Well, I said I'd report my results and tho' they're somewhat humiliating I'll keep my word!

Best I got from the 70 gr/140 gr Rem Corelokt load was 3050 from a heck of a long barrel. Pressure signs suggest there is no room to go up. The 67 gr load produced only 2770. The 110 GS Custom only did another 100 fps but pressure was much lower. Didn't waste 95 gr bullets because they will need something else for sure.

That may be a respectable hunting load but not nearly what I had hoped. Looks like 5010 is just too coarse and bulky to get where I want to go. Being the hard-head that I am, I'll just have to try it with some 160s to see if I can redeem it!

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:

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 have 2 Remington 264's 1 is the sendaro this is my favorite deer rifle I only use 100 grainers in it. I also have a savage 270wsm as accurate as any rifle I have ever owned.But if you want to beat the 264 in speed get you a 26"
6.5 remington mag like mine it does 100 balistic tips at 3700 FPS with 60 grains 3031.
love all of them.

so a 6.5mm cartridge with a case capacity of 68gr, will give more velocity than a 6.5 cartridge with a case capacity of 82gr? don't make sense to me.

also, is 60 gr of 3031 in a 6.5RM a typo?

edited to add: The Hornady Manual #7 lists 42.2gr of 3031 as maximum for 95-100gr bullets with a velocity of 3100 fps.

I found a few #1 lb cans of old Hodgon H-570 if anyone wants it for about 12.00 a can. Have no idea the shipping but it`s here. It is REALLY good for the old 264 WM.
Aloha, Mark

Bohica.

PM sent......

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
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

Terry-

Atta-boy, you'll love the .264!!! But, which project is this?? And all of your projects are incredible!!!

OKIE ----- I shoot two .270 WSM's. One shoots 130 grain bullets from 3390 to 3455 fps. The other shoots them between 3350 and 3390 fps. Those speeds are from an Oehler 35-P. They also shoot the 140 grain bullets 3250 to 3325 fps, and 150 grain bullets in the 3225 to 3275 range depending on bullets. Good shooting.

quote:

.264 Winchester Magnum opinions?

Well, the market's opinion was that it served few specific needs so it died. The 7mm Rem is what killed it off and I believe the market was right

That's not the same as saying it's useless, it is indeed an okay round. If I needed something in that performance range and had a good buy I'd take it and not look back.

Last time i checked there was plenty of 160gr 6.5mm bullets out there including the excellent North Fork so the argument that the 270 WSM is better because it has a greater selection of bullet weights is a moot one at best. In actuality the .264's have bullet weights starting at 85grs and ending in 160grs. There are also a ton more target bullets like the A-max, berger, match king, ad nauseum.

If you want a 264 win mag go for it! There are no flies on it and the 6.5mm's really perform well for its bore size. I would put up a 264 win mag over a 257 roy any day, much better bullets with greater weight selection. Just check out the long range shooters, none of em are running 257 or 277 bores, gee i wonder why??????

fgulla ----- I shoot several North Fork bullets and in checking their bullet list, I find only 120 and 140 grain .264 bullets. Maybe some bullet company offers 160 grain .264 bullets, I have not had time to check. If they do and if you load it, at what speed. Good shooting.

If anyone wants a good powder for the 264 WM I have about four [4] cans of H-570 powder. It is a slight bit slower than the old H-870 but delivers great accuracy and is easy to load. I will sell it all for 85.00 plus whatever the postage is. If you live in S Oregon and want to pick it up? Fine too. Three of the cans are unopened and the other was cracked open to smell it. Interested please let me know.
Aloha, mark

I just found this thread, so I'm very late to the party. I've got an old pre-64 M70 Westerner that was one of my father's rifles. I re-stocked it with a brown precision stock and absolutely love this rifle. With 125 grain noslers, it is incredibly accurate. It is a good long range caliber, and for deer and pronghorns, an outstanding choice. I've shot quite a few animals with my .264 and love it.

Those 125gr Partitions at 264 velocities are deally, ain't they!

quote:

Originally posted by Buliwyf:
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.

It is a great case design. Remington also thought so because their 7 mag uses the same case.

Lou

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Lou:

quote:

Originally posted by Buliwyf:
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.

It is a great case design. Remington also thought so because their 7 mag uses the same case.

Lou

And the .308 Norma and .358 Norma are also essentially the same case/dimensions rounded to metric measurments. This entire family of cartridges was originally referred to as "short magnums" due to being 3/8" shorter than the "full length" magnums of H&H (and later Weatherby) fame. Somehow, the shooting fraternity forgot that we already had a family of cartridges called "short magnums" from the 1950s-60s and reassigned that name to a whole new group of even shorter, even fatter cases in the 1990s. Call it a generation gap.

Excellent idea! I love "playing" with mine. Recently used Nosler Custom 7mm Rem Mag brass to make .264 brass.

The .264 WM was the right idea at the wrong time. It's got a small (albeit loyal) following just big enough to keep major manufacturers twisting .264 WM tubes on once in a while and the occasional run of brass. IMO it's really a reloader's cartridge and what I would consider a "thinking man's magnum".

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Somehow, the shooting fraternity forgot that we already had a family of cartridges called "short magnums" from the 1950s-60s and reassigned that name to a whole new group of even shorter, even fatter cases in the 1990s. Call it a generation gap.

Hmmm? So it had nothing to do with Winchester actually naming then (270, 7mm, 300) Short Magnum just like they did with their Super Short Magnums? The shooting fraternity just called them exactly what Winchester named them.

I have the 26, 28, 30, 33 and now 416 in the original "short mags". They all work very well.
My thought has always been that the "new" super long/fat & short/fat mags are nothing more than marketing. I refer to them in jest as "whiz-bangs". It worked---for awhile--and now seems to have passed. Want a good deal on a rifle--go take your pick of the RUMs in the used gun rack! And the attempts to make the 325WSM equal the GREAT 338WM were as laughable and false as an Opromises speech!
So now we've gone SUPER long and fat & SUPER short and fat. What marketing will they come up w/ next?

The .264 Winchester Magnum was perfect in the original Winchester 1950's thinking of a "battery" of rifles i.e.

.458 Winchester Magnum M70 African
.338 Winchester Magnum M70 Alaskan
.264 Winchester Magnum M70 Westerner

The .375 H&H and .300 H&H were world standards then. The .300 Winchester Magnum did not come along until the early 1960's.

Fat & Short case design has been forged and proven in the fires of benchrest competition and without question the most accurate case design in the world. Period. Short & Fat gives the most uniform powder ignition and this fact allows equal velocity with about 10% less powder. Short & Fat has been put to the test, and it passed with colours flying or the benchrest scientists would have droped it long, long ago.

Guys argueing about their favorite cartridges and just saying I like the dang thing is good. Micro-argueing over extremely minor differences in a few thousanths of an inch in bore size, small differences in fps, and insignificant bullet weight differences, to quote Jack O'Conner, "gives me the vapors."

quote:

Originally posted by Buliwyf:
Short & Fat has been put to the test, and it passed with colours flying or the benchrest scientists would have droped(sic)it long, long ago.

The benchrest folks, as far as I know, don't use repeaters. But some of those very efficient short & fat rounds had plenty of trouble firing multiple shots without jamming. Although I've never had any trouble with my Blaser R-93 feeding or ejecting 300WSM cases; after I learned that the rounds actually snap down into the removable resin magazine. The feed lips actually spread open, then snap back holding the top round in place.

A groundhog hunting friend of mine for decades now has a Winchester 70 in .264 mag, late 60's or early 70's manufacture...24" barrel he bought brand new...so no Westerner. His barrel finally burned out a few years ago shooting 87gr Sierra's. He burned IMR4350 exclusively. I always kid him that it did so because he felt compelled to load it hot, so he could brag that his bullet went faster than the same weight bullet in my 25-06 Remington 700 BDL sporter. I'm proud to say that no groundhogs lived because my 87 Sierra's fell to the ground before reaching them.

I certainly didn't talk him into it, but he ended up screwing on a factory take-off barrel in 300Win mag. He won a 204 Ruger in a raffle and uses it for groundhogs now. So it's a functioning gun once again, but since he uses a compound bow for white tailed deer and black bear, he hasn't said what its use is going to be...except as a keepsake.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
so a 6.5mm cartridge with a case capacity of 68gr, will give more velocity than a 6.5 cartridge with a case capacity of 82gr? don't make sense to me.

also, is 60 gr of 3031 in a 6.5RM a typo?

edited to add: The Hornady Manual #7 lists 42.2gr of 3031 as maximum for 95-100gr bullets with a velocity of 3100 fps.

SEE IF THIS MAKES SENSE TO YOU.
THIS IS FROM AMMOGUIDE.COM
-----------------------------
6.5 RM CAPACITY 69.3 120 GR BULLET
RL-22 62.5 GR. 3475 FPS ENERGY 3219
-----------------------------------
264 M CAPACITY 80.7 120 GR BULLET
IMR-7828 72.0 GRS. 3396 FPS ENERGY 3074
---------------------------------
SO YES THE 6.5 RM DOES BEAT THE 264 M WITH
9.5 GRS LESS POWDER BY 79 FPS.
AND 145 MORE LBS. OF ENERGY
AND BOTH OF THESE ARE MAX LOADS.

Just out of curiosity I ran both those loads through QuickLoad. The 6.5RM/R-22 load reaches exactly 3471 fps in QL but at 80,000 psi so yes, I would call that max. The 264/IMR-7828 load was at 74,500 psi and 3502 fps.

I'm not saying QL is always right-on but most of my manuals show the 6.5 RM at 2800-2900 with 120 grain bullets.

quote:

SEE IF THIS MAKES SENSE TO YOU.
THIS IS FROM AMMOGUIDE.COM
-----------------------------
6.5 RM CAPACITY 69.3 120 GR BULLET
RL-22 62.5 GR. 3475 FPS ENERGY 3219
-----------------------------------
264 M CAPACITY 80.7 120 GR BULLET
IMR-7828 72.0 GRS. 3396 FPS ENERGY 3074
---------------------------------
SO YES THE 6.5 RM DOES BEAT THE 264 M WITH
9.5 GRS LESS POWDER BY 79 FPS.
AND 145 MORE LBS. OF ENERGY
AND BOTH OF THESE ARE MAX LOADS.

Yes, of course it makes sense, but only in Oklahoma

quote:

Originally posted by OKIE1:

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
so a 6.5mm cartridge with a case capacity of 68gr, will give more velocity than a 6.5 cartridge with a case capacity of 82gr? don't make sense to me.

also, is 60 gr of 3031 in a 6.5RM a typo?

edited to add: The Hornady Manual #7 lists 42.2gr of 3031 as maximum for 95-100gr bullets with a velocity of 3100 fps.

SEE IF THIS MAKES SENSE TO YOU.
THIS IS FROM AMMOGUIDE.COM
-----------------------------
6.5 RM CAPACITY 69.3 120 GR BULLET
RL-22 62.5 GR. 3475 FPS ENERGY 3219
-----------------------------------
264 M CAPACITY 80.7 120 GR BULLET
IMR-7828 72.0 GRS. 3396 FPS ENERGY 3074
---------------------------------
SO YES THE 6.5 RM DOES BEAT THE 264 M WITH
9.5 GRS LESS POWDER BY 79 FPS.
AND 145 MORE LBS. OF ENERGY
AND BOTH OF THESE ARE MAX LOADS.

no need to yell, I can hear you. It's pretty common for someone who is defending their pet cartridge to find a given load in "his" cartridge which beats another given load in a different cartridge. But you can't change physics. For a given bullet diameter, a case with larger capacity, loaded to similar pressures with appropriate powders, will win the velocity contest every time.

Your postion is the same as arguing that the 30/06 will beat the 300WinMag, or the 280Rem has more velocity potential than the 7MM RemMag. It just won't hold water.

More importantly, I'm still blown away (so to speak) by your proclaimed load of:

"6.5 remington mag like mine it does 100 balistic tips at 3700 FPS with 60 grains 3031."

Are you REALLY using that load? If so, and if you ever see me at the range, please warn me so I can leave quickly.

I will retract my load for the 6.5 rem mag you are right 60 grains of 3031 would scare the hell out of me too. but what i should have posted was 60 grs. of 3100. what i said was not my fault my finger did it.
as for taking up for an obsolete cartrige 6.5 Remngton mag I want to add this to the conversion as to what was said about the 257
wby, 264 mag & the 270 wsm all with 120 grain bullets. these are max loads from ammoguide.
257 wby 69.0 gr.7828 3402 fps 3085 energy
6.5 Rem mag 62.5gr. RL22 3475 fps 3219 energy
264 mag 72.0 gr 7828 3396 fps 3074 energy
270 wsm 61.5 gr H414 3309 fps 2919 energy

so see my 6.5 Rem Mag out does all of them
see for your self
http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/bcompare.cgi
at bottom right click (Run Comparison)

Okie: It is simple physics. A cartridge with a larger powder capacity will have more velocity potential than a cartridgeof the same caliber with a small powder capacity, when loaded at the same pressures.

The average 30-06 will not provide more velocity than the average 300 Mag.

The average 280 will not provide more velocity than the average 7Mag.

The average 25/06 will not provide more velocity than the average 257Weatherby.

And the average 6.5RM will not provide more velocity than the average 264WM.

And quoting loads from one source which provides anomalous results does not change physics.

Your 6.5RM is essentially a short action 6.5-06. It's a fine cartridge and should be a great open country deer/lope rifle. But it is NOT a 264.

Thanks for correcting your load data.

quote:

A cartridge with a larger powder capacity will have more velocity potential than a cartridgeof the same caliber with a small powder capacity when loaded to the same pressure.

Ok now if I understand you right--
You say more powder always means more FPS.
Now I know I have been wrong for 52 years of reloading.
So would you please explain to me how I misread this information from the Hodgdon manual.
and these are maximum loads.
same bullet same powder

6.5 Rem Mag
85 gr. bullet
H4895 51.0 grs.
3613 fps
49,600 cup pressure

264 Win Mag
85 gr. bullet
H4895 55.0 grs.
3625 fps
52,900 cup pressure

the 264 beat my 6.5 by 12 FPS but it took 4 grs, more powder to do it.

Now what would the FPS be on the 6.5 Rem Mag
if it had 52,900 cup pressure.
see the 6.5 Rem Mag is equal to the 264 mag with this bullet weight.
But I will agree that the 264 will exceed the 6.5 with heavier bullet weights.

quote:

Ok now if I understand you right--
You say more powder always means more FPS.
Now I know I have been wrong for 52 years of reloading

No, I did NOT say that "more powder always means more FPS"

Read the sentence (which you quoted) again:

"A cartridge with a larger powder capacity will have more velocity potential than a cartridgeof the same caliber with a small powder capacity when loaded to the same pressure."

More CAPACITY (not just more powder) provides more VELOCITY POTENTIAL (not just more FPS) when loaded AT THE SAME PRESSURE. It's physics, Okie. I didn't make it up.

BTW, as to your example, who in the worrld would want to shoot 85gr bullets in the 264WM? Not what I would choose as a PD rifle.

I don't know where you live but in Oklahoma we don't places to shoot PD'S most all of our hunting of anyhing is not long range. most of our deer hunting can be done with a shot gun or bow and muzzel loaders. The longest range I have ever killed a deer is about 250 yards. our deer is never over maybe 90 to 125 pounds field dressed.
It don't take a 200 or 300 grain bullet to knock down a deer. I never use more than a 100 gr bullet to deer hunt. And a 264 mag with 100 grainer is enough to kill a 200 pound animal at 400 yards.I had an uncle in missouri that never used anything but a 22LR to kill deer. I have killed them with a 223 3 or 4 times even 1 with a M1 carbine 1 shot running broadside to me at about 70 or 80 yards. my 243 with 70 grainers has got quite a few and my 22-250 with 55 grain.
out of 54 years of deer hunting I have killed most of them with my 6.5X55 with a 85 grain bullet. The first deer I killed when I was 20 years old was with a 30-06 and a 150 grain silver tip at 50 yards coming straight at me I
shot it rigt square in the chest it ruined so much meat I had to throw away the whole front half of it so since then I have always used 100 or less weight bullets. if i don't have a good clean shot at an animal I pass it up and in doing so I have never had an animal take another step from where I shot it.

Okie, there is some pretty good PD hunting around Gate in Beaver County. One of those fine American places you can still drive to a farmer/rancher's house and ask to hunt.

That's all very nice, but what does it have to do with the relative merits of the 264 vs the 6.5RM?

Case capacity of the .264 winmag is 0.325

Case capacity of the 6.5 remmag is 0.264

Run both cartridges at the same pressure and the .264 wins every time.

Just the way it is.

Terry

quote:

That's all very nice, but what does it have to do with the relative merits of the 264 vs the 6.5RM?

my reply was to answer your question about why a 85 grain in a 264

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
That's all very nice, but what does it have to do with the relative merits of the 264 vs the 6.5RM?

Nothing. It's just very nice

tiggertate:

Some notes on surplus IMR 5010: in my .338-.378 it is a little faster than WC 872, taking 111 grains to achieve 3000 fps with a 250 grain bullet, v. 113 for the WC 872. Tiggertate is right about the big kernels--the durn stuff doesn't like the narrow neck on the RCBS funnel very much, and it's tough to get it through without going to a larger funnel. It's also bulky, which can work to your advantage when you want to fill the case. Given that IMR 7828 is likely to be a little bit faster (?), you could use data for that and see where you are with the chronograph.

Thought ya'll might be interested in my only .264 WM experience. A friend of my Dad had a .264 that he used for everything and was famous for making extremely long range shots on groundhogs. I don't remember the bullet he used but his method of powder dispensing was kind of unique. He put a funnel on the case and poured H4831 in, tapped it with the handle of a butter knife and seated the bullet. I had read enough to know you were supposed to weight the powder and asked him about it. He said "you can't get enough in the case to blow it up". He's 80+ now and still shooting that rifle, although it's probably on it's 5th or 6th barrel.