I just purchased a new 700 SPS 264 win mag for deer and elk and bear and coyotes. Never loaded for one but I am trying to work up some 140's and 120's. It did kill an elk last year at 430 yrds, one shot by a friends 12 yo son, I had just sighted it in and loaned it to his son. Used factory Winchester 140 ammo. I would like to refine it a bit, any thoughts?

I like the lapula 155 gr megatip in the 264 win mag.Its super accurate.I could only get 1.5 " from remington corelocks.I stumbled upon the 155 gr lapula and my gun a Ruger 77 Mark II stainless loves them.Its supose to be for moose in sweden but I used it on pronghorns and whitetails.I ilike the looks of the new 160 gr woodleigh also.I got 3/8" groups at 100 yards with the 155 gr lapulas.I only use H-870 powder but I might try others.I neck down cheap once fired 7 mm rem mag brass.I am very glad I bought two of the Rugers.I wish my gun did have a 26 or 28" barrel.

Unless you are really hooked on the 140gr partition
you should try out the 125gr partition with some
quantity of IMR4350 or H4350

I'm remembering 60 grains or so of IMR4350... as working well, though I was dealing with a winchester (pushfeed M70) not a remington.

If you are stuck on the 140gr partitions then I'd either tell you to dig out that keg of H870 you have hidden OR just try to do the best you can with one of the 4350s or some IMR4831

Though you might want to try working with Reloader 25
but I don't know of any published date for RL25 in the 264, nor did I ever try it back when I had a 264.

OB, I have had the best accuracy using 129 Hornady Interlocks with 59 grains of IMR4350. I have ordered some H1000 and will try some test loads with a few different 140 grain slugs in the near future. My rifle is a commercial FN mauser action with Shilen 26" 1/9" twist barrel. I have loaded the 140's with the 4350 and it shot about 1.5 MOA which is probably OK for most hunting but it doesn't give me the confidence I like. I am looking for .5 and will accept 1 MOA.

Mine likes 60G of IMR4831 with either the 125 partition or the 129 Hornady. Either shoots well under an inch if I am up to it. It is fine for deer, coyotes, antelope and bear. I might try to find a 140 load for elk, but I haven't needed it yet.

Thank u all, now my gray hair and gray matter are starting to scratch, dont know which one will win the battle, but the thought processes are in gear.

In order to optimize velocities in the very large-for-caliber .264 case, you'll need much slower powders than 4350/4831.

IMR 7828 and RL-25 might be okay with 120s, but when you move up to 140's then AA 8700, H US869, and surplus WC 872 are good choices. There is very little data published for the .264 and these powders. Only an experienced reloader with access to a chronograph should be working with them.

The 120-130 grain bullets are fine for deer and antelope. For larger game the 140, particularly in a Nosler Partition, is what you'll want. Heavier bullets are going to be RN style and mostly designed for the 6.5x55. I'm sure they work well in that caliber, but it is a short to medium range set-up and the bullets are designed to expand well at relatively low velocities. The whole point of having a .264 is extended range capabiilty, so stick with the pointy, high B.C. bullets in it.

what I'm suggesting with the 125gr Nosler part is that it's terminal performance will be equal to any conventional 140gr bullet, though of course a 140gr partition will be somewhat better.

then again how much difference will 15grains really make? Additionally when you consider that there is scarcely a 100fps difference in MV between the 125Part. and the 140Part. out of the 264win, I have to grudgingly admit that mabey the 140gr makes more sense as a "do everything" load for the 264Win...

I will say that loading Corelokt's or PowerPoints in a high performance cartridge like the 264win (or it's "step brother" the 7mmRem Mag) can create "issues" under several circumstances.

And when considering that the .264 (along with, but to a lesser degree the 7mmMag's) is considered by many to be a "marginal bore diameter" for elk/moose that hedging your bet with a 140Part can only be a good thing. (I won't even discuss the 257Wby for elk )

So I suppose you can say I've reversed my position after further reflection...

I will however say that if 140's are "adequate" for Elk from a 264Win, I really shouldn't have to defend choosing a 140gr or 150gr partition for the 7mmMag... for the same application.

CNEBEAR, I suspect that you bought a 264Win for it's "dash", not it's "smash", which is why you bought it instead of a 6.5-06, 260Rem or 6.5x55Swede.
While I bought a 7mmMag instead of a 280Rem,
7mm-08 or 7x57 for probably the same reasons.

I may have grown up in the 'burbs but even I know you don't use a thorough-bred as a plow horse.


AD

I used RL-22 in my .264 years ago and it kills pronghorns a long ways away using almost anyone's 120 grain bullet.

For Elk IMR-7828 can push a 140 over 3,000'/sec but I'd use a premium bullet at that speed.

I no longer have that M-70 but just might consider another .264 in a Mauser!

I thought that the .264 bullet diameter was less than .270 putting it in the small bore forum.

465H&H

IMHO there are three things every prospective 264 owner should know:
-it won't last long if used as a varminter
-save the 160 grain bullets for other 6.5's
-the 7m/m Rem mag is far superior in every aspect.

That said, the 264 is a fine long-range cartridge when loads of a reasonable nature are assembled. Bullets in the 120-140 grain range are best, and only the slowest of canister grade powders will net the desired results. For those willing to do their homework I believe satisfaction is only a hand load away.

quote:

the 7m/m Rem mag is far superior in every aspect

How could a cartrigde which shares the same case and has a bullet diameter difference of only .02", be FAR superior in EVERY aspect?

You can't argue with history as there is a reason why the 7m/m Remington did, and the 264 didn't. Even in the famous model 70 Westerner, the 264 didn't. One of the 264s greatest flaws was that it was ahead of its time. Introduced with much ballyhoo the 264 didn't live up to rifleman's expectations, and it was equally frustrating to hand loaders using powders of that era. That extra .020" made all the difference in the world, and in a nutshell explains why the 7m/m Remington excelled and the 264 didn't. Even to this day the 264 remains a two bullet rifle- 120ish and 140s.

No question that the Big 7 was more of a commercial success than the 264. That is ONE aspect. (The 243 blew the 244/6MM out of the water, too. Commercial success does not necessarily equate to being "better")

Another aspect in which the 7Mag is superior is its ability to use heavier bullets. No question that I would prefer the 7 for elk. That is ANOTHER aspect. That a far cry from being FAR superior in EVERY aspect.

I have been shooting the 264 and the 7 since the 60's. And I like them both.

My Speer Manual number 6 (c1964) lists no less than 5 powders producing more than 3200fps with the 140gr bullet. I don't remember being frustrated by the powders of that era.

IMO the 264 is very slightly superior to the 7 for long range deer/antelope (if you are a reloader)...if for no other reason than it will push bullets of equal SD at similar velocities but with less recoil because the bullets are lighter. (We are talking minutiae here) And the 7mag holds an slightly larger edge for elk. But I doubt that any elk or deer will ever be able to tell the difference.

buckshot: I don't think we are that far apart. Just had a problem with your statement that the 7 is FAR superior in EVERY aspect.

Seems to me that ballistically, they are almost 2 peas in a pod, except you have the option of heavier bullets with the 7.

olarmy, no offense taken. I have nothing against the 264, I just wouldn't own another as it really is a two bullet gun at best. Those that choose to varmint with it are usually disappointed as nothing will wear out the barrel faster(altho results are spectacular). I'm just not crazy about it because experience has taught me that it really is a one bullet gun (140 grain bullet) for serious big game hunting. For deer hunting on the plains the 264 Winchester is every bit the equal of the 7m/m Remington or the 270 Weatherby, however, throw elk in the equation and all bets are off. I've owned them all and the 7m/m Remington is the one I kept.

P.S. I do like the 6.5s as I own about a dozen Swedes

What killed the 244rem was the twist rate and inability to handle the 105's that people wanted to shoot at the deer.

While if there had been a deer capable 85 or 90gr bullet available (today's 85gr partition?) it might have been a different story.

additionally Remington screwed themselves by chambering the 244 in pumps and short action bolt guns and the cartridge really doesn't fit in a short action any more than the 7x57 (it's "parent" cartridge) does.

Today if you were building a rifle on a long sporting action or on a mauser 98 it'd be silly to make a 243 when the 6mmRem is available, because in anything other than a short sporting action the 6mm feeds better in addition to it's performance edge. then again a 257Roberts is probably better than either

Even after the cartridge was "fixed" in terms of twist rate it still suffered under these other deficits.

As for the 264win Vs 7mmRem? olarmy has covered that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:
What killed the 244rem was the twist rate and inability to handle the 105's that people wanted to shoot at the deer.[QUOTE]

Allen: sorry to pic nits, but it wasn't 105's. Winchester loaded the 243 with 100gr Power Points, which were viewed as deer bullets, vs Remington's 90gr slugs.

The only company that made a 105gr bullet was Speer.

And, FWIW, a short action 6MM/244, works just fine...as does a short action 257Bob.

ONE thing every prospective 7mm R owner should know:
-the 300 Win Rem mag is far superior in every aspect.

Same case, four different calibers (.264, .284, .308, .338) each with their own strengths. The 338 does more with the case then the other three (and the 375 Taylor even more) but if you want to push a 140g bullet really fast, the smaller two are the ones, and then it comes down to a little more or less BC and a little less or more speed.
I happen to think the 264 WM is one of the all-time great uses of the H&H case myself, and can't imagine needing a 7mm for something the 300 winnie wouldnt be MUCH better at.
OMV....
As for it being a two-bullet cartridge, I'd say a 160g RN going 2900 (start around 57 gr) or so is very worthy of consideration. That's like .328 SD or something insane like that. You wouldn't pit that against an elk under 300 yd???
Yes, the 7mm can get close to that with the 180g, but the 300 WM can do it with a 200g and the 338 with a 225.....
No doubt the 338 is the king for elk, but not everyone wants 40 ft lb hitting their shoulder, nor a 9# rifle to make it feel like fun. That little 140g'er out of the 264 will nail an elk if well-placed, and RL25 is the powder to do it.
Start with 65g and work up to 3150 unless signs tell you otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana-be:
As for it being a two-bullet cartridge, I'd say a 160g RN going 2900 (start around 57 gr) or so is very worthy of consideration. That's like .328 SD or something insane like that. You wouldn't pit that against an elk under 300 yd???

No I wouldn't, however, I would throw a 160 at 2700f/s with my Swede. That old round nose ain't no aerodynamic wonder and it's way too soft for velocities above 2900f/s.

Having said that, there is a reason why Winchester never made a spitzer 160 -264s didn't have a twist that would reliably stabilize it, but it would stabilize the shorter round nose.

Actually the 300winnie is a bit longer... and has more capacity...

the 264, 7mm and 338 are true siblings, the 308Norma is far closer to them in terms of dimensions than the 300winnie is.

AD

Sure, the 300 has a bit longer case, but it's the same case (shortened H&H), and it's the same length cartridge. Acedemic for present purposes.
So, with a 200yd zero, starting at 2900 fps you'll be 8.5" low at 300. And you'll be cruising just under 2000 fps.
With the Swede you'll be about an inch and a half lower and almost 175 fps slower.
Going the other way around, if the bullet is going too fast at 300 yd from the mag, then you better not hit an elk from the Swede under about 220 yd. And whatever bad you think it would do from the mag at 165 yd is surely about what it would from the Swede at 100yd.
It ain't the 7mm, it ain't the 300. It's its own thing. Inferior? No.

Boys I'm not saying the 264 won't work, I'm saying it's not my first choice. I say again for the sake of clarity I've owned 264's, a 270 Weatherby and a 7m/m Remington magnum. When the dust settled I kept the 7m/m because it's clearly superior to the others -especially when using 160 and 175 grain bullets.

Bwana-be, the 160 grain pill is the stuff of legend in smaller 6.5's, but not a first choice bullet for the 264. Fact is at 100 yards the 140 grain bullet carries more energy than the 160 can muster when both are launched from the 264 at maximum velocities. This is exactly why I argue the 264 is a one bullet gun for big game hunting.

The 264 hangs on in a cult-like status simply because a few hand loaders know and appreciate what 140 grain bullets are capable of when launched from one. 3200f/s is achievable with todays powders, and that makes the 264 better than it was when first introduced. One other thing has kept it going too, the way cool(and highly collectible) model 70 Westerner. Happy 50th birthday 264 Winchester!

CNEBEAR: Back to the original question, and sorry to get so off track. My 264 likes the 125 Partition and IMR7828. At about 3300fps, it's a death ray on deer, hogs, coyotes, near and far. Took it to West TX on a mule deer hunt,north of Big Bend..wide open country. Thinking it would be just the thing for those potentially long shots. turns out the buck was walking toward me at about 50yds. I was glad the partition was up the tube. It did its typical great job.

IMR4350, as others have noted seems to produce some very accurate loads in the 264. Some will jump in and proclaim that it is WAY to fast for the 264, which in theory, it is. But it sure seems to produce some fine loads.

Let us know what you decide and how it works...great caliber.

Just picked up a new Rem 700 CDL Stainless fluted 26" barrel 264 WM. Wanted one ever since 1968 when I first read about them. Before I ever shot it I had the barrel throated by a local gunsmith so that the overall length with a 130 Barnes TSX is 3.365" - bullet contacts the lands. I seat the bullets .010 to 015" off the lands. I found this rifle to be extemely accurate and below are some loads with some of the newer powders and H4831. Group size is for three shot group. The standard Hornady 140 sp @ 3140 hits 2" high @100yds and 4" low @ 300 yds. 100 yard group was 1/2", 300 yrd group was just under 2". 130 gr accubond about the same. The 130 gr Barnes TSX shoots like a varmint bullet -first TSX of any kind I have tried. Primers are mix of cci 250, wlrm, and fed 215. Usual caution applies - safe in my rifle but may not be in yours - especially in 264 WM. Winchester cases. Also, picked up a factory Remington plastic molded stock to replace the very nice wood stock that was original equipment on this rifle - both stocks shoot very well - but I wanted the molded stock to hunt with. Here in Montana most days I went to the range the temp was 25-45 deg.

130 gr Barnes TSX
H4831SC 64.0 3200 1/4"
65.0 3240

H1000 69.0 3240
69.5 3300 1/4" but hot load

Ramshot Magnum
70.5 3210
71.5 3260

130 gr Accubond
RL-22 62.0 3170
63.0 3280 both loads horrible

H1000
69.0 3280 1/2"
70.0 3240 for some reason slower but 3/8" group

Ramshot Magnum
69.0 3000
69.5 3040
70.0 3160 OK load group wise 3/4" but somewhat wide SDev.

140 gr Hornady SP
H4831SC 62.0 3122 3/4"
63.0 3130

H1000 68.0 3128 with WLRM
68.0 3186 with cci-250
68.5 3165 1/2" cci-250 1/2"
69.0 3180
69.5 3205

Ramshot Magnum
68.0 2853
69.0 2953
70.0 3091 cci-250
70.0 3080 wlrm
70.5 3200 wlrm nice group
70.5 3140 cci-250 1/2"

Wanted to post some updated loading data for the 264 Winchester Magnum since my ealier post.

140 gr Hornady SST
AA8700 WLRM

76.0 3010 45 def F
76.5 3030 45
77.5 3140 75 deg F
78.0 3185 75
78.5 3245 75 2 fps velocity spread

130 gr Accubond WLRM
78.5 3295 1/2" group 75 deg F

Also noted that Ramshot Magnum displayed a temperature sensitivity characteristic.

140 gr Hornady 140 gr SP
Ramshot Magnum CCI 250
70.0 3091 45 deg
70.0 3190 75 deg

Compared this load the same day with a 130 gr Accubond/WLRM primer with 68.5 gr H1000 and the velocity was precisely the same at both 45 and 75 deg F = 3260 fps. Have had simalar results with all the Hodgdon Extreme powders including H4350 and H4831SC in a number of calibers I have tested down to 4 below zero.

Again this is a 26 " barreled Remington CDL with the throat extended to permit seating the bullets to a greater OAL and resulting powder capacity increase.

Hope you find this information useful - again safe in my rifle. Most cases have 7-9 reloads - time for a new batch of cases.

The .264 Win Mag discussion is one of my favorites.....and while the argument that the 7mm Rem Mag killed it (and there's a lot of reason to buy that argument) for me it was totally different.....

The .264 excells at one hunt.....that of pronghorns where it acts a lot like a .257 Weatherby with superb trajectory and power.

It just had to have a long 26" barrel that I didn't like much and in the net analysis my 22" .270 Winchester did the same trick so well I couldn't tell the difference.....and the .270 was a featherweight!!!...easier to carry!

In the end....at least for me.....it was the .270 Winchester that killed the .264 and the .270 has taken on a lot of "comers" in it's long history and keeps on selling.....

quote:

3200f/s is achievable with todays powders, and that makes the 264 better than it was when first introduced.

Here's "yesterdays powders" from published 1970 data, and yes I loaded and shot one back then, little brother still has it, and NO I don't load it any different now than then. I think what we see is the "new wave" loaders and shooter discovering what they missed, but we don't need to re-invent the wheel.
140 grain
H570 75.0 3313 fps
H870 76.0 3293
4831 64.0 3267(that would be surplus sold by Bruce- IMR had'nt released theirs yet)
H450 62.0 3245

With 100's on Pronghorns (I won't call them "antelope" because they aren't any more than Bison are "buffalo")
The 264 probably works very well.

Unfortunatly you can drive 120's just as fast from a 7mmRemMag (according to the current Nosler handbook EXACTLY as fast, 3570fps, Note: reference only)
and typical 120gr 7mm bullets have a slight ballistic edge
over .264dia 100gr bullets.

Yeah there'd be a difference in recoil but I really doubt you'd notice the difference.

AD

Guys,

I got a Manchester logo'd Mark X action that happened to be fit with an E. R. Shaw barrel in 264 Win Mag. Thought it would make a dandy little deer, coyote, antelope rifle and didn't have anything between the 308 Win and 308 Norma Mag at the higher end and a .223 AR-15 Match rifle.

I popped together a moderate load with 125 gr Nosler Partition seconds and IMR 4831 on Winchester cases. Darned thing shot less than a inch first go. Sweet to shoot.

Have since acquired a .270 FN and a 6mm Rem (The Last Ottmar rifle) through very good fortune. Was going to make the .270 into a .376 Steyr but it is shooting ragged one hole groups with Hornadys. (Haven't shot the 6mm Rem yet. Even if it doesn't shoot well it's a member of the family now.) Not sure the .264 WM represents enough advantage over the .270 to justify keeping it.

I've been shootin one since Christ was a Corporal. Always shot H870 with 125 gr Nosler Partition and 120 gr Nosler Solid Base. Running out of H870 so sure wish somebody would work up a good load with H869. I've already tried all the other 4831 and such, no good. IMHO, 264 needs a slow powder like H870. Why doesn't Hogdon test this powder for us?