I don't really know why, but I have always wanted to 'play' with this caliber and there is a very good deal going locally on a new Ruger Hawkeye in this calibre.

So I just wanted to see if anyone had any opinions/experience with this calibre - whether good or bad - before I decide whether to buy or not.

Thanks in advance.

Hey Bwana

Can't tell you much about the 264 Win, but I have a 264 WSM or 6.5 WSM and a 264 WSSM that I have been working on. The 6.5 WSM is nearly the same ballistically as the 264 Winchester. Although I am not much of a small bore fellow this little cartridge really impressed the hell out of me this past July in South Africa. I took my two boys over for some shooting and they used this rifle on everything from jackel to wildebeast using one load a 120 Barnes TSX at 3300 fps. It hammered everything to the ground, most all 1 shot and down. It was very impressive to see a small bore work like that. I have always had a thing for this caliber too. My wife has a 6.5X55 Swede and she loves it too. So maybe there is something magic about 264. Can't hurt I say give it a go!
Michael

quote:

So I just wanted to see if anyone had any opinions/experience with this calibre - whether good or bad - before I decide whether to buy or not.

I had one once.....great caliber!!!

Mine was a 26" M-70 Classic.....shot quite well and I killed a pronghorn at a bit over 400 yards with it once..... Further with a good A-Frame 140 I wouldn't hesitate to take it elk hunting as well.....

On paper it's one helluva cartridge.....in the field I couldn't tell the difference between the .264 and the 22" .270 Winchester....and I just don't find long barreled rifles convenient.

I have one spare VZ-24 action left over and just might turn it into another .264 Mag.....just because I don't have one.....but it'll have a 22" barrel and it'll be a superb deer and antelope rifle...just like my .270.

Clean it well and often.

But it you won't be sorry. I had one once, it dropped every deer I shot at, including a bull elk. Wish I had that rifle yet.

I've ownd and loaded for a .264 for the last 45 years (ouch! Just thinking about that length of time makes me tired)

1. Don't bother unless you reload. Factory loads don't begin to reach this cartridge's potential.

2. Use the heavier bullets (125 to 140 grains) for high sectional density and use VERY slow powders for the heavier bullets. No, 4831 is NOT a slow powder in this context.

3. Don't bother with a .264 unless you have a chronograph to help you know what you're doing.

4. It is capable of accuracy as good as any cartridge, and the high S.D., high velocity bullets penetrate well and kill impressively.

I would agree with everything Stonecreek said. Since I am more of an accuracy person, IMR4831 works well for me, since I shoot 125 Partitions and 129 Hornadys in mine. It should work fine if you are not trying to push all the velocity you can. If you are, use much slower powders.

The .264 Mag is a fine old round that has many applications. For my money a .257 Wby does more, and the .270 WSM does much more. Good shooting.

Phurley is way wrong on the 270 WSM. BC & SD are both much better in 6.5 mm than in .277" bullets. The 6.5 has better exterior and terminial ballistic potential. And 264 WM does it with class.

Everything I have read says that you need a 26" barrel to make good use of a 264. Is this true?

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
Everything I have read says that you need a 26" barrel to make good use of a 264. Is this true?

IMO.....no it's not true.

If I really wanted a .264 a 24" or even a 22" barrel would not set me back a bit!

quote:

Originally posted by phurley5:
and the .270 WSM does much more. Good shooting.

Phurley: could you elaborate? the cartridges have almost the same case capacity (slight adv to the 264) and the bullet diameter is very close. Don't understand how one could do MUCH more than the other. Just to show you where I'm coming from, my 264 shoots 125gr Partitions or 130AB's at about 3300fps. My 270WSM shoots 130gr AB's at about 3225. Danged if I can see a difference in the real world.

I bought a beautiful rifle in the "Westerner" caliber. The barrel was shot and I found the rifle shot a 36" group at 100 yards. I had it rebarreled to 7mm Rem Mag and never looked back. I believe there is much more versitility insofar as bullet selection when you move up to 7mm.

olarmy and Pancho ----- I am getting an honest 3455 fps out of 130 grain North Forks, 3290 fps out of 140 grain Barnes TSX, and 3240 fps out of 150 grain Nosler Partition, all with great accuracy. Show me how your .264 Win Mag can do that. The .277 bullet up to 160 grains makes the .270 WSM an Elk round to be respected, the .264 Win Mag just does not offer those bullet selections, or at least I have not seen them for sale. That is where I say the .270 WSM does much more than the .264 Win Mag. I have great respect for the .264 and have shot several, but in the bullet weights, it is just a little short in the britchs on the larger animals, compared to the WSM. Also in my opinion, the .257 Wby outdoes the .264 when comparing bullet to bullet. I shoot the 120 grain Nosler Partition 3500 fps with my .257 Wby, you can not do that with the .264 Win Mag. Just to qualify my figures I use an Oehler 35-P Chronograph for all my speeds, and those are averages not just top speeds. Good shooting.

Thanks for all the comments so far.

However, does anyone have any comments about barrel life? I have read old shooting articles which claimed that the .264 "eats" barrels fairly quickly. Is this just because the barrels, bullets and powders, from the 1960's and 70's were of poorer design/manufacture to those of today? Or does one still need to be careful not to shorten barrel life unnecessarily?

quote:

Originally posted by phurley5:
olarmy and Pancho ----- I am getting an honest 3455 fps out of 130 grain North Forks, 3290 fps out of 140 grain Barnes TSX, and 3240 fps out of 150 grain Nosler Partition, all with great accuracy. Show me how your .264 Win Mag can do that. The .277 bullet up to 160 grains makes the .270 WSM an Elk round to be respected, the .264 Win Mag just does not offer those bullet selections, or at least I have not seen them for sale. That is where I say the .270 WSM does much more than the .264 Win Mag. I have great respect for the .264 and have shot several, but in the bullet weights, it is just a little short in the britchs on the larger animals, compared to the WSM. Also in my opinion, the .257 Wby outdoes the .264 when comparing bullet to bullet. I shoot the 120 grain Nosler Partition 3500 fps with my .257 Wby, you can not do that with the .264 Win Mag. Just to qualify my figures I use an Oehler 35-P Chronograph for all my speeds, and those are averages not just top speeds. Good shooting.

phurley: I shoot both cartridges, and like both. My point is that they are very similar, as they would logically be because their case capacities are very similar as are their bullet diameters. As to your impressive specific examples, I'd wager that a 130gr TSX from a 264 @ 3350 would do anything that your 140 TSX from the WSM. And there is nothing I'd shoot with your 150gr Partition at 3240, that I wouldn't handle just as well with a 264 140 Partition at 3200. Yes, there are 160gr 277 bullets, but I still can't think of any situation that they would handle any better than a 140 premium bullet form a 264.

Not trying to pick a fight. Enjoying the converation. And the only point that you have made that I would not agree with is that the WSM is "much more" than the 264. FWIW, IMO, they are almost indistinquishable in the field.

BTW, I've never used north forks, but looking at their website, the only 277 cal bullet they list is a 150gr semi-spitzer...no 130's???

I got my M70 264WM in 1983. It has always been my "go to" rifle out here in mule deer country.
I feel it has high retained enery at extreme range, which I guess is mainly why I like it so much.

Still well accurate for the long shots and has not worn out yet, esp considering I do not take particularly good care of my guns.

I have a Leupold M8 6x fixed scope on it, which is showing considerable wear. My plans are to replace the scope with another Leupold 6x fixed scope (lightweight; from the custom shop) with ballistics marked on the reticle.

Golly GEEEeeeeeeeeeee! Sure am glad my old 264 didn`t know all the stuff about how poor a round it was back in the late 70s and early 80s when it went to Africa! It woulda just crawled into the gun case and hid its pretty head!
Aloha, Mark

As I understand it the .264 got a reputation as a barrel burner when it first came out simply because there weren't any suitable powders on the market. We don't have this problem today.

olarmy ----- I had a small horde of North Fork bullets (130 and 150 grainers) when Mike Brady shut down his operation. Shortly before that Mike stopped making the .277 Caliber altogether. I was quite pleased when the new people started making the 150 grainers. I can get 3390 out of the Barnes 130 grain TSX. It seems the grooved bullets go faster than the solid bullets, I am no expert on bullets, just my reloader-shooters observation. ----- Once again, I have the utmost respect for the .264 and always have. When the .270 WSM came out and I started shooting it, I said "look here", if this round can do beat the .264 and also shoot 20 grain heavier bullets, it is something I can use out West. If you think that 20 grains extra is of no importance, so be it, you have you opinion and I have mine. The barrel life is not important to me at all, I treat barrels like golfers treat clubs, you replace what needs replacing at very little cost ($200-$300) compared to the total picture. If buying a few barrels will keep me shooting a great round, it is part of the game. Good shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by BwanaBob:
Thanks for all the comments so far.

However, does anyone have any comments about barrel life? I have read old shooting articles which claimed that the .264 "eats" barrels fairly quickly. Is this just because the barrels, bullets and powders, from the 1960's and 70's were of poorer design/manufacture to those of today? Or does one still need to be careful not to shorten barrel life unnecessarily?

That .264 I mentioned earlier that I've been shooting for over 45 years -- well, it was my only centerfire rifle as a teenager and I shot everything with it profligrately: Ground squirrels, jackrabbits, coyotes, bobcats, feral hogs, deer, antelope, and eventually elk. Add to that some 1000 yard informal target shooting and my guess is that the fine old gun has had several thousand rounds through it. The first inch or so of throat has an "alligator skin" appearance, but other than taking about a grain more powder for the same velocity as when it was new, it still shoots sub-minute groups, and always puts the first shot from a cold barrel right where you wanted it.

Bottom line is, I'm afraid another 45 years is going to completely do this barrel in.

quote:

However, does anyone have any comments about barrel life?

I think stonecreek nailed it pretty good.....but let me add....If I wanted a .264 magnum, the barrel life issue would be the least of my concerns. It's not a prairie dog rifle and as a big game rifle it'll last many years shooting a box of shells a year which is more than many of my big game rifles shoot.

plan on a couple thousand rounds before rebarreling as long as you use it for a hunting rifle.

quote:

If you think that 20 grains extra is of no importance, so be it, you have you opinion and I have mine.

phurley: the difference in your 270 150grTSX and my 264 130grTSX at 500 yards is about 1/2" in trajectory and less than 200ft-lbs. the difference in your 150gr partition load and 140gr Partition load @ 500 yds is about 125ft-lbs and about 0.1". And as to 160gr bullets, if I'm going after a critter that is too big for a 140gr partition, I want more than 20 more grains of bullet.

IMO, they are essentially equivalent: outstanding open country deer/antelope cartridges that will work well on animals up to elk. I can't imagine a senario in which (loaded with similarly constructed bullets and at similar pressures) there would be a noticeable difference in the field.

I understand that your opinion differs, and respect that.

And I should add that if one is not a handloader, the WSM wins, hands down.

I have 3 264's in various different barrel configurations as well as a 257Wby.

I have taken both calibres to Africa a couple of times. Here in Oz, I use the 264 99% of the time...the 100BT or 108 Lapua Scenar on 'roos is lethality defined.

Have not used a 270WSM, but they sound like a good thing......though I've heard of feeding problems..........

Just used VN N570 with 215M primers with the 140NP out of a 26" barreled 264 and got 3230-3240fps.

With regard to bullet weights you can get a 156gr Norma Oryx if you want a real heavy weight in 6.5mm.

257 versus 264 comes down to a few things:

Brass: it's just a matter of necking 7mm brass down to 264 rather than pay WBY prices and only have one source.

Bullet Weight: 264 wins hands down for range of weights over the 257 and you can use the 95GSHV if you want screaming velocity from a mono out of a 264.

Accuracy: Every 264 I have owned has been less fussy and has shot better with a wider range of bullet weights than my 257..........as they don't have all that Wby freebore.......

Okay Phurley - here's your numbers and mine run through my ballistic computer. Constants for all comparisons are:
Sight in @ 200 yds
Sight Ht = .5"
Temp = 65
Elevation = 3000'
Wind N/A

264 125 gr NP @ 3300fps drop @ 300 = 5.74 400 = 16.25 500 = 32.19

270 130 gr NP @ 3450 fps drop @ 300 = 5.32 400 = 15.11 500 = 30.07

264 140 gr NP @ 3100fps drop @ 300 = 6.44 400 = 18.12 500 = 35.75

270 150 gr NP @ 3292 fps drop @ 300 = 5.73 400 = 16.19 500 = 32.09

These numbers look insignificant to me - greatest difference is 3.66" @ 500yds. I doubt either rifle will group better than 3.66" @ 500 yds. Therefore I maintain my stand that the 270WSM won't do anything more than my 264. And, the 264 has better SD numbers throughout so should show better terminal ballistics.

Poncho ----- Thanks for the numbers, they support the opinion I already had. Now if you don't think they are significant, so be it. By your same reasoning the difference in SD numbers would be so small, it would have no significance, would it not. I shot my Mule Deer at 285 yards this past fall and the 140 grain Barnes TSX blew through the lungs with a bullet sized hole at entrance and a silver dollar sized hole at exit. I didn't have any penetration problems, I am sure your .264 will do the same. My final point is the selection of heavier bullets makes the .270 WSM somewhat more versital. To those speaking of feeding problems, I have not had that first problem with the .270 WSM or my .243 WSSM, or my 25 WSSM, all short fatties. Between me my son and two grandson's we used the three for several Deer this past fall. Good shooting.

My 223WSSM in a Winchester M70 was a bitch for feeding or NOT feeding, as it were.

Got rid of it and built a 22-243. Can use nice Lapua brass and it shoots sweet

I have a win 70 xtr with a 24" barrel, throated out to seat a 120 nosler solidbase out, and a hefty dose of IMR 7828 I get ..... 3250 fps. maybe the slowest 264 ever made, my 6.5/284 will match it! But, it's my "lucky" rifle and has shot so much game for me I could never give it up.

Phurley,
I didn't say 264 was better. OlArmy & I are just trying to show that the 270 short and 264 are ballistic twins. I like the 264 better but if you show up to hunt w/me packin a 270 short I'll say, "Let's go!"

My second centerfire rifle and my first bolt rifle was a Pre 64 Winchester Westerner.

I handloaded for it with regular dies, and a Lee Loader when I went off to college.

I shot it quite a bit.

I only shot deer with it. It was very effective.
Think of it as right between a 257 WBY Mag and a 7mm Rem Mag. I have owned both of them as well.

Now I have none of the above, I use a 300 Win Mag when I need long range power.

The .264 is a great cartridge - as are the others mentioned.

I have been using the .264 for about 15 years. I have a close friend that has been shooting one exclusively since the early 60's. Both are Winchester M70's with 26" barrels. Based on those experiences, this is what I can tell you:

1. Working up fast accurate handloads took more time than I have experienced with other calibers. They seem to be very selective about the bullets they will shoot well. Mine shoots 140 grain Barnes and Hornady best - 1/2 to 3/4 inch at 100 yard. The other brands and weights will not shoot under 2". My buddy's rifle is the same way with 125 and 140 Nosler Partitions.
2. Use premium bullets - Barnes and Nosler Part work great. Hornady, Speer and Sierra work OK on deer but not well on bigger game. Think penetration.
3. A .264 is not magic, but it seems to kill far better than you would expect if you have done most of your hunting with .30 caliber or larger. Until I started using the .264, most of my hunting was with .30-06 and .338 or larger.
4. A Barnes 140 grain bullet will effectively kill game up to elk, moose, zebra, kudu, wildebeest, etc. as long as you can hit where you aim.
5. For me, it shoots so flat it took some getting used to.
6. Factory loads are marginal in .264 - handloading is a must.
7. I have hunted with guns with barrels ranging from 20" to 26" in all kinds of cover. I have not had a problem with 26" barrels. For me a longer barrel seems to balance better and hold steadier. Not sure how much fps you would lose with a shorter barrel.
8. I have not had a problem with the barrel wearing out, but I would not expect it to last as long as say a .30-06 barrel. My hunting buddy has had his replaced - but he had used it exclusively for all his shooting for over 25 years before having it replaced.

If I was looking for one all around cartridge in the sub-30 caliber, I would probably get a 7mm Mag. But I don't need an all around caliber as I have plenty of others. The .264 fills my needs and it just works.

I shot a sako 264 mag, with 140 gr bullet and 60grain of 4350.
shot excellent and no deer ran off to talk about it.

I have aways wanted a .264 Winchester Magnum. I think it was a brillant battery Winchester designed, .458 Winchester magnum, .338 Winchester Magnum, .264 Winchester Magnum. The .300 Win Mag came latter and is a different case design.

I like both the Ruger and the Remington Sendero.

I got one in 1990 just play with. It has been a lot of fun.
I shoot a lot of 125 and 140 gr. partitions and have never lost
any game with them. I am now starting to work up some loads with
the Barnes 130 gr. TSX. It has been and still is a fun one to play with.

I have a .264WM Remington 700 I bought in the mid 60's. That was (and is still) my favorite rifle. Years ago, when I was MUCH younger and lived in Colorado, I had worked up loads for everything from prairie dogs (90 grain) to elk (140 grain) and just about everything in between. At the time, if my memory is still correct, there were 27 different bullet weights available from the different manufacturers. This was, of course, before the "premium" bullets were popular. This wide selection is why I settled on the .264 instead of the 7mmMag.
I can attest to the fact that mule deer and elk never ran after a solid hit. I also had a blast shooting 'dogs at long range. I love the caliber and if you reload, should be very satisfying. By the way, never replaced the barrel yet!

I just finished one and had the first range session yesterday. My opening load was 70 grains of surplus 5010 and a Remington 140 gr bullet. Man, you need a front end loader to get those big kernels into the case but its worth it. Great accuracy. Unfortunately the battery was dead in my Chrony so it will be tomorrow before I can clock the loads. With my 29" barrel I'm hoping somewhere north of 3400 fps.

tiggertate: I just "inherited" an unopened can of 5010. Is this the same as surplus 5010. I'm a 264 nut and would like to find out what 5010 might do, but can't find any data. Not sure it's worth the effort to work up a load with a powder that is discontinued and of which I only have a pound, but am curious what its capabilities are. thanks

I don't know if the canister and surplus are the same, olarmy. You could call and I'm sure they'd tell you how close they are. I'm headed back to the range tomorrow and I'll post the chronograph results then. I'm shooting Rem 140s, GS Custom 110 gr HVs and Hornady 95 gr V-Maxs.

I think there is a still some surplus 5010 out there and it is pretty cheap.

I'm building one now. Mine has a 27 1/2" Kreiger #4 barrel on it. It'll be used as a beanfield rifle. I went with the 6.5 for it's wind bucking ability. It also retains a lot of down range energy. It does all this with little recoil which is a big plus for precision shooting.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
It does all this with little recoil which is a big plus for precision shooting.

Terry

This feature just might be the .264 Winchester's best asset.....It's easy to shoot!