In 1980, Remington standardized the 7mm-08. This is nothing more than a necked-down, 7mm, version of the 308 Winchester, with no other changes. With a 62,000-psi pressure-limit it comes reasonably close to matching performance of the 7mm Mauser in a short-action rifle. Remington initially launched the ammunition loaded with bullets having higher BCs than it used in similar chamberings, so down-range performance of 7mm-08 factory loads was particularly impressive. The standard 140-grain factory load surpassed the standard Remington 150-grain 30-06 factory-load in terms of trajectory and delivered energy past 200 yards. Of course, that was little more than a parlor trick; Remington and all other ammunition makers, could have used the same bullets in other 7mm ammunition and made bullets with similarly improved BCs for other calibers. Remington made some inroads using this bit of legerdemain and the key to market success for any new chambering is to garner a reasonable number of sales in the first year, so word of mouth can take over. Evidently, this worked because the 7mm-08 has remained reasonably popular. Ballistically, what it offers is a bit flatter trajectory with a bit less recoil, when compared to the 308 Winchester. The frustration I have always had with the 7mm-08 is no fault of the 7mm-08. In and of itself, this is a perfectly fine chambering. My frustration is with the gun-writers who badmouthed the 284 Winchester into oblivion. The same group, and many of the same individuals, whose ink that had stridently damned the 284 as, less-than-useless, and was not then completely dry, began to loudly laud the 7mm-08 as akin to miraculous. Now, if the two cartridge designs did not work in precisely the same guns and if performance of the 284 did not far surpass performance of the 7mm-08, what difference would it make which one the gun-writers preferred? But, as noted, the two do work in precisely the same guns and the 284 does far exceed the 7mm-08 ballistically, so there exists no possible way to explain this logically. Irrational far better describes it. Makes less than zero sense to me. I cannot, too-strongly, suggest the reader should pay attention to this bit of historical fact when reading the ravings of modern gun-writers, cartridge developers, and gun-makers who are today claiming how such and so is superior to anything since the invention of sliced bread and probably beats even that to no end. Some such ravings might even be true, accurate, and reasonable; most are something else entirely. Heritage of this case dates to the 1870s with the introduction of the 40-70 Ballard case.