Hi Guys,

I have a chance to pick up a nice rifle in .264 Mag for a song. What do you guys think of this cartridge? The ballistics look great but that's just paper, right? What's the word on performance on game?

I dont have any experience with it myself but a guy I have hunted with uses it, he guides for mulies around here in Alberta. When I was with him he shot a deer that was running almost directly away through the hip (a shot I wouldn't take pesonaly). It stopped in its tracks and went down but wasnt killed and required a followup shot. He also had hunted elk with it sucessfuly.
Im not sure what bullet he was using.

Grab it if the price is right. Load it with a premium bullet and go hunting. I have used one for 30 years on elk size game and under with no complaints.

How long is the barrel? If it's 26" it's a pretty good long-range rig. If it's 22", it's a really loud 270. Okie John.

It's a 24" tube.

Works well on game with premium bullets. Has about 75% of the recoil of the 7 mags. Try H1000 powder if you buy it.
Have you checked the barrel's condition ? E

Its the same case as the 7mm rem mag with a bit smaller dia. I knew a guide from Wyoming who once told me "a Sako chambered in 264 win is all you need". He used for Antelope through moose, for NA its a very versatle and flat shooting round.

if it's a song, grab it.. then, if it shoots like crap (the round is notorious for burning barrels) rebarrel to 7 mag, or 416 taylor
jeffe

It's a great round if you don't mind a lot of blood shot meat. It shoots flat and that's about the best compliment I could give it. On the other hand, depending on how many notes are in that song, any rifle is worth buying when the price is right, excluding some of the obvious junkers.

I saw a brand new Rem 700 in 264 Mag on Guns America for $539. It was a special run with a 26" barrel. That's pretty close to dealer cost. I thought about buying it to try and then using the action for a custom rifle if I didn't like it. I still might.

Niether fish nor fowl. Burns more powder than a .25/06, less versatile than a .7mm. A friend has had several .264's and loves them for deer and elk..... the key word here is HAD. I'm more of a .25/06 guy for deer and .30cal. guy for larger game. Will say one thing for the .264's that I've shot...they were all very accurate and very noisy. He had the best luck with the slow surplus Hodgdon powders.

It's a brand new Ruger 77 Mk II limited edition, 1 of 1000, specially engraved floorplate, yada, yada, stainless, syn. I really don't care whether it's a limited run or not. If I buy it it will be to shoot and hunt with, not collect dust. I know some people don't like the 77's but I've had good experiences with them.

I've owned a .264 for going on 40 years and have taken everything from jack rabbits to elk with it, and have killed whitetails at 25 yards and pronghorn at 400. Terminal performance with a 140 grain Nosler Partition is hard to criticise.

Don't worry about "burning the barrel out". Unless you intend to hunt prairie dogs with it, your grandchildren won't shoot it enough in their lifetimes to have any effect on its performance. Sure, after several thousand rounds (I was pretty bad about burning ammunition when I was younger and it was my only rifle) through my Sako I can see some roughness in the throat, but it still shoots 1" groups and animals still drop when I put the crosshairs on them and pull the trigger.

It will actually do only marginally more than a .270 in terms of long range trajectory, and similarly, is comparable to a .270 on heavier game with the appropriate bullets in each. I suppose it's advantage is that with a 140 grain bullet at 3100 fps, it is flatter than a 130/.270 at the same 3100 fps and hits a bit harder on heavy game than a 150/.270 at 2900 fps. I have used 120 grain bullets at 3300 fps for deer, but there's actually no advantage to them over the 140, so I just stick with the one load these days.

If you don't reload, then don't buy it. Factory loads are notoriously under-loaded, have become scarce, and offer no variety. With H-870, or possibly Retumbo, RL-25, or VV 170 and 140 grain Noslers, you'll have a nice combination. I like surplus WC 872 myself.

If I needed/wanted that Ruger, I'd buy it.

Thanks, Stonecreek and others.

I have what may be the worlds slomest .264 mag. it's a Win XTR 70, with a 24" barrel. After I throated it out, so the bullets dont stick half way down the case, it will do a measly 3250 fps with a 120 Nosler SB and 7828, it's favorite powder. I'd get rid of it, but it's been the most lucky rifle I own, I always get something when I carry it. A 6.5 Gibbs has mostly replaced it, same bullet, 27" lilja barrel, 3500 fps. But, if the hunting is poor, the .264 comes back out!

Thats slowest, not slomest .264. Sorry about that.

The interest and barrel kindness of 7mm Rem Mag really was the demise of the 264 Win Mag. Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against it personnaly, but I shoot a 7mm Rem Mag and it is as versatile as it gets for a chambering.

The trouble with the 6.5mm class is that the heavy for caliber 140 grainers are really not a favorite of mine. The 6.5mm does great work with the 120 and 125 gariners in 260 Rem or 6.5x55mm Swede. The 264 Win Mag, while handling the 140 grainers at 3050 fps (give or take), still won't match a 140 7mm Rem Mag round, which will take coyote to moose with 120-175 grain bullets.

I just can't buy into it, but hey, thats just me.

rossi

Don't know the price but at an auction site there is a pair of the same rifles (consecutive ser no.) you describe and $3000 isn't enough. As for a 264 - I always wanted one - 140 gr @ 3100 fps - with a lazer like trajectory. It will truly "reach out and touch someone" and if you can get it for a song and a dance - go dance!

Rossi misses the point about the 140 grain bullets in the .264 vs. the 7mm. In the .264 the 140 has a much higher sectional density, which translates to higher retained velocity and downrange energy, flatter trajectory, and better penetration. Started at the same velocities, the .264/140 is a better bullet for heavy or distant game than the 7mm/140.

While the 7mm/140 is an excellent bullet, it is better matched to deer or carabou-sized game, with a 160 or 175 grain bullet better suited to elk or moose.

In a 26" barrel, the .264 Winchester will do an honest 3200 fps with a 140 (as originally speced), and I have no trouble getting 3250 from my recently-acquired 26-incher (my 24" does 3150). A 7mm RM shooting a 140 grain bullet will beat these velocities by a hundred fps or so in similar barrels, but will be doing about the same speed, and penetrating less, at 300 yards. This is NOT to say that the 7mm is "inferior" to the .264; it just points out the need for heavier bullets in larger bores.

Yes, the .264 will do fine on whitetails with a 120 grain bullet, but as I said earlier, it gains nothing over the 140. On the other hand, I would much rather have a 120 bullet than a 140 if using a .260 Remington.

Stonecreek,

Not missing anything, the 140 6.5mm cleaves the air and offers exceptional SD. I wasn't per say comparing a 140 7mm vs a 140 6.5mm on game application. You are correct, as I should have been comparing it to a 160 grain 7mm for downrange work. However, the seven mag can move into 160s at 3150 fps and 175s at close to 3000 fps. Anyway you look at it, in my opinion, the seven mag is a much more versatile big game rig (from mice to moose).

Take Care,
rossi

[ 09-19-2002, 23:31: Message edited by: rossi ]

In my limited experience with the 264 mag (my dad and uncle both bought one each in 1958 and 1959 respectively) The only bullet weight used was the 140 grain. usually factory loads as neither reloaded. 26 inch barrels on both rifles.

This cartridge was used mainly as their Elk rifle and it was very effective. My father always said that he thought the 7mm was a better elk cartridge but would never use one. If it ain't broke don't fix it

Barny

Rossi:

I understand now, and no disagreement. However, I'd say the "versatility" of either cartridge depends on which end of the game spectrum your most concentrated on. If it's elk and moose, then the 7mm is better and can still do coyotes. If it's coyotes, then the .264 is better and can still do elk. I've got no problems either way.

The biggest advantage to the 7mm in my observation is that it can effectively use the normally "slow" powders like H4831 effectively, while the .264 really needs the "super slow" powders like H870 for maximum performance.

Anyway, given the choice of two identical guns on the rack in each caliber, I'd pick the .264 for deer and antelope and the 7mm for elk and moose (but would be comfortable with either, if need be).

Any time you can get a nice rifle for a song buy it, you can always rebarrel to another more balanced cartridge. The 264 Mag is an over bore capacity cartridge. That means to much powder being pushed through a small diameter bore. Very hard on bores and is not noted as tack driver for sure. The throat will be washed out in not very many rounds, in fact that may be why it is on sale. If the price is right you can do much to turn it into a fine hunting rifle.
The 264 mag never did get rolling as a great shooting big game cartridge. The 7MM Mag is a much better balanced cartridge as far as case to bore is concerned. I prefer the 300 Mag for all my big game hunting.

Gentlemen,

I agree that if the price is right, purchase it. One client of ours brought a .264 Win Mag to Namibia in August. It worked well on a variety of game. He was using factory 140 gr. R-P Core-lokt, which worked OK. I think that they were loaded quite mild, and if he would have been using handloaded 140 gr. Noslers or equivalent, it would have worked even better.

A fraternity brother of mine had a .264 which he used every year on elk, and it worked perfect.

Joel Slate
Slate & Associates, LLC
www.slatesafaris.com

7mm Rem Mag Page www.slatesafaris.com/7mm.htm

Inspect the throat closely. Of course if it is cheap enough you can always rebarrel it if the throat is worn out.

[ 10-06-2002, 19:17: Message edited by: Bear Claw ]

I've used three of them and they were all temperamental. Pretty much obsolete as far as I am concerned. Plenty of better choices exist for darn near anything. A shorter lighter rifle works just as good on deer or antelope, and a 7mag or larger is worlds better on bigger stuff.

I tried the 264 when it first came out and never was very impressed, louder and kicked harder than a 270, bullest were mostly for the 6.5 manlicher and came apart...didn't seem to kill any better than a 270 or 06...so I dumped mine in favor for the smaller case of the 270...I have never been a fan of the 6.5..I had a Gibbs and a Manlicher Shonauer in 6.5x53..I like the 6.5x53 best of all but that was mostly the gun...I had a Brno M-22 in a 6.5x57 and I liked it but preferred the 7x57 much more...sooo I guess that I just never gravatated in that direction.

I've been thinking about a fast 6,5 for some time but if, it will probably be a 6,5-284.

The 264 Win Mag has been a bit of an orphan for some time now, but there is a surprising number of them still being used by hunters. I own 2 of them at present, and have owned others in the past. Can't imagine not having one. One of mine is a custom gun, built on a 700 action with a 26" SS Pac-Nor Barrel. It will make 3300 with the 140 and 3450+ with the 125 Partitions. The other is an older factory Remington 700 with the 24" tube. It is about 150 FPS slower across the board. No fragile bullet should be used with this chambering, since they will disintegrate at the most inopportune times! I have used mine primarily for open country deer hunting, but have shot Elk and Moose with them. Never had to shoot anything twice. Unlike some who posted, I have not found any 264 to be finicky, nor hard to extract excellent accuracy out of. Both mine shoot well under MOA with the loads I use. Very slow burning powders are needed to exploit this cartridge's potential. As one savvy poster said, the factory loads are underloaded severely. I graphed the Wichester 140 at 3020 and the Remington 140 at 2990. The 270 will push these figures, so you need to reload if you want to see the advantage of that great 264 Win Mag. Regards, Eagleye.

The 264 Win was essentially eclipsed by the 7mm Rem Mag. If you want something different, just buy the new 270 WSM, it will do anything a 264 Mag will and with much less muzzle blast, recoil and better accuracy all out of a 24 inch barrel.

I'd say my .264 with 140 grain Partitions at 3300 fps are fairly accurate. Recoil off the bench is all but non-existent and I hate recoil!

http://www.bambooflyrods.com/images/guns/7828.jpg

rossi; Have you personally ever owned a 264 Win Mag? I have my doubts based on the last post you made. Regards, Eagleye.

A 7mm Rem Mag or a 300 Win Mag are probably better choices if you do not handload. But I will never trade my 264 for either one. I pour in some H-1000, seat a 140 gr Partition and go hunt. From coyotes to elk it gets the job done everytime.

Saludos...Frank