264 mag

m1978

m1978

Regular
Rating - 90%
9   1   0
What are your opinions on the 264 mag? Noticed winchester chambers it in m70. Much better long range deer rifle than 7 mag?
 
Does anyone actually carry 175 grain bullets in the 7 Mag? For some reason I've never considered the 175gr .284" as the equal of the 180gr .308" bullet. Always seemed to me that the heavy bullet types shot a 160 in their 7 or 180 in the 300. It was only the guys that insisted on a 220 grainer in their 300 that would use a 175 in their 7. I'm a big 180gr fan in the 30-06 or 300 but I can't imagine wanting a 175 in my 7 Wby even though they should be essentially the same. Maybe it's some ingrained perception that the 7 is meant to be used in even more open country than the 300 and thus you would want the best balance of speed, momentum and BC. Of course, I'd also seriously consider loading a 140gr bullet in the 7 but wouldn't even entertain the thought of a 150 in a 300 WM. Funny how a fellow gets something in his head.


Now the 264...well, it has the advantage of sharing a bullet diameter that is currently favoured by a very rabid long range community so you know that everyone is coming out with an ultra-slippery 129gr bullet. But does that necessarily translate well to driving a bullet through the ribs of a moose or elk at 300 yards? Maybe. But I'm always skeptical of the integrity of the bullet when you start narrowing up the diameter. Example, the 270gr .375" Sierra Gameking was regarded as a damned fine bullet. Not a premium, but it punched well above it's weight. But does that particular Sectional Density (.274 which is pretty close to the .264 for the 129 grain .264" bullet...the 260gr .375" bullet is identical at .264) tell the whole story? When you diminish the frontal area by 50% you have to make some sacrifices in a jacketed bullet to maintain tolerable dimensions. I always wonder is a narrower bullet will have the toughness, probably why I lean toward larger diameters.


So, if I was an open-country deer, antelope, or caribou hunter or I enjoyed using my hunting rifle for predators I wouldn't balk at the 264 for a second. And it might be the greatest sheep and goat caliber ever devised. But if you want to throw moose and elk into the mix and certainly ursus, Well, I'm a dude that likes more. I find that more is rarely unwelcome.
 
Heavier for caliber bullets perform better at long range. The only reason I have magnums is to shoot the heavier pills, that's what they excel at vs standard long action offerings.
 
It is a good versatile cartridge that lacks factory offerings in regards to rifles and ammunition if you don't reload. How long is long range to you?

Does it make a better long range deer cartridge then a 7mm Magnum? I don't think I'd go that far, both are very capable and it will come down more to the individual shooter, load and rifle than the cartridge head stamp.
 
Can't say if it's better or not but I own a pair of 264 Win mags and no 7mm Rem mag. You want to reload for sure as you won't pick up a box of ammo just anyplace.
 
I've had a couple of 264's over the years and I'd like to get another before I'm done shooting. It's not that I think the caliber is really great but It does have some romance and intrigue surrounding it, it's also pretty easy to load for while offering little recoil and adequate power for deer type North American game. I've generally found that the performance (velocity) is lacking somewhat considering it takes about 10 percent more powder to gain 20 or 30 fps over the 270 Winchester with mid weight bullets. And if speed in a similar bullet diameter and weight is what your after then consider the 270 Wby, it's significantly faster on a couple grains of powder more. Having said that, I wouldn't discount the 264 if it interests you.
 
I feel like you'd need to step up to something like the 6.5-300 Weatherby to be "much better" than 7mm rem mag.

It's certainly far less common though. If you like something a bit different, and reload, then maybe it's the one for you.

BUM, my limited experience would suggest a lot of people who buy factory 7mm mag use 175gr pills. Those who reload, which feels like everyone around here sometimes, seem to gravitate towards 160gr high bc bullets, or even lighter monolithic pills.
 
The Problem with the 264 WIN Mag is No ammo available and the W/W that was- was ANEMIC ! Lots of 7 MM Rem Mag ammo made But a Lot of it is Pretty ANEMIC too ! The 6.5 300 WBee ammo is avail only from WBee is GOOD and Fast BUT Expensive too and Harder to find ! The 26 & 28 Nolser are Great cartridges BUT again Expensive ammo BUT at Least available .

I have a 7 MM Rem Mag - a 7 MM STW a 7MM-300 WBee - 28 Nosler I Handload so i have no problem getting Performance ammo !
I shot a 264 Win Mag for a Few years ( Years AGO ) and hand loaded for it BUT i went to the BIG 7's for a Better Wider range of bullets - Now a days there is a GREATER slection of 6.5 (264) bullets to Play with . The Nosler Factory ammo is a GOOD performer !

Now back to the 264 Win Mag YOU have to be a handloader Great cartridge with the GREAT 6.5 Bullets avail now a days and a FAST twist barrel !

So You REALLY have to be a Handloader to GET Great ammo unless you have lots of money to spend. JMO RJ
 
Last edited:
I have a pre-64 Model 70 Winchester in 264 WM caliber. . Winchester soon realized they needed to build these with a stainless barrel if the shooters wanted full throttle loads. May explain why factory loading, in some cases, has been toned down a tad. Have enough brass and I reload for it and allow the barrel to cool at the range.
 
BigUglyMan said:
Does anyone actually carry 175 grain bullets in the 7 Mag? For some reason I've never considered the 175gr .284" as the equal of the 180gr .308" bullet. Always seemed to me that the heavy bullet types shot a 160 in their 7 or 180 in the 300. It was only the guys that insisted on a 220 grainer in their 300 that would use a 175 in their 7. I'm a big 180gr fan in the 30-06 or 300 but I can't imagine wanting a 175 in my 7 Wby even though they should be essentially the same. Maybe it's some ingrained perception that the 7 is meant to be used in even more open country than the 300 and thus you would want the best balance of speed, momentum and BC. Of course, I'd also seriously consider loading a 140gr bullet in the 7 but wouldn't even entertain the thought of a 150 in a 300 WM. Funny how a fellow gets something in his head.


Now the 264...well, it has the advantage of sharing a bullet diameter that is currently favoured by a very rabid long range community so you know that everyone is coming out with an ultra-slippery 129gr bullet. But does that necessarily translate well to driving a bullet through the ribs of a moose or elk at 300 yards? Maybe. But I'm always skeptical of the integrity of the bullet when you start narrowing up the diameter. Example, the 270gr .375" Sierra Gameking was regarded as a damned fine bullet. Not a premium, but it punched well above it's weight. But does that particular Sectional Density (.274 which is pretty close to the .264 for the 129 grain .264" bullet...the 260gr .375" bullet is identical at .264) tell the whole story? When you diminish the frontal area by 50% you have to make some sacrifices in a jacketed bullet to maintain tolerable dimensions. I always wonder is a narrower bullet will have the toughness, probably why I lean toward larger diameters.


So, if I was an open-country deer, antelope, or caribou hunter or I enjoyed using my hunting rifle for predators I wouldn't balk at the 264 for a second. And it might be the greatest sheep and goat caliber ever devised. But if you want to throw moose and elk into the mix and certainly ursus, Well, I'm a dude that likes more. I find that more is rarely unwelcome.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly you are on the correct side of the bullet weight for caliber argument; although you can get a Woodleigh .270/180s or a .308/240s, even they put the brakes on the 7mm at 175. Warren Page who used a 7mm magnum before there was such a thing commercially, preferred the 160 gr Partition. The historically correct bullet weight for a 6.5 is 160 grs, but it hasn't caught on with modern shooters who seem more interested in go fast bullets, despite the interest in heavy for caliber long range target bullets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom