280 Rem Ruger 77 Skeleton

[eagle rider]

I traded with a guy.... Anyone know much about 280 Rem? Has a VX1 on it.  Looking for info.  

[chrisw]

Garbage, unsafe too... I'll give you $150. Just kidding, I know 2 guys with that caliber, it's pretty much a 7mm's less popular brother, the deer won't know the difference. I like the less popular oddball calibers. Nice looking gun

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Pygmy]

I have one in a M70  Win lightweight ( laminate) That I bought in 1988 ..It has been all over the continent with me and killed everything from Alaska bull moose to woodchucks...  What do you want to know ?  I handload for it... It has never had a factory load fired in it..

[eagle rider]

I'm guessing it fits in somewhere between 270 Win and 30-06.  Not as much zip as the 270 and a bit less terminal energy than the 30-06?  I will probably shoot factory through it.  Not set up for 280 reloading yet.  What weight is preferred, I'm thinking 140 grain?

[Pygmy]

With equal bullet weights it will pretty much match either the 30-06 or the .270, in performance on game , recoil and trajectory...

Any differences would be splitting hairs..With good handloads it  comes very close to matching 7MM Rem Mag FACTORY ballistics, with less recoil and muzzle blast.

Generally, the 140 grain bullet is considered optimum in the .280...However it has enough case capacity  for good velocities with 160 and 175 grain bullets, if you prefer them on heavier game, such as elk or moose... I killed my Alaska moose with a 160 grain Nosler partition, but the great majority of the game I have shot with it was with 140 grain bullets..I am currently shooting the 140 Barnes TSSX  and I would not hesitate to shoot any hooved game on the continent with that load..

[eagle rider]

Thanks Pygmy.  The caliber has always been interesting to me.  If I did my homework right, when it was first introduced it was called the 7mm Remington Express and was their answer to the 270.  Correct.  For some reason it wasn't popular until they re released it in the late 1980's as the 280 Rem.  A friend uses it for deer and has always had good results at all ranges.  For me it will be a NY and Virginia deer round.  The rifle I had once before in 7 Rem Mag.  I wasn't a big fan of it then, but I think with some more years behind me I might light it better now.  

[Hock3y24]

Great round, will do anything a .270 will with a little heavier bullet. If you ever decided to sell I’d be interested.

[Buckmaster7600]

The 280 has suffered from middle child syndrome since its introduction as a 7mm express. Doesn't do anything better than its big and little brother but does everything they can do with the same bullet weights. It's a heck of a cartridge just with less fan fair. I reload for my pump and auto so I have no idea what the availability is for ammo but there's enough 280's around that there's gotta be ammo out there probably just not a dicks or Walmart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[airedale]

The 280 is a very good all around big game cartridge especially suited for light weight sporters with faster handling 22 inch barrels. I will echo everything Pygmy has said about it,  for me it's performance has been superb. Have had my rifle since the late 70s and have taken a bunch of Deer and several Moose with handloaded Nosler Partition 150 gr bullets moving just over 3000 FPS. 

The early 280 ammo was always slightly downloaded because it was chambered in the 740 and 742 autoloaders and 760 pumps so it was always thought to be a lesser cartridge than the 270 Winchester. The 7 mm Express was an attempt by Remington boost the rounds image powerwise as it was loaded to similar pressures as the 270, a big flop commercially to say the least.

Those Rugers with that style stock are affectionately known as  boat paddles, congratulations. 

Al

Edited December 10, 2017 by airedale

[Buckmaster7600]

The 280 is a very good all around big game cartridge especially suited for light weight sporters with faster handling 22 inch barrels. I will echo everything Pygmy has said about it,  for me it's performance has been superb. Have had my rifle since the late 70s and have taken a bunch of Deer and several Moose with handloaded Nosler Partition 150 gr bullets moving just over 3000 FPS. 
The early 280 ammo was always slightly downloaded because it was chambered in the 740 and 742 autoloaders and 760 pumps so it was always thought to be a lesser cartridge than the 270 Winchester. The 7 mm Express was an attempt by Remington boost the rounds image powerwise as it was loaded to similar pressures as the 270, a big flop commercially to say the least.
Those Rugers with that style stock are affectionately known as  boat paddles, congratulations. 
Al

That is interesting info on info on them being downloaded for the 742 and 760. I have never heard of that before. Not saying it isn't true but it doesn't make sense because they were also chambered in 270 and 30-06 so I wonder why they would have softened the 280?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[airedale]

I was working in a gun shop at the time and being a 280 owner myself I was especially interested in the 280 7mm Express controversy but the info below was basically what we were told.

The .280 was set at this lower pressure, it was 50,000 and introduced in Remington's semi-automatic and pump-action rifles of the 1950s, which were not designed for higher pressure.

In 1979 Remington introduced the 7mm Express in bolt-action rifles only,  and this round has a working pressure of 52,000 cup 2,000 cup more than the .280.

 A Remington reloading manual from 1980 and it lists both the 7mm Express and the .280 and shows the difference in max working pressure as listed above. Dimensionally they are the identical and if used in old autoloaders the lower pressure load of the .280 should be used, but in modern bolt action and semi-auto rifles 52,000 cup or so, the pressure design of the 7mm Express and could be used.

The 7mm Express and new .280 are being condemned to the lower pressure of the 1950s .280 pressure loads which I see in most reloading manuals in the 48,000 cup range and this cheats the 7mm Express owners and .280 bolt action rifle owners out of the potential of this excellent cartridge.

Factory ammo listed the 150 gr bullet at 2900 fps for the 280, the 7mm Express at 2970 fps

The whole deal created a lot of confusion

Al
 

Edited December 10, 2017 by airedale

[bugsNbows]

Likin' the old boat paddle stock. U can't hurt those things. Tough as nails. Congrats.

[Buckmaster7600]

I was working in a gun shop at the time and being a 280 owner myself I was especially interested in the 280 7mm Express controversy but the info below was basically what we were told.
The .280 was set at this lower pressure because it was 50,000 introduced in Remington's semi-automatic and pump-action rifles of the 1950s, which were not designed for higher pressure.
In 1979 Remington introduced the 7mm Express in bolt-action rifles only,  and this round as has a working pressure of 52,000 cup 2,000 cup more than the .280.
 A Remington reloading manual from 1980 and it lists both the 7mm Express and the .280 and shows the difference in max working pressure as listed above. Dimensionally they are the identical and if used in old autoloaders the lower pressure load of the .280 should be used, but in modern bolt action and semi-auto rifles 52,000 cup or so, the pressure design of the 7mm Express and could be used.
The 7mm Express and new .280 are being condemned to the lower pressure of the 1950s .280 pressure loads which I see in most reloading manuals in the 48,000 cup range and this cheats the 7mm Express owners and .280 bolt action rifle owners out of the potential of this excellent cartridge.
Factory ammo listed the 150 gr bullet at 2900 fps for the 280, the 7mm Express at 2970 fps
The whole deal created a lot of confusion
Al
 

Again I'm not saying it isn't true but it still doesn't make sense because the 740 came out 2yrs before the7mm express and the 740 was introduced in other "high pressure" cartridges 270 and 30-06. Interesting info for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pygmy]

Those boat paddle stocks are as ugly as a side order of s**t..

Even the sling swivels are ugly  !!

However, being a  wood and blued steel kinda guy, I am admittedly prejudiced...

Some guys love the boat paddles, and I  admit the synthetic/ stainless combo is certainly very functional..

As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beerholder....Hehehehe...

[airedale]

22 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

Again I'm not saying it isn't true but it still doesn't make sense because the 740 came out 2yrs before the7mm express and the 740 was introduced in other "high pressure" cartridges 270 and 30-06. Interesting info for sure.

A couple of things, I do not believe factory 30-06 ammo is loaded to quite the same pressures as the 270 Winchester factory loads, it is a bit lower. Also I may be wrong but I don't think the 740 Remington was chambered in 270. 

Your concerns and everything not making sense is exactly why the whole 7 mm Express fiasco was scrapped.

Al

 

[Buckmaster7600]

Those boat paddle stocks are as ugly as a side order of s**t..
Even the sling swivels are ugly  !!
However, being a  wood and blued steel kinda guy, I am admittedly prejudiced...
Some guys love the boat paddles, and I  admit the synthetic/ stainless combo is certainly very functional..
As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beerholder....Hehehehe...

They certainly are "different". I have one in 358win. I did a bunch of research and could never figure out if that was the stock that came on it originally but I can imagine anyone wanting to put one on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Buckmaster7600]

A couple of things, I do not believe factory 30-06 ammo is loaded to quite the same pressures as the 270 Winchester factory loads, it is a bit lower. Also I may be wrong but I don't think the 740 Remington was chambered in 270. 
Your concerns and everything not making sense is exactly why the whole 7 mm Express fiasco was scrapped.
Al
 

You are correct on the 270 I was thinking 742 and the 06 is a touch lower pressure but hard to believe enough to make the difference. I completely agree with the 7mm express being a fiasco! It's a good thing Remington made good guns because they lost plenty of money with failed cartridges!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[airedale]

15 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

It's a good thing Remington made good guns because they lost plenty of money with failed cartridges!

Another similar boner was the 244 Remington-6mm Remington marketing screwup, it is on paper better than the 243 Winchester in just about every way  but because of the way it was marketed and guns it was chambered in it has come upon hard times and just about in the obsolete pile.

Don't know how true it is but those boat paddle  stainless steel Rugers are said to be extremely popular in Alaska.

Al

Edited December 10, 2017 by airedale

[Pygmy]

39 minutes ago, airedale said:

Another similar boner was the 244 Remington-6mm Remington marketing screwup, it is on paper better than the 243 Winchester in just about every way  but because of the way it was marketed and guns it was chambered in it has come upon hard times and just about in the obsolete pile.

Don't know how true it is but those boat paddle  stainless steel Rugers are said to be extremely popular in Alaska.

Al

Probably a perfect Alaska rifle....Tougher than a hog's nose....Throw them in the bottom of the raft, use them (literally) as a paddle or a wading staff...

Can't HURT the damn things... Add the fact that the 77 action functioned well and the rifles are generally very accurate...I have had several M77s and all but one were sub -MOA rifles...