Actually the 7 x 57 pre - dates the "modern" 8 x 57 by 6 years for the .318 diameter ball cartridge, and by 13 years for the .323 ball cartridge (the new improved round).

The 8 X 57, as you said, was introduced in 1888, but the 7 x 57 was introduced in 1892, though many believe it was 1893.

BUT, as for the original intention of this thread ... 280 is a great round, and will put down anything on the North American continent, though there may be better choices for the big and toothy stuff carnivorous.

The present case for the 7.92 x 57 mm ( 8mm) is the same as the one introduced in the 1888 Mauser.. So despite a .005 reduction in bullet diameter, I maintain the 8 x 57 predates the 7 x 57 by 4 years, and that the 7 x 57 was based on the 8 x 57..

Not that it's worth getting into a pissing contest over...:biggrin:.....

OOps!
 

You are absolutely correct, and I had a brain fart in reviewing my own knowledge of dates. I converted 1888 into 1898 in my brain ....
both good cartridges, with the 8 X 57 being the "daddy"

Since the OP's question has been answered and we've gotten OT,I'll add my .02 worth.
To the OP:the .280 Remington is a great caliber.Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
As far as the round going obsolete:not hardly!
Hornady just put out 2 new loads,one being an all copper GMX.A company don't spend money on a has been.The .280 has a balanced selection of loads w/varied weights and premium bullets.
Though I don't yet reload,my manuals say the .280 is a great round for that purpose.It's not just bullet selection.Stronger actions can handle hotter loads.Weaker actions may no longer be in consideration.You may not find .280 ammo just anywhere,but it's not too difficult to find.This round still has a bright future.

Acting like fools? Well, if the best response you can formulate to posting misleading information here is to call names, then it ought to be pretty apparent who the real fool here is.

It remains - Your assertion that the metric designation brought out with the cartridge in 1957 is patently false. It's very clear that the metric designation did not arrive until 1979, well after the .270 had won the popularity contest between it and the .280.

And while Jack O'Connor was a fine writer, and while he did extol the virtues of the .270, your further cites don't change the fact that your initial explanation here was off the mark.

I think we're done here.

Easy read on the .280 Remington for all.

http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.280remington.html

http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/280r.html

7MM bullets come in greater bullet weight ranges than .277 and offer a bit better B.C. and S.D. as well. The .280 Rem. was always a bit underloaded and those who've stepped up to the wildcats like the .280AI get 7MM Mag. ballistics in the lighter bullet weights given equal barrel lengths. Some modern powders today really make the standard .280 Rem. shine.

Pundits have said that if Jack chose to write and elucidate the virtues of the .280 and not the .270, the popularity of the .280 would be cemented today instead of the .270 Win.

PS - It is interesting that Jack was fond of the 7x57 Mauser, a round not too shabby in the all-around department and another fine cartridge.

The .270 (a relic from 1925) was already well planted when the .280 came out.....I seriously doubt that the buying public was going to be swayed from the well entrenched .270.....it's use in American (and other places) big game hunting well documented.....

Had Remington loaded the .280 to the same pressures as the .270, it might have done better but instead got somewhat of a reputation as a handloading proposition. For a lot of folks this wasn't in their environment.

Instead of asking why the .280 did so poorly, one might ask why the .270 sold so well.....because in fact it really didn't do anything the .30-06 didn't do!!!!.....and the .30-06 ammo was available in military surplus all over the place in the '60s!

The .270 got a reputation as a flatter shooting round.....anyone want to say just how much flatter than the .30-06?.....it's not much I can assure you!

For those that KNOW why one succeeded and another failed....let me say this.....you're guessing just the same as I and everyone else!

Play nice gentlemen. Wikipedia sometimes does have problems with accuracy. Get 10 gun nuts together and you're guaranteed at least 20 opinions. A buddy of mine swears by his .280 while I love my .270 and hope to pass that on to my boys. Calling each other names isn't helpful and violates the forum rules. Remember, when you point that single finger at another member, 3 more of your fingers are pointing back at you. Now, as to the "debate" about who is older, I suggest the 2 "older" members settle it at 20 metric paces with birth certificates. :wink::party0005: