An actual 4-500 yard deer and wolf gun

[Falconflyer]

I agree with todbartell. With the new powders available now the 264 WM should perform much better than when it was first introduced. With that said I don't have a 264 WM. But with a proper speced custom reamer and a good powder like N570, R26,R33 etc I would be surprised if the 264 WM couldn't push 140's at 3200 fps. My 6.5 SHERMAN only needs 64 gr of N570 to get a 140 Berger going 3339 fps out of a 28" Hart. This was a max load however so I did drop it by one grain to save brass. Primer pockets loosened after 5 loadings.

This was the problem right from the start, the 264 should have performed better than it did from day one but most shooters didn't have chronographs so assumptions were made, as they are still being made today. The reloading data I used stated that 3200 fps with a 140 grain bullet was easily enough obtainable with IMR/H4831 and H870 powder but I never got close to it and none of my loads were mild as presumed by todbartell. And improper powder was not used, how could it be when those were the powders that the 264 was designed around and all we had in those days?
I'll defer to those of you who are more current on the 264 than I am and that there are newer powders that work better in the 264 but to be honest, the load data doesn't back up the claims for several of the powders mentioned. I will also recognize that modern load data is also pretty conservative. I'd like to see some actual load data developed over a chronograph using some of these new powders.

I had two different 264 mags, the first in the late 70's and the second in the eighties, both were M-70's. I shot them a lot and burned out both barrels, with the last one I had Ron Smith re-bore it to .284 but there were still some signs of pitting in the throat so he bored it to .308 and made a .300 win mag out of it which turned out to be a real shooter. I'd shoot coyotes all winter and gophers in the late summer in preparation for hunting season with those 264's and I'd estimate that both barrels stopped shooting accurately somewhere around 1000 rounds. I shot those rifles practically on a daily basis and I think that the short barrel life backs up the fact that my loads were not mild. Chronographs were available in those days and I had one long before some shooters knew what they did and I've never been without one since.
I've been saying for some time that I'll have another 264 before I quit shooting and this is getting my curiosity up for going out to buy one!

 

[Camoman1]

Better bullet selection with 264

 

[southernman]

I add another vote, for the .264 win, I sure like my M70 stainless in .264 win, as above poster's have stated, the .264 win needs sum load data developed, for newer powders, I run R22 in mine with 130gr Aucubond at 3200, and have 2 tins of reloader 33, I would like to try with a 140gr, hopefully get up into 3150-3200 speed bracket,
Doubt your notice, any real difference between these two calibers, until long rages, then the 6.5 cal better BC bullets, would start to show advantages.