Nosler makes a 160 grain bullet for the 270 cal. and that makes sectional density go up a lot, so penetration on bigger game animals is possible. The 270 is a fun caliber to shoot all day long. The .264 mag "kicks" a lot more and is much louder. If you don't get it in a 26 inch barrel, you have nothing over the 270 caliber, I still think the 270 is a better caliber than the .264 would be.

For the first 300 yards, it is not much different from a 130/.270, but after that, the 140 grain bullet at the 3150 fps you can get from a 24" barrel carries more authority, will drift less in the wind, and has a couple of inches of drop advantage over the .270. Actually, the 120 grain bullet in the .264 is a better comparison with the 130/.270, being of similar sectional density. It can be launched at 3300 fps+ from a 24" barrel. Try H-870 or some of the new very slow powders (surplus WC 872 works great in my guns).

Will the .264 do things that the .270 won't? No, not really, but then a .223 won't do anything a .222 won't either. I don't think your question is really about that, though. I think you're asking if you can make good use of a .264, and the answer is "yes".

I really can't tell much difference in recoil and blast between this rifle and .270 s . 25/06 s , etc. And it does not seem to be fussy to load for either. I have to wonder if the many detractors of this cartridge have ever shot one .....

It is a specialized cartridge in my view , for open country hunting , and you would certainly want to reload to milk the best out of it .........

If you like the way it shoots then buy it.

I got one for long range varmints! It had a 1-12 26" bbl. It grouped well but with just summer clothes on it will take the skin off your elbows like all the big boomers.

With my 24 inch pre 64 md 70 270 I get 3230 fps with 130's and 3140 fps with 140's..With a 24 inch 264 you can probably beat that just a little..Not way better..I have often thought about building a 264 but already having ALMOST the same thing could never justify it...

Jumping on the 270 bandwagon
Bill

Results are as follows:

130 Noz Bt=3300
135 MK=3300
150 Noz Pt=3100

For a 22" tube on my M77:

130's=3200
150=3000

I'd love to play with a 264 some day just for giggles. Problemn is I am kind of addicted to the 06 Improved-oops that's what I call my 270. I also love my 7 Mashburn Supers. So don't know if I'll ever scratch the 264 itch. Did have a 6.5/06 once-kind of neat, but still a 270 in disguise.

Have a super night.

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dog

I gave up on 120's but they did get 3250 fps. I think I'm going to stick with the 140's for everything, more retained energy with neglible difference in bullet drop.

I only post all these findings in my .264 because I always hear how the .270 is just as good and cheaper to shoot since it's more efficient (strange argument given the cost of powder). I've found that most people don't get 3000 fps out of their .270's (some do, but not most) unless they've got custom barrels. The .264 will push a 140 grain bullet faster than the 130 from the .270, with more velocity, more retained energy beyond 300 yards and less bullet drop. Here's the breakdown on the bullet comparison using nosler partitions:

.264 140 grain, sectional density .287, ballistic coefficient .490

.270 130 grain, SC .242, BC .416, 150 grain, SC .279, BC .465

Ballistic tips are a bit different but I think the partition is the best comparison when you compare bullet types capable of taking bigger game (i.e. - elk).

My rifle seems to shoot a bit slower than most with 26 inch barrels but I think it's still got something over the .270. In any case, it doesn't matter all that much since I like to be a bit different.

Might give RE 22 and 25 a try...

I just fail to see where a 140 gr 264 at the posted speed above of 3100 fps is better than my 270 140 gr bullet (hornady BTSP BC 496) at 3100 fps..I have nothing against a 264,even would like to have one but with bullets of like weight there is not that much differance except when you go down to the lighter bullets more suitable for varmiting...

With 140 gr bullets and the same length barrel you can best a 270 by maybe 100 fps..
Not enough to see much practicle differance in the field..

OK,maybe even 150

Try some surplus WC 872 with your 140 Partitions. It's really cheap, and works wonders in my gun. You may need a drop tube to get enough into the case to yield the pressures and velocities you want. Most guns will accept close to eighty grains of it under a 140 bullet (but start lower and work up -- not every lot of surplus powder burns at the same speed!).

Both Vhitavori (don't recall the number) and Hodgdon ("Retumbo") have new, slow powders on the market which should also do well in the .264.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Santiam:
Parshal,

Might give RE 22 and 25 a try...

I just fail to see where a 140 gr 264 at the posted speed above of 3100 fps is better than my 270 140 gr bullet (hornady BTSP BC 496) at 3100 fps..I have nothing against a 264,even would like to have one but with bullets of like weight there is not that much differance except when you go down to the lighter bullets more suitable for varmiting...

With 140 gr bullets and the same length barrel you can best a 270 by maybe 100 fps..
Not enough to see much practicle differance in the field..

OK,maybe even 150

---

I've tried Reloader 22 but haven't chronographed it yet. It seemed accurate enough but not better than IMR 7828.

I would not argue that my a .264 is better than YOUR .270 but MOST people with off-the-shelf .270's don't get over 3000 fps with them. I have a slow .264 and I'm over 3100 fps with 140's. Most people that I've talked to that have .264's are getting more than 3200 fps with 140's.

I think if one were to compare the average .270 to the average .264 the .264 would be faster and flatter with more retained energy with like bullets. But, I'd like to see a comparison done with the same length barrels. It seems everyone compares a 22 - 24 inch .270 to a 26 inch .264 which isn't a fair comparison. I would think, like you, that if the barrel lengths were the same there would not be that much difference.

If someone wanted to simply argue numbers, though, the .264 has better ballistic coefficients than the same size bullets in a .270. In order to get the same weight the .264 bullet has to be longer thereby increasing the sectional density and, sometimes, ballistic coefficient. Numbers don't kill game, though, hunters do.

I just like to be different. That's why I have a .264, hunt birds with a 16 gauge and fish with bamboo fly rods.

Also crunch the #s to my favorite couse deer
bullet a Lapua 108 grain bullet with a
BC of .478 leaving the muzzle at 3,700
This make a 257 WBY cry out of desperation.

I'm also getting 3,280 with 140s and
the Laupua 139 with a BC of 615.

To get 3200 out of a 270 with a 22" tube is not anything new when using R22. To get over 3000 with a 130 is no problem-never has been I suspect.

Put the same length tube on em and I think you'll be suprised. Is there gonna be a big difference-nope will we ever notice it nope.

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dog

[This message has been edited by Mark R Dobrenski (edited 04-18-2002).]

quote:

---

Hell, it might be my mule deer rifle this fall, i own about six that I am debating on.
257weatherby
270win
30-06
243 win
7mm-08
264 winmag
damn, I love this stuff[/B]

---

quote:

---

Just how did the 30-06's little brother (270) managed to sneak into the dialog?[/B]

---

It seems that the .270 always sneaks in when people start talking about the .264. That, along with the new 7mm rem mag, were part of the reason it didn't go over so well.

I'm almost willing to bet my .264 that the majority of .270's don't reach 3100 fps with the standard 22 inch factory barrel. Of course, we'll never really know the answer to that.

My standard load in the .270 is a 130 grain Nosler old-style solid base. Over a proper charge of original surplus 4831, it chronographs 3200 FPS (yes, I believe that this is a rather fast barrel).

My standard load for the .264 is a 140 grain Nosler Partition over a load of WC 872, which chronographs 3150 fps.

Loads for each gun are carefully worked up to what I consider maximum, and both seem to be running similar pressures.

Which is superior? You do the math and tell me. All I can say is that I've come to use the .270 most often for whitetails, but like to carry the .264 for desert muleys where the ranges are guaranteed to be long and the quarry a little bigger and tougher.

As to long range capability, last fall I made a one shot kill on a small doe at 500 yards (far more distant than I would usually shoot under most circumstances, but that's another story). Which caliber? The .270. But I think the results would have been the same if the .264 had been in my hands.

I have killed bull elk with the .264 using the Partitions. I don't think that there's any question that it is superior for that application. But would it better the .270 for elk if the .270 were loaded with 150 gr. Partitions? I don't load 150's in my gun, but would imagine I could do about 3000 fps. Again, you tell me which is superior.

Hope this helps (but know it won't)!

Oh yes, I almost forgot: I have another .264 Sako with a 26 inch barrel. It yields 75 to 100 fps more with the 140 partition. Sorry, no 26 inch .270 to compare.

quote:

---

Hope this helps (but know it won't)!

---

Well, it does explain why the .264 wasn't popular. Given the speeds you get in your .270 (I'm still convinced that's way faster than most) there's really no difference other than 10 grains of bullet weight.

So I guess the arguement will go on. If you compared my 26" .264 to a typical .270 with a 22" barrel firing a 130 grain factory load at 2980 fps, then there would appear to be a significant difference in favor of the .264. But McIntosh apples don't taste like navel oranges, either.

Both cartridges are excellent long range medium game rounds.

Lets forget the arguing and "GET TO THE HILL"

Dog

When you draw out if we can make the time we can meet have lunch and go and do some clock work.

And hey Zadok-really I would like to know how many long barreled 270's you've worked with?

Many thanks.

Do you hunt bears in Wa? How's about chucks?

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dog