Whatever I get needs to be able to take elk, but not be "overkill" for smaller game like deer (maybe even smaller). I probably won't shoot at anything past 300 yards (in fact this is probably going to be a 200 yard or less rifle), but I'd like it to be able to go out to 400 yards and still have some punch left.
So here is the question: Would you consider the .280 (fired from 26 inch barrel) an Elk round?
If you enjoyed reading about "Looking for a one size fits all rifle..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
November 6, 2003, 12:58 AM
do you think you could edit the poll for me? I meant to type "Do you think...", not "do you..." in the title. Sorry...
November 6, 2003, 01:01 AM
BAR Stalker w/BOSS in .300 Win.Mag.
There's an elk rifle with power, reach, and accuracy.
Stealthy looking unit, too.
November 6, 2003, 01:10 AM
[clears throat] From the Speer Reloading Manual, number 13, page 237:
"The .280 is one of the finest hunting cartridges around, capable of taking any North American game with the exception of the great bears."
I'll take that as a "yes."
They go on to say its more versatile than a .270 because it'll hande a wider variety of bullet weights.
November 6, 2003, 01:47 AM
Thats one cool looking rifle, but sadly, way out of my price range. I'm looking at getting an NEF single shot rifle. They arn't fancy, but should get the job done. I've alreadly got one in .22 WMR and have been impressed with it.
I'm also trying to stay away from "magnums", for 2 reasons: 1, I reload and mag calibers take way more powder per round, and 2, I don't want it to be overkill for deer hunting. Oh, and 3, they don't make NEF rifles in any Magnum calibers anyway...
November 6, 2003, 09:46 PM
I've been thinking about one of those singleshots. I was thinking a diffrent cal. but I would think your allright. Shot placement being more of a concearn.
November 6, 2003, 10:35 PM
A fine cartridge for your purposes, tho ammo is less ubiquitous than the .270. Do you have any Sport's Authority's near you? Around here, they are clearing out Federal Premium Nosler's for the .280 at abt $13/box - a screaming deal.
November 6, 2003, 11:55 PM
If you are on a budget (ala Handi-Rifle), you should consider the .308. Much cheaper ammo and greater selection. The Handi-Rifle comes in standard, target or the survivor in .308. I have a Handi-Rifle in 45/70 and it shoots fine. I have no complaints about HR. The beauty of the Handi-Rifle is that you can order different barrels (which contains the receiver) and change them. Once you get it down, try some Hornady .308 light magnums. The handi-rifle can take the pressure.
November 7, 2003, 04:43 AM
One thing I do need to clear up is ammo cost and supply will not be an issue, I reload...
November 7, 2003, 09:04 AM
Yes, depending upon range and shot placement.
November 7, 2003, 09:12 AM
Isn't shot placement always a concern, no matter what the caliber?
November 7, 2003, 06:55 PM
To those of you voting no or maybe, could I ask why? I'd like to know what the drawbacks of this caliber are...
I still have plenty of time to decide if I want this rilfe or not (I plan to buy it with the Chirstmas Money my relatives send me), so the more info I have the better...
I almost forgot to ask:
Has anyone here shot an elk (or similar sized animal?) with a .280? What were the results?
November 7, 2003, 07:14 PM
Seems to me that Mike Irwin's comment in your other thread is a pretty good answer. A key part of the deal for elk would be the quality of the bullet, getting good penetration.
To digress: I've killed a few deer with a.270, and a lot more with a .243. If I'm really serious about what I'm after, though, I'll take my '06. With my handloads, the results have always been extremely predictable. No, I've never shot an elk, but I wouldn't worry a bit about loading up some 180s and setting out.
I dunno. Unless there's just that certain "something" about the .280 for you, I'd go the '06 route. But that's just me.
November 7, 2003, 07:18 PM
There are no real drawbacks. It is slightly more potent (slightly) than the .270 or the 7mm-08. There are far more cartridges commercially available for the .270, and the 7mm-08 is getting there. It is all about choises and where you want to be
November 7, 2003, 07:27 PM
"Unless there's just that certain "something" about the .280 for you, I'd go the '06 route. But that's just me."
Well I'm about 90% sure I want a .280, and I've read up on it in my reloading manuals and all that. I just wanted to see what peoples "real world" resulsts have been with it. Just becuase it looks good on paper doesn't mean it's really going to be good, ya know?
The "certain somthing" about the .280 for me is
1: the rifle I'm going to be getting, if I go the .280 route, will have a longer barrel than that same rifle in another caliber
2: I just think it would be neat to try something different. Everyone has a .30-06 or .308 or .270, but .280 is a bit more "unusual". For most people that can be a drawback, but since I handload I can just make my own ammo...
November 7, 2003, 07:30 PM
Speaking of looking good on paper, I just pucnhed this up on remingtons website: