Author Topic: .264 Win Mag ?? (Read 3893 times)

GeorgiaDave · « **on:** December 02, 2006, 10:03:47 AM »

Greetings from Georgia,

Does anyone here have any experience with this cartridge. I recently aquired a few boxes of ammo that had been on the shelf of the pawn shop for a l o o o o o n g time. They appear to be in good shape and the best I can tell it was made in the late 70's. I have never heard a thing about this belted magnum except what I looked up on the internet. It seems to have some use as a long range rifle on smaller big game and possibly varmints. Thanks in advance.

Dave

jdt48653 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 02, 2006, 01:30:37 PM »

georgia dave.hello!
check back to page 7, on april 19th 2006.(medium bore rifles)
there was a good discussion on the 264.i have one and would never get rid of it! with a 26in or
longer barrel it tops the 6.5 list of greats.

PaLongshank · « **Reply #2 on:** December 05, 2006, 02:05:03 AM »

GD,

Have one in a Rem 700BDL......quite frankly, it is the BEST shooting gun I have that I have not "tinkered" with. Knocks the bajesus out of whitetails as well. I have 120 NBT's loaded up with IMR 4350 powder and CCI 200 primers. The gun can put 5 shots in a .25 cent piece at a 100 yds, consistently.

PaLongshank

Drilling Man · « **Reply #3 on:** December 06, 2006, 01:00:36 PM »

Many years ago i hunted with one a bit... I even took a brown bear with it, but it was on the light side for that, as it needed better bullets for that job. Bbls. don't last the longest if you target shoot a lot, but it's a pretty good medium size animial round that will last a lifetime with hunting accuracy...

DM

drducati · « **Reply #4 on:** December 15, 2006, 12:44:18 PM »

I had a Sako in that caliber and liked it. It was very accurate and very effective at long range. Someone else offered me twice what i paid for it and I sold it. I have a 260 Mauser action that is asking to be rechambered so I may have one again. Mild recoil and nice shooter.

Don Dick · « **Reply #5 on:** December 20, 2006, 06:51:38 AM »

Why rechamber a 260 to a 264 as the 260 is much more efficient?

Lone Star · « **Reply #6 on:** December 21, 2006, 06:08:23 PM »

Why own a .260 when a 6.5 Carcano is more "efficient"? The smaller the case, the greater the 'efficiency' at the same pressures, it's just physics. The .260 has considerably less power than the .264, doesn't shoot as flat and has more wind drift than the big mag. It isn't all about efficiency - sometimes you need horsepower.

.

nasem · « **Reply #7 on:** December 22, 2006, 02:05:53 PM »

the only way I would want to obtain a 264 mag is if someone gave me the rifle for free. Other than that, I see the 270 being the much better choice.

acearch72 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 22, 2006, 05:00:30 PM »

Quite frankly if you haven't shot a 264 WinMag then you don't know what you are talking about.

There is absolutely NO comparison between the 270 and the 264 WM. I have both. I have shot both. I know.

nasem · « **Reply #9 on:** December 22, 2006, 05:17:58 PM »

When will people learn that just because something has the word "magnum" in it, it doesn't make it better than a typical "non" magnum round. Lets look at some comparisons ... shall we

Look at the following stats taken from Conley Precision Cartirdge:

Caliber, 270 win: bullet in question: 140 gr swift-a-fram
3000 / 2797
+1.53 / 2765 / 2375 ---100 yards
+0.00 / 2540 / 2005 ---200 yards (zeroed)
-6.94 / 2328 / 1684 ---300 yards
-20.27 / 2128 / 1408 ---400 yards
-41.33 / 1941 / 1171 ---500 yards

Caliber, 264 win mag, Bullet in question, 140 gr swift-a-fram (same exact bullet weight and type of the 270)
3000 / 2797
+1.54 / 2757 / 2363
+0.00 / 2526 / 1983
-7.01 / 2308 / 1655
-20.53 / 2103 / 1375
-41.97 / 1912 / 1136

Would you look at those numbers at 400 or even 500 yards..... Yeh Like I said, make it a 270 for me ANY DAY OF THE WEEK..... I have a question for you, I have said this before on a another thread... if the 264 is so good and godly, why is it almost extinct ??!?!

Drilling Man · « **Reply #10 on:** December 23, 2006, 04:04:19 AM »

nasem,

What is the SD and BC of both of those bullets? (.277 and .264) You have to compare bullets of equil SD and BC to compare them at all..

DM

Lone Star · « **Reply #11 on:** December 23, 2006, 04:22:23 AM »

Quote

What is the SD and BC of both of those bullets? (.277 and .264) You have to compare bullets of equil SD and BC to compare them at all...

And why is that? Wouldn't the thinking reloading hunter choose the best loads for his cartridge if he wanted to use it for long range shooting? And the BC doesn't matter at all if you know the downrange ballistics - which were provided. The SD between the two bullets is very close - afterall there is only 0.013" difference in bullet diameters.

.264/140= 0.287
.277/140= 0.261
.308/180 = 0.271

All are pllenty high for any reasonable use - a 130/.277" Nosler will shoot through an elk anyway, and bullet construction is more important in penetration than a few SD points.

Hey, I'm not basing the .264 Mag - I own two .257 Weatherbys that are even more over-bore and more limited in practicality. But I know that while you can select specific ballistic examples to prove any point, it is clear that there is little practical difference between the .264 and the .270 at SAAMI pressures in the barrel lengths common on hunting rifles. Try to tell me that a difference of 200 fpe in terminal energy will kill a deer or elk any faster.

Some .264 fans like to point out that their pet performs much better in a 26" barrel than in a 24" barrel, but the reality is a bit different...

Speer #9
24" 140 WW - 3077 fps
26" 140 WW - 3139 fps

That's an increase of just 62 fps for 2" of barrel length - which just happens to be pretty normal for most high-performance cartridges. There is no magic in the .264 Magnum. It is a very fine cartridge with a small but devoted following. But there is not much practical different between it and a typical .270 WCF. If you think about it, that's pretty good praise.

acearch72 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 23, 2006, 06:10:42 AM »

nasem,

I have both. I have shot and hunted with both. There is no comparison in my opinion.

The 264 got a bad rap as a barrel burner early on, and then along came the 7mm RemMag, hence it's limited popularity. Personally, I prefer the 7mm RemMag over both the 270 and 264, but that's my opinion. I don't use the 264 anymore as my son took it over, but I still say that no matter what arguement you can put together on paper the 270 don't hold a candle. That's not saying that the 270 isn't a fine round, it's just not a 264.

Lone Star,

I have for years considered getting a 257 Weatherby Mag. White tails at long range. Comments on that combination please.

Lone Star · « **Reply #13 on:** December 23, 2006, 06:35:45 AM »

I load 100 grain bullets almost exclusively in my .257s, one an Accumark and the other a Jarrett-barreled custom Ruger No. One without freebore. To me - and to Roy W himself, who was a huge fan of the .257 - the advantage of the .257 is velocity Using bullets over 100 grains in weight compromises that velocity, making the .257 little more than a small-bore .270. Nothing wrong with that approach, it just isn't mine. Using the same bullet weight simplifies range estimations as the all the 100s will hit very close to the same place out to 400 yards.

For varmints I use Nosler 100 BTips (but I shoot where richocetts are not a problem), and I have used them for smaller deer at over 200 yards. Those bullets are just too explosive at under 200 yards where their velocity is still over 3000 fps. For the average deer I've used either Nosler Partitions or Barnes XLC bullets, although I have shied away from the Barnes Triple Shock bullets as I have heard of problems with them not opening up. I never had that problem myself, but the Noslers are "bullet proof" in that regard and I'll use them until I am satisfied the smaller caliber TS bullets are okay. Expansion is a requirement for all small caliber bullets used on game.

I have other rifles to use for larger game so heavier bullets have little appeal to me. Some shooters use the 115s and 120s to reduce velocity so the bullets don't come apart, but that thinking is backwards to me. Trajectory is practically identical between the 100s and the 115s (2" less drop for the 100s at 500 yards) so no advantage to either, just higher velocity with the 100s out to 500 yards....more than long enough for me on big game. Anyway, I love both rifles and plan on using them for as long as I can hunt.

.

nasem · « **Reply #14 on:** December 23, 2006, 07:15:05 AM »

Not trying to start an argument or anything, but my opinion is, you strike a bull elk at 300 yards from a 140 gr 270 or a 264 (swift-a-fram), most likly he will die no different from either gun.

But from a reloader / non reloader stand point, i see the 270 being the much more practical choice. Sure the SD of a 264 is a tad bit better, but that doesn't mean it kills faster..... when bullets strike, they open up and this whole business of SD is out the window, now its all about large wound chanell.

As far as balistics go, you can have a 270 shot ALMOST as flat as a 264, it will kill just as good (if not better), has reloading eqipment EVERYWHERE, and ammo availability runs in par with 30-06 availability.... its the better choice.

Not trying to dis the 264, but MY OPINION is, the term magnum should not be for any caliber under 270, there just isn't a need...but thats just my opinion

jdt48653 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 23, 2006, 01:04:50 PM »

nasem.
mine are somewhat different than your figures.
my 264
with 77.3 grs of h780 produces 3,200mv/3180me
100yds +2.3
200yds +2.5
i also buy from cpc,you did not use their top loads for a comparison.
they also list a load for the 264 with a 140 gr hornady sp at 3200fps.
at 500 yds the 270 isn`t even in the running.

nasem · « **Reply #16 on:** December 23, 2006, 01:27:52 PM »

isn't even in the running you said ?

Looking at the 264 win mag load you mentioned with the 140 gr btsp, the 264 drops -33.34 inches at 500 yards...

Why don't you look at the same bullet with the 270, you will see that bullet drops off -38.55 inches at 500. So 5 inches at 500 yards makes the 270 not in the "running" ?!?!

I dunno what kind of hunting your doing, but with a good range finder, I think -38 inches is very doable when sighting your gun at 200. Why are we still talkin about 270 vs 264, there is no comparison between the 2, and Like i said before, sure one shoots a tad bit flatter and has a tad bit better BC, but there is a good reason why the 270 is still one of the top sellers in the US and the 264 is almost extinct.

jdt48653 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 23, 2006, 02:25:55 PM »

no problem!just aim 5'' higher.

264 WIN MAG · « **Reply #18 on:** December 30, 2006, 04:32:03 PM »

Not to stir the pot back up, but I have a 270 and a 264 win mag...after hunting and killing a couple deer with the 264 mag and seeing it's potential the 270 has been the "hand off" rifle that sits on the shelf until a buddy forgets to bring his...

I would agree that there is no comparisson between a 270 and a 264 win mag. If you are talking factory load to factory load then I see your point, buy the 270, but if you are going to handload go with the 264. The factory ammo that Winchester and Remington have for this caliber seems to be downgraded and doesn't perform to the full potential of the rifle. Handloading can let it use it's full potential.

I'll tell you the main thing about my .264 vs. .270 is that if I had to take a shot at 400 yards or more I would not hesitate with the .264...I wouldn't try it with the .270...I'll do it with the .270WSM though...

nasem · « **Reply #19 on:** December 30, 2006, 07:42:01 PM »

Quote from: 264 WIN MAG on December 30, 2006, 04:32:03 PM

Not to stir the pot back up, but I have a 270 and a 264 win mag...after hunting and killing a couple deer with the 264 mag and seeing it's potential the 270 has been the "hand off" rifle that sits on the shelf until a buddy forgets to bring his...

I would agree that there is no comparisson between a 270 and a 264 win mag. If you are talking factory load to factory load then I see your point, buy the 270, but if you are going to handload go with the 264. The factory ammo that Winchester and Remington have for this caliber seems to be downgraded and doesn't perform to the full potential of the rifle. Handloading can let it use it's full potential.

I'll tell you the main thing about my .264 vs. .270 is that if I had to take a shot at 400 yards or more I would not hesitate with the .264...I wouldn't try it with the .270...I'll do it with the .270WSM though...

Why would you not attempt a shot at 400 yards with a caliber that is perfectly capable such as the 270 at either a sporting target or small-med size game? I dunno what your trying to prove here, but a hunter makes the shot and not the caliber.... its all about how much your willing to practice with the specific gun and ammo combination. Yes the 270 WSM is "balisticlly" superior to the standard 270, but you get a guy in here who has been shooting his 270 for the past 35 years, and I bet you, he'll be a 100 times better shot that someone who just obtained their 270 wsm a few years ago especially at the longer distances

264 WIN MAG · « **Reply #20 on:** January 16, 2007, 09:53:35 AM »

Just to clarify I have taken some long range shots with the old 270. I have made a few long range kills with the 270. I am simply telling you that if I had to choose between the two rifles, which one I would choose. I have hunted most of my life with the 270 and have far less experience with the 264 Win Mag, but I would pick it up in a heartbeat over the 270 on a long range shot. It’s just a better rifle when it comes to making long shots and killing at longer ranges.

Basically to get the same performance from a regular old 270 downrange as I would out of the 264 Mag I would have to go down to a much lighter bullet. I don’t particularly care to go down to a 100gr bullet just to get the same downrange performance from my 270 as my 264 Mag with 140gr bullets.

Anyhow, I went out and bought a 270WSM. Why did I buy the 270WSM? Because it’s about the closest gun to the 264 Mag that I could find both ballistic wise and as far as accuracy.

I don’t have anything at all against the 270 Winchester. It’s a great caliber, but it’s no match for the 264 Win Mag in my opinion, and I do own both and have experience hunting with both of them. I have taken down many deer with the 270 and many with the 264 and from the results I have seen the 264 will stop them in their tracks way more times than the 270 Winchester will…

You can take that for what it’s worth…someone’s opinion, but nonetheless, I do have both rifles and have used them both pretty extensively. I am simply telling you what I know.

P.S.
As for the shooting. I pulled the 270WSM out of the box. The first time I went and shot with it, it was putting up ½” groups. The week before I picked up my dad’s 7mm Mag, which I had never shot before. First shot I had too loose of a grip on it and it busted my nose pretty good. I then took the rifle and busted a 1 gallon oil jug at 300 yards on the first shot. If you have trust in your rifle and aren’t scared of it you don’t need to be behind it for 35 years to get good with it.

nomosendero · « **Reply #21 on:** January 17, 2007, 04:14:04 AM »

264, your reasoning behind the 270WSM make good sense.

It is also true that if someone uses factory ammo & doesn't plan to reload they should get a 270. There are alot of great loads & some quick ones with good ballistics. For most folks, it will do what they want & then some.

Now, when it comes to loading both rounds to their max. potential the 264 pulls away & there is no way around it. For target shooting, due to the 260, 6.5X284 & to a much more limited degree the specialized use of the 6.5-300Wea. & .264WM in 1,000yd.
matches, we have alot of 6.5 match bullets. Because the 270 is pretty much a non-factor in comp., 270 match bullets exist, but the choice is very limited, nor does the BC's compare. These can also be used (in very rural places) for windy day, limited Varmit shooting,
the 6.5 would rule here.

This also brought along the A-Max, for the 264, that is. Hornady themselves say you can use it for Medium Game & it sure works for Deer/Antelope. Not the best for up close, but for someone who knows how to shoot a rib cage, no problem. BC is .550 for a 140gr.
6.5. Oh, and some may have forgotten about the new Swift Sc. & new Nosler Acc. bullets. These have a higher BC than the 270
130gr. bullets, the Swift is .571, combine this BC & the higher vel. of the 264 & the difference will be dramatic!!!
Also, new powders such as Retumbo & RL25 are helping rounds like the 264 more than they can help a std case. So, with a rifle like the new Sendero 26"(BTW, the vel. increase with these new powders is a little more than 60fpsin a 26", sorry), it will be no trick to get 3,300-3,350fps with a 130 & 3,200-3,250 with a 140, & the modest velocity over the 270 & the more dramatic BC increase
will give you a noticeably flatter traj. & it will be somewhat more than the 5" @ 500yd. figure mentioned.

Something that I have noticed for many years concerning this comparison is that with very rare exceptions those who use both rounds will tell you
the 264 is superior in ballistics. Those who say the 270 will run with the 264 with very rare exceptions only use the 270, & to me, that speaks
volumes!!!

More important than trajectory by far & not yet mentioned is the difference in wind drift & this difference is SUSTANTIAL. As someone said before, you can aim higher, but the more windage allowance you have, the harder it gets & this is the REAL challange.
The 270 is great in it's own right, but no need trying to say it will fly right with the 264 IF BOTH ARE LOADED TO THEIR POTENTIAL,
because it won't.

TrenchMud · « **Reply #22 on:** January 17, 2007, 06:59:26 AM »

"QUOTE ... if the 264 is so good and godly, why is it almost extinct ??!?!"

.264 Mag = One of the best Pronghorn cartridges ever devised by man!
If you ever get a chance to hunt Sheep or Goats, Take it.
If you reload for it, choose wisely on the construction of the bullet and match it to the game you are after. I could go on and on, but no need. It is an excellent cartridge.
Many cartridges simply don't catch on for one reason or another and go the way of the dinosaur.
This in no way dismisses the fact that they are excellent cartridges? They just came along at the wrong time. Several of the "Short Mag" type cartridges are already slipping down the slope to extinction. Does this make them bad rounds? No! The 5mm Remington Rimfire was a wonderful
cartridge that for some reason did not make it.. The list goes on and on.
The .270 Winchester is no doubt one of the Greats ! But how much more does it really offer over
say the Venererable 7x57 Mauser ? I would personally go after anything with a 7 mm Mauser that I would with a 270 Win. Does that make either cartridge more or less capable of doing the job at hand? Not really. Why even have a .308 Win.? The 7.65x53 Mau. is a more powerful cartridge and can be use in the same action lengths. And has been around since the late 1880's? It is just a personal preference, just as the choice of a .264 Winchester would be. I have found that most folks I have talked to about cartridges normally base their opinions off of what they read or what they see on TV on hunting shows. So & So uses it so it must be good ! Well So & So is being paid, by the company who made it, to use what he or she is using. Not because it is necessarily the best
tool for the job ! Same for Gun Magazines. If a company is running (paying for) ADs in the mag you are writing for, you surely are not going to blast them for making a piece of crap... I say, use what you are competent with ! Be it a .264 or a .270. I seriously doubt the Game you are after will know the difference between the two.

wallynut · « **Reply #23 on:** January 17, 2007, 11:54:14 PM »

Have always wanted a .264, will have one someday soon. I'm not gonna kick the 270 around too much because it is a great cartridge, but what turned me away from it was bullet selection.

Slamfire · « **Reply #24 on:** January 18, 2007, 06:53:11 PM »

I don't much care for comparing bullets of the same weight in two different bores, and in the figures quoted above I'm supposed to believe the .270 holds its velocity better'n an .264 bullet from the same maker. Methinks somebody made an error in transcription.
Doesn't make a whole lot of difference though, as the .270 held the NO. 3 position in ammo and reloadin' die sales for a long long time and might still. The point to the 6.5mms is they are big enough for big game, and small enough for women, youths, and old arthritic men to shoot welll. The Magnum version just don't fill that description, and shootin' well is what it's all about.

Don Dick · « **Reply #25 on:** January 19, 2007, 02:54:23 AM »

I am glad people like the 264 and they are bringing it back for their sake. For my use, I`ll stick with the 300 win mag for long distance shots.

Brithunter · « **Reply #26 on:** January 19, 2007, 10:39:18 AM »

Hi All,

Hmmm it seems that the problem with the .264 Win Mag is the same as that with the .300 win Mag it was finalised by the marketing boys and not the engineers

both require the bullets to be seated into the powder space due to necks that are too short. Now if only they had made the necks of both cartridges a better length then they would have performed even better..

Now I did have a .300 win Mag but have never bothered with the .264 Win Mag and I happen to like the 6.5mm bore

and have 4 rifles of that calibre.

One thing that has not been mentioned here in all the comparisions is that the .270 winchester has more frontal area to start with so the initial punch on hitting game is more. The funny thing is that the 0.013" difference between the 6.5mm and the .277" is practically the same difference as that between the .308 and the 8mm and again between the 8mm and the .338". I wonder why they go up in 0.013"-0.015" steps? Of course the fly in that pot of ointment is the 7mm as the .277" is only 0.007" smaller. I put the 7mm first as it's much older than the .277" as a calibre

.

Now if I wanted to choose a cartridge which to my mind has the best of the 6.5mm bore I would go for the old 6.5x57mm Mauser, unfortuneatly I do not have one of those

Perhaps one day

I do however have and like the .270 Winchester and with a bit of luck will be acquiring a new barrel in 7x64mm to replace a worn .270 Win one on an old rifle. It will still leave me with a .270 win it's just that I do not need 2 rifles of the same make and model in the same chambering and as one has a worn bore

well I guess you understand

.

264 WIN MAG · « **Reply #27 on:** January 19, 2007, 05:00:55 PM »

Quote from: Slamfire on January 18, 2007, 06:53:11 PM

I don't much care for comparing bullets of the same weight in two different bores, and in the figures quoted above I'm supposed to believe the .270 holds its velocity better'n an .264 bullet from the same maker. Methinks somebody made an error in transcription.
Doesn't make a whole lot of difference though, as the .270 held the NO. 3 position in ammo and reloadin' die sales for a long long time and might still. The point to the 6.5mms is they are big enough for big game, and small enough for women, youths, and old arthritic men to shoot welll. The Magnum version just don't fill that description, and shootin' well is what it's all about.

Old men, women, and kids? LMAO!

I tell you what. I'm 28 years old, about 220lbs., and don't mind taking a hard lick from a rifle. Shooting the Lazzeroni 308 doesn't bother me, but I love the 264 Win Mag.

When looking at rifles I look at how they perform and not how little they kick. I could take my 264 Win Mag at the range and shoot .5" or less groups at 100 yards from a standing rest consistently. I've shot plenty of 300 mag's and other big guns, none of which I could claim shot that well all the time...

As far as using a 300 Mag for long range...what's wrong with the 264 Win Mag for long range. I have taken plenty of deer sized game at some pretty long ranges with it. Longest kill I had the pleasure of making with it was 610 yards...one shot and she ran about 20 yards. Not to bad for a little ole 264.

The worst thing about the 264 Mag though is you can't find ammo. on the shelf for it and that's why I have unfrotunately had to retire mine to avoid the hassle. It's all okay though because I like the 270 caliber and the 270WSM seems to be doing quite well so far.

nomosendero · « **Reply #28 on:** January 19, 2007, 06:58:05 PM »

Just like the 300WM, if you buy a gun with a long magazine & a decent length throat & it would be your own fault if you didn't, the neck length is a non-issue, as it is more than 1 caliber.

Brithunter · « **Reply #29 on:** January 20, 2007, 03:37:30 AM »

Magazine length was not an issue with my .300 Win Mag as the rifle was a Ruger No1B. However the neck of the 264 needs to be longer than 1 calibre due to the length of 6.5mm bullets. You must admit they are Long!

Also standard magazine rifles do not allow the bullets to be seated out. What your suggesting is the custom route

. Let's face it Olin got it wrong

it could have been better but fashion won over common sense

not the first time and it will not be the last either $:-\$ .

The short neck is one thing which Ken Waters complained about on the Winchester magnums, 264, .300 and .350 win mag all suffer the same and all came from the same period. Oh you might also recall it was this period when USRAC ran into problems and nearly went under.