Suppose a guy had a bunch of similar guns between 6.5x55 and 30-06. And suppose a guy had a chance to get a 7RM, for a doaner, cheap. Also suppose that he only hunted deer and hogs. Which one should he go with a 264WN or a 300H&H? Please let us keep it between these two. thanks capt david

264

captdavid, I'd go with the 300 H&H. It's a mild-mannered magnum that's easy to load for. It's a nice step up from a 30-06 and a great round for really big South Texas bucks or boars.

DO NOT GET A 264 WM IF YOU ALREADY OWN A 270 AND A CHRONOGRAPH - - YOU WILL FIND HEARTACHE AND DISAPPOINTMENT.

I'd recommend that you read Barsness's article on the 264 in February Handloader. You might be impressed with what the 264 will do! I've had both a 300H&H and several 264's. For Texas deer/hog hunting, I'd vote for the 264.

My 264 was just a loud 270.

Well, you know either would do...I would probably go with the 300HH since you already have a 6.5 and a 7RM, but alot would depend on the rifle. What kind of rifles are you talking about?
The 300 would be a nice step up.
Regards,
Terry

Have a 264, don't have a 300 H & H. Did some quick calculations on a ballistic program:

300 H & H - 180 grain ballistic coefficient .552, sectional densiity .271, velocity 3100 at 300 feet altitude, energy at 300 yards 2687, drop at 500 yards 33.8"

264 - 130 grain ballistic coefficient .479, sectional density .266, velocity 3300 at 300 feet altitude, energy at 300 yards 2100, drop at 500 yards 30.8

Used Barnes TSX BC'S since I have their chart. Looks like the 300 H & H is no slouch, getting into 300 WM territory there. I can speak from experience that I'd rather shoot my 264 cause my 300 kicks the &$(* out of me sometimes. I'd say it depends on the gun. If the 264 is a pre-64 Winchester, then it will have a lot of value. The 264 needs a long barrel in order to burn all that powder, like the 26" barrel on mine. What kind of guns are we talking about?



Looks like the

Captdavid - No doubt about it a 300 H&H. Their are more 30 cal. bullets available than for the 6.5, or .264 bore. it is one of the few magnums (in my opinion) that can be loaded down as well as up and still produce really accurate loads at either spectrum. And, it doesn't require a 26" barrel, like the 264, to produce near maximum velocities. Also mentioned on this thread, I don't think it produces much more recoil than the 264 in a "properly stocked" rifle of "moderate" weight. IMHO, I think the 300 H&H is one of the classic "all around" calibers available (not as popular as it should be) for North America. Long range is the H&H's specialty and it won the Whimbleton cup many years ago when the the .264 was just a thought.Mags

I had a .300H&H built last year and hunted it this season. The recoil seems to be less than the .300WM. It's a fantastic round that feeds smooth, it's easy to load for and has a lot of class. Well, I think it does anyway. It gets (got) my vote hands down.

Never owned a .264 so no comments.

Terry

.300H&H

Bullshit Forest. Do some trajectory calculations on a .264 120 gr bullet@3400 fps and see if any medium game qualified .270 load will match the flatness .

The .264 was killed of by .270 loving gun writers with monthly magazine columns , not by chronographs..........

.300 H&H - Way to go.

Roland

A mate of mine has tried about everything in the last few years from 30 calibre down including wildcats.

From memory there has been 257 Wby, 264, 6.5/300Wby, 7mm Rem, 7mm STW, 7mm Ultra, 300 Ultra and 25, 270 and 7mm all on 300 Winchester necked down and also 300 Wby, 300 Winchester and 300 Jarret.

All rifles have been Rem 700 Stainless, match barrels, Jewell trigger and S&B and Nightforce scopes.

270 Win is missing but not really because I had 4 bench guns 3 of which at the time were 270s with 3 different contour barrels.

My mate now has four different 264s on the Rem 700s with Jewell triggers. One of them has Heavy Varmint taper, one has the Remington Varmint taper one has a Number 5 (.72" at 26 inchs) and one has a lighter barrel about like a Rem sporter contour. All on HS Precision stocks.

Lastly, I have finished my days with the super speed small bores on top accuracy rifles as it wears you out after a while with the contiunual testing na dit thrashes your ears. So I justs tick to my big bore interests.

However, if I was going back to the quick small stuff it would be the 264.

Mike

The 264 was killed by the 7mm RM.

120 grain bullets are for coyotes. The 264 needs 140 grain bullets for the SD. Comparing what my 264 would do with 140's relative to what my 270's would do with 140's and 150's made it an easy decision to leave the 264 behind.

Really it's mostly a matter of personal preference. I love the 6.5X55, 270, 7X57 and the 280. I don't see the need for magnum cases unless one is pushing 180 grain+ bullets. For this reason I really don't care for the 264 or 7 mags, but I really like efficient 300 and 338 mags.

The chart is bullshit, by the way.

Boy this is really tough. The 264 will beat the balistics of the 6.5x55 by a slim margin if you are reloading for both. The 300 H&H will beat the balistics of the 30-06 by the same slim margin. (about 300 fps at equal pressures with the same bullets)

One of my favorite flat shooting rifles is my 264, I find it much more pleasent to shoot than the 300 mags.

For informal target shooting and game up to and including mule deer, my choice would be the 264. And the 264 would need no magazine alterations to work.

If my future plans included larger game such as moose, elk, or brown bear, well then, I would add the 300 mag to my collection.

Question: Is the action length of your 7mag long enough for a 300 H&H?

"120 bullets are for coyotes" ??

I am curious as to why that would be ? There seems to be no shortage fo folks using from 6mm 85 grain bullets to .270 130 gr bullets successfully on deer size game . And personally , I've found even the 120 gr 6.5mm ballistic tips to hold up quite well on chest shots in open country..........even with the 3400 fps muzzle speed......

I guess it would depend on how big those hogs can get. If they weigh over #300, I'd use the .300 with a 200-grain controlled-expansion bullets.

I second the question posed by Idaho Shooter. If you're using a 7mm Rem Mag as a donor action that 300 H&H as much as I personally would love to own one will require a fair deal more work if it will go at all. From that standpoint I'd whole heartedly back the 264 as the choice. Of coarse to be fair I have 3 of them now and am still after that minty Pre-64 Mod. 70 Westerner that won't break the bank! I don't think I'll ever see it though.

If it's a Winchester M70, no problem.

Terry

Well, Capt., you don't say what action your donor rifle is. Many 7mm Rems are built on "standard" length actions with a magazine about 3.35" -- too short for a .300 H & H but okay (just barely) for a .264.

You don't say, but I assume that you've narrowed it to these two calibers because you fancy them for some reason. Fine. Either will do what you want as far as deer and pigs. The .300 will just barely get you more velocity than a .30-06 in the same barrel length and pressure -- maybe 125-150 fps. The .264 will get you just a tad more velocity in the same bullet weight as a .270 -- perhaps 100 fps with a 140 grain bullet (and the appropriately very slow powder).

I've owned all of them -- .264's, .300 H&H, and .270's and like them all. The H & H isn't as practical or powerful as say, a .30-338, but if you like its nostalgic aura, then go for it.

quote:

---

Comparing what my 264 would do with 140's relative to what my 270's would do with 140's and 150's made it an easy decision to leave the 264 behind.

---

The 264 will drive the 140's at a higher velocity than the 270 and has a higher sectional density, so I don't really see what you're saying there, ForrestB.

Hey tdobesh I've got a minty pre-64 - How big's the bank?

My brother owned a custom .264 unfortunately it had a short tube... 22". However it was really accurate and killed like poison. All he ever shot in it was the Winchester 140 gr. factory loads, the dual dia. type. He took many deer, moose, and black bears with it most were one shot kills. I think its underated. If I were to get one I would go with 26" bbl for sure and just stick with a premium 140 gr. bullet and that would be all the long range gun you will need.

.300h&h for sure. Then later get a .375 & you have a matched pair for Africa.

If you have a 7mm Rem. Mag. for a doner action, then by all means go with the .264 Win. Mag.

The .264 Win. Mag. is a great cartridge, very accurate and easy to shoot (really light recoil for what you're getting), and it's extremely effective on all medium game at just about any hunting distance. One of my friends used one off and on for many years for mule deer here in Oregon, and his rifle was a genuine, original pre-64 Model 70 "Westerner" with Winchester's beautifully-contoured 26" stainless-steel barrel. He got an honest 3200 fps. out of it with 140 gr. bullets with the now unavailable H870 powder. It was just a super rifle, and it hammered big mule deer very dead, plus those bucks went down FAST. In my estimate, the .264 Win. Mag. is one of those little understood cartridges that has been badmouthed by those who don't have any experience with it, but those in the know usually swear by it once they're used it in the field.

Besides, the .300 H&H simply won't work properly with a 7mm Remington-size action. It needs a longer magazine box, an opened-up loading port, a shorter bolt-stop, and a longer magazine follower -- in other words, it needs an action that was originally designed for the .375 H&H, .300 Weatherby, or 7mm STW.

For the .264 Win. Mag., your action will work perfectly without a hitch, no additional action parts, and no costly modifications other than a new barrel.

AD

I'd also vote 264. If you look at Barnes new 120 gr triple shock, you'll find a bullet you can drive fast 3300-3400 fps, and that has a sleek enough bc to make it very flat shooting. I'd put the 120 gr X against any cup/core 140 gr for big game.

Now if you want to get something you don't already have, ie outside that range of guns, a 338 win mag would be a fine choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by woods:

quote:

---

Comparing what my 264 would do with 140's relative to what my 270's would do with 140's and 150's made it an easy decision to leave the 264 behind.

---

The 264 will drive the 140's at a higher velocity than the 270 and has a higher sectional density, so I don't really see what you're saying there, ForrestB.

---

It wasn't that the 264 wasn't a little faster (it was). It's that the two are so close in capability that the only discernable difference was muzzleblast.

Looking at loading notes, my 24" 264 would push 140 Partitions right at 3060 FPS with H870, H1000 or RL25. Factory ammo would clock 100 FPS less than this. My 23" and 24" 270's will push 140's about that fast and push 150's at about 2950 with any number of powders.

At 300 Yds, the 264 would be traveling about 2500 FPS and carry 1900 ft lbs of energy. 150's from a 270 would be traveling about 2400 FPS and carry about 1875 ft lbs of energy. With a 200 yard zero, the difference in drop at 300 yards is a fraction of an inch.

Not enough difference to matter in the field. A big difference is that the 264 loads all have a charge weight with a 7 as the first digit and the 270 loads have a 5 as the first digit.

What Allen said about the 264 ("...is a great cartridge, very accurate and easy to shoot (really light recoil for what you're getting), and it's extremely effective on all medium game at just about any hunting distance") is all true but exactly the same statement can be made about the 270. I'm trying to envision a scenario where I'd be reluctant to take a shot with a 270 but having a 264 would make all the difference in the world. I can't come up with one.

For me, muzzle blast is a big component of perceived recoil. That factor coupled with ammo and brass availability weighed heavily against the 264.

Maybe I had a slow 264, maybe I needed a 26" barrel, maybe... a lot of things, but the 264 has been relegated to the dustbin by all but a relative few shooters; and not just because it's been misunderstood.

There. That ought to get you guys going again.

quote:

---

Also suppose that he only hunted deer and hogs. Which one should he go with a 264WN or a 300H&H? Please let us keep it between these two. thanks capt david

---

Yeah, but he only wanted to know opinions about 264 versus 300 H&H.

Should you have a classic round like the H&H in your safe? Especially one that shoots as well as it does? No question.

Throw some 200grn NP's in it and never look back. That's what I did in a M70 classic that started life as a 7mmRM. Thanks to a good 'smith it now shoots under .75MOA.

I have always viewed the 264 WM as an ulitimate niche cartridge. In on other words if one wanted to carry a heavy sporter to get the most out of it for a particular size game then the 264 is an option for the smaller ranges of big game and large varmints.

I have used the 264 WM since 1961 primarily as a long range varmint cartridge. Most recently I carried it for long range whitetails.

The load I have always used is 120 grs. This was to minimize recoil and ricochets and to maximimize velocity. So bear with me and accept the fact that the bullet I choose to use these days is the 120 Nosler Ballistic Tip.

The ballistic coefficient of the 6.5 mm 120 gr BT is .458 and the nearest .277 BT to that Ci is Noslers 140 gr at .456. My Westerner will easily shoot the 120 BT's at 3350 MV instrumental and that's with only 65 grs of powder. A 264 case will hold more but it is so accurate that why mess?

Show me a 270 Winchester 140 gr load from a 26" barrel that will come near 3350 fps! I use 25 fps per inch of length.

My belief is that a soft nosed bullet must be going at least 2300 fps to expand well on a coyotes body. Using this as a cut off the Westerner has a range of 550 yds. A 270 Winchester might reach 3050 fps out of the same size rifle. Using the 140 gr BT the smaller 270 Win cartridge would then give me a range of 400 yds! Thus using my niche rifle I would loose 150 yds of range if it were chambered for a 270.

Overall the 270 is very popular and the 264 is almost obsolete. I use the 264 only for special reasons and for those reasons it's an extreme perfomer. For an all around rifle a 22" Featherweight is much easier to live with and that's where the 270 shines.

http://www.steyrscout.org/270bc.htm

To answer the orginal question I would choose between the two on the recoil issue. If you don't mind the kick of a 300 mag then the choice is more emotional than anything.

Besides all this figuring given the choice most of us would buy both.

I'll throw in with the get the 264 win mag crowd here. Why, well I dont think you get much with a 300 H and H. Not to bad mouth the cartridge, but there are alot better 300's out there that I clearly would rather have than the old H and H. Like the 300 wby, or 300 win.

I like the 264 win mag and think for the simple reason most dont shoot it, really appeals to me. A conversation piece, and a flat hard hitting western open country rifle. I'd take that 264 mag and load it with a 120 grain TSX and never look back. That would be one sweet muley on down rig.

quote:

Originally posted by AggieDog:
I'll throw in with the get the 264 win mag crowd here. Why, well I dont think you get much with a 300 H and H. Not to bad mouth the cartridge, but there are alot better 300's out there that I clearly would rather have than the old H and H. Like the 300 wby, or 300 win.

Not enough difference in any of the .300's to worry about. Well, except for the 30-378 and the RUM.

Terry

I know, I know,,,, You did not ask..

My spare 7mmRM is going to be a 325WSM one day..
Long action gives me more powder room for longer projectiles.


If my other 7 did not shoot as good as it does, it would be a 264...

The 264 is an OK long range deer rifle and a medicore elk rifle...It never made it because the .270 could do as well at any range without the belted magnum case and the result was a quick and merciful deserved death for the .264..sorry but that's the truth wheather you admit it or not, it failed at the box office..

The 300 H&H has proven itself in the game fields on all manner of game and it or any other 300 magnum is head and shoulders above the .264 any way you cut...

quote:

The 300 H&H has proven itself in the game fields on all manner of game and it or any other 300 magnum is head and shoulders above the .264 any way you cut...

Ray: I have read a lot of your posts and have much respect for your knowledge and experience. But I would have to respectfully disagree that the 300H&H is superior to the 264 for ANY application.

In south Texas, a 140gr @ 3200 or 129gr Partition at 3300 or a 120TSX at 3300 or 3400 is wonderfully flat shooting and has more than enough juice for any whitetail, with less recoil and better trajectory than a 300H&H.

I have a pre64 300H&H which Idearly love but it ain't "better" for long range whitetials than a good 264, IMO.

I have had both the .300 H&H and the .264 in the P-64 with the 26" bbls. and I agree, it is a superior Whitetail round, but, I think that Ray was referring to general big game hunting, including Elk, Moose and so forth. That is how I understood his post and I agree, the .300 is much superior as a BIG game general cartridge and calling the .264 a mediocre Elk round is pretty accurate, certainly in B.C.'s densely forested Elk habitat. But, it will work with the 140 NP, although I much prefer the 200 NP in the old H&H.....I had a matched pair and wish I still had them.