Is the 264 Win Mag a hot commodity?

264 Win Mag

I had a Rem 700 .264 Win Mag take-off barrel put on a Rem 700 action awhile back as the .264 Mag kinda had a cult allure for me, too. Still have the rifle, blued action with stainless barrel, sitting in a Classic stock. Haven't done a whole lot with it other than site it in with Winchester factory 140 gr ammo. Respectable shooter for sure.

I have dies & lots of bullet & powder choices for loading. IMR 4350 would be my go-to I think. Looking at my Lyman #47 manual for loads it seems to me that the .264 Win Mag is pretty much a ballistic twin to the .270 Win, though [which I also have a Rem 700 in & load for].

------------
NAA.
 
hoytcanon said:
That is because the manuals that list new powder have been dumbed down... and lawyered up.
Click to expand...

Even the Nosler data, which I find usually lists higher velocities than some other sources and lists RL series powders (among others) doesn't have impressive numbers for the 264, 140gr @ 3085. The fastest 7mm RM load nosler lists for 140gr is a 3340, a full 250fps faster for what is basically the same case capacity! (in fact nosler lists the 264 as having slightly more capacity) Which honestly doesn't seem right to me - yes, larger bore diameters tend to have higher muzzle velocities but this seems like a bigger difference than bore size alone would explain? Unless the 264 has hit the point of diminishing returns from being over bore while the 7mm is just shy of that mark?
 
I think that the modern 264 data is dumbed down all right but so is all the rest of the cartridge's data so it becomes a relative thing. There's various reasons for this including liability which is on everyone's minds these days but also I think the measuring equipment is better than it was a few decades ago.
 
In the late 1950's Winchester brought out the short magnums that would function in a 30-06 length receiver. They began with the 458, 338, 300 and the 264 magnums. They used the 375 H&H case to form the 458 mag and from that they brought out the 338 mag, the 300 win mag and the 264 win mag. The large case capacity allowed for some powerful loads and the 264 was quite the item at the time.

Early on they experience short barrel life with the 264 win mag as it was putting a 100 gr. bullet out the barrel at 3700 fps. If the barrel was not allowed to cool some only lasted 400-500 rounds before experiencing wear. So the reloading manuals lowered the maximum loads and Winchester began building the 264 with 26" stainless steel barrels that solved the short barrel life problem. The 264 mag with a 26" stainless barrel is still an excellent long range cartridge in the right rifle.
 
RL33, Retumbo, Magpro, H1000, IMR 7828, RL26

I've pushed 142gr ABLR from a 25" 6.5-06 Ackley to 3095 fps with RL26, no obscene pressures. Also same bullet to 3060 fps from a 24" 6.5 PRC with RL33.

A 264wm will beat these numbers
 
todbartell said:
RL33, Retumbo, Magpro, H1000, IMR 7828, RL26

I've pushed 142gr ABLR from a 25" 6.5-06 Ackley to 3095 fps with RL26, no obscene pressures. Also same bullet to 3060 fps from a 24" 6.5 PRC with RL33.

A 264wm will beat these numbers
Click to expand...


I never had access to these newer powders when I had a 264 so that's good to hear since I'm thinking of getting another one. Having said that some barrels are capable of higher velocities than others, I have a 270 Wby that beats the book numbers by a good 100 fps with all powders and bullets that I've tried and cross measured with two crono's.

I fear that we've probably highjacked the OP's thread long enough talking about velocities and loads and should get back to the question at hand, is the 264 a hot commodity? Personally I don't think it is but it's always had a following.
 
There are calibre restrictions adjacent to more populated areas.
more people, more people who cant use bigger than 270.
the ballistics, and loading dialogue is great fodder, as are the stories of arms gone by.
 
Falconflyer said:
I think that the modern 264 data is dumbed down all right but so is all the rest of the cartridge's data so it becomes a relative thing. There's various reasons for this including liability which is on everyone's minds these days but also I think the measuring equipment is better than it was a few decades ago.
Click to expand...

The comparison is of the same cartridge from the same company's manuals from two different eras, not comparing different cartridges from the same manual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom