280 Remington

I have the Remington Model FOUR rifle which is a semi-automatic, magazine fed in the 280 Remington caliber. no longer made.
The Model Four rifle was the last model made which started out as a Rem 740, then the 742.
It is fed by a 4 round magazine for hunting deer, elk,etc.
I found on the internet 15 round magazines. I have 4 of them loaded and ready.
This is kept ready next to my AR-15 just in case I want to use a heavier caliber. Don't need to buy a 300 Blackout !!

mrchuck said:

I have the Remington Model FOUR rifle which is a semi-automatic, magazine fed in the 280 Remington caliber. no longer made.
The Model Four rifle was the last model made which started out as a Rem 740, then the 742.
It is fed by a 4 round magazine for hunting deer, elk,etc.
I found on the internet 15 round magazines. I have 4 of them loaded and ready.
This is kept ready next to my AR-15 just in case I want to use a heavier caliber. Don't need to buy a 300 Blackout !!

Click to expand...

Don't hear of the Model Four mentioned much mrchuck. Bought mine in 81 in .270 Win. Beautiful finished rifles and is one of my favorites. Read around 68,000 were made total from 81-87. COst me around $400 back then. Often go for decent money on Gunbroker

I have a Rem 7400 in .270 Win which is an excellent and reliable rifle which groups like a bolt action. I probably would not have bought it were it chambered in .280. One big reason is that .270 ammo can be bought about anywhere ammo is sold. Not so with .280/7mm Express.

If I remember my readings correctly, I think this ctg, was introduced as the 7mm-06, but it was decided that, since it used a different headspace dimension, it was no longer the '06 profile, and the name was changed to .280 Remington. The name was changed to 7mm Express Remington, not 7mm Remington Express, to avoid confusion with the 7mm RM. Well, people confused 'em anyway, and apparently somebody managed to chamber and fire one in a Magnum chamber and took Remington to court. So the name reverted to .280 Remington. As a side note, a true 7mm-06 was one of the wildcats worked up by Charley O'Neil, Elmer Keith and Don Hopkins. They called it the .285 O.K.H. and it was a .30-06 necked to 7mm with no other changes. I built one on a 1909 Mauser a few years ago using a .280 reamer cutting to '06 headspace. Found a pair of original RCBS dies for 7mm-06 at a gun show unused. Formed my cases w/a single pass into the sizer/decapper/expander with a final trim to '06 length. Fine cartridge !

Larry

THe ancestor of the .280 was the 7X64 mm Brenneke, introduced in Germany about 1917. But the two aren't actually interchangeable.


Remington wanted a round to compete with the .270 Winchester, and that's what they chose.


Supposedly, it was initially loaded to milder pressures, to let it work in the M-742, but later Remington auto rifles chambered .270, so I guess it wasn't as big an issue as was thought.


The 7mm-08 is another good one, but if you want 160-175 grain bullets, the .280 is a better choice. Longer case; holds more powder and has a longer neck to hold the longer bullets better. At most hunting ranges and with 140 grain bullets, it doesn't make much difference.


The .275 Rigby is just the 7X57mm as loaded for Rigby with that firm's patented bullets. Both 175 grain and faster 140 grain .275 loads have been made.


One post above says that the .30-06 ruins too much meat, but the .280 doesn't. All of these cartridges with comparable velocity and bullet construction do very similar damage.


The 7X61 S&H, 7mm Weatherby, and 7mm Remington and 7mm Mashburn Magnums are hotter.

gregintenn said:

They seem to work well!

Click to expand...

Please describe the scope. Might that be a Leupold 2.5-8X? My son had one for a time on a Browning .30-06 and it was an excellent, versatile scope.


I like your rifle. Mine's in .270.

Here's a few pictures:
Jim

That's a prize, Italiansport!

Texas Star, It is indeed a 2.5x8 Vari X 3. They're solid scopes in my opinion.

gregintenn said:

That's a prize, Italiansport!

Texas Star, It is indeed a 2.5x8 Vari X 3. They're solid scopes in my opinion.

Click to expand...

What weight and type bullet in .280 do you usually favor? For general .270 use, I like Federal's Premium stuff with 150 grain Nosler Partitions.


Not sure who offers what in .280.

280 was a attempt to outdo the 270 Win, typical Remington
marketing, change to 7mm Express, back to 280. It's called
beating a dead dog. They almost did the same thing with 244
to 6mm Rem, trying to get some 243 Win customers. There is
not enough practical advantage in a 280 to sell your 270 to get
one. I had buddies do just that. The 270 is a classic that will be
around a long time, the 280 will fade away.

Drm50 said:

280 was a attempt to outdo the 270 Win, typical Remington
marketing, change to 7mm Express, back to 280. It's called
beating a dead dog. They almost did the same thing with 244
to 6mm Rem, trying to get some 243 Win customers. There is
not enough practical advantage in a 280 to sell your 270 to get
one. I had buddies do just that. The 270 is a classic that will be
around a long time, the 280 will fade away.

Click to expand...

Dislike.

Texas Star said:

THe ancestor of the .280 was the 7X64 mm Brenneke, introduced in Germany about 1917. But the two aren't actually interchangeable.


Remington wanted a round to compete with the .270 Winchester, and that's what they chose.


Supposedly, it was initially loaded to milder pressures, to let it work in the M-742, but later Remington auto rifles chambered .270, so I guess it wasn't as big an issue as was thought.


The 7mm-08 is another good one, but if you want 160-175 grain bullets, the .280 is a better choice. Longer case; holds more powder and has a longer neck to hold the longer bullets better. At most hunting ranges and with 140 grain bullets, it doesn't make much difference.


The .275 Rigby is just the 7X57mm as loaded for Rigby with that firm's patented bullets. Both 175 grain and faster 140 grain .275 loads have been made.


One post above says that the .30-06 ruins too much meat, but the .280 doesn't. All of these cartridges with comparable velocity and bullet construction do very similar damage.


The 7X61 S&H, 7mm Weatherby, and 7mm Remington and 7mm Mashburn Magnums are hotter.

Click to expand...

Everything Texas Star said is exactly what I was going to say. Sort of scary.

The 270 had a huge start and proved its worth long before REM opted for a similar round. The original 280 load was a milder round and was a handloaders dream.

Winchester still had the lead on cartridges until the 7mm Mashburn, oops sorry, the 7mm Rem Mag.

Winchesters idea for the 243 also beat Remington's on their 244. Winchester envisioned a deer/varmint round and rem thought varmint and used a twist, 1/12, that did not stabilize 100 grain bullets and lost that caliber to WIN also. Now the 244 is known as the 6 mm REM. I have always wanted one, I bought a set of dies, never ran across a nice used one reasonable. Still have the dies.

My brother had a Rem 700 BDL in 280 and bagged quite a few deer with it, he gave it to his SIL a year ago so he have a nice deer rifle.

I went short and have 2 Kimber 7mm-08's, one is actually the wife's. Deadly on deer.

DWalt said:

Remington renamed the cartridge as the 7 mm Express in 1979 in an attempt to increase sales. The .280 never really caught on under either name. I could never understand how anyone could consider it as being materially better for any hunting purpose than the graybeard .270 Win, except for a 0.007" larger diameter bullet.

Click to expand...

The bullet selection in .284" is much better for the hand loader than the bullet selection in .277".

In addition, whether you are a hand loader or factory ammo user, the BCs are generally better in .284" in any given weight and .284" is overall a bit of a ballistic sweet spot for external ballistics.

The .280 Remington can also handle spire point bullets in the 160-165 gr weight range as well as the 175 gr weight range. In contrast I am only aware of two commercial loads heavier than 150 grains for the .270 Win and they are both only 156 gr bullets.

The .280 Remington will push 154 gr bullets as fast as the best 150 gr .270 Win loads and manny of the 160-162 grain .280 Rem loads are as fast as the 150 gr .270 Win loads.

The only real advantage the .270 has is in the lighter weight bullets as the .280 Remington only drops down to 139-140 grains for most commercial loads and I am only aware of a single 125 gr commercial load. The .270 Win however can be found in 110, 120 and 130 grain loads.

In short, unless you are trying to do double duty as a 110 gr varmint rifle, there is nothing the .270 Winchester will do that the .280 Remington won't do better.

But sadly, the .270 Winchester had Jack O'conner singing it's praises and it had a 32 year head start on the .280 Remington and the .280 has never quite overcome those factors.

But it's clearly a better cartridge than the .270 Win.

The .280 Remington also compares very well to the .30-06. It has better sectional density and penetration in any given weight and usually has a better BC than a similar bullet in .30-06.

The main advantage with the '06 is the ability to shoot 180 and 200 spire points and round nose bullets up to 220 grains.

Texas Star said:

What weight and type bullet in .280 do you usually favor? For general .270 use, I like Federal's Premium stuff with 150 grain Nosler Partitions.


Not sure who offers what in .280.

Click to expand...

140 grain Seirra Game King over 51grains of IMR 4350,

I bought a new Ruger M77R in .280 Remington back in 1980. I outfitted it with a Redfield Widefield Low Profile 2x7 scope, the one with the "TV screen" lenses. It was very accurate with most bullets and I hunted with a max load of IMR4831 and Sierra 140 grain boattails for several seasons. As others mentioned, the availability of bullet weights and construction types from 140 to 175 grains is pretty substantial compared to what you can use in a .270. Besides, I was a big Elmer Keith fan back then and knowing his disdain for Jack O'Connor there was no way I would buy a .270.

I have a Browining 7mm rem mag about 15 years old with a boss & a 3x9 50 Leupold scope that has been carried a lot but low ammo count. It says 7mm rem mag only on the barrel. & MADE IN JAPAN. No reloads ever.

Walter Rego said:

I bought a new Ruger M77R in .280 Remington back in 1980. I outfitted it with a Redfield Widefield Low Profile 2x7 scope, the one with the "TV screen" lenses. It was very accurate with most bullets and I hunted with a max load of IMR4831 and Sierra 140 grain boattails for several seasons. As others mentioned, the availability of bullet weights and construction types from 140 to 175 grains is pretty substantial compared to what you can use in a .270. Besides, I was a big Elmer Keith fan back then and knowing his disdain for Jack O'Connor there was no way I would buy a .270.

Click to expand...

Some of that disdain was Elmer resenting Jack's superior education and his having scored the prize job of being shooting editor at, Outdoor Life. Askins resented Jack for replacing his father at OL.


O'Connor was a superb writer and found the .270 very effective. But many forget that he also owned and used .338, .375, and .416 rifles. Had two 7mm Remington Magnums, too, one a fine custom rifle. But he felt the .270 could do most of that work with less weight and fuss.


We need to acknowledge the impact that Warren Page had in promoting 6mm and 7mm Magnum calibers. He was a former master in English at a private school, and was shooting editor at, Field & Stream.

O`Connor later in life paid homage to the 280 with words to the effect that if one was looking for a new rifle the 280 would be his choice but if one currently had a .270 there would be little reason to make that move. Can`t remember entirely but he was speaking of an all-around rifle (my words).

Texas Star said:

Some of that disdain was Elmer resenting Jack's superior education and his having scored the prize job of being shooting editor at, Outdoor Life. Askins resented Jack for replacing his father at OL.


O'Connor was a superb writer and found the .270 very effective. But many forget that he also owned and used .338, .375, and .416 rifles. Had two 7mm Remington Magnums, too, one a fine custom rifle. But he felt the .270 could do most of that work with less weight and fuss.


We need to acknowledge the impact that Warren Page had in promoting 6mm and 7mm Magnum calibers. He was a former master in English at a private school, and was shooting editor at, Field & Stream.

Click to expand...

The reading I have done pretty well agrees with what you've said. Jack did load and use both the '06 and 7mm rounds.

He used Springfield and Mauser actions. The M-70 gave him the best of both worlds and came ready to use from the factory.

He also liked 2 WBY cartridges, the 257 and 300. My gut feeling is he did not like being part of Roy's marketing plans.

If Rem had brought out the 280 operating at higher pressure like a 270 their 7 mag would not have been necessary, but the 7 mag set the world on fire until handloaders discovered they could get similar performance in the 280 with less powder, recoil and weight.

The biggest change today is better constructed bullets. Yes the 280 has a larger selection but for most of what both bullets do, the game will never know the difference between a 130 277 or a 140 284 using Nosler partitions for example.

I shot a deer several days ago with my Win pre-64 M-70 (for the O'Connor fans) in 270. Hit it in the heart while it was moving in a fast walk. Dead center of the heart. It was a Sierra or Speer 130 grain bullet in a high velocity round, 200 FPS faster than the factory speed. It went thru the heart and did not open till it hit the far rib cage. I watched it run flat out for 75 yards until it fell dead.

On that shot I could have used, fill in the cartridge, anything and the end result would have been the same. I have made the same exact shot with many other calibers.

The only difference is I like my old M-70, it was my Dad's, it is accurate and has a built in lure for buck deer.

Dad loved his 270, but he was an engineer and read all he could on cartridges/ballistics, when I was young he wanted me to get a 284 Winchester. He said it should do all the 270 can and more.

I never bought a 284 but now have 2 Kimber 84's in 7mm-08, it is pretty awesome for a short feller.

There are many cartridges that all are close to ballistic twins, all fit in that middle ground mostly for Deer, 243 to 30-06 and I think the only real difference is the marketing kool aid given to us so we will be interested in buying another gun.

"They almost did the same thing with 244 to 6mm Rem, trying to get some 243 Win customers."

As previously discussed, Remington screwed up pretty badly by coming out with a rifle with a barrel twist rate too slow to stabilize heavier bullets. They later woke up (but too late) and tightened the twist, so they felt it was necessary to change the cartridge name.

" I could never understand how anyone could consider it as being materially better for any hunting purpose than the graybeard .270 Win, except for a 0.007" larger diameter bullet."

My comment above pertains to the average American hunter who uses factory rifles and ammunition, and does not reload. And there are lots of those. Indeed, there is no advantage of using the .280 over the .270 if one's hunting is for typical game and at distances for which one would use a .30-'06-class caliber (.270, .308, and .30-'06). And .270 ammunition is far easier to find and cheaper in most areas. Last night at Wal Mart there was not a single box of .280/7mm Express. And probably a dozen boxes of .270 in 130 and 150 grain.