Do you view a stainless barrel is a must have on a 264wmag

28 October 2010, 05:28

ramrod340

I was outside in the wind today talking to my new neighbor. Since I've only been here a month I'm new to him. He was loading the camper heading out for a week of hunting. During that conversation he mentioned thinking about having a long range 6.5 built. I mentioned the 264wmag since you could still buy factory rifles. He said he had major concerns about the 264 because it was a "barrel burner". That he was thinking the 6.5STW instead. <img src="https://forums.accuratereloading.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif" alt="Eeker" width="15" height="15"><BR><BR>Since I'm the new kid on the block I didn't want to come across as a know it all but left it that adding another 10-15grs of powder down the same bore might make the STW worse.<BR><BR>Then we go on Stainless or CM for the barrel. He was very much a stainless being a must have I was more don't overheat them and their wouldn't be much difference.So if you were building a very much overbore 6.5 (264wmag or larger) which type of barrel would you choose?Chrom Moly 24"Stainless 24"Chrom Moly 26"Stainless 26"

28 October 2010, 05:45

vapodog

quote:
Do you view a stainless barrel is a must have on a 264wmag

Absolutely not.....If you like it then get it.....but there's no necessity to use stainless on a .264 Mag.....

Even if it does have reduced life the Chrome molly has all the life I can ask for.....

C'mon.....isn't 2,500 rounds more than most of us shoot at big game in a lifetime.

28 October 2010, 05:57

drm-hp

If I remember correctly, modern barrel CM is actually more wear resistant than the SS. That is until you factor in high heat of repeat firings. So I voted SS.
Thanks, Doug

28 October 2010, 06:15

Geedubya

I'd say more a matter of preference and application. If you're going to be in wet, inclement weather all the time, or a super harsh environment go stainless and synthetic. If you are like me and love blue steel and wood then, you know what to do.
GWB

28 October 2010, 06:47

z1r

quote:
Originally posted by ramrod340:
I was outside in the wind today talking to my new neighbor. Since I've only been here a month I'm new to him. He was loading the camper heading out for a week of hunting. During that conversation he mentioned thinking about having a long range 6.5 built. I mentioned the 264wmag since you could still buy factory rifles. He said he had major concerns about the 264 because it was a "barrel burner". That he was thinking the 6.5STW instead.

Since I'm the new kid on the block I didn't want to come across as a know it all but left it that adding another 10-15grs of powder down the same bore might make the STW worse.

Then we go on Stainless or CM for the barrel. He was very much a stainless being a must have I was more don't overheat them and their wouldn't be much difference.

What's laughable is that someone convinced him that an STW is less a barrel burner than the .264 WM.

28 October 2010, 07:42

ramrod340

quote:
What's laughable is that someone convinced him that an STW is less a barrel burner than the .264 WM.

I'm not so sure that someone convinced him of that. I thought he was just going by all the old bad press the 264 got years ago. He seems like a smart guy so maybe he will do some more research before he spends any $$.

28 October 2010, 19:44

larrys

I really don't think it matters as much as the powder I use. I would think the pressure in relation to the full pressure curve will be more of a factor than the barrel steel. But what do I know, I still use I4831 in my 264.

28 October 2010, 21:17

jeffeosso

(with humor) whatever barrel i chosoe to use for a 264 must be easily rebored to a medium after 500 rounds!

28 October 2010, 21:26

Slowpoke Slim

My target guns wear stainless barrels, but my hunting rifles are all chrome moly. Get whatever you want, but blued steel will never take a back seat to stainless in the field. That's just pure gunwriter bullsh*t, and rather old and tired bullsh*t at that.

The last time I had a hunting rifle out in the field, it poured rain for 2 days. When I picked up the rifle and turned it over, water poured out of it.

When I got home and cleaned it up a couple of days later, there was not one single, spot of rust anywhere on it. It was a Stevens 200 in .223 btw.

I've had my wood stocked, blued metal guns out in some very nasty weather over the years. Most have been Win mdl 70's, and one Rem bdl, not that that matters any. Rain, hail, snow, freezing temps, 115 degree temps, I've never, ever had any issues with any of them. Not with metal rusting, or stocks warping or cracking. Sure they have nicks and scrapes on them, but not one rifle has one spot of rust anywhere.

Get what you want, but just call it what it is, personal preference, not for any other reason than that.

28 October 2010, 21:29

craveman85

vote +1 on the blued. if you keep it cleaned and oiled and dont overcharge your reloads then you will be fine. ive heard of .243's being barrel burners too but ive got over 3k through mine and i bought it used. still shoots sub .5moa with handloads. besides after he gets to 2500 rounds he can always put another barrel on it.

28 October 2010, 21:34

airgun1

I voted 26 and Stainless but that is because that is how Winchester made most of the pre 64's in 264. They made quite a few 22 inchers that were CM.

We have better and slower powers to minimize throat burners these days.

29 October 2010, 01:26

Dewey

quote:
Originally posted by Slowpoke Slim:
My target guns wear stainless barrels, but my hunting rifles are all chrome moly. Get whatever you want, but blued steel will never take a back seat to stainless in the field. That's just pure gunwriter bullsh*t, and rather old and tired bullsh*t at that.

The last time I had a hunting rifle out in the field, it poured rain for 2 days. When I picked up the rifle and turned it over, water poured out of it.

When I got home and cleaned it up a couple of days later, there was not one single, spot of rust anywhere on it. It was a Stevens 200 in .223 btw.

I've had my wood stocked, blued metal guns out in some very nasty weather over the years. Most have been Win mdl 70's, and one Rem bdl, not that that matters any. Rain, hail, snow, freezing temps, 115 degree temps, I've never, ever had any issues with any of them. Not with metal rusting, or stocks warping or cracking. Sure they have nicks and scrapes on them, but not one rifle has one spot of rust anywhere.

Get what you want, but just call it what it is, personal preference, not for any other reason than that.

I do not agree and my experience in coastal BC is that there is a benefit to using sts barrels in the kind of wet that we have here. I have lived and worked in tiny resource towns such as Ocean Falls, Holberg and Stewart, in the bush alone for extensive periods. I have used CM rifles as that was what I had, but, I recently bought a Classic sts-.338WM and am having it tuned at Martini's for a "beater" in these conditions.

Last year, one of my beloved synthetic stocked P-64 Alaskans in .338WM had trigger issues due to rust from the rain in northwestern BC...I made it work, but, it would not have happened with a sts rig, at least not as quickly.

29 October 2010, 19:41

ramrod340

quote:
I do not agree and my experience in coastal BC is that there is a benefit to using sts barrels in the kind of wet that we have here. I have lived and worked in tiny resource towns such as Ocean Falls, Holberg and Stewart, in the bush alone for extensive periods. I have used CM rifles as that was what I had, but, I recently bought a Classic sts-.338WM and am having it tuned at Martini's for a "beater" in these conditions.

Dewey thank you for your comments. Depending on the climit I can see advantages to Stainless. The discussion we were having was the need for stainless for increased barrel life from what he viewed as a barrel burner.

30 October 2010, 00:13

Stonecreek

Best I can tell the reason people buy stainless barrels is that they want to avoid the time and cost of having them polished and blued.

Some of the best barrels are stainless, as are some of the worst. The same can be said of CM.

By the way, my .264 barrel is 45 years old this year, has shot untold thousands of rounds, and still puts the first through fifth shot out of a cold barrel within one-half inch of the point of aim. "Barrel burning" is largely a myth, particularly when it comes to hunting rifles. You just ain't gonna put that many rounds through one.

30 October 2010, 00:27

vapodog

quote:
"Barrel burning" is largely a myth, particularly when it comes to hunting rifles. You just ain't gonna put that many rounds through one.

Thank you.....another dead nuts statement!

30 October 2010, 02:02

ramrod340

quote:
"Barrel burning" is largely a myth, particularly when it comes to hunting rifles. You just ain't gonna put that many rounds through one.

Thank you.....another dead nuts statement!

+1

That has always been my view.

30 October 2010, 08:36

jimatcat

tip burns did my .264 with a 26" cm... #4 contour...and then QPQ'd it...

30 October 2010, 09:10

ramrod340

quote:
QPQ'd

02 November 2010, 06:27

boltman

quote:
Originally posted by Slowpoke Slim:
My target guns wear stainless barrels, but my hunting rifles are all chrome moly. Get whatever you want, but blued steel will never take a back seat to stainless in the field. That's just pure gunwriter bullsh*t, and rather old and tired bullsh*t at that.

The last time I had a hunting rifle out in the field, it poured rain for 2 days. When I picked up the rifle and turned it over, water poured out of it....

Try that in my home state of Mississippi and you'd have a rusted hunk in a few hours. Chrome moly most definitely takes a backseat to stainless in the field around here. I grew up constantly knocking rust off of blued rifles, that's why all my hunting rifles are now stainless, actions and barrels. I don't use them because of any supposed better resistance to barrel wear, I don't shoot my hunting rifles enough to ever see any difference in that. Corrosion resistance is another whole other story though, I view stainless as almost a necessity due to our climate. There's a big difference in the climate of Arizona and Mississippi, even when it's raining.

02 November 2010, 21:49

DMB

I think that Remington's Model 721 in 264 Win Mag had a stainless steel barrel too, back in the early 1960's timeframe. I don't think they made many of them, and I've never seen one for sale, but Lacy's book lists them.

04 November 2010, 17:58

Hot Core

quote:
Originally posted by boltman:
quote:
Originally posted by Slowpoke Slim:
My target guns wear stainless barrels, but my hunting rifles are all chrome moly. Get whatever you want, but blued steel will never take a back seat to stainless in the field. That's just pure gunwriter bullsh*t, and rather old and tired bullsh*t at that.

The last time I had a hunting rifle out in the field, it poured rain for 2 days. When I picked up the rifle and turned it over, water poured out of it....

Try that in my home state of Mississippi and you'd have a rusted hunk in a few hours. Chrome moly most definitely takes a backseat to stainless in the field around here. I grew up constantly knocking rust off of blued rifles, that's why all my hunting rifles are now stainless, actions and barrels. I don't use them because of any supposed better resistance to barrel wear, I don't shoot my hunting rifles enough to ever see any difference in that. Corrosion resistance is another whole other story though, I view stainless as almost a necessity due to our climate. There's a big difference in the climate of Arizona and Mississippi, even when it's raining.

Completely agree with Boltman.

To say there is no advantage to Stainless indicates the person has no experience in many parts of the world that I've Hunted. And I really appreciate the slower tendancy toward rust as well as longer barrel life.

If the Stainless barrel/receiver is either Bead Blasted or Brushed, the light Gray dosen't reflect light well, as some constantly rusting Blue does. Plus it blends "into" the Southeastern woods/swamps extremely well with the Gray patches on the Hardwoods.

I had to use constantly rusting Blue for many years. Now that I do not have to, I don't. But, RamRod, you should use whatever you like the best. If you decide you don't like it, it is easy enough to change.

04 November 2010, 20:36

onefunzr2

I would choose the 26" length.

Made from stainless steel. Why? Because that's the only material Hart Rifle Barrels uses.

06 November 2010, 05:07

HTDUCK

I voted 26 inch and stainless,just cause I likehow it looks.
Also the fact I have a 264 in the works that's going to be wearing a 28 inch stainless tube had something to do with it...........

04 December 2010, 16:03

Double-D

My vote was for 26" CM. Just because I prefer the look of blue and wood. But I have a stainless I bought from the winchester custom shop before it closed down. Shoots good but it has never been fired at anything with a heart beat. I have owned 5 .264's over the years and picked up a couple of them cheap because they were shot out. I filled the barrels with solvent and left them sit for a week. Cleaned them up and they shot fine. More dirty barrels than burned out chanmers out there at least that what I think.

04 December 2010, 16:36

I don’t want to jack you alls post but one thing I find interesting is at work I gauge all are weapons every 6 months. On the m4s that are blank fire only I replace about 3times the barrels as the m4s that get ball ammo fired though them most of the time they fail head space or barrel erosion. We fire 14 million rounds a year about 2/3 are ball rounds. I think unburnt powder has a lot to do with rounds that are called barrel burners but I could be wrong.

04 December 2010, 20:50

ramrod340

quote:
think unburnt powder has a lot to do with rounds that are called barrel burners but I could be wrong.

Interesting thought.Wonder if the pressure curve has to be different to function the action. Resulting in higher temps or unburned powder acting like sand blasting.

04 December 2010, 22:15

DMB

I guess I'd really like to read why people like Rem for the 264, and Win for the Pre-64 220 Swift chose SS barrels? I'm talking engineering design rational back when the decision was made to go with SS for both rifle's barrels??
Today, I just don't get it, as discussed by the guys above..

09 December 2010, 00:25

tiggertate

quote:
Originally posted by ramrod340:
quote:
QPQ'd

? ?

Its a hot salt bath process that hardens and colors the metal at the same time. It looks like a satin blue job and the steel is as hard as woodpecker lips for a few thousandths.

It also ends up several times more corrosion resistant that typical stainless alloys like 416.

This SAKO was treated with QPQ:

18 March 2011, 00:42

stepchild 2

quote:
Originally posted by vapodog:
quote:
Do you view a stainless barrel is a must have on a 264wmag

Absolutely not.....If you like it then get it.....but there's no necessity to use stainless on a .264 Mag.....

Even if it does have reduced life the Chrome molly has all the life I can ask for.....

Only if you don't hunt with HC, then you might need a new barrel every couple years.

Stepchild

C'mon.....isn't 2,500 rounds more than most of us shoot at big game in a lifetime.

19 March 2011, 17:14

mstarling

The choice between stainless and chrome moly is, I think, one of weather rather than erosion resistance. Erosion resistance might suggest a powder with a lower flame temperature.

I consider the .264 Win Maq to be a good chambering for a long range rifle because of the ballistics of the available projectiles.

Now for the hate mail starter ... if it weren't for the BCs available in the better 6.5 bullets, the .270 Win is as good a choice.