 Win has the advantage of being slightly more efficient than the 280 (higher velocity with similar charge weights)

 

Not that there is anything wrong with the 280 Rem.

 

 

(both use 7mm / 284" bullets by the way)

 

 

 

Or in a pinch buy 30-06 and neck it down. The 280 is a touch longer, but necking down the -06 should give you a little in the neck and te first fireforming will fit it to your chamber.

 

Nothing to dislike about the 280. Great parent cartridge, wide range of bullet weights for whatever you want to shoot. Enough capacity to drive the heavier bullets, while still not being over the top with light ones. Some of my family use the 280 (while most of us used 30-06) and for most purposes you'll not see a difference in performance on game. Only limitation I can think of is factory loads available over here. I haven't asked though, so I don't know for sure.

 

Thanks,

Rick