.

270 Win. vs. 280 Rem. brass . . .

Alan RushingAlan Rushing Member Posts: 9,002 ✭✭
Other than the headstamps, is there any significant differences in the 280 (Rem) brass vs. the 270 (Win) brass.

ie. are there any significant reasons for NOT using and reforming .270 brass for use in a 280 ... other than the headstamp differences?

Comments

  • AmbroseAmbrose Member Posts: 2,719 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There IS a reason for not using .270 brass formed to .280. The .280 has a longer case body, ie., head to shoulder. Therefore, headspace would be excessive. You could make it work by necking up the brass to .30 cal. and then necking them back down to .280 leaving a secondary shoulder to headspace on. But that would hardly be worth the effort.
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,599
    edited November -1
    Ambrose,

    "Hardly worth the effort" depends on what you are trying to do. For hunting where fine accuracy isn't as critical, load after load then, NO, it isn't worth the effort. Loaded normally, not hot, Rem brass will work for that.

    However, if you are looking for better brass I wouldn't hesitate to make myself a complete matched set of brass out of Winchester .270 to .280 Rem. It's just better brass in general, IMO. I will note though that the last three years of Winchester brass, I've gotten a lot more spotty pieces I've had to to toss.

    With those two things in mind, I would say it's decision time. Waste the time and energy when it's not needed, vs. do it if it is. Or, take your chances on accuracy (fine target, not hunting) and case life if you use these for any competitions.
  • nononsensenononsense Member, Moderator Posts: 10,648 ******
    edited November -1
    Alan Rushing,

    "Other than the headstamps, is there any significant differences in the 280 (Rem) brass vs. the 270 (Win) brass."

    No, at least not on the level where most of us function. I'm sure that some metallurgist somewhere could point out some insignificant details about the metallurgy of the two brands but on the consumers side, there isn't a bit of difference IN OVERALL QUALITY. I and many other will refer to specific batches of brass as being good or unacceptable but we usually lump the two manufacturers together. I know professionally sponsored competitors who test several batches of brass at one time then sell the batches that don't make their grade.

    I have both headstamps in my inventory for various reasons. Are either my first choice? NO.

    Under a certain set of circumstances, either brand will suffice for the need at hand and meet the price requirement. However, it can come down to how selective I need to be for the use. Then the rejection rate can make the difference in which brand I choose. If the rejection rate approaches 50% of the batch (which it does on occasion) then it's a good bet that I will go with Lapua instead.

    Given the life of the better brass including the increased cost, I simply buy less of it, especially if it's for a hunting rifle. Two boxes or 40 pieces of brass is sufficient for one rifle's use for a very long time.

    "are there any significant reasons for NOT using and reforming .270 brass for use in a 280 ... other than the headstamp differences?"

    There are two camps for this discussion:

    -Those that enjoy cartridge conversions.

    -Those that reject the opportunity to convert cartridge case.

    If you enjoy the conversion process, have at it. Just be aware of the dimensional differences between the two and work safely.

    Personally, I don't see any net gain. On the other hand, I don't shoot either of these cartridges. I know it's considered blasphemous but I've never owned nor will I ever own a .270 Win. The .280 Rem. is supplanted by better cases because I shoot the 7x64 Brenneke. The two cartridges are twins for all intent and purpose but I prefer the European (Scandinavian) cases. I also happen to own a superb example of a Mauser Guild rifle chambered for the 7x64 Brenneke...

    If you decide to make the effort to convert some of the brass, enjoy! The only noticeable difference will be in consistency of the converted cases since all of them will have been fireformed in your chamber.

    Best.
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,599
    edited November -1
    No .270? OOOHHH the blasphemy[:0][:0]....[:D][:D]

    Seriously, like you, I never really intended to get a .270. That was until I started shooting my brothers' .270 WSM. I got him some Berger 140's and we went to town reloading them. Needless to say I was impressed. Impressed enough that I thought I would go back and see exactly how good the .270 Winchester was. So far I have to say I'm impressed with it as well. While it doesn't measure up to my lower powered 7mm-08 and 7x57 with high BC bullets, it does a lot better than any other caliber I have with similar stubby (6-7R ogive) bullets.

    Anyhow, I would love to own a 7x64 Brenneke, especially if it was anywhere close to the one I think you've shown us in your signature line for a while.[;)][8D]

    I would disagree on the quality equality between Remington and Winchester. I find the Remingtons have softer heads. I have also found they misform worse after a number of reloads. In the same dies I run the Winchester cases through.

    While Norma has better consistency and overall quality, they do have that nagging little issue about soft heads as well. I find I can't bring the loads up near to max like I can with Winchester. The second time around when the head has been work hardened I can bring the load up a little.

    I'll go on to say that if Lapua made this brass, we no doubt wouldn't even be having this discussion. If Alan could neck down 30-06 it would be great. Unfortunately, the people who came up with the .280 opted for case length rather than shoulder width to keep the two cartridges from interchanging.

    Alan,

    All that said, nononsense is correct in that Norma cases will give you the best consistency overall. Don't load them hot to start out with and you won't lose cases. Stick to more of a slower powder to develop your velocity. FWIW, I'm on my 7-8th reloading with my .308 Norma cases in my .308 Norma Magnum (aka~~~"The Snake"~~)[:D]
  • MobuckMobuck Member Posts: 11,557 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The biggest reason for not using .270 brass to make 280 brass is the possibility of one of those loaded cases managing to chamber in a .270 in the future and causing an accident. However small the chance it is not worth the possibility.
    I make it a policy to use brass with a caliber headstamp different from any I commonly reload as the basis for reforming for this reason.
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,599
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Mobuck
    The biggest reason for not using .270 brass to make 280 brass is the possibility of one of those loaded cases managing to chamber in a .270 in the future and causing an accident. However small the chance it is not worth the possibility.
    I make it a policy to use brass with a caliber headstamp different from any I commonly reload as the basis for reforming for this reason.


    You have a valid point there. That if for some chance the .270 Win was necked 'a bit too big' a .280 could fit in there. In all seriousness I have seen necks big enough to allow that so I won't say it couldn't happen. In this case, one would have to be vigilant in keeping that set of brass separate from any 'mass loadings/cleanings' that are sometimes a part of reloading. What you brought up is an excellent point. Mixing brass/reloads has led to 'issues' in the past. Double-diligence is needed if that is the way to go. I say this as the .284 Win is often necked up to make 7.5 Swiss. Not at all common. Yet, you see the chance for something to happen....
  • MobuckMobuck Member Posts: 11,557 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thank You,
    Many see my diligence as quirky and weird. They simply don't follow the workings of Murphy's Law.
  • Hawk CarseHawk Carse Member Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Probably 30 years ago there was a fad to build a nice sporting rifle in .280 Rem on a Mauser action. It took little or no action work to get it to handle .280 versus the modifications required for 7mm Mag; the gunsmith could put his time and the customer's money into fit and finish instead of mere mechanics. They looked good in the gunzine centerfolds.

    The other side of that was reforming Winchester .270 WCF brass to .280 because it was stronger and would stand greater overloads without "pressure signs." This let the proud owner, gunsmith, and author proudly advertise "It equals the 7mm Magnum, at least with bullets up to 154 grains." Probably did, too, and stood the proof load pressures long enough to go hunting a couple of times and retire to the gun case proudly displaying the battle scars in its French Polish.
  • AmbroseAmbrose Member Posts: 2,719 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Remington deliberately made the case body of the .280 .050" longer than that of the .270, as I mentioned in the previous posting, to prevent a .280 cartridge entering a .270 chamber. While I suppose it may be possible, with a good deal of force, to get one in there I think I would notice that something was wrong before I * the trigger.

    But I agree; I like to keep the headstamps matching the rifle whenever possible.
  • Alan RushingAlan Rushing Member Posts: 9,002 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I've used some care but had been unabashedly remanufacturing all of the brass that I could into Folks, thank you all for all the good feedback. I can always glean new info, thoughts and ideas.

    Many years ago when I used my 25-06 Ackley incessantly, near any brass I had that could be, was converted for that rifles ravenous diet. Everything possible was made into it's fodder.

    I did not shoot a 270, 280, 30-06 or 35 Whelen, nor did I have any such critters. My hunting buddies figured that they were not interested in shooting my 25-06 handloads ... and then the 40 degree shoulder was about like a flashing neon light.

    My cousin and his family have some rifles and some variety in their chamberings including 30-06, but only the 280 Ackley ... no 270s, (thank you Jack O'Conner!).

    Seems that there are fewer people pushing and crowing about the 270 since his passing.

    Seems few folk shooting the classic 270 or seems that at least not shooting of the 270s these days.

    Seems to be a decent supply of 270 brass, new or used.

    Be quite a shame to leave that stuff laying about ... not being used and not being useful.

    Figure that if the sharp shoulder is not clue enough ... all 270 and/or 280 headstamps will be quite the clue that they're to feed his Ackley ... not any of the 30-06s.

    I tend towards loading my own and shooting my own. Load with care and lable well and with care. I'm not likely to be one to ever criticize others for using more care and caution than I do.

    ===============================================

    Regarding reloading and reloads, the only "incident" of sorts, involved the acquaintance of the brother of my hunting partner. He had heisted a box of my 25-06 Ackley handloads ... and was informing his audience that I (yours truly) did not know anything about loading ammunition, seeing as how his bolt would not go to battery with my ammunition!

    Yeah, he was in the middle of telling them that a 25-06 is a 25-06 and he ought to be able to use it in his rifle ... if not, the ammo was no good and the maker was no good.

    I unabashedly shared my knowledge that a thief is a thief regardless of what they call themselves.

    Quite an educational outing!

    =================================================

    ( .308 brass being quite available ... was all resized into .243. All of my belted brass transformed into 7mm mag. Found it difficult to misconstrue or mix-up the loads I made versus the rifles that I had back then.

    =================================================

    Thanks for all of the info and feedback; it all helps.
  • deadeye46deadeye46 Member Posts: 600 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    i use 270 brass for my 270 rifle,280 brass for 280 rifle,30-06 brass for 30-06 rifle,25-06 brass for 25-06 rifle,i don't want any future problems,just my .02 SAFETY FIRST
  • nononsensenononsense Member, Moderator Posts: 10,648 ******
    edited November -1
    This is not an either/or topic, it has multiple answers and opinions depending on the relative experiences of the reloader or non-reloader.

    It's important to understand that there are folks who want and need to have the absolutes of the proper cartridge designation on the bottom of every case that they use for a specific rifle or pistol. These same folks would likely not own anything resembling a wildcat of any design because of this need. Consider how many cartridges that are currently produced in the factory wouldn't exist if we all adhered to this thinking. Bear in mind that there are other who are just the opposite and have processes in place which enable them to make some brass cases from different cartridges yet maintain the same best standards of safety that the non-conversion reloaders do.

    Those of us who convert brass into other cartridges are just as safe simple because we have learned how to work within the safety requirements. We`always choose safety first and never ignore that aspect when reloading at any level.

    This is a choice that the individual can make based on their own self-awareness of how they want to work.

    Best.
Sign In or Register to comment.