.280

[jimmyraythomason]

partridge(Ruffed Grouse)

FWIW,in Alabama "partridge" refers to Bobwhite quail. The older gents just call them "birds". Everyone here understands that "bird hunting" refers to quail. There are very few grouse and woodcock and waterfowl hunting isn't very big here.

 

[Hudge]

I love my .280. I have hunted elk with it using 150 gr. partitions, thought I never connected with an elk, they have taken a few whitetails with no problems, same goes for 140 gr. BT.

 

[SwampWolf]

Because some of the foregoing discussion centered around Jack O'Connor's affection for the .270 Winchester and his opinion of the .280 Remington when comparing the two rounds as well as the compatibility (or lack thereof) of the two cartridges in terms of loading them into rifles with different chambers, I thought the following excerpt from his book The Hunting Rifle might be of interest to some posters: " There is no particular magic in a .277 bullet or in the .270 case...the .280 Remington (is) so much like the .270 ballistically that if similar bullets are used any differences between the (two) cartridges would be a matter of imagination.
"...these two cartridges are flat shooting, relatively mild as to recoil, and with bullets of proper weight and construction have enough killing power for any North American big game.
"Ballistically (both) cartridges are almost identical. The .270 uses bullets with a diameter of .277 inch and the .280 mikes .284. A hair-splitter could make a case for the .270 by saying that with a bullet of the same weight the sectional density would be superior to that of the slightly larger .284 bullet. The same hair-splitter could also say that the bullet with a diameter of .284 had a little more area for the powder gas to push on and made a little bigger hole in the game. Actually any difference in the bullets lie largely in the realm of theory.
"And any difference in the cartridges themselves is likewise largely theoretical. The .270 and the .280 both have the same shoulder slope as the 30/06: 17o, 30'. The .280 case is a trifle longer from head to shoulder so it is impossible to get a .280 case into a .270 rifle and fire it. If this could be done, pressure caused by the .280 bullet in the .270 barrel might be pretty high. It is possible to fire a .270 cartridge in the .280 chamber. The headspace is excessive, but the extractor will generally hold the cartridge against the blow of the firing pin. As would be expected, the accuracy of the .277 bullet in a .284 barrel would be pretty sad.
"The .270 and the .280 cartridges look so much alike that it takes a sharp eye to detect any difference..."

Another cartridge that looks awfully similar to the .280 is the 7X64 Brenneke. This cartridge also pretty much replicates the ballistics of the .280 (and .270).

 

[TexasPatriot.308]

I got a couple of .22-250s and with a 64 grain Winchester, took lots of deer and hogs with lung shots at over 150 yds. also easy to be accurate due to low recoil to put one thru their ears....then again I shoot big pigs with a .17hmr all the time.

 

[lefteyedom]

So Sorry that your coworker gave you such a shoddy rifle in a total useless chambering for your retirement. Tell you what I will do for you. I will pay all the shipping charges and FFL fees and you can just send that eyesore to me. That way you never have to feel ashamed and under-gunned. I have nice mixed bag of Kmart and sears golf clubs that I will send you in trade ;}

 

[Art Eatman]

Looks like this has wandered far enough off the path...