We haven't had a good caliber dust-up in awhile so I figured why not. I just read this interesting write-up and I have to agree with the 7x57.

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/5-underrated-rifle-cartridges-hunters/

What do y'all think is the most underrated cartridge for hunters?

Pretty good list. I've always wondered why the .264 wasn't more popular, as well as the .35.

I think the .280 gets overlooked a lot, too. So does the Grendel, but I understand why.

My list:

• .30-06
  
• .30-30
  
• .270
  
• .300 Win Mag
  
• 7mm RM

The .30-06 is old fashioned, and either the .308 or the .300 Weatherby do it better.
The .30-30 is beyond old fashioned; only nostalgia keeps it alive.
The .270 is just plain un-cool. Who wants to be un-cool?
The .300 Win Mag kicks more than a .308 and isn't as fast as a .300 Weatherby or Ultra. What use is that?
The 7mm Remington Magnum is just passe. OMG, how can you be so out of step with the times?

223 Rem - it'll kill everything. Everything. Well, except for pigs. It won't kill pigs. But, it's still underrated.

Seriously though, 35 Whelen. Why is it not more popular? Very versatile.

The bottom four of those are my go-to.

Not sure if I should feel outdated...or just hipster chic...

maybe the timing was not right for the .264?

Can't argue that. The scopes that are readily available now days would pair well with that cartridge. For those that want to send a 6.5mm bullet fast, and far. Enter the 26 Nosler. It's new and exciting, but what really can it do that the 264 Win Mag can't? Not have a belt around the case, and a little bit sexier shoulder angle.

I forgot all about the 375 Ruger. It's just cool! Producing that performance out of a shorter action and case. What's not to like? If doesn't have the nostalgia of the .375 H & H, that's it.

If I were in need of a .375, I'd go with the Ruger. It makes sense, if you don't already have the H&H.

I'd also take a 26 Nosler over a .264, but only if I didn't already have one. Just like the .28 Nosler. I have a 7 STW, otherwise I'd go that route.

I don't think the number of rifles sold will justify this list. I do agree though that amongst the people who are more avid shooters, the calibers are less chic these days. I honestly think theygravitate away from some On this list because they are so common. Therefore don't agree with them being underrated.

The 7x57 was the 7mm-08 100 years earlier. I can definitely see it on their list and I think it certainly qualifies as underrated. I suspect, in newer guns, you can warm it up quite a bit and get some great performance out of it. The fact it was a German cartridge probably didn't help its popularity.

I have shot more deer with a 7X57 Mauser than any other caliber. In my youth I had one in Ruger No 1 and it accounted for many a Mississippi whitetail. That was back when the limit was one Buck per day.
I remember being all excited when the 7mm/08 came out and then after reloading for it realized it was really no better. The only reason I knew was I actually had a chronograph which was pretty rare back then.

The .264 was up against three major problems in its early life: gunwriter bias, lack of powders that burned slow enough to get it to perform to its potential, and the of the appearance of the 7mm Remington Magnum. Be that as it may, it still is waaaay more cool than the 7 Mag.

Now that I think about it, it's remarkable that Remington successfully introduced and marketed any cartridge at all. It seems to me they've screwed the pooch on just about every other new thing they've thrown out there besides the 7 Mag.

Just think what Remington could have done with the .338 RUM if they hadn't screwed that up. The .338 Edge is very popular with long range shooters, and it's what the RUM should have been.

Remington has a habit of throwing a cartridge out there and let it sink or swim. They have also made some bad decisions on things like twist rate and bullet weights that have hurt good cartridges like the 6mm Remington. The 6.5 Rem Mag and 350 Rem Mag were introduced in rifle with barrel lengths that hindered their success and the useless plastic vented rib and dog handle bolt which really isn't bad sure got negative press at the time.

As for my list it is hard to narrow down to 5, you could count everything 35cal in this country that is obsessed with speed. The X57 cartridges don't really fit short or long actions and even those without the European mmXmm designations haven't done well aka 6mm Remington and 257 Roberts.

.223 Remington, 25-06 Remington, .44 Remington Magnum, 7mm-08 Remington, .22-250 Remington, .280 Remington, .35 Remington have all done pretty good.

True
223 Remington commercial version of the Military cartridge (usually does well)
22-250 put their name on the 22 Varminter wildcat
25-06 popular wildcat before getting the Remington name
44 Mag Elmer Keith (enough said)
280 Remington has done ok but they hobbled it from the gate with lower standardized pressure level supposedly for their semi-auto rifle but wait that same rifle was chambered in 270 and 30-06
7mm-08 another popular wildcat now with the Remington head stamp. For years it sat there struggling along until some finally figured out how good it is, and bullet selection in factory loads is still lacking.

Yeah, they got a few things right but I think those were just accidents.

They DID screw up on the .280 in several ways...it found itself in competition with the 7 Mag itself, plus Remington thought they could stimulate interest and sales by changing the .280's name to 7mm Express Remington, which caused great confusion for a while before they decided they probably named it right the first time.

If you take a look at that list of things that went right, you'll notice that most of them had a history and (good) reputation of some kind before Remington made moves to legitimize them.

Throw enough ideas out there and a few will stick.

Apparently they were better at designing and manufacturing firearms. The real Remington was, anyway.

Not to pick nits, but the .223 Remington was developed as a civilian round before it was adopted (and slightly modified) as a military round.

I don't think that's correct. The 5.56 NATO was developed from the .222 Remington Magnum, then the round was introduced as the .223 Remington.

It probably depends on where you live, hunt, or shoot. The first three cartridges; the 264 Mag, 35 Rem, and 7x57 are still popular here out in the sticks. Don't think I've ever seen the latter two in use here but they would be overkill. The fellows I know that own the first three, aren't interested in new rifles. I own and hunt with three different 35 Rem; a bolt, lever, and pump gun, it is a great cartridge especially if you are a handloader.

I've seen a squirrel ride a tricycle and a monkey ride a bicycle but I think the strangest thing that I've seen of late is the jacketed bullet riding that 7x57 cartridge.

Actually, I did not get that right. It was the .222 Special during transition. I guess an atgument can be made either way about which came first...pretty close to being the "chicken or the egg."

Eeeaaasy...

The .223 Remington was developed and released to the public by Remington in December 1963 for the Remington 760 pump. It wasn't adopted and adapted by the U.S. military until the following year.
To have a cartridge adopted by the U.S. military and eventually NATO, and then more than 50 years later be the most sold and used center fire cartridge, I'd call that a pretty good success.

Adoption, gestation, birth...we're pretty much going round and round here and for no good reason. Don't misconstrue my criticism of Remington's less-than-stellar marketing record as a condemnation of the cartridges they've brought out. It's just the way it was done, in most cases, that causes lots of folks to scratch their noggins.