264 win mag precision round?
- Thread starter sigarms226
- Start date
rnbra-shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Brunswick
Very high performance for a long range target rifle (excellent wind drift).
The biggest negative is very short barrel life (well under 1,000 rounds of target-grade accuracy). For a high performance hunting rifle, this would not be a problem at all.
For target shooting, a 6.5-.284 would probably be preferred (almost as much performance, with quite a bit better barrel life - and note, one of the biggest complaints about the 6.5-.284 is that it's a bit of a barrel-burner...!)
The biggest negative is very short barrel life (well under 1,000 rounds of target-grade accuracy). For a high performance hunting rifle, this would not be a problem at all.
For target shooting, a 6.5-.284 would probably be preferred (almost as much performance, with quite a bit better barrel life - and note, one of the biggest complaints about the 6.5-.284 is that it's a bit of a barrel-burner...!)
- Location
- Whitehorse, Yukon
It can be extremely accurate in the right combination of parts {action, barrel, etc.}
Going to be tough on barrels most likely see 1500 - 2000 rounds {perhaps less} before a replacement will be needed.
There are all sorts of other 6.5 cartridges available that will shoot very well out to 1000 yards and with close to the 3000fps mark. With advantages of less recoil and longer barrel life.
If your looking at flat trajectory there is no substitute for velocity!
Just my 2 cents worth.
Going to be tough on barrels most likely see 1500 - 2000 rounds {perhaps less} before a replacement will be needed.
There are all sorts of other 6.5 cartridges available that will shoot very well out to 1000 yards and with close to the 3000fps mark. With advantages of less recoil and longer barrel life.
If your looking at flat trajectory there is no substitute for velocity!
Just my 2 cents worth.
rnbra-shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Brunswick
So long as you realize that this is an "extreme bore capacity" case, all is fine, and you can decide if the tradeoff is worthwhile in your case. (It's more overbore than a .220 Swift, it's more like a .22-.243 Middlestead or .22 CHeetah, if that helps...)
Well its either the 264 or another 300 RUM is in order. I'm no stranger to overbore rounds (7mm RUM rebarreled/chambered to 338), so i understand the wear factor. I'm just interested in the long slim wind bucking bullets and high bc or the bullets plus the added velocity of the 264. I'm just in need of some opinions before my final decision. Thanks!
If I had a magnum boltface and decided I needed a 6.5 I would do it...Why not?
My late buddy had one with a relatively light barrel contour...Made 1/4 minute holes often enough to be legitimately accurate, but he did mention that it was a bit fussy to get it there.
My late buddy had one with a relatively light barrel contour...Made 1/4 minute holes often enough to be legitimately accurate, but he did mention that it was a bit fussy to get it there.
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
Since you don't care about the wear I woudl say go for it. There are some great 6.5mm bullets out there and the 264WM will drive 'em like a scalded dog!
Having been the satisfied owner of several 264 Win Mags over the years, I will make a few comments. Barrel life is a bit shorter than some of the smaller capacity 6.5mm rounds, but you should get 1500+ very accurately if you take good care of it, and don't shoot it "hot". To extract the potential of this hotshot you need at least a 26" tube, 28" or even 30" is better. With a 27" barrel, I was able to get 3300 fps out of the 139/142 match bullets, and that was with stellar accuracy. I shot a couple of muleys with it at looonnng range, and it was very effective there as well. I love the 264....there is nothing quite like it! Regards, Eagleye.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
That depends on how much you intend to shoot the rifle, how much rifle down time matters, and how much cash you can invest in barrels. Perhaps you should have the rifle made in a switch barrel configuration so that every few weeks you can swap out the barrels. Then again, if you shoot 100 rounds a year you might get 10 years out of your barrel. If a good barrel is now in the $600 range, you can add 60 cents to the cost of each round you fire, based on 1000 rounds of target grade accuracy in competition.
If all this sounds rather negative, well it is. There is simply no way to load a .264 magnum to extend barrel life to 5000 rounds. Barrel life can be mitigated by choosing the heaviest bullets you can find, by being cautious in your choice of powder, and by allowing plenty of cooling time between shots; so you might get 2000 rounds out of the barrel. Shooting in competition often involves time constrains, and at times requires your string to be fired very rapidly before conditions can change. This does nothing for barrel life. But when extending barrel life becomes the primary objective, your loads will not be as consistent or as accurate as when the same velocity is attained from a smaller cartridge.
Ballistically, the .264 or a 6.5-300 magnum quickly approaches the point of diminishing returns. If a .378 Weatherby for example was necked down to 6.5, despite it's huge powder capacity, it would produce no more velocity, and the standard belted magnum cases are not a huge leap ahead of either the 6.5-284 or the 6.5-06. The 6.5 magnums do only one thing well, and they do it little better and with less versatility than the smaller cased rounds.
When we are talking about long range target shooting, mostly we are shooting at known distances and quite frankly flat trajectory takes a back seat to accuracy. As long as you have enough adjustment in your sight, the actual drop at the target doesn't matter a damn. The same goes for wind drift, if you are good at doping the wind, whether you adjust for 1 minute or 3 doesn't much matter, and if you get it wrong you are out of the black in any case.
If we are talking about long range varminting, velocity and light bullets are the answer, but this combination from a .264 will have the barrel gone in a single summer. If long range big game hunting is your interest, many more rounds will be fired in load development than in the field, but the bullets from the .264 are too small and too light to produce the desired results when the ranges extend beyond a half mile on large game. This is the domain of the high capacity over .30 club.
Last edited:
rnbra-shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Brunswick
sigarms226, do you want it for formal target shooting (if so, what kind), for informal long range target shooting, or for hunting?
Do you want to know how much better it is than (say) a 6.5-.284, and decide whether or not this particular bit of diminishing returns is/is-not worth it, or have you already decided to go with a max case capacity chambering in whatever calibre you end up choosing? In which case, you're interested in whether a max-ed 6.5mm is for you, or an equivalent maxed-out 7mm, or maxed-out 30 cal?
How heavy a rifle are you planning (or will you be using a muzzle brake), and/or does recoil matter to you? e.g if a big .30 got 3% better wind drift, but 40% more recoil, which way would you go?
Is a flat trajectory somewhat important to you, or not at all? (e.g. why not a .338 Lapua?) Do you have, or would you consider getting, a good laser rangefinder?
Do you want to know how much better it is than (say) a 6.5-.284, and decide whether or not this particular bit of diminishing returns is/is-not worth it, or have you already decided to go with a max case capacity chambering in whatever calibre you end up choosing? In which case, you're interested in whether a max-ed 6.5mm is for you, or an equivalent maxed-out 7mm, or maxed-out 30 cal?
How heavy a rifle are you planning (or will you be using a muzzle brake), and/or does recoil matter to you? e.g if a big .30 got 3% better wind drift, but 40% more recoil, which way would you go?
Is a flat trajectory somewhat important to you, or not at all? (e.g. why not a .338 Lapua?) Do you have, or would you consider getting, a good laser rangefinder?
Rifle will be a Remington M700 Sendero SF II as a base platform, Leupold M4 scope muzzle break. Recoil doesn't matter as I have a 300 weatherby of german make and an M700 lss in 300 rum(which I love). The primary use will be informal long range shooting in pastures also used for long distance coyote calling(three of my neighbours use 338 wildcats for such things). Already have a range finder. Let me steer this in another direction of the 264, 300 rum, 338 lapua or 300 win. which would suit my activities?
rnbra-shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Brunswick
I would suggest that you should choose based on wind drift at long range. Flat trajectory isn't particularly important, if you know the range (and nowadays this problem is completely solvable with a laser rangefinder). But there is not an accurate technical means of exactly measuring the wind correction required, this still relies on shooter skill to a certain degree. So however good you are at doping the wind, a bullet that drifts less will provide you with some advantage.
All of your choices are in pretty similar ballparks (except the .300 Win; in this company, it is a bit of a lightweight ;-) as far as long range wind drift performance goes.
I made some guesses as to the muzzle velocities that could be achieved, and then calculated standard 1,000 yard and 1,600 yard wind drift figures:
.264 / Berger 140VLD @ 3350fps / 50.3" @ 1000y, 155" @ 1600y
.284 / Berger 180VLD @ 3200fps / 49.3" @ 1000y, 150" @ 1600y
.308 / Berger 210VLD @ 3150fps / 56.0" @ 1000y, 167" @ 1600y (.300 RUM)
.308 / Berger 210VLD @ 3350fps / 49.6" @ 1000y, 152" @ 1600y (e.g. .30/378)
.338 / Lapua 300 Scn. @ 2900fps / 50.4" @ 1000y, 151" @ 1600y
The usefulness of the above calcs is entirely dependent on how fairly I've guessed at achievable muzzle velocities, and have used the best available bullet. I'm definitely open to corrections on my SWAGs; the basis of what I have above is my guess as to what might be done in a 30" barrel, by a competent handloader who it willing to prudently exceed standard loading manual data.
Provided I've used reasonable figures, it looks like the .300 RUM is the lowest performer of the lot, so it should be thrown out.
All the others (.264 Win, 7mm RUM, .30-.378, and .338 Lapua) are so close to each other that there's really no counting on my calculations to distinguish one from another. They all basically drift 50" at 1000y and 150" at 1600y.
With this identical wind drift performance:
- the smaller calibre will end up being cheaper for ammo (because bullet and powder costs are approximately proportional to weight, which is approximately proportional to the cube of the bore diameter). Assuming $30/lb powder, a .264 will fire about 75 grains of powder (32c) and 140 grains of bullet (35c) per shot, so say 67 cents of powder+bullet for the .264. A .338 will fire about 120 grains of powder (60c) and 300 grains of bullet (70c?) per shot, so say $1.30/shot for powder+bullet for the .338
- the larger calibres will have longer barrel life. If a .264 lasts 1000 rounds and a .338 lasts 2000 rounds, and an installed barrel is $700, then that's 70c/rd for the .264 and 35c/rd for the .338
Add powder+bullet and barrel wear, and the .264 is $1.37/shot, and the .338 is $1.65/shot. Perhaps a small advantage for the smaller calibre, but these calcs aren't rocket science; perhaps all I'd be willing to say is that all of these calibres will cost you "approximately the same" per shot for consumables (powder, bullet and barrel).
So at this point, I can't really see any objective reason to choose a small, medium or larger bore; they all shoot about the same level of performance, and they all cost a similar amount. So maybe other considerations ought to rule, e.g. the aesthetic appeal of a particulr choice...?
All of your choices are in pretty similar ballparks (except the .300 Win; in this company, it is a bit of a lightweight ;-) as far as long range wind drift performance goes.
I made some guesses as to the muzzle velocities that could be achieved, and then calculated standard 1,000 yard and 1,600 yard wind drift figures:
.264 / Berger 140VLD @ 3350fps / 50.3" @ 1000y, 155" @ 1600y
.284 / Berger 180VLD @ 3200fps / 49.3" @ 1000y, 150" @ 1600y
.308 / Berger 210VLD @ 3150fps / 56.0" @ 1000y, 167" @ 1600y (.300 RUM)
.308 / Berger 210VLD @ 3350fps / 49.6" @ 1000y, 152" @ 1600y (e.g. .30/378)
.338 / Lapua 300 Scn. @ 2900fps / 50.4" @ 1000y, 151" @ 1600y
The usefulness of the above calcs is entirely dependent on how fairly I've guessed at achievable muzzle velocities, and have used the best available bullet. I'm definitely open to corrections on my SWAGs; the basis of what I have above is my guess as to what might be done in a 30" barrel, by a competent handloader who it willing to prudently exceed standard loading manual data.
Provided I've used reasonable figures, it looks like the .300 RUM is the lowest performer of the lot, so it should be thrown out.
All the others (.264 Win, 7mm RUM, .30-.378, and .338 Lapua) are so close to each other that there's really no counting on my calculations to distinguish one from another. They all basically drift 50" at 1000y and 150" at 1600y.
With this identical wind drift performance:
- the smaller calibre will end up being cheaper for ammo (because bullet and powder costs are approximately proportional to weight, which is approximately proportional to the cube of the bore diameter). Assuming $30/lb powder, a .264 will fire about 75 grains of powder (32c) and 140 grains of bullet (35c) per shot, so say 67 cents of powder+bullet for the .264. A .338 will fire about 120 grains of powder (60c) and 300 grains of bullet (70c?) per shot, so say $1.30/shot for powder+bullet for the .338
- the larger calibres will have longer barrel life. If a .264 lasts 1000 rounds and a .338 lasts 2000 rounds, and an installed barrel is $700, then that's 70c/rd for the .264 and 35c/rd for the .338
Add powder+bullet and barrel wear, and the .264 is $1.37/shot, and the .338 is $1.65/shot. Perhaps a small advantage for the smaller calibre, but these calcs aren't rocket science; perhaps all I'd be willing to say is that all of these calibres will cost you "approximately the same" per shot for consumables (powder, bullet and barrel).
So at this point, I can't really see any objective reason to choose a small, medium or larger bore; they all shoot about the same level of performance, and they all cost a similar amount. So maybe other considerations ought to rule, e.g. the aesthetic appeal of a particulr choice...?
rnbra-shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Brunswick
FWIW, a .50BMG will provide improved performance. If you can get 2900fps muzzle velocity with a 750 or 800 grain Lapua, you'll get drift of about 37" at 1000y and about 106" at 1600y (i.e. essentially two-thirds the wind drift of the .264 to .338 class cartridges mentioned above).
Another possibility would be a larger case capacity .338 chambering. If you scale a .264 Winchester case capacity up to .338 cal, you'd need to be burning about 155-160 grains of powder. Based on scaling laws, you might expect wind drift performance of about 39" at 1000y and 118" at 1600y, or more or less .50BMG match ammo performance, in a "smaller and more practical" (!!!) package.... ;-)
Another possibility would be a larger case capacity .338 chambering. If you scale a .264 Winchester case capacity up to .338 cal, you'd need to be burning about 155-160 grains of powder. Based on scaling laws, you might expect wind drift performance of about 39" at 1000y and 118" at 1600y, or more or less .50BMG match ammo performance, in a "smaller and more practical" (!!!) package.... ;-)
The 300Win got my vote here....A personal favorite.
The big 338 Lapua is neat, but doesn't fit into your action...I went with the 338 Edge.....338 bullets are a lot more expensive than the 30 cal versions so wouldn't own one without having a smaller cal first.
