Is this cartridge as rough on barrels as gossip would lead one to believe?

quote:

Originally posted by arkypete:
Is this cartridge as rough on barrels as gossip would lead one to believe?

I had one 40 years ago, didn't keep it long enough to see barrel wear because that sumbitch was LOUD.

It is fast but so is the 220 Swift; both having a reputation of burning out the bbl. after several thousand rounds. The reality here is how many rounds do you shoot out of any of your rifles? I doubt seriously that you won't shoot enough in your lifetime to affect it.

For normal hunting rifles barrel wear is a non factor.

For target and varmint rifles that is a different matter.

My point exactly. The 264 W.M. is an excellent cartridge that really never caught on big here in the US around its introduction due in large part that Americans at that time were leery of metric calibres (i.e- 6.5). For those in the know, ballistics wise, that is a whole different matter. If you are contemplating buying a 264, you won't be disappointed.

I have a Pre-64 Model 70 in .264 Win Mag. My father originally bought the rifle in 1962. After shooting a pile of game with it, I finally shot out the barrel. I could have re-barreled it into many different calibers but the 264 has been so good that I chose to stay with what works well. It only took my father, me and my son 58 years to wear out the barrel.

I just got it back from my gunsmith and it now wears a 26” Krieger barrel in #4 contour with 1-8” twist. We added a Timney trigger, pillar bedded the action in the Brown Precision stock I’ve had on it since 1985, cerakoted all metal and replaced a 40 year old Leupold 3-9 with a brand new VX5 in 3-15 with fire dot reticle. I’m shooting 127 grain Barnes LRX Bullets at 3,230 and getting 3/8” groups.

It’s what I’ll be using in December on my desert sheep Hunt here in California.

There you have it. The proof is in the performance.