Recoil Comparison .264 WM vs 7mm RM

N

NWTHunter

Regular
Rating - 100%
108   0   2
My first Center fire rifle was a 7mm Remington Magnum, I still own it and still love it.

Recently I've been considering a .264 Winchester Magnum as an addition to my locker. I've read that the .264 Winchester gives a stout recoil. All things being equal, it couldn't be any more than my 7mm could it?
 
All things being more or less equal between 2 guns, and assuming using nearly the same bullet weights the difference is virtually nonexistant in recoil, barrel life however is a whole different ballgame. :mrgreen:
 
So the .264 Win Mag is truely a barrel burner?
Click to expand...
More so than the 7mm rem mag is, due to the overbore nature of the 264. As long as you don't load it too hot and keep the barrel cool they last well as a hunting rifle, but for serious target work, I think there are better options :mrgreen:
 
I have owned several of both chamberings, and the 264 is a bit milder off the bench than is the 7mm Rem mag, all other factors being equal. Of course, the 7mm will drive similar weight bullets a bit faster than will the 264, so therein lies the difference. As for barrel life, it is not as bad as many would have you believe. As ATR mentioned, it is important to not shoot the 264 till the barrel is hot if you want to preserve the throat. I have had a couple of 264 barrels give good accuracy out past 2000 rounds. Eagleye.
 
I checked the recoil energy numbers and in 8.5 lb rifles, the average recoil energy of a 264 Win Mag was 24 ft-lbs

7mm Rem Mag was 27 ft-lbs
 
NWTHunter said:
The .264 is probably not worth pursuing. It doesn't seem to offer anything that I don't already have.
Click to expand...
I've owned 7Mags and now own a .264Mag. Recoil is the same in rifles that all else is equal.

My .264 is a 26" bbl and I like it alot, but have come to the conclusion that a .270 w/24" bbl would be a better idea. Pretty much the same ballisics, less recoil, longer bbl life, cheeper to reload, shorter & lighter :!:

SC.........................
 
SuperCub said:
My .264 is a 26" bbl and I like it alot, but have come to the conclusion that a .270 w/24" bbl would be a better idea. Pretty much the same ballisics, less recoil, longer bbl life, cheeper to reload, shorter & lighter :!:
Click to expand...

True enough SuperCub but everyone has a 270 which makes the 264 kind of cool because you don't run into many of them. 8) :wink:
 
SC; I have a 270 with a 24" barrel and a 264 with a 26" barrel. The ballistics favor the 264 by a fair margin. e.g. The best load in the 270 makes about 3150-3170 with the 130 Partition. The best load in the 264 makes 3250-3260+ with a 140 grain Partition. The 140 grain 264 has a better BC, and more sectional density than the 130 grain 270 offering. As a matter of fact, you have to shoot the 150 grain 270 to get a similar BC as the 140/264, and about the best one can do in a 24" barrel with the 150/270 is 2950-3000. I will concede that the 270 is a bit cheaper to shoot and load for, but it is not a real significant amount. :D Eagleye.
 
Billy The Kid said:
True enough SuperCub but everyone has a 270 which makes the 264 kind of cool because you don't run into many of them. 8) :wink:
Click to expand...
I'm not getting ready to sell off the .264, it's just that for our hunting here in NB, most shots are under 100-200yds tops and not much more and for the most part a fellow (here) would be better of w/a .270.

Out west is a totally different ballgame where longer shots are the norm and one would need all the flat shooting they can get :D

SC...............
 
I have a 264 and a 7mm. Both model 70 classics (amlost identical in weight)both have 26 inch barrels.I find almost no difference in terms of recoil.The area where I live/hunt has a rifle caliber restriction (nothing above .275)so the 264 has something to offer for me when a long shot on a coyote presents itself.
Like Billy said, way cooler than a 270 win,although there isnt a great difference in terms of performance.I know you wont see too many like Billy's :D
 
I agree with eagleye on this one.

I have two 264's and at one time had three and will have to say that felt recoil is similar to the 7mmMag with similar bullet weights, but load 160 or 175 bullets in the 7mm and you will certainly feel the 7's bite on your shoulder, there is no doubt about this. I used to shoot the 175 Sierra in my 7 RM and let me tell you there was a bite to it much more than the 264. Shooting a few rounds won't make a difference but a couple of boxes at the bench and you will know it unless you are a seasoned shooter.

It's too bad that the 264 keeps getting put down about being a barrel burner in fact it is no worse and in some cases better than a bunch of newer rounds that don't carry this stigma about them, like the 270 WBY, 7mm WBY, 25-06, 257 WBY, 7mm RUM, 30-378, 300 RUM, most Lazaroni's, 7mm and the 300 Dakota (own one), 6.5-284 and so on. All barrel burners but socially acceptable why is the 264 any worse than these! Fact is the 264 is a great cartridge for medium game.
bigbull
 
bigbull said:
It's too bad that the 264 keeps getting put down about being a barrel burner in fact it is no worse and in some cases better than a bunch of newer rounds that don't carry this stigma about them, like the 270 WBY, 7mm WBY, 25-06, 257 WBY, 7mm RUM, 30-378, 300 RUM, most Lazaroni's, 7mm and the 300 Dakota (own one), 6.5-284 and so on. All barrel burners but socially acceptable why is the 264 any worse than these!
Click to expand...


As you already know bigbull, it's the result of the over-zealous efforts of gun manufacturers of yesteryear loading the ammo too hot to achieve maximum velocity with no regard to consequence! :evil:

The 220 Swift is another shining example (I own a Swift & a 264 8)!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom