rem sendero .264 mag
- Thread starter triton
- Start date
triton said:
Factory loads had no real ballistic advantage over the .270 Win which was/is much easier on barrels. Plus the .264 was eclipsed by the introduction of the 7mm Rem Magnum.
That said, I like the ctg & have a Remington 700 action chambered in it.
No advantage over the .270 but uses tons more powder. It's a badly overbore, extremely inefficient cartridge that got its butt handed to it by the 7mm Rem Mag. Its ballistics don't back up the marketing of it as an extreme long-range number.
All that said, I sure wouldn't kick a long-barreled .264 Win Mag out of bed for eating crackers;-) Just something about the ol' 'Westerner'...
All that said, I sure wouldn't kick a long-barreled .264 Win Mag out of bed for eating crackers;-) Just something about the ol' 'Westerner'...
beretta boy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Orillia, Ontario
Really enjoyed the .264 I had.
Have a look back about 35 years or so ago - and see what kind of loads were being published then, as opposed to now. The 26" barrelled Westerner with 140 gr. bullets and a case full of H870 did indeed outperform the 270, and was likely much more comparable to the 270 Weatherby. "John Q. Shooting Public" at the time was clambering for shorter barrels and lighter guns did ( as well as other things like white recoil pad spacers, ship line checkering and glossy finished stocks - not to mention big fins on their cars & big hairdos on their women ! ) Short, 22" barrels do not work well with big overbore cases. The .264 was a very good long range deer gun when loaded up with 120 grainers, and did a spectacular job on varmints when spitting out 85 grain Sierra HP's at around 3800fps. It certainly took it's share of Elk & Moose with 140's. The 6.5 ( .264) Sierra 142 gr. match bullets also shot very well in the .264 at long range.
The flexibility of the 7mm Rem. with a selection of heavier bullets was likely the biggest contributor to the .264's downfall ... but then again, why wasn't the .280 more successful than the .270 ???
One might also ask then, why the 7mmSTW and 7mmRem Ultra Mag. ????
Have a look back about 35 years or so ago - and see what kind of loads were being published then, as opposed to now. The 26" barrelled Westerner with 140 gr. bullets and a case full of H870 did indeed outperform the 270, and was likely much more comparable to the 270 Weatherby. "John Q. Shooting Public" at the time was clambering for shorter barrels and lighter guns did ( as well as other things like white recoil pad spacers, ship line checkering and glossy finished stocks - not to mention big fins on their cars & big hairdos on their women ! ) Short, 22" barrels do not work well with big overbore cases. The .264 was a very good long range deer gun when loaded up with 120 grainers, and did a spectacular job on varmints when spitting out 85 grain Sierra HP's at around 3800fps. It certainly took it's share of Elk & Moose with 140's. The 6.5 ( .264) Sierra 142 gr. match bullets also shot very well in the .264 at long range.
The flexibility of the 7mm Rem. with a selection of heavier bullets was likely the biggest contributor to the .264's downfall ... but then again, why wasn't the .280 more successful than the .270 ???
One might also ask then, why the 7mmSTW and 7mmRem Ultra Mag. ????
I'm still using my 264 win mag after 25 years - although I am now mostly using 45/70 single shot, steel sights for moose and elk. As I've said before, the Europeans have know for years that the 6.5 mm bullet is the most ballistically stable projectile ever made for small arms. Hence the current rebirth of the 264 win mag and the 6.5 x 55 swede.
I had a 264 in a Win. Model 70,i ran some factory 140 Remingtons over the chrony and they were indeed very wimpy.Not even as good as a 270,but when you handload it's a whole diff storey.I had no trouble getting 140's to do 3300 with good case life.Then like a fool i sold it,still kicking myself in the butt somedays.If you handload the 264 is indeed a very good choice for anything right up to moose or grizzly.
You guys that call it no better than a 270 and inefficient should actually take the time to shoot one. Recycled magazine articles from 30 years ago don't mean much with todays powders.
It's no better than a 7 mag, but it will hold it's own with any as a long range cartridge.
It's no better than a 7 mag, but it will hold it's own with any as a long range cartridge.
I like/liked both of the ones I've had/have (model 70's)and the thought of another is appealing to me .I've never owned a Rem 700 but always liked them aswell,so I guess maybe I'll look into this further.
Anyone know if they are to be found in Canada yet???
I think I want one!!
Anyone know if they are to be found in Canada yet???
I think I want one!!
I'm talking about load data published this year. It's a badly overbore cartridge that requires at least 26" to get comparable velocity with comparable bullet weights as a .270, and requires very hot loads to beat the ol' .270 Win. These hot/overbore loads will erode the throat quickly.
Take a look at the velocity numbers in any load manual--I'd recommend the Lee book since it'll have data from all the very latest of 'today's powders'. Not too impressive...
The load that made the .270 world famous is the 130 grain @ 3140, one example uses about 62.0 grains of H4831.
It takes 77.2 grains of H870 to get a MV of 3200 fps from the .264 mag (129 grain).
So 24% more powder for 3% more velocity, and that's the ceiling for the .264--she won't go any faster without drastically increasing pressure.
Take a look at the velocity numbers in any load manual--I'd recommend the Lee book since it'll have data from all the very latest of 'today's powders'. Not too impressive...
The load that made the .270 world famous is the 130 grain @ 3140, one example uses about 62.0 grains of H4831.
It takes 77.2 grains of H870 to get a MV of 3200 fps from the .264 mag (129 grain).
So 24% more powder for 3% more velocity, and that's the ceiling for the .264--she won't go any faster without drastically increasing pressure.
Last edited:
Bishopus said:
I agree to a point, but H870? If you can still find it, it's burning rate is similar to charcoal briquettes...slow! Of course it will take a bunch of powder to make the 264 run. Try RL25 or something similar.
Your 62 grain quote of H4831 is for the old original surplus powder that Jackl O'Connor wrote up. With the new stuff 59-60 grains is closer to a max load as it runs hotter than the original surplus.
As far as pressure goes, there's little difference in the pressure they both run at. Increasing the powder charge in a larger case doesn't automatically mean higher pressure.
Hmmm, so can you quote me some better loads? I love this bore size (mostly, I love the high-BC and high-SD bullets...), but the ballistics have never thrilled me. If you've got a load that will make 'er sing... I may have to reconsider one of these $$$.
Bishopus said:
I'm nowhere close to my reloading records, but as Todd said H1000 works well, and I'd be trying Ramshot Magnum. That's the first powder I'm going to try in my upcoming 28" 270 Wby.
Sorry I can't be of more help.
beretta boy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Orillia, Ontario
Convoluted Logic :
If all you can turn up is 3100 with Jack O's 62 g. load of H4831 and 130 grainers in the .270, why bother ... Gee you can get 3200 fps out of the
.30-06 with the same 130 grainers with 6 grains less Varget or RL-15.
( as in, yeah, so what's your point ? )
I'm an old .270 fan too ! ( my first rifle - and then, a little later, my first custom rifle were both .270's ) but still appreciated my .264.
85 gr. Varmint loads at 3800 spin my crank, and the several deer I shot with the .264 were shot just as far away and just as dead and just as quick as with buddy's .270 Weatherby !!! ( and that one uses a "pile" of powder too ! )
Todd ... you're on the right track ... 120 gr. Nosler Ballistic Tips work very well
with Retumbo and RL 25 ( not to mention ground up charcoal briquet H870 ).
I suspect Hodgdon's new 869 will work pretty good too !
If all you can turn up is 3100 with Jack O's 62 g. load of H4831 and 130 grainers in the .270, why bother ... Gee you can get 3200 fps out of the
.30-06 with the same 130 grainers with 6 grains less Varget or RL-15.
( as in, yeah, so what's your point ? )
I'm an old .270 fan too ! ( my first rifle - and then, a little later, my first custom rifle were both .270's ) but still appreciated my .264.
85 gr. Varmint loads at 3800 spin my crank, and the several deer I shot with the .264 were shot just as far away and just as dead and just as quick as with buddy's .270 Weatherby !!! ( and that one uses a "pile" of powder too ! )
Todd ... you're on the right track ... 120 gr. Nosler Ballistic Tips work very well
with Retumbo and RL 25 ( not to mention ground up charcoal briquet H870 ).
I suspect Hodgdon's new 869 will work pretty good too !
Jack O's was the only load I could find w/o my manuals (a quick Google turned it up...), but last night I read everything from Lyman to Lee to Hornady to Cartridges of the World and found nothing for the .264 that was more than 100 fps faster than the same bullet weight in .270 Win, including loads for 100, 120, 139/140, and 160-grain bullets. In most cases the .270 was as fast or faster.
Though I haven't looked at Retumbo data yet, maybe that's the key...
Edit: And yes, the .30-06 IS more efficient at all bullet weights than the .270. The .308 and .30-06 are still very hard to beat for their bore size and capacity;-)
Though I haven't looked at Retumbo data yet, maybe that's the key...
Edit: And yes, the .30-06 IS more efficient at all bullet weights than the .270. The .308 and .30-06 are still very hard to beat for their bore size and capacity;-)
Bishopus said:
I think you are misguided with respect to "efficiency". If you mean powder to bullet weight... maybe.... but when comparing bullets of different calibers, one must compare apples to apples..... which means similar SD's, NOT bullet weights.
Section Density (SD) is derived:
Bullet Weight/7000/Caliber/Caliber
So: 115gr/7000/.257/.257 = 0.249
Therefor:
.257 Cal 115gr Bullet :SD = .249
.264 Cal 120gr Bullet :SD = .246
.277 Cal 130gr Bullet :SD = .242
.284 Cal 140gr Bullet :SD = .248
.308 Cal 165gr Bullet :SD = .248
.358 Cal 225gr Bullet :SD = .251
Each bullet can have a different Ballistic Coefficient (BC) which is basically the "aerodynamics'" of the bullet, but a .257 cal 115gr Roundnose, Spitzer, and Spitzer Boattail will have different BC's, but all have the identical SD.
SD is the best way to compare different calibers from an identical case with regards to expected performance (ie. penetration) given identical bullet construction/velocity.....
Point being .... of course the 30-06 is going to push a 150gr bullet faster than a 150gr bullet from the 270 Winchester... but compare 130's to 165's and you'll see 300fps difference!
280_ACKLEY
re: efficiency I mean 'energy delivered per grain of powder burned'.
I understand the SD side of the issue, and it makes sense _except_ that SD isn't the only (or even the most-signficant) predictor of penetration--bullet construction is a huge factor as well. Bullet weight is objective and measurable, penetration is not.
So to be clear I'm not talking about 'killing power efficiency' or 'hunting efficiency', just the question of how much work is performed for a given input of energy. In this case, how fast do cartridges launch equivalent weight projectiles. Under that criteria, then the .30-06 is more efficient (at using energy to do work) than the .270. I'd still rather hunt with a 6.5x55 than the .30-06, .270, or .264 mag tho;-)
I understand the SD side of the issue, and it makes sense _except_ that SD isn't the only (or even the most-signficant) predictor of penetration--bullet construction is a huge factor as well. Bullet weight is objective and measurable, penetration is not.
So to be clear I'm not talking about 'killing power efficiency' or 'hunting efficiency', just the question of how much work is performed for a given input of energy. In this case, how fast do cartridges launch equivalent weight projectiles. Under that criteria, then the .30-06 is more efficient (at using energy to do work) than the .270. I'd still rather hunt with a 6.5x55 than the .30-06, .270, or .264 mag tho;-)
Bishopus said:
In that case, the smaller the case the higher the efficiency. The 7-08 kicks it all over the 270. In any situation, the smaller case will always be more efficient than a larger case.
I have to ask however, when thinking about buying a round like the 264...is it efficiency or results you're after?
Here's another 264 defender kicking in a comment. The naysayers will always have a statement regarding efficiency yada, yada, yada. The 264 with a 26" barrel and the right powders will launch a 125 grain bullet at close to 3400 and 140 at 3250 at safe pressures. Try that with your 270 Winchester! Additionally, the 125 grain 6.5 has greater SD and in similar design, better BC than a 130 grain 270. I have made acouple of spectacular long range shots with the 264, that, while the 270 could also have made them, the holdover and terminal energy would have made the shot a good bit more "iffy" Don't mistake my intent, I'mdefinitely NOT bashing the 270 Win. I own and shoot and like it. But when someone says it is the equivalent of the 264, I don't agree. Regards, Eagleye
