I have an opportunity to get a pre 64 Win 70 Featherweight Westerner in 264. He isn't giving it away but it is a decent price for a pre 64.

Will this be a realistic long range sheep gun or a bust?

I am considering geting it and swapping out the barrel for something bigger if it just is a bust with a 22 incher.

Airgun1--I have heard the .264's have fairly short barrel life??? Just hearsay--no actual experience with them. If it shoots good you should have a winner. If not--should be a great action to put another barrel on. What larger you have in mind?

From my experience the barrel life issue is a bunch of gun writer crap. It is no harder on a barrel than a 7mag, 257Wby, 7STW rtc. Yes if you get it hot and keep shooting it you will erode the throat. I wouldn't use it for a varmint rifle. My buddy has used his for deer hunting since the first year they came out. Accuracy still the same.

I wouldn't build a 264 on a 22". I think you need 26+ to get the full performance. However, at 22 it will still be a 3000fps rifle with 140s. I would look at 130 accubonds. You also need to check the throat because factory rifles normally have a short throat. A 5 minute fix to lenghten it.

They are at their best with REAL slow powders. A short barrel will leave you with a huge muzzle blast with them. I would speed up some to 7828, H4831, RL22 etc.

Check the throat shoot it as is. I bet you will like the 264. If you do end up shooting it out go longer.

I wouldn't hesitate to take a 22" 264 sheep hunting provided it was accurate.

Want some real data rather than just opinion? From Speer #9 Manual, 140-grain factory ammo test with .264 Winchester Mag:

Barrel...MV
26"....3139
24"....3077
22"....2919

This test used three different rifles rather than one barrel cut down, so it is less scientific. But it is data showing a 210 fps loss going from 26" to 22". Field performance is still just as good as a .270 WCF - hardly faint praise.


.

quote:

The Westerner came with a 26" barrel from the factory. Someone must have chopped 4" from yours.

My mistake. My friend just said his Westerner was 26"...his is not a Featherweight model. Could the assumption then be made that Winchester made the 264 mag in 3 barrel lengths...that the base model had a 24" barrel?

This is an original 22" Fwt Westerner cataloged from 1962-1963. Nobody cut anything down.

If a 22" 264 is a 270, I am not impressed to say the least.

quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:

quote:

Originally posted by airgun1:
I have an opportunity to get a pre 64 Win 70 Featherweight Westerner in 264. He isn't giving it away but it is a decent price for a pre 64.

Will this be a realistic long range sheep gun or a bust?

I am considering geting it and swapping out the barrel for something bigger if it just is a bust with a 22 incher.

The Westerner came with a 26" barrel from the factory. Someone must have chopped 4" from yours.

quote:

If a 22" 264 is a 270, I am not impressed to say the least.

If you are wanting a lot hotter than this then you are looking at large case and long barrel. Which kind of defeats the sheep rifle idea unless you like a long barreled heavier rifle. Notice that test was factory ammo.

With 140s in each 22" barrel the velocities calcualte to close to call.

What I meant was why use a more expensive rifle with more expensive cases that use more powder. If all it does is equal a 270 then I would just as soon have the 270.

ETA: I should have also added more kick to the shoulder! It is definitely a good start for any magnum with the action and glass bedded Fwt barrel channel and original pad. That is the direction I am leaning.

Well if you could find a pre 64 Featherweight at the same price go for it.

If you cna't find 264 brass at a good enough price simply use 7mag which should be the same price as 270. A 264 loaded for a short barrel will only use about 5-6grs more powder. So your powder cost per round is 1.5-2 cents more per round. 40 cases will last forever.

If you wnat the Pre 64 the 264Wmag will give you at least 270 performance maybe a touch more. Extra cost is next to nothing.

I scratch my head often why people let a small cost of brass or a couple cents extra per round to drive a decison.

If it is a good price you should have no trouble turning it if you decide you don't want it.

Or the rifle can be turned into any magnum.

quote:

Will this be a realistic long range sheep gun

IMO....yes.....ta hell with the velocity numbers...

IMO the .270 Winchester is also a realistic long range sheep cartridge.

And yes.....the .264 was produced with a 22" barrel for a time. Nothing wrong with it at all.

Personally I'd be looking more to the 129 grain bullets rather than the 140s.....

Is it a lot better than a .270?...Not at all....nor is the .264 a lot better with a 26" barrel!

quote:

Personally I'd be looking more to the 129 grain bullets rather than the 140s.....

Is it a lot better than a .270?...Not at all....nor is the .264 a lot better with a 26" barrel!

The 130Accubond is a heck of a lot better.

Seriously like vapodog I prefer the 129-130 range bullet over the 140 for the 264 unelss you are shooting something like elk.

Like he said a 264, 270, 7mag, 6.5-06 etc not enought difference to worry about.

From my experience with a 22" barrel 270 with Winchester 130 grain ammunition it'll be pretty unpleasant to shoot in terms of muzzle blast and muzzle flash.

Personally? I got rid of my 22" barrel 270 because it was so unpleasant. In 264? You'll have that discomfort in spades! Aces and Kings in fact!

And to me, any "long range" (over 200 yards) rifle is also about being able to see your target AFTER you've fired to see if it falls dead, or where it falls dead (or runs to), or get off a quick second shot.

I don't think that in any of the above this rifle will be your friend. So for that reason I'd say it is not a good long range sheep gun.

You'd actually probably be better off with an excellent laser range finder (if one exists) and just "lobbing" in heavy 180 grain 30-06 bullets with boat tail and plastic ballistic tips at moderate velocity of 2,700fps.

As an old friend would said you'd be better putting two inches on your barrel and taking two inches off your belly!

All my .264s have worn 26' barrels, it's needed to realize the cartridge's full potential. I can't see any reason for or advantage to a 22' barrel on a cartridge like a .264 nor would I want one but that said, if you like it buy it.

I used to have a 264 pre64 Featherweight Westerner...and yes, they came witha 22" barrel. I loaded mine with IMR4350 (a fast powder for the 264) and 140gr Sierra BT's and 125gr Parttions loafing along at about 3000fps.

No, it didn't reach the potential of a fullly loaded 264 with a 26" bbl, but it was a great open country rifle with relatively modest recoil.

Keep in mind that the 264 FWT is a relatively rare, and has considerable collector value if it's in original condition.

According to Cartridges of the World their author says that he could not get the same velocities (at safe pressure) in a 22" barrel with a 264 as he could achieve with the same bullet weight (at safe pressure) in a 270 with a 22" barrel...

I'd get it, put a muzzle brake on it, and work up some loads with the 130 grain Swift Scirocco. The bullet has a better BC than all of the 140's and is a bonded construction from pure copper and pure lead. No alloys.

It would be a great light carrying rifle!