264 Win Mag vs 270 Win

todbartell

todbartell

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
290   0   0
Location
BC
Which should I go with? Never owned either, but have shot (and handloaded for) a few 270's. Never shot a 264

Main use will be for deer but possibly black bear, elk and moose too.

Rifle will be a Winchester Model 70 Featherweight (22" brl in 270, 24" in 264). Scope will be a Leupold 6x42

thoughts?
 
Take a long look at the velocity each can generate with equal weight bullets. I see the .264 as a very loud .270. Very little is gained for all that fuss. If you will go to 26" barrel, I think the .264 starts to be something the .270 can't be, but I really don't like a gun that long for hunting. I don't own a .264; I do have a .270.
 
In a 24 inch 270 barrel I got just over 3000 fps with a 140 Accubond and in a 26 inch 264 I got about 3150 with 140 bergers. I think used about 7 grains or so more powder in the 264. Advantage is in the BC of the bullets if you're into that. I still have the 270 and love it for hunting but I never did hunt with the 264. You can make 264 win brass out of 7mm rem mag brass too if that helps you at all. Recoil was a bit more with the 264 and it was in a rem sendero and the 270 was a Sako
 
The 264 has a mystique about it that makes gunnuts drool.

However, from the standpoint of a hunting arm, the 270 has a lot going for it over the 264.
Large bullet selection, cheaper to shoot, ammo and component availability is better chances of it's disappearing are slim etc.

But still, the 264 lives on because it's just a neat old round that works. I've no doubt it will do pretty much anything a 270 will do on big game, and it will shoot lighter bullets for varmint hunting as well. It might vanish from the shelves, but it will live on for the hand loader.

If it were my decision, I couldn't make it. I'd probably end up with both.
 
My 6.5-06 with a 22" bbl shoots 129 SST's at 3050 fps. My 270 with a 22" bbl shoots 130SGK's at 3080 fps. (yes, I use a chrony).

To me those two are very similar. I don't have a .264 mag, but I would sure hope that it would step up the perfomance, considering the extra powder burned.

I'm just afraid of buying a used one because the barrel is probably mostly burned up.
 
264wm

Aw,the magic of a 140 going 3200 with a BC of .6.Do the numbers!! If you have the chamber opened up with a "normal" throat,it's almost easy to reload,even.

If you are practical and like a boring life:),just get a 270W for deer and a 338WM for moose and elk.
 
If I was shooting past 500yds I'd go .264, under that the .270 is your man. Easy to load for, cheap to load for, and will crater everything you point it at.
 
270 is definitely the practical route, however as Gatehouse mentioned to me, I may get bored of it in about 17 minutes

It is a bit shorter of a rifle which I'd prefer..,the 26" barrel 264 is the Sporter model which I don't care for at all. Would be close to 9 lbs or so with a scope. Too heavy
 
I've owned both, a 270 in a Mod 70 and a M98 Custom and a 264 Mod 70.
Far preferred the 270's. Both were more accurate than the 264. I got bored with the 264after about 2 years. Too bad H870 was dropped ... sold my remaining 3 pounds to a guy out west.

Currently have a 25-06 & a 35 Whelen. Together with a 223 and a 257, they fit most of my needs here in the east. Other than varmints, I limit my shooting on game to what I'm comfortable with in the field ... for me, thats about 250 yds.

If I wanted something to screech 140's out to a 1/4 mile, I think I'd look at a 7mmRUM rather than going the 264 route.
 
For the game you are suggesting, I don't see any advantage of going with the .264, particularly since you are leaning towards a lighter rifle.

I've looked long and hard a the .264 a couple of times, but I keep thinking it's just too close to a 6.5-06 AI to make the magnum brass and extra powder worth it. And if I really wanted a screaming fast .264 bullet shooter I'd just go "all in" a build a 6.5-300 RUM.
 
My last and best .264 was a recent production limited edition Ruger Hawkeye stainless/synthetic which I sold to a buddy during a blonde moment.
It is an awesome shooter truly a sub-moa rifle out of the box and puts meat in buddy's freezer regularly.
None of the seven or eight 270s I've had would come close for accuracy including my old faithful pre-64, and I have had some really nice ones over the years.
Now I'm not sure if that 264 Hawkeye was an exception or not but I would dearly like to find another.
As for the 264 round, I like it, took a lot of game with one back in the 1960s.
It killed Moose with 160 gr. loads, Deer and Antelope with 140 gr. bullets and during the winter I hunted Coyotes with the lightest bullets I could find.
As for barrel life I put a lot of ammo through it and it was shooting good into the 1980s.
Since I like the 270 a lot I would have to say the choice must be yours, but if you should ever find a stainless Hawkeye in 264, please let me know.. :)
 
The reason I sold my 264 was that I can get almost 3000fps out of my 6.5-06 with a 24inch barrel and its more accurate although the 264 sendero would do .75 moa.
 
... Years ago, I had a Remington 700 in 264 Magnum. Incredibly accurate, with just about any factory Ammunition that was stuffed in it. The draw back, was the noise and recoil. .. Yeah I'm a bit of a Recoil Wimp! But for me, it just wasn't worth it for the extra range/performance the 264Mag. gave. .... Currently I've a Ruger 77, in 270 and it's more than enough for what I need. ( Terrorizing Paper Targets out to 200 Meters ! LOL !! ) ..... David K
 
I've shot 2 rifles in 264 Win Mag:
  1. A 1962 Winchester 70 Supergrade Featherweight, the recoil and muzzle blast were abusive
  2. A very recent Remington 700 26", incredible rifle

I would never buy a lightweight, short barreled 264 Win Mag but the 26" Remington was an incredible rifle.
With modern bullets and slow burning powders it might even be better than a 7 Rem Mag.

Alex
 
I have owned several 264 Win Mags and several 270's over the years.
As has already been stated, to capitalize on the 264's potential, one should have at least a 26" barrel.
However, with today's powders in that 26" barrel, the 264 will approach 3300 with a 140 grain bullet, and believe me, that shoots very flat over 5-600 yards!!
Any 264 I have owned has been wonderfully accurate, and the last one I had built with a 26" Pac-Nor would drive three 140 Partitions onto one ragged hole at 200 yards if I did my part.
I have shot Black Bear, Muleys, Whitetails, Elk & Moose with the 264, and never felt the need for a bigger diameter bullet, nor for the 160 grain RN bullets, which, IMHO, go counter to the idea of the 264 as a long range hunting chambering.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the 270, but the 264 has more oomph and of course, more "panache" than has the 270.
Buy the 264, you'll enjoy it immensely. Even with a 24" tube, it is a fabulous performer.
BTW, that Leupold 6x42 is a beautiful piece of glass.....I have several on hunting rifles. Took my longest successful shot ever with just those optics.
Regards, Eagleye.
 
todbartell said:
Which powders in the 264 to get max speed? H1000, 7828, RL25, Retumbo? Thanks
Click to expand...

Mark; I got the best performance from the following:
Retumbo,[very good] Reloder 25 [watch for pressure spikes with RL 25, though]
Vihtavuori N170, H5010 [Now out of production, but one of the best]
Also used H1000, Ramshot Magnum, AA8700 with decent results, but a bit slower velocities.
Now that N570 from Vihtavuori is available, I would be taking a good look at it.
Also If I could get my hands on some Norma MRP-2, it also looks like a likely candidate for the 264.
Regards, Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom