7-08 vs. .280


PDA






Bartkowski
August 26, 2007, 12:40 AM
To me it looks like the 7-08 is much more popular, based on the amount of guns remington chambers in those calibers. 13 for the 7-08 to the .280's 1.

Personally I like the ballistics of the .280 more than the 7-08 as I would assume most people would, but I haven't found any guns chambered for that other than the ruger's (don't want), encores (rather have a bolt gun right now), and the remington mountain lss (would rather have wood and blued, thats just me).

So rather than hold out for a .280 that I like, what do you think of a 7-08. I know they will both kill a deer the same but will that 150fps make a difference? And how does the 7-08 handle bullets heavier than 140gr?

If you enjoyed reading about "7-08 vs. .280" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bwana John
August 26, 2007, 10:14 AM
Split the differance, 7mm Mauser!

eliphalet
August 26, 2007, 10:20 AM
Unless I wanted a short action in a BLR or the like, I would rather have a 280, but if you can't find the rifle you want a 7mm-08 is a good caliber too.

Ol` Joe
August 26, 2007, 10:51 AM
A quick look at the Speer reloading manual # 13 shows the top loads for the 7-08 with a 145 gr bullet at 2933 fps and the 280 with the same at 2975. The 7-08 and a 175 gr is going 2628 fps, and the 280 2644 fps. Looks to be the same cartridge, just one fits a shorter action.

BTW the 7-08 was loaded to 61K and the 280 at 60K to close to the same psi to call it a difference.

eldon519
August 26, 2007, 12:25 PM
Based on Remington's factory ammo, 7mm Mauser is considerably less powerful than either their 7mm-08 or .280 offerings. Same with Hodgdon load data.

berettashotgun
August 26, 2007, 01:08 PM
308 vs. 30'06 in metric

rbernie
August 26, 2007, 01:26 PM
Right now - short actions are king. That means that 7mm08 will be considered 'better' than a long action 280. If you want to use lighter bullets and a marginally lighter rifle in a 7mm caliber, the 7mm08 is a great choice. I've shot a fair bit of it. For most real-world hunting use, the 7mm08 is equal to (or even preferable to) any of the more powerful 7mm options.

But I prefer to use heavier-for-caliber bullets for most game work, and that means that I tend to prefer long action chamberings like the 280.

Specialized
August 26, 2007, 01:47 PM
Your profile doesn't say where you are, but I can tell you from firsthand experience that either caliber works great for deer. I don't know about the deer where you hunt, but I hunt in far northern Wisconsin and west central Illinois, and have taken a fair number of 300+ lb. deer with 7mm-08's from a few platforms (Browning BLR, Browning A-Bolt). I've never had one make it 50 yards yet.

I've read that the 7mm-08's ballistics are nearly identical to the .270 Win., and have also read that the .270 is considered to be a great antelope gun. the 7mm-08's recoil is pretty mild (that's why it was invented, for match shooters that didn't want to shoot as much .308 in practice due to the recoil punishment), and the short-action caliber makes it practical as a lightweight, carry-all-day kind of rifle. Both of my Brownings are very light, very maneuverable, and very accurate and consistent in 7mm-08. It's my favorite big-game round because of these factors.

The way I see it, Jack O'Connor shot pretty much every big-game animal in North America with a .270 Winchester. The 7mm-08 has the same ballistics with, across the range of ammo, bullets that weigh 10gr. more. As soon as I pull my bear tag in Wisconsin, I'm going to try it out on them, too! Hope this helps -- good luck!

Specialized

Float Pilot
August 26, 2007, 03:39 PM
eldon519
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-21-05
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 123 Based on Remington's factory ammo, 7mm Mauser is considerably less powerful than either their 7mm-08 or .280 offerings. Same with Hodgdon load data

1. The US companies will keep it that way due to the possibility of encountering an Old Remington Rolling Block, Model 93 or Model 95 Mauser in 7x57mm... and there are lots of them.

2. the Hodgdon book is pretty wimpy on many loads.


7 x 57mm (AKA 7mm Mauser) Loads for Ruger M-77s, Win M-70s, Mauser 98s, CZ-550s and the like, can be much warmer...

I load 50.0 grains of IMR 4350, a mag primer and a 150 grain Accubond for a consistant chronographed 2820 FPS from a 20 inch Douglas barrel. (M-98 Mauser) . 50 grains of RL-19 will do about the same thing...

A good 7mm-08 load of 47 grains of RL-19 (the Barnes Book) is only 75 fps less (2738fps) than the 7x57mm load using a 150 grain bullet.

The 280 Remington, also known as the 7mm express.. can be loaded about 75 fps faster than the 7x57mm using 150 grain bullets and RL-19, RL-22 or H-4831

The 7x57 and the 280 tend to be a little better for launching longer heavier bullets.

Due to the 7mm-08's current popularity, it is probably easier to find factory ammo for that compared to the other two...and it is a pretty accurate and consistant cartridge.

Duckbill
August 26, 2007, 03:43 PM
Based on Remington's factory ammo, 7mm Mauser is considerably less powerful than either their 7mm-08 or .280 offerings. Same with Hodgdon load data.

That's because there are a ton of small ring mausers out there chambered in 7x57. Their lawyers would be puckered up at the thought of releasing ammo or load data not safe for those old actions. Chambered in a LG ring mauser or modern action, the old 7mm mauser is capable of stout loads.


OOPS! Sorry Float Pilot. I must have been typing my reply at the same time as you. LOL!

eldon519
August 26, 2007, 03:52 PM
I am aware of that, but he never mentioned reloading as an option.

Duckbill
August 26, 2007, 07:51 PM
I am aware of that, but he never mentioned reloading as an option.

Same with Hodgdon load data.


HHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMM!

Bartkowski
August 26, 2007, 08:25 PM
But I prefer to use heavier-for-caliber bullets for most game work, and that means that I tend to prefer long action chamberings like the 280.


I like to do the same, and have no problem with a long action, for some reason I prefer them, or the guns weight and extra inch or so of bolt the come with long actions. I am not reloading at the moment but will be soon. The deer I hunt in southwest PA and northern WV aren't 300lbs and I know that both calibers will take them down. Basically I would like a Rem 700 in a non magnum 7mm walnut stock, blued barrel and a 24in barrel, and since they don't make one in .280, or 7x57, I was wondering how the 7-08 would compare to the .280.

eldon519
August 26, 2007, 08:59 PM
I brought up the Hodgdon data because it pretty much mimics factory loads. As Floating Pilot mentioned, they don't really push the limits. Look for yourself if you want. They usually don't have loads that can milk out that extra 100 fps or so like manuals from some of the bullet makers.

I suppose I probably should have explained that in the first post, but I didn't predict the conversation was going to run the course of what maximums could be reached with load data.

If you want to talk maximums, you can milk more performance pretty safely out of the .280 if you want. Like the .30-06, its max pressure is 60,000 psi. .270 has a max pressure of 65,000 psi. Same case diameter, same case head. If a rifle action can handle .270, it should handle .280 or .30-06 at 65kpsi. For comparison, .25-06 is 63kpsi.

If you enjoyed reading about "7-08 vs. .280" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!