In 1979, Remington renamed its 280 as the 7mm Remington Express and specified a slightly higher working pressure. It did this to have a round that would better compete with Winchester’s 270. More recently, Remington has quietly muted use of the Express moniker and the ammo has long sold as simply 280 Remington, just as it had for the first 20-odd years of its existance. Remington had done itself no favors by originally establishing a SAAMI working pressure for the 280 significantly lower than the pressure used in Winchester’s long- and well-established 270. This ballistic deficit forever relegated the 280 Remington to also-ran status. With increased specification pressure, the 7mm Remington Express could approach performance of the 270. Nevertheless, this was a useless enterprise because the new name only confused folks and the newer factory loads still did nothing 270 factory loads would not do, at least partly because Remington continued to offer factory ammunition with less efficient bullets, compared to those available in the 270. When the 7mm Express is loaded to the same pressure as the 270 with bullets of similar efficiency, the slight case capacity advantage of the 7mm Express, combined with the slightly larger cross-sectional bore area, allows it to demonstrate a modest but perhaps useful ballistic advantage. After the 1962 introduction of the wildly popular 7mm Remington Magnum, bullet makers routinely offered 7mm bullets that were ballistically superior to anything offered for the 270. This was, perhaps, the only logical reason any handloader would choose the 280 over the 270. This is why my cousin, Darwin Vesely choose the 280 when he bought his first hunting rifle in the late 1960s. When handloaded with the best modern components the 7mm Express will do anything the 270 will do and comes surprisingly close to 7mm Remington Magnum performance. Refer to the discussion on the 280 Ackley Improved. Heritage of this case dates to the 1870s with the introduction of the 40-70 Ballard case.