Dirtfarmer,
I posted way back in this thread about how the .280 sold all right the first few years, when Remington promoted it pretty well. In the beginning it was never intended to compete with bolt-action .270's. Instead it was meant as a ".270 equivalent" cartridge for the Remington semiauto, because the .270 operated at too-high pressures.
It didn't "fail" as a bolt-action round because of Remington's poor promotion. It failed because it wasn't intended to primarily be a bolt-action round. If Remington had intended the .280 for bolt-actions, they would have been even dumber than many Campfire members believe, because it was so similar to the .270, which was already well-established--and there wasn't any noticeable difference in the field.
.280 nuts like to argue that their cartridge is vastly superior, but I've hunted a LOT with both the .270 and .280, and for the sub-500 yard big game hunting most people actually do, there isn't any difference--except you can buy .270 ammo and brass easily, almost anywhere. Except for shooting beyond 500 yards, where the wider availbility of high-BC 7mm bullets makes some difference, the claimed "superiority is based on tiny differences in bullet weight, velocity, etc. If loonies couldn't weigh bullets or lacked chronographs, the differences would never be noticeable, whether in the field or by simply looking at one of the rounds.
Remington knew the 7mm Remington Magnum would just about kill off the .280, but they gambled that the 7mm would be a hit. It was, far more than any other post-WWII non-varmint cartridge until the 6.5 Creedmoor came along in 2007. Due to the enormous success of the 7mm RM, I sincerely doubt Remington regretted the semi-demise of the .280.
This thread is yet another example of how the longest Campfire rifle-cartridge threads are almost always about stuff that doesn't make any difference, except in the minds of loonies.
