What's the deal here? The 264 has a bad rep as a barrel burner, but I haven't heard the same thing about the 7mm. Does .5mm really make one better/worse than the other? These two are almost identical, except for the heavier bullets available in 7mm.

My brother is looking for a caliber like these, and I'm inclined to have him go with the 7mm over other small bore magnums.

If you push the same amount of powder down a smaller bore, it will errode the throat faster. How much of a factor this is in a big game rifle is up to the shooter, but I doubt it really makes a diff. All things being equal, the 7rm bbl. will last longer than the .264. A .300wm will alst longer than the 7rm. & so on.

for purely hunting the barrel life issue is moot. The .264 will last a lifetime of hunting....just not a good choice for a thousand round prairie dog shoot.

Unfortunately the .264 is almost obsolete and the 7 MM Rem Mag is the overwhelming best seller.

If one buys a .264 he would be advised to lay in a couple hundred brass for it as a hedge.

quote:

If one buys a .264 he would be advised to lay in a couple hundred brass for it as a hedge.

Vapodog: I agree and have done exactly that. But worst-case, couldn't you just run 7Mag brass
thru a 264 die and proceed happily from there?

BTW, in response to the original question: As much as I love my 264, I would recommend the 7Mag unless you are a handloader. 264 factory ammo is pretty hard to find, limited in variety, and underloaded.

Brass will never be a problem for the 264 , cause IT IS real easy to run a 7 mag case into your sizing die and out pops a 264 case . You may want to check the neck clearance in your rifle with necked down brass , but there is zero concern in my rifle and I would bet in most all factory rifles.

And I think 7 mag brass will be around as long as they let us burn gunpowder......

As olarmy says, factory loads for .264 are underloaded. But the 7mm Remington may be the most seriously underloaded of any common cartridge these days. Just why is a mystery to me.

(Assuming you handload) the .264 is the better as a long-range medium game (deer, antelope) cartridge and the 7mm Rem is the better as a larger game cartridge (think elk). However, the .264 will kill elk and the 7mm Rem will shoot a long way. If used only for hunting, either might need a new barrel by the time your great-great-grandchildren inherit the gun.

Brass for either can be formed from a variety of belted magnum cases, so it's hardly an issue.

I see Remington is chambering the new Sendero for both.

Stonecreek-I am curious but what is it that you think that the 264 does that makes it a better long range deer rig? And I am also curious as to what distances you're talking about.

Thx

Mark D

When Both are handloaded to maximum levels and both are fired at targets withing "reasonable" ranges (I.E. under 450yards) any advantage claimed for the 264Win is only that "claimed".

I can make that same statement if you increase the range to 600yards.

The supposed advantage of the .264 is the longer skinnier bullets with better BC's but the difference isn't nearly great enough to make up for the difference in velocity.

Going from published data in the Nosler #5 manual for partitions:
264 Win Mag 24" barrel
100gr BC.350 SD.205 3561fps
125gr BC.449 SD.256 3180fps
140gr BC.490 SD.287 3088fps

7mm Rem Mag 24" barrel
140gr BC.434 SD.248 3340fps
150gr BC.456 SD.266 3248fps
160gr BC.473 SD.283 3112fps
175gr BC.519 SD.310 2970fps

So unless you stick to the 100gr bullet the 264 simply doesn't deliver what is claimed for it, High velocity and flat shooting....

Presuming 140gr bullets for either the 250fps advantage of the 7mm is impossible for the 264 to beat, because even at 600yards the 7mm bullet is still moving faster than the 6.5mm bullet, granted by only 40fps or so, but faster is faster.

Comparing a 140gr 6.5 bullet at 3100fps
to a 150gr 7mm bullet at 3200 both bullets
will arrive at the 600yd line moving at the same speed.
(just over 2000fps)

So if it's really about shooting at longer ranges which one do you want?

And in any case if a Nosler partition strikes a broadside deer at above 2000fps it's still going to make a dead deer and likely to make an exit hole...

AllanD

Allan,
What your previous post really is, is a darn good example of how to cherry pick data to illustrate a pre-conceived notion. If you look in more than one reloading manual, I think you would notice that those 7mmMag velocities are way high. In my experience a 7mmMag 140 gr. in a 24" bbl. is good for about 3150 to maybe 3200 fps, in most rifles. My current 7mmMag with a 24" bbl. using 139gr. Hornady's with 70gr. of RL22 gets 3150 fps, and this load may be a bit too warm for this rifle. Actually, I think a .264 will shoot a 140 gr. bullet very nearly as fast as a 7mmMag can shoot a 140 grainer (with equal length barrels), and because the 140 gr. .264 bullet would have a higher BC, would fly flatter. But of course, any differences, are not significant, are more theoretical than practical, and no deer would ever notice any difference! But it does give us gun loonies something to yack about!

If you would like to see some really ridiculous velocities for the 7mmMag, take a look at the first printing of the latest Barnes manual, the one before they made corrections.

Now I'm sure someone will pipe up with some fantastic velocities in their super duper unique one-of-a-kind 7mmMag, that most of us shooting "regular" 7mmMags can only dream about. Whatever. I've solved the isuue. I shoot both calibers, like 'em both, and will continue to do so.

Your results may vary! Have a nice day!

Gary

Allan,

P.S. I do shoot 7mm's that will get 3340fps with a 140gr. slug out of a 24" bbl. It's called a 7mmSTW! In fact, 7mmSTW's will get 3400fps out of a 24" tube with a 140 grain pill.

Also, it is a fact that a .264 with a 26" bbl. (just a regular old pre-64 M70 Westerner), will squirt out those 140's at 3200 fps. With safe published loads. Using modern slow powders. What would that be in a 24" bbl.? Oughta be at least 3100. Virtually all data in most reloading manuals regarding the .264's are hopelessly out of date. Why? Because no one wants to spend the money to get a new pressure barrel for the .264. Because it is considered obsolete, very little new reloading data ever gets published using the rash of new slow-burning powders we've seen in these past few years, many of which work well in the .264. Regards! Gary

MUdstud, In my Model 700 7 mm Rem Mag, I have 140 grain Accubonds loaded with 67.5 grains of RL-22, and they chrony 3300 FPS, so I beg to differ with you. For what it's worth, I could like a 264 win mag also. Hey, I want one of each...........LOL.

That's a 24 inch barrel also.....................

With RL25 , the 264 will push 120 gr ballistic tips to 3400fps in a 24 inch tube .With a 26 incher , I'd expect at least 3450 , maybe more . Being as the 120 gr 6.5 bullet is slightly ballistically superior to most 140 gr 7mms , that speed allows you to sight in at 300 yards(without excess mid-range height) and hold on hair right to 400 . Actual measured drop with this load , not 'puter generated , is only 18 inches at 500 yards .

That trajectory and the fact that the 264 with the lighter slugs like 120 s has a good bit less felt recoil than most 7 mag loads(my opinion) makes it a super nice open country deer and 'lope round . And you do run across a number of 264 s floating around in the Dakotas because of this .

Gary,

Well I could look in other manuals but since the discussion was about "premium" bullets and I figuire the baseline for premium bullets is the Nosler Partition... (any arguement?) and looking in the Hornady manual doesn't show any Nosler Partition loading data

I've actually seen significantly higher velocities from a 7mmRemMag I've tested but that rifle did have a 26"
barrel. I've actually seen velocity edging close to 3450fps

But I'm not going to recommend that anyone else play
"Let see how much RL22 or RL25 we can compress into a once fired, neck sized case with THIS lot of powder" with their own rifle...

But for the record the R-P brass involved in that test survived five firings and was discarded when the necks started to crack (down into the shoulder) on firing.
Primer pockets were still tight as a tick....

I'm not saying that the 264Win is "useless", I'm saying if you have neither it makes little sense to buy one
when the 7mmRemMag is available.
And THAT is why the 264Win is nearly obsolete...

Hey, I've owned a 264, I still have three boxes of Win brass
that has never been fired.... somewhere...

The 264Win survives mostly because of it's "cult following"
There is an identifying feature of any member of that cult
when the question is asked 264 or 7mm they are the guys who don't temper their remarks to be even handed...
and say things like "the 264 will kill anything"
and by saying NOTHING nice about the 7mm

And those "cult members" tend to forget that rifles don't get jelous that you have more than one of them


AllanD

AD, well stated, I dont feel slighted the least packing my 7mag.

Allan,

You wanna sell that brass? Seriously, now, you've cut me to the quick. I somehow got the impression that I don't qualify for the "cult"!! That hurt, but I can even one-up you! Yeah! Listen up now, in the last coupla weeks I've bought two new .270's! Yeah, as in Win, not WSM. I'm sure that my membership in the cult has just been permanently and irrevocably terminated! 'Course I mainly bought them because they are M70 Classics, but, hey, they are still .270's. Now that I'm nearly done burying myself in M70's, I can focus on getting the one rifle I really wanted this year! A Sendero SFII in .264!

Ain't this fun!!

quote:

Originally posted by mudstud:
Allan,

You wanna sell that brass? Seriously, now, you've cut me to the quick. I somehow got the impression that I don't qualify for the "cult"!! That hurt, but I can even one-up you! Yeah! Listen up now, in the last coupla weeks I've bought two new .270's! Yeah, as in Win, not WSM. I'm sure that my membership in the cult has just been permanently and irrevocably terminated! 'Course I mainly bought them because they are M70 Classics, but, hey, they are still .270's. Now that I'm nearly done burying myself in M70's, I can focus on getting the one rifle I really wanted this year! A Sendero SFII in .264!

Ain't this fun!!

Man, TWO 270's? The 264Mag Cult's Death Squad will be after you for sure! LOL

as for the brass? Naa... I'll hang onto it
my brother is making noises about getting one of the new 264Sendaros. I keep telling him he should get 200 pieces of brass for his 416Mag Rem700AWR first.

AD

Hornady sell's factory 7mm's rated at 3250fps for a 139gr, in my 26" they chrono at 3300

MC,

You know, I've got a box of those sitting on a shelf in my reloading room. I've never shot them, I should chrono them in my rifle, just to see. I think why I never shot any of them is because they are moly coated.

If anyone wants to sit in on a meeting of the cult, there is a new thread going over at the campfire! See ya over there!

As to the barrel burning issue.
If you shoot the heavyer bullets in any caliber you will get less barrel erosion.
2 reasons for this, 1 is the smaller powder charge burning more efficiantly, and the other being less velocity creating less friction.
Also a coated bullet or somthing like the t shock bullet with relief grooves in the shank will lower fricktion(AKA HEAT) ... tj3006

The 264's reputation as a barrel burner is grossly exageratted. It is slightly better in that regard than a 257 Wea mag, and slightly worse than a 7mm Rem mag.

Throat errosion is the price one pays for balistic performance. If one wants a barrel which will last ten thousand rounds, chamber it in a 308 win.

If one shoots in a manner which will get two thousand rounds from a barrel in 7mm Rem mag, the same style of shooting (and loading) would yield about 1800 rounds of useful life from a 264, and probably 1600 rounds from a 257 Wea.

My answer to your brothers problem was to buy a 264, and then later add a 7mm STW for the heavier stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by mudstud:
Allan,
What your previous post really is, is a darn good example of how to cherry pick data to illustrate a pre-conceived notion. If you look in more than one reloading manual, I think you would notice that those 7mmMag velocities are way high. In my experience a 7mmMag 140 gr. in a 24" bbl. is good for about 3150 to maybe 3200 fps, in most rifles. My current 7mmMag with a 24" bbl. using 139gr. Hornady's with 70gr. of RL22 gets 3150 fps, and this load may be a bit too warm for this rifle. Actually, I think a .264 will shoot a 140 gr. bullet very nearly as fast as a 7mmMag can shoot a 140 grainer (with equal length barrels), and because the 140 gr. .264 bullet would have a higher BC, would fly flatter. But of course, any differences, are not significant, are more theoretical than practical, and no deer would ever notice any difference! But it does give us gun loonies something to yack about!

If you would like to see some really ridiculous velocities for the 7mmMag, take a look at the first printing of the latest Barnes manual, the one before they made corrections.

Now I'm sure someone will pipe up with some fantastic velocities in their super duper unique one-of-a-kind 7mmMag, that most of us shooting "regular" 7mmMags can only dream about. Whatever. I've solved the isuue. I shoot both calibers, like 'em both, and will continue to do so.

Your results may vary! Have a nice day!

Gary

I've been shooting this load out of my 7MM Remington Magnum for years it's from Hornady Vol. II out of a 24" barrel. 139 Gr interlock 71.4 Gr of 4831 right at 3400 fps. Cherry pick that.

Jay,
Whoa! I may have to try that load! Then I can get rid of those STW's.

quote:

Originally posted by mudstud:
Jay,
Whoa! I may have to try that load! Then I can get rid of those STW's.

I've had 2 STW's and the first when it was still a wildcat in 1989. It would do 3550 with 140's rebarreled because it had a CM barrel that didn't hold up well. The SS barrel shoots 140's at a little over 3450 very disappointing. I had a .264 Win Mag when I rebuilt it I made it into a 7MM Mag. with a 26" barrel. I had a more accurate 7MM load for my old Remington 68.0 Gr of IMR 4350 also a load from Hornaday Vol II. I the 24 inch barrel it would make just over 3325 in the rebuilt Winchester Model 70 26" barrel it's right at 3400. I haven't shot the 4831 load in the longer barrel. But I'm wondering what to do with that STW myself? If it didn't shoot so well it surely would be gone.

Jay, try 160gr bullets in your STW. The biiger cased mags really shine w/ heavier bullets. I'm running 160grNP thru my 7mm Dakota's 26"bbl. @ 3250fps+ w/o bending anything. That would be really pushing a 7RM hard.

Fred- a good bud of mine just got a 7 Dakota, what do you like to burn for powder in it?

Thx

Mark D

quote:

Originally posted by fredj338:
Jay, try 160gr bullets in your STW. The biiger cased mags really shine w/ heavier bullets. I'm running 160grNP thru my 7mm Dakota's 26"bbl. @ 3250fps+ w/o bending anything. That would be really pushing a 7RM hard.

I've used them my best load was with H5010 a now discontinued powder. But I scored a find on six pounds of it a month ago. 160's are good for over 3300 fps with this powder I'm using a load that I got out of an old Layne Simpson article on the STW back in the late 80's. Just started low and worked them up and was amazed.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dobrenski:
Fred- a good bud of mine just got a 7 Dakota, what do you like to burn for powder in it?

Thx

Mark D

Mark, I have not loaded for the 7 Dakota, but I have a bit of experience with the 7 mm Rem and the 7 STW.

The Dakota has nearly the same internal capacity as the STW, therefor similar loads will work well in both cartridges.

Some people swear by RL 25 in the STW, I found it to be a bit spiky in the 264 and in the STW. Particularly so when loads developed during winter were shot in the summer, in my rifles warm loads of RL 25 worked up in the winter, got very hot in the summer.

So I would pass on RL 25, unless I lived in a very moderate climate.

Some also swear by H870, which is no longer available, but it has some replacements which are very close in burn rate.

I found H870 to be too slow for my STW, even with 160 gr bullets. I loaded it well beyond book reccomendations as a test and never could get the velocity out of it that was predicted in the manual for their loads.

I have had great success with H1000 in the STW, and would expect that it would work as well in the Dakota. Also Retumbo and Magnum should work well. I have some of each on the shelf now, and intend to test them in my STW and in the 264, when the weather warms up to 60 - 100 degrees.

I am trying to avoid cold weather load developement for warm weather shooting.

I hope your friend has good luck with his Dakota. It is a very appealing cartridge. One day I will decide it is time to own a 30 cal again. When I do, it will be a 300 Dakota, and it will subsist on the 190 gr Hornady btsp.

quote:

I've been shooting this load out of my 7MM Remington Magnum for years it's from Hornady Vol. II out of a 24" barrel. 139 Gr interlock 71.4 Gr of 4831 right at 3400 fps. Cherry pick that.

Jay,

That load is a bit "Cherry Picked"

Apparently Hornady decided it was a bit over pressure as the max load in Hornady 3'rd edition is 66.7 gr of IMR 4831 at 3200 fps. In the 6'th edition manual Hornady once again shows a max velocity for the 139 gr bullet as 3200 fps, and they acheive it with RL 22, Win WMR, and 70.7 gr of Magpro.

IMR 4831, and H4831 are not even listed for loading the 139 gr bullet in the 7Rem mag in the sixth edition Hornady.

In 1997 I did a limited amount of work with a friend's Sako in 7mm Rem mag. He was interested in 150 gr balistic tips.

I used H1000, RL 22, and H4831 in the load developement for his rifle. With 150 gr bullets I ran into signs of excessive presuure when I tried to go above 3200 fps with any of these powders.

I finally settled on a load of 64 gr H4831 with a CCI 250 primer for his rifle. It did not shoot over 3000 fps but it did give .7 moa accuracy.

Idaho Shooter

I've used that load in three 7MM Mags. Two were mine and the third was my hunting partner. We worked up to that load in a three with no sign of pressure????????

This might help your brother with his choice, I had one made up last year by Hart Barrels its just plain amazing.
www.6mmbr.com look up in gun of the week section;
Ric Horst's 7mwsm, for me this will be one of the top 1000yard cartridge in near future. yes its one of those short stubby ones.

quote:

When Both are handloaded to maximum levels and both are fired at targets withing "reasonable" ranges (I.E. under 450yards) any advantage claimed for the 264Win is only that "claimed".

Yep, I agree with that.

I have owned rifles chambered in both cartridges and the only advantage offered by the 264 is that it has slightly less recoil, in all other respects the 7mm rem mag is superior including a larger range of bullets avaliable for it, some of which have BC's just as high or higher than anything in .264.

However, after saying all that, for all practical purposes there is little in it, both are excellent cartridges and i'm sure your brother will be happy with either.

There wasn't a great deal in it in barrel life as far as I could tell, if you keep the bore clean and dont fire long strings when the barrel is hot then you should get reasonable life from the 264.

These days if I needed a rifle around that performance level it would be a 7MM WSM and maybee that and the 270WSM would be an alternative choice for your brother.

I'll also add that when you go looking for ammo even in places with a very minimal selection you'll find the 7mmMag ammo right next to the 270Win between the 243Win and the 30-06 ammo.

the fact that loading dies for the 7mmRem are usually in the top five or six says something....

The other factor is selection of available loads
Is there a manufacturer that offers less than six different 7mm Mag loads? remington offers 10 or 11.
Infact the only caliber in which there is a larger selection of loads is the 30-06 (Big suprise there, right?) for which Remington alone offers 18 different loadings.

Kinda like when you go looking for pistol ammo, you'll always find 9mm, 40S&W, 38spl, 357Mag, 44Mag and
45ACP... but try finding 10mm or 357Sig let alone something like 30Luger or 38Dardic

Though I'll admit it's been years since I shot any factory ammo in any of my rifles.


AllanD

There are a host of good reasons to go with the 7 Mag but for whatever reason, I find it boring. Not a judgement of the round but a fact, just like I think the 30-06 is THE perfect American all around cartridge but it does its job so sublimely, it too is boring.

But given the opportunity to spout off (heh heh heh), I would say I would prefer the 264 in the lighter bullets and shoot a 7 Mag for the "over 140 gr" uses.

I've talked to several experienced riflesmiths,that claim the .264 tends to shoot out barrels, faster then the 7mm. One of the smiths even claimed that he'd seen far more 7mm's with damaged barrels resulting from improper cleaning then over shooting.

The .264 has a cult following by some. The fact is,it doesn't kill any better then the 7 mag. I've seen too many animals killed with both to believe a differance exsists.

If I had $5 for every used rifle I've seen with a bore that was obviously dammaged by ham handed cleaning....

I've seen a couple of 30-06's recently that looked like someone cleaned them with a rat-tailed file....
Or were shooting pieces of file instead of bullets.

I don't completely understand how people can do that.

AllanD

Throat erosion is real, Winchester didnt make the early M-70's in 264 WM with stainless bbls by coincidence. But having said that the 264 WM should fit right in with a plethora of chamberings made today.

There are ways to curb it as well, like using heavy bullets as mentioned and slower powders. The limited variety of powders available at the 264's introduction is noteworthy as well, and I suspect it had a lot to do with said throat erosion. There are many much more suitable powders for the 264 today.

Some of the Remington 700's in 7mmMag were also stainless steel, for the same reason... though they had some dark finish applied to them to match the blued receivers.

AllanD