I've made all the case dimension comparisons and now need to get comments from the real world.

I want to build a Winchester Mod 70 for my deer, antelope, and sheep hunting work. Without wasting a bunch of time trying to explain my personal quirks, I'd prefer to shoot a Winchester cartridge in a Winchester rifle - there I said it.

I'd prefer to go the 264 Win Mag route; however, I am also a Lapua brass addict from my competitive benchrest experiences. I can't find any Lapua or Norma brass for the 264 and don't have good vibes for the Winchester brass. That brings me to the 6.5x284 cartridge. I can get the beloved Lapua in that round and need to get comments on performance between the 264 and 6.5x284. While the 6.5x284 is not a pure Winchester cartridge, it is based upon the Winchester 284 case so I can somewhat keep my Winchester round for Winchester rifle twitch going. Your help is sincerely appreciated.

Many thanks.

Winchester rifle,Winchester cartridge and non winchester brass horrors.

Both well work just fine I would go with the 6.5x284 just to get rid of the belted case of the 264

I've built a bunch of 6.5s and I'll say I'd probably go with a 260 AI or a 6.5-06 AI. The magnums just don't give you a whole lot more and are finicky. The 6.5X284 is great but you have to do a little rail work to get them to feed right. I'd also go with a 1-9 twist because I've not been able to get the velocity out of the 1-8 and 1-8.5 twists. Have had no problems with the 1-9.

Sam

I shoot a 264 and love it. I find that keeping my velocity down to 6.5 X 284 levels increases my accuracy. Both calibers will do the job that you are wanting them for. I use win. brass and get along fine but my use is strictly hunting. My only complaint with the 264 is it's efficiency. You use a lot of powder to get the speed.
As far as brass, If Lapua makes 7mm rem., you could neck them down. FWIW my rifle has a 1-8 twist. handles 129 - 140 gr. bullets well. Not good with the light ones.

My .264 shoots sub MOA with Winchester brass and that's all I need. It's a hunting rifle not a benchrest gun. It was built to kill game not punch holes in paper.

Something else to think about is feeding. If you built a 6.5X284 that didn't feed worth a chit you wouldn't be sitting in a room by yourself.

Terry

I have both and yes, I had to do some feedrail work to make the 6.5x284 feed well. The 264WM I "fireform" so I do not need that silly belt. Other than that, the big difference is the 6.5x284 does it (whatever it is) with 9-10 grains less powder. Since both rifles were built right, they both get well below MOA accuracy..like half that if I do my part.

quote:

and don't have good vibes for the Winchester brass.

Get over it....the stuff is fine product.

I wouldn't trade my old Mod 70 in 264 for . . . Love that rifle and cartridge. If you just can't stand WW brass (I've used it for years in this rifle and never found it wanting.) I've got some Rem brass that also works pretty good.

I have a 264 Mod 70 rifle and a Shilen deep chambered 6.5 x 284 SS barrel threaded for a Remington 700. I think I'm going to sell the 6.5 x 284 barrel because (a) I don't need another set of high dollar reloading dies laying around unused 35 out of 36 months, (b) I can't make the 6.5 x 284 do anything the 264 WM won't do a little better and (c) the extra case capacity of the 264 makes it reach advertised velocities with really cheap surplus cannon powders instead of expensive commercial canister powders.

Just got a chance to check this thread and appreciate all the replies.

Just to clarify on my Lapua addiction. While it got started when I was shooting benchrest, it has continued into my hunting rifles. Now I won't attempt to argue whether or not the mule deer I'm shooting will know what type of brass was used. It is really not much of a difference between this issue and whether there is really any reason to reload instead of shooting the high quality factory ammo you can buy over-the-counter.

I'm a hair splitter by nature and that includes my reloading components. I can factually demonstrate how high quality brass (i.e. Lapua, Norma, etc) yields better hand loads than cheaper stuff. Again, does it matter when it comes to hunting, probably not. However, we all take our hunting, rifle, ammo addictions to the level that satisfies our individual cravings.

My main issue was terminal performance between the two cartridges when using identical bullets. I also find the "feeding" issue an interesting side note for the 6.5x284.

Great discussion and I sincerely appreciate all the view points. I hope more will chime in going forward.

I understand the Lapua isssue. Any brass that can be loaded for competition straight out of the box without any prep and still be competitive is much desired.

I picked up Nosler 264Wmag brass the other day. Haven't loaded it but quick checking shows a very consistant product.

If you already have the standard bolt go with the 6.5x284. If you have a magnum bolt then go with the 6.5 magnum.

Simpler is better.

I've been shooting .264 Winchester's for over 40 years. It's a rather specialized cartridge which requires an experienced reloader to get the optimal performance out of it. Assuming that you fall into this category, then it offers superior velocity to the 6.5x284.

Regarding brass, I've used some Lapua brass and it is certainly good stuff -- but in practical terms no better than WW. Haven't tried any of the Nosler stuff, but if you're looking to spend more money they can certainly accomodate you. I don't know if Lapua makes 7mm RM, but if they do then a single easy trip through a .264 sizing die gives you picture perfect .264 WM brass.

If I were considering choosing another 6.5 cartridge for a hunting rifle other than the .264 WM it would be the 6.5-06 AI, not the fat, stubby 6.5-284. The 6.5-06 (particularly in the AI version) has more case capacity typically allows one more round in the magazine than the .284 case. Insofar as accuracy, the "short-fat" craze is only a fad based on no particular evidence that it influences accuracy or internal ballistics.

The .264 WM wins the speed contest. The 6.5/284 wins the accuracy contest. In both cases it's not by much. You get less recoil and muzzle blast from the 6.5/284 and it cost less to reload, takes less powder. The recoil is less because of the less powder. The expanding gases account for a large part of the recoil. If I was building the gun for sheep hunting I would go 6.5/284 as it will work better in a shorter barrel, light weight gun (6 to 6.5 lbs.) . A 22" barrel with an 8.5 or 9 twist wouldn't be out of line. You should be able to get around 2800 fps with 120 to 140 gr. bullets. I personally think that is close to the ultimate sheep and mountain goat rifle.......Tom

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
I've been shooting .264 Winchester's for over 40 years. It's a rather specialized cartridge which requires an experienced reloader to get the optimal performance out of it. Assuming that you fall into this category, then it offers superior velocity to the 6.5x284.

Regarding brass, I've used some Lapua brass and it is certainly good stuff -- but in practical terms no better than WW. Haven't tried any of the Nosler stuff, but if you're looking to spend more money they can certainly accomodate you. I don't know if Lapua makes 7mm RM, but if they do then a single easy trip through a .264 sizing die gives you picture perfect .264 WM brass.

If I were considering choosing another 6.5 cartridge for a hunting rifle other than the .264 WM it would be the 6.5-06 AI, not the fat, stubby 6.5-284. The 6.5-06 (particularly in the AI version) has more case capacity typically allows one more round in the magazine than the .284 case. Insofar as accuracy, the "short-fat" craze is only a fad based on no particular evidence that it influences accuracy or internal ballistics.

Stonecreek:

Thank you for your comments. I shoot competitive benchrest and I can tell you that the Lapua brass definitely makes a difference where winning is often determined by .002! That being said, I won't debate whether or not is makes a significant difference in the hunting world where this rifle will do its business. I'm sure there are hunting alternatives to Lapua that will work just fine.

I found your suggestion to consider the 6.5-06 AI very intriguing. Just this morning I discovered a thread about the desert ram taken by D'Arcy Echols earlier this year.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...0106493&m=7611090641

It seems Mr. Echols chose the 6.5x06 for his desert sheep odyssey. I would venture to guess D/Arcy could take just about any custom rifle he wanted and when it came down to it, he choose the 6.5x06.

Interestingly, Lapua makes 30-06 brass

As the scientists say; further study is needed.

Thanks.

Build a 270 WCF and go see a shrink about your obsessive fretting.

quote:

Originally posted by ForrestB:
Build a 270 WCF and go see a shrink about your obsessive fretting.

Funny you mention the 270. Yesterday I picked up a wonderful book by veteran Arizona desert sheep guide Tom Saad. As you might imagine, we spent a little time discussing hunting. Since 1965, a 270 has been Tom's rifle of choice. Beyond his sheep hunting exploits, Tom used his 270 to bag Arizona's "Big Ten"; which includes Buffalo and Bear. Tom tells me that, with the exception of 1 bear, all were one shot kills. He suggests there is probably no more classic and effective American hunting rifle than the 270; although some may argue for the 30-06.

BTW; I thought my 86 year old mother was the only person still using the word "fretting"

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Welker:

quote:

Originally posted by ForrestB:
Build a 270 WCF and go see a shrink about your obsessive fretting.

Funny you mention the 270. Yesterday I picked up a wonderful book by veteran Arizona desert sheep guide Tom Saad. As you might imagine, we spent a little time discussing hunting. Since 1965, a 270 has been Tom's rifle of choice. Beyond his sheep hunting exploits, Tom used his 270 to bag Arizona's "Big Ten"; which includes Buffalo and Bear. Tom tells me that, with the exception of 1 bear, all were one shot kills. He suggests there is probably no more classic and effective American hunting rifle than the 270; although some may argue for the 30-06.

BTW; I thought my 86 year old mother was the only person still using the word "fretting"

What if the .280 had come along before the 06 or .270. Never understood why the .270 came to be. roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

What if the .280 had come along before the 06 or .270. Never understood why the .270 came to be. roger [/QUOTE]

Someone more versed than I in cartridge history will have to opine on Winchester's original motives behind the 270. Most hunters I've spoken with that are dedicated 270 shooters all seem to trace their initial interest to Jack O'Connor. Maybe when all the folks that were influenced by JC go to their reward, 270 use will drop-off significantly - who knows. I've never owned a 270, nor have I had much of an interest in the past. I am much more attracted to the 264 and/or the 6.5x284. I guess thats what makes cartridge choices and debates so much fun.

Back to your original question; if you really want this to be a hunting rifle I am in favor of the 264 or the 6.5-06. You don't want a rifle that doesn't feed perfectly if you need a follow up shot. I don't see that much difference in velocity to matter between the 264 and the 6.5 x284. A 264 hunting rifle will never impress your friends at the range because you only get a few shots before they need to cool down. After 4 or 5 shots, I could brand calves with mine. I look for a rifle that gives me a cold bore shot to the same spot each time.
IMO you have picked a great caliber for the animals you want to hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by ForrestB:
Build a 270 WCF and go see a shrink about your obsessive fretting.

or a 6.5 brenneke

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
What if the .280 had come along before the 06 or .270. Never understood why the .270 came to be. roger

the 7x64 was out a good long while before the 280 or 270 ...

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Welker:

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

What if the .280 had come along before the 06 or .270. Never understood why the .270 came to be. roger

Someone more versed than I in cartridge history will have to opine on Winchester's original motives behind the 270. Most hunters I've spoken with that are dedicated 270 shooters all seem to trace their initial interest to Jack O'Connor. Maybe when all the folks that were influenced by JC go to their reward, 270 use will drop-off significantly - who knows. I've never owned a 270, nor have I had much of an interest in the past. I am much more attracted to the 264 and/or the 6.5x284. I guess thats what makes cartridge choices and debates so much fun.[/QUOTE]

I've had both in customs and they were very accurate rifles. If your going to build a rifle based on using laupa brass I would build the 6.5x284. My 6.5x284 was build by Mike Bryant had a .290 neck throated for the long VLD 140/142gr bullets. With all the good 7mm bullets I'm shooting custom 284 and 280AI. Well good luck

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
What if the .280 had come along before the 06 or .270. Never understood why the .270 came to be. roger

the 7x64 was out a good long while before the 280 or 270 ...

The 7 x 64 came out DURING WW1 ( 1917 ) The .270 came out in 1925. How well do you think any products from Germany were received prior to the introduction of the .270? Do you believe that any significant number of American riflemen even knew of the 7 x 64 ? So as far as the US gun market was concerned the .270 pre dated the .280 in this country. But again, why did the .270 get its birth? Did someone just flip a coin? roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
How well do you think any products from Germany were received

golly, roger. i don't know.. my grandmother was born bauer and died claiming bayer.. YOUR TELL ME, you grumpy are tuckus.. you asked the question on the 280, and i told you it was mis-timed.. go look up NIMBO, k?

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

prior to the introduction of the .270? Do you believe that any significant number of American riflemen even knew of the 7 x 64 ?

ah, winchester.. tada

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

So as far as the US gun market was concerned the .270 pre dated the .280

short sighted.. get over YOUR attitude

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

in this country. But again, why did the .270 get its birth?

tried to raise irony for you.. know what? if you bathed in preperation-H you'd disappear entirely!

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

Did someone just flip a coin? roger

you asked, i pointed out the irony of you question being doubly funny, to those that know..

Jeffeoso ! Are you for real? FYI!!! My grand mother's name was Bauer also roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
Jeffeoso ! Are you for real? FYI!!! My grand mother's name was Bauer also roger

yep - she born in the UP of MI, but a town near traverse city is named for her family.. they were there before ft detroit was even thought of

Norma does make 264 WM brass.

Alan