After working up a load in 2002 using 63 grains of 7828 I was able to get 3300 fps with no pressure signs. I've got buck tag that cost me 11 points here in Colorado so I've been getting everything dialed back in. I've got the original powder from 2002, new 7828SSC and some Retumbo. I found with the SSC I'm getting 3200 fps at 63 and the bolt has a little resistance when opening so I'll have to drop that down a bit. I have some ammunition that I'd loaded in 2002 and it's producing 3100 fps which, I think, is simply due to the age but I don't know for sure. I'm planning on loading up some with the old 7828 to see what I get. It would appear that the new SSC isn't quite the same as the old 7828 but we'll find out for sure.

I played around with Retumbo and you can see the result in the picture. I'd say there's quite a sweet spot there. 68.5 is too hot and 67.5 has a slightly resistive bolt lift. I'd need to stick with the 66.5 or 67 so I'd call it 3100 fps.

So, now my question. My old recipe would shoot faster but still around an inch at 100. It would appear Retumbo will probably more accurate but slower. Given it's a .264 (it should be fast!) I have to believe I should go for 3200-3300 fps with a 1" group rather than try to have a tack driver at 3100.

Thoughts?

3300 with a 140 sure sounds optimistic.

That said a 140 at 2900-3100 will take care of any buck out there. I'm always happy to sacrifice a little velocity for accuracy.

3300 does sound optimistic but that's what I was getting in 2002. I still have those same components but they've aged.

I guess the real question is how much accuracy does one give up for speed? Now, keep in mind, we're talking about a 264 which is usually bought for no other reason that speed. Without the speed, why get one?

Bullets and brass don't really have a shelf life. 12 years does not really affect primers.

I doubt your powder has changed much if it has been stored properly.

If you want max speed you need a 30" barrel and really hard brass. Polish the chamber so the brass does not stick at high pressure.

It does not really matter how fast you want to go, you are limited by the laws of physics. When the primer pockets expand your pressure is too high.
To know if you have a safe load you need to know that the primer pockets are not expanding.
If your maximum load can be fired 10 or 12 times in the same cases without expanding the primer pockets they should be safe.


I have a 25-06 with about 400 rounds through it.
The first 4" inches of the throat is starting to feel rough. If you persist in chasing the fastest load in your .264 you will need a new barrel by the time you find it.

quote:

If you persist in chasing the fastest load in your .264 you will need a new barrel by the time you find it.

No doubt I'm nearly there. Then I'll replace this factory 26" barrel with something longer.

quote:

I doubt your powder has changed much if it has been stored properly.

I have powder, primers that are 20+ (if not closer to 30) years old and they still give the same results as new.

Different Chrony?

Can't imagine a hunting rifle with longer than 26". If speed is a must rechamber for a 6.5STW and really burn your barrel out.

I'll take accuracy over 100-200 fps every day of the week. The buck won't know any difference.

I think I read that the .264 Magnum used a diameter 140 grain bullet. This reduced the amount of bearing surface so you could go faster for a given pressure. You might get more speed if anyone has any of those Winchester bullets.

quote:

I think I read that the .264 Magnum used a diameter 140 grain bullet

The original 264 bullet did have a different shape. The nose had a long tape that allow you a good jump to the lands. Kind of a different way to get a Weatherby jump. Can't comment on the bearing surface. That said they were VERY inconsistent in performance on game.

If a 140 at 3000 won't do it another 100fps won't do it either.

3300 fps is what I get with 120s. I'm not saying 3300 with 140s is impossible but your charge is 5 grains over the current Hodgdons data. That should make some alarm bells go off.

Accuracy over speed is a valid choice. The thing is, to make that decision it should be the long range accuracy that is considered. 100 yard accuracy means more or less nothing, and the fast MOA load could easily be better at 5-600 than the bug-hole slow one. Or it could be worse. There's only one way to find out.

That should make someone's world crumble.

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:
...I'm not saying 3300 with 140s is impossible but your charge is 5 grains over the current Hodgdons data. That should make some alarm bells go off...

I had developed that load back when IMR's max load was listed a 65 grains. When Hodgdon bought them I guess they retested it and didn't like IMRs data.

I'm going to drop the SSC load to 62, load the "old" 7828 at 63 and do a little more testing with the Retumbo. Whichever is most accurate will get the nod.

Thanks!

quote:

When Hodgdon bought them I guess they retested it and didn't like IMRs data

Different lawyers and safety factors.

I don't have any loads for the 140 Part. 140 Hornady's like RL25 and 7828. 870 showed promise but it was a royal pain to get all the grains to line up to get the charge in the case.

870 didn't too much for me either. My rifle seems to like the 140's over smaller bullets even with the 1-9 twist. I tried Scirocco 130's and they were all over the place. I had them at .040 off the lands. Swift told me to go deeper. They said that it seemed to be case for all the Scirocco's regardless of caliber. I never did go deeper, though. I figure I'll stay with the Partition for now since it shoots so well regardless of seating depth. The 140 VLD shot pretty darned well with my ladder test but I just never took it farther.

Paul, I see you're in Parker. So am I.

Playing around with "pistol powders" which fill only 3/4 of the case is asking for trouble with a .264 -- high pressures with unexpected excursions and inconsistent velocities. IMR7828 and RL-25, good powders that they are, shouldn't be used with bullets heavier than a 120 grainer if you want optimal velocities.

The old Hodgdon numbers H570 (sticks like small logs) and H870 (a "spherical" powder) were pretty good in the .264, but have long since disappeared from the scene. Since those powders have been gone I've had my best luck with WC 872 (a St. Marks "Winchester" surplus powder). I haven't tried it, but Hodgdon US869 and the new RL-33 might provide useful results.

3300 fps with a 140 grain bullet is achievable in a 26" barrel, but ONLY if the chamber has sufficient leade (at least some "freebore") and not a SAAMI chamber where the rifling starts at the case mouth. Why Winchester adopted that very odd configuration is a mystery to everyone I've queried. If you happen to have a standard SAAMI chamber in your .264, for heaven's sake take it to a competent gunsmith and have some leade reamed in it, else you'll be seating your bullets nearly against the primer and the combustion chamber will effectively be significantly limited.

I never got acceptable velocity with 870. I'd have to look at my records again but I think I barely reached 3000 with a 140. So far, 7828 seems to be the fastest although Retumbo might with a little more fiddling.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Playing around with "pistol powders" which fill only 3/4 of the case is asking for trouble with a .264 -- high pressures with unexpected excursions and inconsistent velocities. IMR7828 and RL-25, good powders that they are, shouldn't be used with bullets heavier than a 120 grainer if you want optimal velocities.

The old Hodgdon numbers H570 (sticks like small logs) and H870 (a "spherical" powder) were pretty good in the .264, but have long since disappeared from the scene. Since those powders have been gone I've had my best luck with WC 872 (a St. Marks "Winchester" surplus powder). I haven't tried it, but Hodgdon US869 and the new RL-33 might provide useful results.

3300 fps with a 140 grain bullet is achievable in a 26" barrel, but ONLY if the chamber has sufficient leade (at least some "freebore") and not a SAAMI chamber where the rifling starts at the case mouth. Why Winchester adopted that very odd configuration is a mystery to everyone I've queried. If you happen to have a standard SAAMI chamber in your .264, for heaven's sake take it to a competent gunsmith and have some leade reamed in it, else you'll be seating your bullets nearly against the primer and the combustion chamber will effectively be significantly limited.

Why shouldn't 7828 or RE25 be used for bullets heavier than 120gr?
In my 264, RE25 gave the highest velocities, as did Retumbo. I don't understand your reasoning for not using it. The pressure traced very well with the 2 powders listed, as did the velocity.
I also tested H1000, it was middle road in velocity but pressure rose quicker than velocity did, and went backwards with maximum loads.
I'm a little confused.

Cheers.

I'm reluctant to add my 2 cents here but there are some missing items in this discussion

Way back when I was the first to have a chrono in the area where the range was, I tested every rifle that anyone wanted me to check out.

Back in those days most of the 264's had 26" bbl and the bullets specifically for the 264 were two diameter...a base section to grab the lands and a bore riding section so the advertised velocities could be APPROACHED, BUT NEVER ACHIEVED. The velos in most of those days manuals were taken in universal receivers AND 30" bbl's especially for the 264.

One guy brought me a brand new Rem 700 BDL with a 24" bbl and some hand loaded 140 gr rounds...and after I showed him the results and had to defend myself to keep from getting punched. The velo was something like 250 fs LESS than what his manual said it was supposed to be, basically about what a 270 put out with a 130 gr bullet. He was so mad he turned white. I heard later he did get into a fight in the hardware store he bought the gun at and ended up in the can for the night.

I've never had a 264 but have reloaded for a few friends and used 870(way old stuff) mostly but hated it for being so dirty and hard to clean, and you couldn't give me a 264 due to all the BS that surrounded it at that time.

Another thing that seems to keep being missed by shooters is each rifle is different and YOU have to work out WHICH bullet and WHICH powder it likes.

Manuals are only good for getting a nuance of which burn rate powders work for which cartridge and are NOT absolutely the last word.

AND "IF" you are going to shoot a 264 you really need a 28-30" bbl to overcome the god-awful bore/case volume discrepancy and get a more efficient ratio.

I don't have anything against the 6,5mm per se and have two Swedes and a 260 Rem bbl for one of my Savage switch barrel rigs, but the 264 burns so much powder for what you get that my Scots/Irish heritage won't let me even think about building one...

EOR...end of rant.

quote:

Why shouldn't 7828 or RE25 be used for bullets heavier than 120gr?

For exactly the same reasons that any powder which is too fast for a given case/bore/bullet weight should be avoided. It's not that they won't work, but they will leave lots of air room in the case (low loading density which promotes higher velocity and pressure variations), and won't reach the optimal velocities with heavier bullets which slower powders will.

There are many, many more "extra slow" powders on the market now, mostly thanks to the baffling popularity of .50 BMG shooting. Most of those powders have not been formally tested in the .264 Win by commercial sources with access to sophisticated pressure equipment, so the handloader is mostly on his own when adapting such powders to the .264. That's too bad, because the two very slow powders available from VihtaVouri, US 869 from Hodgdon, RL 33 from Alliant, and the various WC series of surplus powders (860, 867, 872) all have excellent potential in the .264.

For many years I've been shooting a 140 Nosler Partition from my Sako 24.4" barrel at 3150 FPS using a load of WC 872. This chamber has had its leade reamed to allow the bullet to seat to an OAL of 3.415", which places it about flush with the base of the neck. I have another Sako .264 with a 26" barrel which has not had its SAAMI chamber fixed, and it will digest about 2 grains less powder and will not reach the same velocities as the shorter barrel with the "normalized" chamber.

I've owned the 24" Sako since new in 1965 and it has probably had 3000-4000 rounds down the barrel (it was my only hunting rifle for its first twenty years of ownership.) In the process of working up loads with powders for which no data existed, some of those rounds generated significantly excessive pressures. The first inch of the bore in front of the chamber looks like alligator hide, but it shoots consistently sub-MOA, so while some wizard with a borescope might pronounce it "shot out", I'm confident my grandchildren will find it still shooting better than the average hunting rifle well into the latter half of this century.

BTW: If you think that the .264 Win case capacity is excessive, then what must you think of the larger .264 Nosler?

True, true Stoney...todays powders allow all those "overbore" cartridges to do great things.

As far as a "worn out barrel"...I bought a "shot out 17 Rem sway back, cheap. You couldn't see any rifling by looking downs the bore and the muzzle was coated with copper.

I had two thoughts in mind...I needed a Rem 700 short action and I hoped the bore was just copper coated that would come off with a lot of work.

It WAS just copper coating and after I got it removed the rifle continued to shoot in the 3's for an additional 4 seasons of sage rat shooting in the neighborhood of 500-700 rounds/year.

The first 8-9" from the chamber was alligatored with minimal rifling after cleaning but the muzzle end was still relatively sharp.

Just before I rebarreled it, again to 17 Rem with an on sale Shilen from Brownells, half or more of the bore was just trash and the groups had opened up to ~1", but it still stayed below 3/4" for a while after I cut 1" off the muzzle and recrowned it.

How many times has it been said that the muzzle is the last thing to see the bullet and if it's good then the groups are also.

ANY one who has worked with hi-velo hot rocks knows just how wrong all the BS about "HIGH VELO BURNS OUT BARRELS"...it ISN'T hi velo that does the dirt, it's the HIGHT HEAT associated with large amounts of powder that does it and all the other forms of increasing heat.

I've been building "hot rock" wildcats since the mid 60's, including the 284 based, 22 thru 25 cals, still have a 6mm-284 that is getting tired so it will probably turn into a 25-284 or Rich's Banshee, a 22-243, a 220 Swift Ruger from way back, a couple of 25-06's and a bunch of barrels used to make dies, gauges, jack handles and a few ended up as snipes with the addition of a few inches of I" pipe welded on painted, handle ends knurled for grip and presented as gifts to friends/family mechanics. The shooters still are "almost bugholers" but most of then have 1000-3000 rounds through them and are getting long in the tooth for guild edged accuracy.

I've also built wildcat's that I NEVER did find the right combination before the barrel turned into a smooth bore.

Doesn't matter, those shooters still do their jobs with todays powders matched to the case and bore size.

I have "long throated" the 284 and matched the 7mm RM published velos with a LOT LESS powder and the same barrel lengths, not many believe that, but I could also increase the 7mm RM's velos through the same long throating process...case capacity is the same as engine size...the more cubes/volume you have the faster/higher HP you can get.

You've done this, Stoney, so you know all the nuances.

I don't think the 264 case volume is "excessive" except with short barrels, checking out a powder burn curve for bbl length from 24-30" gives a nice view of that. The same goes for the 26 Nosler with an additional 10-11 gr H2O capacity at ~93 gr H2O, the 6.5 WM at the same capacity, the 6.5 Critser Express at over 100 gr H2O or the 6.5-378 Weatherby for god sakes at over 126 gr H2O. Anyone who has done this game for any length of time has figured out there is a point of no return as you go up in case volume and down in bullet diameter...it takes more and more powder to gain less and less velocity where at some point you are just stuffing powder in with no additional speed.

With todays powders that PONR as far as case capacity goes DOES INCREASE and you DO gain additional velocity...100 fs may be worth the addition cost and if YOU want to pay it, who am I, or any other's place, to denigrate.

NO one tells me how to feed my toys or which ones titillate me, but I DO listen because there are plenty of shooters out there with newer/better/more information with things of value to say.

Whether going totally spaceville or conservative, the value of the project is up to the individual...with all the naysayers/repeaters/non-experienced chiming in with their questionable views learned from the net added in.


The problem is and always will be, cherry picking to prove a point rather than looking at the total picture with a view to total potential for various applications and being extremely happy all this hoo haw is still possible to do...that, Boys, is quickly coming to an end.

NO FLAME OR DISS INTENDED to anyone...we ALL have something new to learn here.

Luck with your projects.

I would say rather than chase speed, look at a 140 accubond or SST, etc... With the same velocities you will probably see as good of trajectory/wind drift with a higher bc bullet as you would with the partition 200fps faster. I only mention that as you mentioned a deer tag. If elk were on the menu I'd be inclined to stick with the partition or maybe the 127gr TTSX.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Why shouldn't 7828 or RE25 be used for bullets heavier than 120gr?

For exactly the same reasons that any powder which is too fast for a given case/bore/bullet weight should be avoided. It's not that they won't work, but they will leave lots of air room in the case (low loading density which promotes higher velocity and pressure variations), and won't reach the optimal velocities with heavier bullets which slower powders will.

There are many, many more "extra slow" powders on the market now, mostly thanks to the baffling popularity of .50 BMG shooting. Most of those powders have not been formally tested in the .264 Win by commercial sources with access to sophisticated pressure equipment, so the handloader is mostly on his own when adapting such powders to the .264. That's too bad, because the two very slow powders available from VihtaVouri, US 869 from Hodgdon, RL 33 from Alliant, and the various WC series of surplus powders (860, 867, 872) all have excellent potential in the .264.

For many years I've been shooting a 140 Nosler Partition from my Sako 24.4" barrel at 3150 FPS using a load of WC 872. This chamber has had its leade reamed to allow the bullet to seat to an OAL of 3.415", which places it about flush with the base of the neck. I have another Sako .264 with a 26" barrel which has not had its SAAMI chamber fixed, and it will digest about 2 grains less powder and will not reach the same velocities as the shorter barrel with the "normalized" chamber.

I've owned the 24" Sako since new in 1965 and it has probably had 3000-4000 rounds down the barrel (it was my only hunting rifle for its first twenty years of ownership.) In the process of working up loads with powders for which no data existed, some of those rounds generated significantly excessive pressures. The first inch of the bore in front of the chamber looks like alligator hide, but it shoots consistently sub-MOA, so while some wizard with a borescope might pronounce it "shot out", I'm confident my grandchildren will find it still shooting better than the average hunting rifle well into the latter half of this century.

BTW: If you think that the .264 Win case capacity is excessive, then what must you think of the larger .264 Nosler?

As far as my pressure testing goes, RE25, Retumbo and 7828 are right on the money for load density, pressure and velocity. I don't know where you get the notion that any of these powders are too fast.
I have to admit that my chamber has .150" of freebore, but it is necessary to make this cartridge work correctly. I get in excess of 3200fps with 140gr Accubonds and no excessive pressure, in fact the load I'm using is under max pressure according to my Pressure Trace II.
I can get my hands on some 869 here, but really don't see the point because it will need a load somewhere around 120% case capacity to get the highest velocity.
Retumbo is probably the slowest powder that utilises all the available powder space efficiently.
I would also suggest that increasing the throat to .200" would increase velocities again in this cartridge, but some see this as going backwards, not me.

Cheers.

quote:

As far as my pressure testing goes

And just how far is that, and with what kind of laboratory equipment?