I know remington have started in there sendero............but who else, anyone in a sporter rifle configuration ?

Read earlier that for brass one can neck down 7mm rem mag no drama's as well.

This round has got me interested, have a lot of space between my .243 Heavy barrel and my Ruger .338 winnie.

Would probably prefer a sporter weight gun.

The only other mfr was the M-70 and I had one in the classic and sold it.....

Today the .264 is ideally suited to custom rifles as all you need is any Mag rifle...7mm, 300, 338, 458, etc and there's plenty of them available used.

Just add a .264 chambered barrel and off ya go.

Many '98 Mausers will also house this cartridge properly modified.

Thanks Vapo.

PC,

As Vapo said just re barrel a M70.

I have 3 of the things and love the round. One in sporter weight, one with a Remington varmint contour barrel and one with a heavy varmint contour barrel.

I use the two heavier guns for long range kangaroo shooting. It hits them and recoil is zilch.

Blair.

Thanks Blair, I like the idea of a 100 gr bullet at 3600 fps I reckon it would be a laser on hoppers.

How big are the "hoppers" (body weight). thanks

Anywhere from 30 pounds for young ones to a little over 200 pounds for large males (my guesstimate I have never weighed any)

cheers pc.

Blaser R93, and you'll get better feeding, smaller groups and interchangeable barrels...

Sako made some, as well. Just make sure you use a barrel preferable 26 or longer, 24 MINIMUM or you will have 270 class ballistics I believe.

In addition to the Sendero, this year Rem also did a small run of M700, stainless SPS models in .264 w/ 26" barrels. 250 pieces, if memory serves. Look in a current Gun List. Was a shop in MO I believe.

The .264 has been chambered at one time or another by Winchester, Remington, Sako, Browning, Ruger, Savage, Herter's, FN, and a number of semi-custom manufacturers. As far as I am aware, only Remington is currently chambering any rifles for the caliber.

While .264 brass is not particularly scarce, one trip through the sizer die with 7mm Rem Mag brass provides you with perfect .264 brass as all dimensions are identical other than the neck. As a matter of fact, carefully resizing 7mm Rem brass so that a very slight "false shoulder" is left to precisely match the headspace of your chamber may be one of the best ways to tailor custom ammunition to your rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by biglmbass:
In addition to the Sendero, this year Rem also did a small run of M700, stainless SPS models in .264 w/ 26" barrels. 250 pieces, if memory serves. Look in a current Gun List. Was a shop in MO I believe.

That stuff never makes it to Oz

I've never seen one, but I understand that Remington made some Model 721 rifles in .264 Win Mag. That would have been numerous years ago, before the advent of the Model 700. A fellow I was shooting next to at the range about a year and a half ago said he had one of those Model 721 .264 rifles, and that it was extremely accurate.

My Remington 700 has a 23" barrel and, with 74.3/H-870 a Sierra 140 goes over the chrono at 3112 fps. No pressure and excellent accuracy. I have never chronoed any of my 125 Nos or 129 Hornady loads a I use the same powder charge for both! I "heard" Reminton was going to make a run in the 700 BDL and perhaps in the Mountain Rifle configuration. I would find it NECESSARY to get a Mountain Rifle if they make it. To heck with the washing machine~~~~~thats why God made Laundromats!

Aloha, Mark

Personally, I would forget the factory. For $800 for the SPS (if you can find one) and >$900 for the Sendaro, you can find any good, or new action with a 7mag barrel on it and have it professionally re-barrelled for less money. That way, you get what you want in way of configuration, etc. You can get a NEW 7MM SPS for $425 and have it rebarrelled by ITD for less, and sell the old stuff you didn't want on gunbroker, or ebay.

How much is a pre-64 model 70 in 264 worth. It has stock dings and barrel scratches from hunting but has only been shot about a hundred times with factory ammo? I know the original owner and he wants to sell it. Everything is original but the stock dings have been touched up but no total refinish.

quote:

Originally posted by gunny:
How much is a pre-64 model 70 in 264 worth. It has stock dings and barrel scratches from hunting but has only been shot about a hundred times with factory ammo? I know the original owner and he wants to sell it. Everything is original but the stock dings have been touched up but no total refinish.

IIRC they was made in two barrel lengths....26" and 22".

The 26" is preferable and will run $600 to $1,000 depending on condition.

Take it from there.

Its a featherweight version and as my son saw it I will have to check barrel length. He said I could shoot it so I guess Ill do that to check accuracy. Thanks for the info.

The "Featherweight" had a 22 inch barrel (and aluminum floorplate). Too bad. The .264 needs more barrel than that. Not that it won't kill deer with the short barrel; just that the muzzle blast will be increased and velocity will be decreased. I think you'll find that the Featherweight in .264 will bring substantially less money than a "Westerner" (the standard model) in a pre-64 Model 70.

I've got a Winchester Model 70 pre-64 (1960) 264 "Westerner" that I just took the scope off in preparation for putting it up on Gunbroker.com. It was my uncle's gun before he got too old to hunt. I received it about 10 years ago and it has mostly sat in my safe except for cleaning and working up a load. It likes the 125 gr Nosler Partition with 61 gr RL22.

The only thing it has had done is a trigger job and breaks clean at 3 pounds. No major scratches, minor use marks. All original 26" stainless steel blued barrel with the open sights.

PM me if interested. I wasn't really looking forward to auctioning it.

Contrary to the beleifs of some , a 264 will work OK in a 24 inch barrel , 3600 fps with 100 grainers definately doable......

There was a run of Ruger 77 s floating around here a few years back...........very likely those would be mighty scarce down in OZ

Aside from the pre-64 s , Winchester also made the push feeds in 264 for many years .

PC
I have owned rifles in 257 WBY Mag, 264 Win, and 7MM Rem Mag.

If you are having a hard time finding a 264 I suggest the following;
For smaller big game get a 257 WBY.
If you shooting will be with mostly with game larger than say 350 lbs get a 7MM Mag.

The Winchester Mdl 70 Classic Sporter with a 26 inch barrel was also made in the .264 Win round. The Feb 2005 No.233 issue of the Handloader Ammunition Reloading Journal has a artical( New Powders in the .264 Winchester Magnum)for the .264 Win fans. I use 68.5 Gr Ramshot Magmun powder with the Hornady 140 SST bullet in my rifle.Wolfe Publishing Co. may have some No.233 issues left. Tel (928)445-7810

quote:

Contrary to the beleifs of some , a 264 will work OK in a 24 inch barrel , 3600 fps with 100 grainers definately doable......

I agree.

I have two Sako .264's, one with a 24.4" barrel and the other with a 26" barrel. It's difficult to make a comparison between them because they have different throats, but the 26 incher seems to provide about 50-75 fps additional velocity at similar pressures.

However, I've never found the 24 incher to be handicapped in that with the right powder (VERY slow) it will do 3150 fps with a 140 grain bullet. I would think that chopping better than two inches off of that barrel would make the considerable muzzle blast even more of a problem, and drop your velocities another 75 to 100 fps or so.

Relating to barrel length VS velocity in the .264 Winchester magnum and other rifle calibers, in the Action Series VOL.9, NO. 4 issue of GUNS&AMMO, Bob Milek wrote an article titled: DOES BARREL LENGTH MAKE A DIFFERENCE. He took 4 rifles and shorten their barrels an inch at a time, recording velocity "loss" as he went. I will provide the big game rifle data for you all here from that article:

.264 Winchester Model 70, shooting Remington 140-gr. Core Lokt Ptd. Soft Pt.
Barrel Length....24"........Velocity
24"........2,861 fps.
23"........2,910 fps.
22"........2,937 fps.
21"........2,892 fps.
20"........2,874 fps.
19"........2,852 fps.
18 1/2"....2,808 fps.

.280 Remington 700 BDL, shooting Remington 150-gr. Core Lokt Ptd. Soft Pt.
Barrel Length....22".......Velocity
22".......2,786 fps.
21".......2,735 fps.
20".......2,708 fps.
19".......2,651 fps.
18 1/2"...2,635 fps.

.308 Remington BDL, shooting Hornady 165-gr. Spire Point.
Barrel Length....22".......Velocity
22".......2,674 fps.
21".......2,636 fps.
20".......2,617 fps.
19".......2,595 fps.
18 1/2"...2,598 fps.

Even the 22-250, shooting PMC 55-gr. Pointed Soft Points, maintained 3,416 fps out of an 18 1/2 inch barrel from the 3,617 fps posted with its 24 inch starting barrel length.

The velocities given above were the results of 10 shot strings, fired over an Oehler Model 35P chronograph with a screen spacing of 8 feet, measured at 12 feet from the muzzles, and then converted to the correct muzzle velocities. And then corrected for the elevation of the range, which was at 4,600 feet, as well as for the temperature and atmospheric conditions present at the time these tests were conducted, firing factory ammunition having all the the same Lot Number for any given chambering and load to weed out as much variation as possible.

As can be seen the velocity differences recorded in a number of rifles and cartridges didn't show the extent of velocity loss usually ascribed to them. After conducting these tests, Milek came to the conclusion that 22 inch length barrels are close to optimum in ballistics and in handling qualities for modern rifles shooting modern ammunition.

In this one rifle, shooting the ammunition tested, the .264 Win. Mag. produced its fastest muzzle velocity at the 22 inch barrel length, and even the 21 and 20 inch tests were faster than the 24 inch barrel velocities. The other calibers were included to show you that there is some consistency in Milek's findings across the caliber board as far as shorter barrels not loosing as much velocity as is usually ascribed to them...Rusty.

After thinking about Milek's tests for a while and considering other responders responses advocating the 26 inch and even longer lengths for .264 WM barrels, I decided to do some checking on what length barrels the manuals I have were listing. I will list the velocity first, followed by the barrel length, charge used, powder brand, bullet used, and source:

V = 3,130 fps, 24" BL, 73.0 gr H 870, SPE. 140 gr bullet, Speer # 12.

V = 3,115 fps, 24" BL, 65.0 gr 7828, SIE. 140 gr bullet, IMR.

V = 3,088 fps, 24" BL, 74.0 gr H 870, NPT. 140 gr bullet, Nosler # 4.

V = 3,065 fps, 26" BL, 61.0 gr 4831, NPT. 140 gr bullet, Hodgdon's 2006 Annual Manual.

V = 2,913 fps, 24" BL, 57.4 gr N 560, SIE. 140 VihtaVuori.

V = 2,908 fps, 24" BL, 72.0 gr 7800, NPT. 140 gr bullet, Accurate # 1.

As can be seen from the above data, there is little to no correlation between the barrel lengths being used and the velocities being achieved in the .264 WM. With Remington's slightly lower velocity for their factory load probably having more to do with the soft nature of Remington's Core Lokts, than it had anything to do with how fast they could have driven that bullet with the .264 case in any length barrel. More velocity doesn't always insure better terminal performance with all bullets on the animals we shoot.

To put this in a slightly different perspective, compare the loads listed below:

.264 WM. V = 2,913 fps, 24" BL, 57.4 gr N 560 powder, SIE 140 gr bullet.

6.5 MD. V = 2,638 fps, 13" BL, 52.0 gr N 560 powder, NPT 140 gr bullet.

Here we have a 13 inch barreled handgun delivering only 275 fewer feet per second with an 11 inch shorter barrel and a 5 grain less powder charge out of a smaller case. Handgun hunters have known for a long time now that you pay the least in velocity penalties with short barrels by using heavy for caliber bullets and slow burning powders. Peak pressure is reached in the first inch or two of bullet travel. That's why the loads that produce the best velocities in rifle length barrels also produce the best velocities in pistol length barrels, even though they may be using slower powders than are customarily thought to be useful in pistol length barrels.

In the same magazine, Milek also wrote another article titled, BARREL LENGTH VS VELOCITY, in which he took a number of handguns and cut down their barrels one inch at a time, from 14" to 4 inches, in both center fires for LR. Here are the 22 LR Winchester HV Solids ammo results:

BL 14".....1,105 fps.
BL 13".....1,106 fps.
BL 12".....1,110 fps.
BL 11".....1,089 fps.
BL 10".....1,114 fps.
BL 9".....1 077 fps.
BL 8".....1,063 fps.
BL 7".....1,057 fps.
BL 6".....1,024 fps.
BL 5".......959 fps.
BL 4".......927 fps.

Note that the highest velocity load was in the 10 inch barrel length for 22 LR ammo for this load and most other brands of factory 22 LR ammo. Beyond the powder' ability to accelerate the bullet up the barrel, additional barrel length contributes nothing and slows the bullet down because of additional friction. And I believe that's what happened with the .264 Winchester Magnum used in Milek's test.

The good velocity showing of the 24" .264 WM loads compared to the 26" barrel length load tend to support the fact that the optimum barrel length for the .264 WM may be at something less than 24 inches, as Milek postulated in the article quoted above...Rusty.

Rusty,
Pardon me if I take exception to your analysis as it relates to Milek's interpretation of the optimum barrel length for a .264WM. While I also think a 24" bbl. is fine in a .264WM, the fact that Milek started with a 24" bbl. and whittled it down from there, and then claims that 22" is the optimum spot for velocity in a .264, is not a valid assumption, since he never even tested this rifle at 26" or 25". All Milek's experiment proves, is that in that one particular rifle, with that one particular load, starting at 24", these are the results he got. A sample of one. Statistically meaningless. The other rifles he tested in different calibers did show a velocity drop off with decreasing barrel length.

Your analysis of the velocities garnered from several reloading manuals, is also meaningless. There is only one load tested in a 26" bbl. (a sample of one again), all the others are from 24" bbls. All the loads are different, all the test rifles are different. It's difficult to draw any conclusions from that data.

The fact that some rifles and with some loads will show higher velocities at shorter barrel lengths is not a new finding. It does not, however, mean that this will always happen. Not with a 264 or any other centerfire rifle. You can't draw this conclusion across the board. Notice I'm not quibbling about the data, only the interpretation. The data for the 22LR has absolutely no bearing on this argument, as it pertains to a .264.

I have four 264's, one 24" and three 26". I can guarantee that I'm not gonna start whittling on the barrels because of what one rifle did for Milek. May he RIP. Regards.

Simplified, barrel length for max velocity is powder over barrel volume on one side against friction between the projectile and the barrel on the other.

Looking at that .264 Remington factory load test, if that is anything like most neutered factory fodder they used a too-fast-for-the-application powder at 65-70% load density, and on the other side of the equation you have a long bearing surface, 140 grain bullet going through a rough mass produced barrel. That a 22" barrel is ideal under those circumstances is no surprise.

With proper loads using a full case of slow powder to keep the pressure up, and a top quality hand lapped stainless barrel to keep the friction down, a cartridge as overbore as the .264 will pick up an honest 150fps from 22 to 26" and going to 30" or even 32" is not unreasonable if you don't have to carry it around.

By volume, putting a .264 with a full case of powder down a 22" barrel is like chopping the barrel on a .308 at 10".

Milek's recommendation for the 22 inch barrel length as being optimum was not limited to the .264 WM, it was meant to apply to all rifles across the board and included ease of handling and dynamic balance as well as ballistics - the total package as it were.

The one thing all the loads listed above had in common was that they were the fastest loads listed at the 140gr bullet weight in .264 WM in each reference work sighted. I thought it was interesting that the majority of loading manuals chose to go with the 24 inch barrel length in the .264 WM in spite of the purported advantages of the longer 26 inch barrel length.

I also thought it was interesting that Hodgdons didn't list a load for H 870, which was probably because they are no longer offering that powder. Take H 870 out of the loading possibilities and the load performance of the .264 drops off considerably, especially in longer barrels. I believe H 1000 is the powder replacement for H 870 now, so there is still somewhere to go with Hodgdons powders and the .264 WM in that regard.

Any of you are certainly free to use any barrel length in any caliber that you please. The point of all this was to show owners of Model 70 Feather Weights that the shorter barrels on their rifles may not be a disadvantage at all in hunting, and may in fact produce superior velocity to longer .264 WM barrels. All barrels are individuals, so only time and testing will tell what barrel length is optimum for the .264 WM. In the past there was almost no incentive to test shorter barrel lengths in this caliber. Perhaps, now there is more reason to do the necessary testing to find out just what the optimum barrel length is.

The fact that I got such a high relative velocity out of such a short barrel in the 6.5 bore size with a relatively fast burning powder shows that there is a good deal of hope for considerably more velocity to be obtained with rifle length barrels, even if they end up being a little shorter than what most here consider to be optimum for the .264 WM.

If anyone out there cares to run some tests, I believe we would all be interested in hearing about your results. Was Milek's .264 WM am anomaly? I don't know and neither do you. Only more testing and time will tell. But it sure was an interesting test, don't you agree?...Rusty.

Rusty,
Actually, yes, I do think Milek's results with the .264 were an anomaly. Interesting, of course. But certainly not conclusive.

In the February 2005 issue of Rifle's Handloader magazine, issue #233, John Barsness wrote an article titled "New Powders in the .264 Winchester Magnum". One interesting tidbit he wrote up was that in the Sixth Edition of Speer's handloading manual, published in 1964, Speer did a bit of testing of factory ammunition in a 26" .264 Westerner and in a 22" .264 Featherweight. This is in two different rifles, of course, but the 140gr. Winchester PowerPoint ran at 3139 fps in the 26" and the same load at 2919 fps in the 22" rifle. This is a significant difference, 180 fps slower in the 22", or 45 fps per inch.

The purpose of Barsness' article was to try some of the new slow powders now available, in the .264, since few loads exist in manuals for most of them for the .264. He did his testing with a 26" pre-64 Model 70 Westerner. His rifle delivered 3186 fps with the Winchester factory 140gr. PowerPoint. For his handloads with a 140 gr. bullet, he used a Speer. His load using Ramshot Magnum produced 3240 fps, Magpro 3207 fps, and Retumbo 3171 fps. Even his slower loads,MRP2 @ 3114 fps, and RL25 @ 3130 fps, meet or exceed any of the loads you have posted. If nothing else, this demonstrates that your assessment that without H870, the .264 can no longer perform as designed, is incorrect. Since he didn't start sawing off his barrel one inch at a time, we'll never know what it mighta done in a 22" barrel. I don't know what the replacement for H870 is, but I suspect it may be the new US869 Hodgdon has introduced recently. I have never heard of anyone trying US869 in a .264 yet, but I'm sure someone will. But with or without H870, the .264 is certainly capable of the high velocities it is noted for, as well as excellent accuracy. In fact, there has never been such a great selection of appropriate powders, as is available now. I can't help but notice that none of these powders tested by Barsness are used in the loads you garnered from various loading manuals. I'm not gonna miss H870, it is dirty and too sensitive to warm temperatures.

Another article you would find interesting was written once again by John Barsness, in the October 2006 (issue #243) issue of Handloader, titled "Much Ado About Nothing...Or Almost Nothing". In this article, John explores the barrel length vs. velocity issue, using his own experiences, as well as unpublished notes from experiments done by Phil Sharpe years ago. Sharpe also occasionally observed anomalies, such as the one noted in Milek's .264. If I may, I will quote the summary of Sharpe's findings. The sections in quotes that follow are Sharpe's. The sections not in quotes are Barsness' comments.

"...A study of data indicates that every load, at some point in the firing, shows over 100 fps maximum variation." This means that a high or low average variation in muzzle velocity for a certain load might only occur at that particular barrel length, that the same load could very easily be more or less consistent at other barrel lengths.

"We have proven that in a barrel there is no such thing as a curve or even a straight line in plotting velocity per inch." This means there's no way to predict what a couple of inches, either way, will do to a certain loads muzzle velocity. My own guess is that this is due to slight differences in bore diameter, but who knows?

"We have proven...
1.) Any load will perform differently in different barrels.
2.) Any load will have its velocity gains, plus losses.
3.) No load sticks to the uniform 'law' of 25 f.p.s. per inch.
4.) The average maximum loss in working lengths is about 12-1/2 f.p.s.
5.) Velocity loss per barrel-inch is less with low velocity jacketed bullets than with the same bullets at high velocity.
6.) Velocity loss is generally less with cast bullets than with the jacketed type.
7.) Velocity loss per barrel-inch varied with the powder used."

If anyone is interested, back issues of these magazines might still be available from Wolfe Publishing. As a note, John Barsness is well known for his no nonsense, no bull$hit style. Johnny B. will tell you just exactly where the bear $hit in the buckbrush!

But as far as Milek's assessment that a 22" bbl. rifle was overall the best for handling and balance, is fine with me. Just don't expect to get that velocity increase when you whittle your barrel down, that Milek observed with one particular rifle with one particular load! Generally speaking, you can expect to get a velocity decrease in a shorter barrel with most any centerfire rifle cartridge and load, in barrel lengths suitable for sporting purposes. This velocity decrease probably doesn't really matter much (the deer will never know the difference). Furthermore, individual differences between rifles can easily result in larger velocity differences than 2" of barrel. But myself, I find 24" bbls. to be just fine, and 26" bbls. are all right too. 22" bbls. to me are not as steady, and feel whippy. Also depends on where and how you hunt. In the open county I hunt in, barrel length is not an issue. To those who find short barrels useful, I say, go for it! Have a great day! I gotta go shovel snow again!

I wonder why most of the powder manufacturers are going with the 24" barrel length for their data in the .264 WM if the 26" length holds such a great advantage, and why the rifle makers don't make more .264s with longer barrels for the same reason?

I hold JB in high regard and pretty well agree with most of everything he has to say. I am not really disputing what you have said. Individual barrels are individual animals and need to be tested to discover their individual velocity potentials.

For instance, I was just looking at some Ramshot Powder loading data this morning. Strangely enough they don't list any data for the .264 WM. But they do list loads for the 260 Remington, 6.5 x 55 Sweed and the 6.5 by 284 Win, all in 1 in 9" twist barrels in the 24 inch barrel lengths.

In the 260, 37.8 of Big Game powder gives the 140 BAR VLC 2,505 fps, which does not make my 50.0 grain load with VV N560 look too bad out of my 13" barreled handgun, at 2,533 fps with a 140 HDY SST. Is this another anomaly? I don't think so but I could be wrong on that. Other people who also have this same necked up and improved 220 Swift case in 6.5 diameter in 15 inch pistol barrels and they are getting even more velocity than I am presently getting out of my 13 inch barrel, so I don't believe I have an anomaly barrel on my hands. In my hunting load, I was more than willing to give up 100 fps to shrink my group size in half and get smoother extraction, and I don't believe that was a bad trade to make at all.

Hunter powder gives a little better velocity out of a 260 24" tube with the BAR 140 grain X, at 2,524 fps with a 40.8 grain charge. But my handgun is still looking pretty good at 2,533 fps with its 11 inch shorter barrel with the same bullet weight.

In the 6.5 x 55, hunter gives a 140 gr SIE HPBT 2,673 fps with a 43.0 grain charge. A 49.8 grain charge of Magnum powder drives the 140 gr NOS PART at 2,778 fps. Which isn't a bad showing at all for the little Sweed.

In the 6.5 x 284, 48.5 gr of Hunter drives the 140 NOS PART at 2,855 fps, which is a lot better yet. While a 62.0 gr charge of Magnum powder drives the 140 gr SIE SPBT at 3,070 fps, which is beginning to get pretty close to .264 WM capabilities with this bullet weight in a smaller case.

A-Square lists a starting load of 37.0 gr with RL-15, driving a 140 gr NOS PART to 2,515 fps out of a 26' barrel, which still makes my 13 inch barreled handgun look pretty good. Their Max load is listed as 41.0 grains of R-15 for a velocity of 2,790 out of the previously mentioned 26" inch barrel. Granted, Reloader 15 is probably not the best powder to use in a 6.5 with a 26 inch barrel, but it did pretty well none the less.

John Kronfeld published a starting load of 41.0 grains of IMR-4350 for a velocity of 2,606 fps with a 140 gr SEI SPBT out of a 20 inch barreled 260 REM rifle. The maximum load he developed for that 20 inch barreled gun was 42.9 grains of IMR-3450, at a velocity of 2,730 fps, which is not all that far from the velocity the R-15 A-Square load achieved in its 26" barreled rifle.

All I am saying is that anyone who has a chance to buy a Feater Weight Model 70 in .264 WM shouldn't automatically reject the deal because the gun has a barrel length shorter than 24 or 26 inches. While it may not be the fastest barrel out there, you may be surprised at how fast it turns out to be. And you may save yourself the expensive price of a re-barrel job if you shoot it for velocity before sending it off to have its barrel replaced with a longer one.

I also doubt that any antelope, deer, elk or moose out there will be able to notice the difference that a couple of hundred fps makes. Put your bullet where it should go and the animal will be down and dead shortly. My better than 200 LB buck sure didn't notice that I wasn't shooting him with a faster load, and he dropped right where I shot him, and I could have put my fist in the exit wound that my 140 gr SST left in his far side shoulder at my mild muzzle velocity of only 2,500 or so fps...Rusty.

Rusty,
Well, congrats on getting a nice buck! Kinda looks, tho, like I might wanna steer away from that SST bullet in a .264, if it does what you described from your .260 handgun! I must admit, your handgun IS looking pretty good at 2533 fps from a 13" bbl.!!

To look at the loads you mentioned for the 6.5-284, makes me think, hey, maybe I oughta try one of those! Yeah, that IS getting uncomfortably close to .264 territory! But, nah, I'm way too heavily invested in .264's to change now.

The subject of why new loads for the newer powders are never worked up for the .264 in loading manuals was actually addressed by JB in his article about the .264. John asked Hodgdon and Ramshot about this. Hodgdon said they had burned out their .264 test barrel, and didn't plan to invest in another. Ramshot didn't have a test barrel and didn't plan to invest in one. Because, they both said, no manufacturer chambers for the .264 anymore. In other words, the .264 is considered obsolete.

You mention the fact that most loading manuals show loads worked up in 24" bbls. for the .264, and thought that this might imply that the 24" bbl. was considered optimum, or perhaps sufficient. I must admit, I have never thought about it that way. Actually, oftentimes I look at a loading manual, and look at a certain caliber, and all too often wonder why they used THAT barrel length. As a for instance, the latest Nosler, for the 280 Rem, uses a 26" bbl. Huh? Many other examples exist, but I'm too lazy to go dig them out now.

As far as barrel lengths which have been produced in recently manufactured .264's, it's kinda an even split between 24" and 26". My 24" version, is a Rem 700 Classic limited edition manufactured in 1986, I think. I also have two 26" Rem 700 SS 26" models which were a special run produced for Acusport about 4-5 years ago. For 2006, Remington has manufactured the Sendero SF II in .264, which is 26". Rumor has it this caliber will be available in the Sendero SF II only in 2006. I have managed to snag one of those, as well. About the same time as the Acusport Remington's were available, Ruger had two versions of the .264 available. Both stainless steel. One was the 50th Anniversary model, I think it was called, with the older boat paddle stock. At the same time there was a also standard model with the newer full stock design. Both 24". I believe I've heard of a more recent Ruger model with laminated stock. Have never seen that one, so don't know what the barrel length was. Winchester also produced the Model 70 Classic Sporter, as a regular production model for several years, throughout the late 90's, or so. These were 26" bbls.

I've never owned a pre-64 Model 70 Featherweight with the 22" bbl. I 'spect the muzzle blast might be impressive, but I'll lay you odds, it'll kill critters just fine!

Good luck with your handgun project. Sounds to me like you've got a good thing going! Adios.

Mudstud, thanks for all the information and thoughtful replies you have posted. I also lament the decline of the .264 WM in popularity. It got a bad rap on the barrel life issue in the beginning, and it is better today than it has ever been before with today's modern slower burning powders.

For sure the 140 SST would be a bad idea in a .264 WM. Even at my mild velocities, the front core was completely lost on a 140 Nosler Partition I tested during water tests I did at 25 yards, though the PT penetrated into the 6th one gallon jug. A 160 grain Sierra Pro-Hunter penetrated just as deeply and expanded to a slightly bigger diameter. The SST penetrated into the 5th jug and lost the most weight of the bullets I tested, but held together fine and mushroomed beautifully. It is a great deer bullet below 2,800 fps. If I was hunting elk with my handgun, I would go with the 140 gr Partition and limit the range to 300 yards or less to ensure expansion.

In the past, guns of European manufacture mostly came in a 23, or more correctly its metric measurement equivalent length, inch barrels. I thought that was just a matter of the different measurement systems being used but I later read that testing done on the rounds most popularly used on the continent showed the metric 23 inch barrel length to give the highest velocity with the powders being used there.

The 14" cut down tests Milek ran on the 22LR give a good example of an anomaly. The velocity increased with each cut until the 11" barrel length was reached, where it dropped unexpectedly and then resumed the up ward and down ward progressions with the 10" and shorter barrel lengths, is a true anomaly. The .264 barrel Milek tested showed increases in velocity up to the 22" length but didn't fall below the 24" inch length in velocity until the 19 inch barrel length was reached. While this may not be a .264 representative barrel, a bigger sampling of 22" barrels would be needed to establish that, it doesn't really fit the spiked performance parameters usually associated with test anomalies.

JB has held Bob Milek in high regard in his writings. Not so much in his younger years, when he fell under the lure of the higher velocity magnum craze that continues on even today, but as Barsness matured and gained more experience, he came to appreciate Milek's affection for "efficient cartridges". JB has written a number of articles praising efficient cartridges, the most recent of which was titled something like, The Myth Of The Magnum's Killing Power, where he flatly stated that he didn't find the super high velocity cartridges to kill big game nearly as well as the standard velocity cartridges do.

The 7mm Remington Magnum, which Remington made by necking the .264 WM up to 7mm, killed the 264. The 264 is all about high velocity, and the 7mm Remington Magnum beat it at its own game, and offered heavier bullets for hunting larger animals for better versatility to boot. The largely undeserved bad rap on burning barrels out quickly for the 264 didn't help any either. So the 7MM sales went through the roof and the 264's tanked, hence the lack of rifles made and load data available today.

The 6.5 x 54 justly earned a respected reputation for itself by killing all manor of dangerous game, including elephant, with military non-expanding 160 gr bullets at a velocity of 2,200 fps out of carbine length barrels. There have been a number of small capacity cases made in the 6.5 bore size in Europe and other places around the world, so the bullet manufacturers based their production runs of 6.5 diameter bullets to this lower velocity level, which has made 6.5 bullets especially useful in handguns and cartridges like the 260 Rem and 6.5 x 55.

Long ago, it was determined that the best muzzle velocity for pure penetration with copper jacket and lead core bullets was 2,300 fps. With your .264 capable velocities of 3 to 3,200 fps, the Nosler Partition would probably be the minimum hold together bullet starting point, with Accubonds, Interloks and Barnes Xs and TSXs being better yet. You didn't say what you are shooting or what you are hunting, but I would be interested in hearing about what has worked well for you at your velocities,and reading what your views are on the best bullets there are out there for the higher 264 WM velocities you have quoted. There isn't much information out there on this subject...Rusty.

quote:

Originally posted by aspade:

Looking at that .264 Remington factory load test, if that is anything like most neutered factory fodder they used a too-fast-for-the-application powder at 65-70% load density, and on the other side of the equation you have a long bearing surface, 140 grain bullet going through a rough mass produced barrel. That a 22" barrel is ideal under those circumstances is no surprise.

With proper loads using a full case of slow powder to keep the pressure up, and a top quality hand lapped stainless barrel to keep the friction down, a cartridge as overbore as the .264 will pick up an honest 150fps from 22 to 26" and going to 30" or even 32" is not unreasonable if you don't have to carry it around.

Well said, Aspade. Few people understand that factory ammunition is typically loaded with the fastest "acceptable" powder in order to decrease the amount of powder consumed in the manufacture (and thus decrease the net cost of production). The effects of factories using faster-than-optimal powders are numerous, but among them can be the reduction in rate of velocity gain from increased barrel length.

The Milek data is somewhat anachronistic and in disagreement with a very large volume of other data.

Chopping the barrel of a cartridge like the .264 to 22" or less not only largely negates the utility of the cartridge by reducing its key feature, high velocity, to a more pedestrian pace, it also creates extremely objectionable (and painfully damaging) muzzle blast. Actually, I don't care for barrels much under 24" in any rifle or cartridge, but in those like the .264 shortening barrels is extremely counterproductive.

quote:

Originally posted by PC:
Thanks Blair, I like the idea of a 100 gr bullet at 3600 fps I reckon it would be a laser on hoppers.

It's a beautiful thing

The 100 BT really knocks them down. As you said a LASER. Perfect combination of knockdown power, flat trajectory and low recoil.

Try a 1:9 twist.

Robert Tobler makes VERY accurate barrels in that twist rate.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
PC
I have owned rifles in 257 WBY Mag, 264 Win, and 7MM Rem Mag.

If you are having a hard time finding a 264 I suggest the following;
For smaller big game get a 257 WBY.
If you shooting will be with mostly with game larger than say 350 lbs get a 7MM Mag.

NE thanks for that.............game for this gun would be large thin skinned varmints and I reckon the .257 weatherby would be awsome as well...................I also feel and Blair may agree that a 7mm rem mag loaded with 120 gr ballistic tips would also be exceptional for this work and shoot very flat as well.

I have shot a few head of game with the .300 RUM loaded with 150 gr Nos BT's and there a laser as well and knock them for six................that gun is now loaded with 200 gr NOS Accubonds..................although not travelling as fast they still knock them for six

PC,
Last night I downloaded Remington's 2007 catalog, and noticed they are still showing all the same calibers for the Sendero SF II being available in 2007 as were available in 2006, including the .264. It had been my understanding that the .264 would be a one year only offering (2006). Possibly the .264 Sendero SF II has been selling well? I know the .264's fly off the rack around here, while the other calibers languish. But this doesn't necessarily interpolate to sales in general.

Its my understanding that Ruger is making 264 Win Mags in the new SS, All Weather, Hawkeye for a distributor.

Remington could not make enough Sendero 2's to satisfy the hunger out there so they are making them again for 07. They won't make what does not sell. The 264's sell. Pretty good for what some would call obsolete.

Prescott: I called Ruger and visited with them on the 264 rumor and they denied it...they said the last they made was in 2005 and they are not planning on any presently...what it would take to get them to make them...who knows...I am a stockholder (omly 300 shares) and they ignored me...
so I bought another 7mmRM Hawkeye and am having PacNor put a 264 WM 26inch stainless barrel on it with the same countour so it will drop right in...

Glad to see there is still a lot of interest in the 264 out there.

In the late 60s, I owned three of them - an M70 26-in barreled Westerner, an M70 Featherweight with a 22-inch barrel, and later on a Remington M700 BDL with a 24-inch barrel. Never noticed any real difference in killing power, but the Featherweight was indeed a rather violent, noisy device. I loved it.

Milek made it plain he was no fan of the 264. He described it as being a "powder-hogging misfit". I wrote him saying that mine had taken just about every variety of Alaskan game with no failures, mostly with a single shot. His reply was that I must be a very good shot... Some spirited correspondence follwed, and I wish I would have kept the letters we exchnged.

Time to start thinking about building another one, perhaps on a Sako L61 or AV.