The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Small Calibers Poll - Time for the .264 WinMag to make a comeback?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Poll - Time for the .264 WinMag to make a comeback? | Login/Join |
One of Us |
With all the hoopla over the 6.5mm and the introduction several new .264" caliber cartridges...... . | ||
|
one of us |
I built a 6.5x68mm and have no reason for another 6.5 at the moment. Graybird "Make no mistake, it's not revenge he's after ... it's the reckoning." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Winchester currently catalogs 264 Win Rifles, or they were in 2014. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It's a great cartridge and many custom rifles are being made with appropriate twist rates to handle the long high BC bullets which are noted to give the 6.5 caliber guns real LR abilities. Yes..*8 or maybe a tad slower like 8.5 twist should be fine. I'd still build a 6.5x280AI before I'd buy a factory rifle in 264 Win, but that's just me. I've shot one quite a bit but it's not mine. It feeds and shoots extremely well. If a guy is only shooting out to 400 then there's no real need since we have a stable full of great cartridges to do that. Zeke | |||
|
One of Us |
[QUOTE If a guy is only shooting out to 400 then there's no real need since we have a stable full of great cartridges to do that.Zeke[/QUOTE]  X 2  roger  Old age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone.. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I think it’s a good idea. But then I own a .26 Nosler, a 6.5 rem mag and a 6.5 carcano. The rem mag is ungodly accurate. Not sure why the hoopla over some of the 6.5 cartridges. There are a slug of them. I haven’t shot the Nosler much | |||
|
| One of Us |
I doubt they would catalog them again because they will look at their previous figures and see that they probably won't sell many of them. Besides, if anybody wants a model 70 in .264 Win. Mag. they can have one by getting ahold of a suitable action and having a barrel installed on it. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Apparently many people want a rifle in some sort of 6.5mm cartridge or there wouldn't be so many new 6.5mm cartridges coming out in such a short time. What got me wondering about this was an article in American Rifleman about the new 6.5mm PRC (Precision Rifle Cartridge) from Hornady. To me it's a real oddball. The case is as fat as a standard magnum case. The overall cartridge length is 3" (2.955"). So the new cartridge is too big for the AR10 platform and too big for a rifle with a 2.8" long, .308 sized, action. The next action size up in modern rifles is about 3.3", .30-06 sized, but the PRC cartridge is 1/3" shorter than that. Yes, the PRC is an oddball. The article in American Rifleman reports 6.5mm PRC velocities about 100 fps greater than .264 Win Mag velocities with the same bullets. I went online and read a few more reports/articles on the 6.5mm PRC and they confirmed the velocity advantage of the PRC over the Win Mag cartridge. But that makes no sense! The case capacity of the 6.5mm PRC is ~68 grains water. The case capacity of the .264 Win Mag is ~82 grains water. The only way the PRC cartridge can be besting the velocity of the WinMag cartridge is if it is loaded to higher pressures. It turns out the SAAMI max average pressures are 65,000 psi for the 6.5mm PRC and 64,000 for the .264 Win Mag. An additional 1,000 psi might make a smidgen of a difference in velocity but no way could it account for 100 fps more velocity in the 6.5mm PRC cartridge. I got looking a bit closer. It turns out the velocity data for the 6.5mm PRC cartridge is "measured average velocity for 10 shots from a 28" barrel". So, there we have it. 6.5mm PRC velocities would not be higher, and would probably be noticeably lower, than .264 Win Mag velocities if both loaded to equal pressures and are shot from barrels of equal length. The .264 Winchester Magnum is an excellent but underrated small bore magnum cartridge. And there are other excellent 6.5mm cartridges. But my conclusion about the 6.5mm PRC is that it is an oddball, neither fish nor fowl, and that all the press it is getting is pure hype. I'm not saying it is a "bad" cartridge. It does what it was intended to do. That is, provide decent ballistics from a not so "new and revolutionary" semi-short magnum case that supports it being marketed as filling a cartridge void that doesn't exist. . | |||
|
One of Us |
I have owned two .264 Win Mags, and I could just never fall in love with that caliber. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| one of us |
The .264 suffered from two things when it was first introduced. The first was Winchester's puzzling decision to use a zero leade so that the full diameter of the bullet could not extend beyond the case mouth. That's why (if you have a standard SAAMI chamber) that the .264 yields such disappointing velocities compared to other 6.5mm cartridges. The other shortcoming was the lack of availability of appropriate powders. Now we have very slow burners from Vihtavouri, Alliant, IMR, and Hodgdon (as well as the availability of surplus powders like WC 872 and 860) which let the .264 strut its stuff with 140 grain bullets. A dirty little secret is that the .264 has all of the case capacity (and maybe just a tad more than) the 6.5 bore can use. If you ream the leade for a normal bullet seating depth the difference in it and a 26 Nosler is less than the difference between two random barrels. I've been shooting a .264 for just over a half-century now (it was my first genuine centerfire rifle and I still have it.) It was only after extending the leade to allow a Nosler 140 Partition to be seated flush with the base of the neck -- and after judicious load work-up with a slow surplus powder -- that I confirmed that it can truly be a fine long-range cartridge which leaves little to be desired. Bottom line: It does have something of a cult following (just check on the premium that a .264 brings over the same rifle chambered for a more common cartridge). But only if the original SAAMI specs are DESTROYED and a normal chamber is made standard will the .264 merit any future attention from the industry. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yup, extend the leade and use slow powders. Been using one for 40 yrs and still go to it with all the other guns I have to choose from. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Winchester got around the leade problem by making their ammo with a 2 diameter bullet same as the GP-11 for the 7.5 swiss is. so it really wasn't a problem unless you were trying to make your own using the 2 or 3 6.5 bullets available back then for the carcano, arisaka, and X55 rounds. I'm still waiting for rem, win, or ruger to produce a 6.5 X 284 rifle. | |||
|
One of Us |
no matter what....it's still just a different name for a .270 wnchester. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
No, the .270 was Winchester's 1925 attempt to copy the European 7x64 cartridge Brenneke developed several years earlier. Winchester didn't want to use a millimeter anything bullet because that would have been, well, un-American. They needed a diameter based on inches. So they stuck a bizarre .277" diameter bullet in the 63mm long .30-06 case. Winchester didn't really create a .270 cartridge. What they created is the 6.8x63. They just couldn't call it that. Later on Remington did a better job than Winchester in copying the 7x64. Their cartridge was the 7x63. It was initially named the 7mm Remington Express but later renamed to .280 Remington. . | |||
|
One of Us |
No - because the arms manufacturers will just make a short, fat cartridge with the same ballistics that everybody will swear is better because it doesn't have a belt and is "new".  Roger ___________________________ I'm a trophy hunter - until something better comes along. *we band of 45-70ers* | |||
|
| One of Us |
I agree that it is something of a glorified 270. I had one back in the 80's and I didn't dislike it. The cartridge simply didn't do much more than cartridges I already had. I do rather like the cartridge it's simply a niche' that I have no need to fill. I REALLY agree with Cougarz!!! The entire "short, fat, new" idea is really wearing itself out. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me". John 14:6 | |||
|
| one of us |
This statement makes no sense when in fact all we do when we shoot comes down to short and fat vs long and slim. The essence of shooting comes down to two related physical entities. Velocity and Precision In the the theory and practice of internal ballistics we seek to manipulate these two entities by optimizing a load and the platform the load is fired from. If given a blank design sheet and armed with the knowledge on how the ballistics cycle works physically "short and fat" trumps "long and slim" when it comes to precision. The physics that underlies this statement underlies the design theory of all guns. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Absolutely not so. Perhaps that's true about the design theory of certain specialized cartridges for use in guns designated for a specialized purpose, i.e. precision shooting. But we are not all precision shooters and not all firearms are dedicated to that specialized task. For example, short and fat cartridges are not as reliable in feeding and loading, especially self loading, as are our traditional cartridges. And short, fat cartridges means weighing low magazine capacity against excessively deep, protruding magazines. Short, fat cartridges also create more backthrust than their not so fat and not so short counterparts. That means things like increased bolt diameter, larger actions, and heavier firearms. The alternative is to load short and fat cartridges to lower pressures than their counterparts. But isn't that counterproductive? If precision was the essence of "the design theory of all guns" and the physics of "short and fat" trumped "long and slim" then military cartridges, the most highly engineered, designed, tested, redesigned and retested cartridges in existence, would be short and fat. Clearly, they are not. . | |||
|
One of Us |
6.5 WSM needs to hit the scene as a factory round. Has gained popularity in wildcat circles in various forms but the 7mm WSM necked down seems a standard. 264 Win Mag performance in a stubby case. | |||
|
| one of us |
The 264 win mag is awesome I have two Ruger 77 stainless ones .It needs a 28 inch barrel and a long throat and long magazine .That would add alot of power to it plus shoot the the vld bullets alot faster .My.24 inch 264 rifles are awesome but I want a 28 inch 264 .My 264 are only 400 fps than my.260 rem with.The same bullet.It should add 200-300 fps with a 28 inch.barrel .The 264 win mag is an awesome caliber it needs the.maximum range and speed to make it alot better .The 160 grain vld bullets with.a long magazine and 28 inch.barrel would be awesome! | |||
|
| one of us |
Every conventional gun system has in it's ballistics cycle an entity referred to as the Pressure ratio of the gun Serge Zaroodny of the BLR Aberdeen coined the term Piezometric efficiency for this entity. This ratio is defined simply as the mean barrel pressure / peak pressure This entity is important as it is a spatial representation of the work done on the projectile to accelerate it to it's final velocity. As velocity is a direct function of work done on the projectile and the area under the pressure time curve is proportional to the work done on the projectile it is possible that two different shaped curves can exist with equal area under the curve giving the same velocity. If we take two gun systems one with a long thin chamber the other with a short fat chamber both of equal volume, caliber and barrel length and load them with the same powder charge mass and projectile to the same peak pressure the two would have different velocities and different precision data dispersion. For the least amount of dispersion a system that burns all the powder in the chamber is preferable to one that has the position of all burnt close to the muzzle. For velocity the position of all burnt close to the muzzle is preferred. In tanks for instance housing a gun with a large breach in the turret is a problem so a lighter breach and heavier barrel is preferable . Increasing mean barrel pressure gives higher velocities but less precise shots This is a ballistics science fact ! The reason lies in the difference in the pressure ratio of the two guns. If peak pressure is kept the same the gun with the short fat chamber should have a lower velocity than the gun with the long slim chamber but would have greater precision due to smaller disturbances in intershot data. ie it it would be more precise. There is also an inverse proportionality between piezometric efficiency and ballistic efficiency of the gun. The higher the pressure ratio the lower the ballistic efficiency of the gun. We see this in the conventional magnums, the more powder you add the smaller the amount of fps gained per grain of powder. ( 7mm rem vs 7mm weatherby vs 7mm STW ) As the velocity of the magnum incrementally increases less and less velocity is gained per grain of powder added During WW2 the Allies were faced with a huge problem when it came to defeating German armour. There was not enough time to design new guns so existing guns had to be "uploaded" to increase velocity so as to try and match German guns. This was achieved by manipulation the pressure ratio of existing gun systems. on the flip side of the coin was the problem of defeating German bombers by anti aircraft fire. here precision specifically in terms of ballistic data was called for and not peak velocity. | |||
|
| one of us |
Tricks manufactures use. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You have to ask yourself . . Do you prefer short and fat women or taller and slimmer? I rest my case.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well, ALF, that all sounds well and good. But you forgot to include a discussion of differences between internal reflecting shock waves in fat cartridges compared to those in the long and thin. You also neglected discussing stick, ball, and flake powders. Nor did you discuss load density, bullet seating depth, shoulder angle, or small primer versus large primer. I believe the "short, fat, new" idea that sharps4590 and Cougarz were referring to is growing belief among shooters, bolstered by billions of dollars in advertising, that the most accurate cartridges are short and fat. It's a fad. Not to worry. Graph paper and No. 1 pencils aside, practical, "real world", application and observation can set us straight. Best Rifle Caliber – What The Pros Use (spoiler, not short and fat):   But what about the short fat cartridges for the non-competing hunter who just wants the most accurate cartridge for his deer rifle? Well, it turns out the ammunition makers are loading their fat little cartridges to equal or greater pressures than the traditional cartridge counterparts. Oops, there goes the whole principle of "inverse proportionality between piezometric efficiency and ballistic efficiency" out the window. That's right, those silly hunters really want all the velocity they can get. Did I also mention that fat, short cartridges require deeper magazines, heavier bolts, larger actions, and feed and load less reliably than traditional cartridges? So, while a short and fat cartridge certainly may be advantageous in a specialized rifle system for a specialized purpose, for the vast majority of hunting, shooting, and even military applications they have more disadvantages than advantages. I have to agree with sharps4590 and Cougarz, "the entire 'short, fat, new' idea is really wearing itself out ". . | |||
|
| One of Us |
I can accept all of that. It sounds basically as a ratio to define a cartidge and cliber efficiency or overbite status. I will only extend a caveat I learned from an interview with John Krieger of Krieger barrels. His position being that case folks looking at whether a cartidge is overbite fixate on the case to caliber when they should be looking at the shoulder angle as it funnels gas into the lead/barrel. A poor shoulder will cause throat/leade erosion more than case by itself was his point. He was critical of the 243 WiN. Me, not withstanding the 375 Ruger, I like long cases. So, shoot and use what you like. I just checked Winchester still has the 264 Win Mag across the production line. So, if you want one go forth and be fruitful. If we are talking about just pure, unadulterated accuracy I think the barrel and rigidity of the rifle/action are more important that case design. I profess to being a unranked amateur. | |||
|
One of Us |
I have built a .264 based on the ideas I formed when I was shooting my Winchester Westerner. This new one is based on a Savage 110, with 26" Shilen Stainless 1:7" twist, heavy-varmint barrel, with the leade cut at .160" to seat the bullets out further. The bullet I WANT to use is the Sierra 150gr, but we'll see what the rifle says. I wish there was more information out there,but I guess I'll have to work my own data. US869, IMR 8133, Retumbo, and H1000 are on my shelf, now, and I am looking for some Vitahvouri powders. I sure wish the old surplus H570 was around. I worked in my old Winchester, but it was a good idea to run a patch soaked in Hoppe's #9 down the tube after every 10 rounds. I picked the Winchester case because I have the dies and an amount of cases, eventhough I think a case with 35 or 40 degree shoulder would have been better. Have fun, Gene | |||
|
| One of Us |
What next? Time for the .280 Ross to make a comeback? | |||
|
| one of us |
The Ross was a shitty gun but as a caliber it was awesome. Gerlich and Halbe in Kiel Germany put the revs on the Ross and shot a 100 gr bullet from it at 3900 fps and that was before WW2  The Mauser M98 actioned rifles has very long 28 inch plus barrels and they really milked the FPS from the ross The actual groups and velocities done at the Hallensee proving ground in Germany | |||
|
| One of Us |
As above. A mate of mine (he posts on AR as Blair 338RUM) ja great results with a couple of 264s. These were accuracy rifles, Jewell triggers, Noghtforce scopes etc) One problem that does exist today is brass like Winchester and Remington is not as hard as it was up till about early to mid 1990s. I believe that is related to litigation and so the brass will show pressure sign at lower pressure. anyone who has done much loading will know the higher the pressure the greater the pressure will increase with a touch more powder, different primer, barrel fouling and so on. | |||
|
One of Us |
All cats are gray in the dark. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I had one of the 1905 Highland Stalking rifles. That was, pretty much, the best version of the .280 Ross. I won Third Place in Running Deer Classic (pre-1919) Rifle at Bisley, England many years ago. But in fact I found that there was no real world difference at all in bolt speed between it and a Mauser 98 action rifle with correctly angled "sporting" bolt handle. | |||
|
| one of us |
I had wanted a 6.5 in some flavor for a number of years. Finally got the one built that I'd wanted - a 6.5x55 SE. Sweet shooting rifle. Then, I wanted to 'step up' in speed. Enter my 264 Win Mag. Good enough groups in a factory rifle (.8-1.0" @ 100) and worked on my last elk quite well. But, my 'holy grail' of 6.5's I FINALLY got this past spring. I won an auction for a Newton 1st model in 256 Newton. If my garage hadn't caught fire, I'd be hunting with that rifle today. Now I have to wait for repairs to start reloading for it. Still and all, the 264 WM has a lot to offer in my mind to those wanting a truly fast 6.5 without having to go out and fire-form brass or find custom reamers to get a 140 gr to 3200 fps with accuracy and mild recoil. Call it a '270' all you want, it's still a 6.5 that does the job and does it well. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace - Luke 11:21 Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress...But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain | |||
|
| One of Us |
Nooooooo! We need bullets designed for the smaller cases and their moderate veolcities, not complicate things with the need for different bullets which can perform at 200-400 fps faster! . | |||
|
| One of Us |
The dominant reason that the .264 Win Mag faded from big game fields: the 7MM Rem Mag. I do not see a happy future for the .264 Win Mag. Had Winchester opened the mouth of the .264 Win Mag just another .5MM, there wouldn't have been a 7MM Rem Mag. Personally, 24" barrels are my limit. I prefer 22" barrels. I like light & fast handling rifles while up high where air is thin and feathers are heavy. If I need a 26" barreled rifle to optimize a cartridge, I'll look to other cartridges. The 6.5 Swede had a huge head start on the .264 Win Mag & killed big game just as dead. I could put a .308 Win carbine to a lot of good use pursuing all North American big game. I'd substitute a 6.5 Swede carbine for a .308 Win carbine, but I'd prefer a .308 Win. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I like the .264 Win Mag but like the .280 Rem or .280 AI better, hence I sold my .264's and shoot these. There are so many choices and an endless list of loads - nearly anything from .25-06 to 7mm Rem Mag does what the others do. | |||
|
| One of Us |
If the 264 had been a 270 then there would be no 7mm Remington. It seems to be that in both America and Australia 270 is preferred over 7mm with equal case size. Just look at the 270 WSM and 270 Wby compared to the 7mm versions. Also 270 and 280. Yes, I know the 280 came out with lower listed factory pressures etc. | |||
|
| one of us |
I prefer the .270 to the 264.. Ray Atkinson Atkinson Hunting Adventures 10 Ward Lane, Filer, Idaho, 83328 208-731-4120 rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com | |||
|
| one of us |
I have always opted for the 7x57 in a strong bolt action..I just love that caliber..ive seen it perform many times and on some big stuff..If I need more I'll opt for the 30-06.. Ray Atkinson Atkinson Hunting Adventures 10 Ward Lane, Filer, Idaho, 83328 208-731-4120 rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ray, I honestly don't think many shooters looking at 6.5, 270 or 7mm Magnums are giving much consideration to the 7 X 57 or 30/06. Not saying anything wrong with the 7 x 57 or 30/06 but they are simply different category. | |||
|
| One of Us |
 It no longer would fill any nitch.  rogerOld age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone.. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Small Calibers Poll - Time for the .264 WinMag to make a comeback?
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia