I just got the new Nosler Reloading Manual. Opened it to the .264 Win Mag data and read that they recommend powders with burn rates similar to IMR 4350!!!

Why on earth would they suggest this?

With what is known to those here who reload this caliber (Stonecreek, Ramrod, Blair, etc...) and have shared the information that the .264 Win likes the very slowest of powders to achieve the best velocities possible, how can data publishers not know this?

I don't think it's some kind of secret at this point. I'm glad to have obtained the info here and have measured for myself the difference in velocities obtained with a bunch of different powders in this chambering.

Seeing this continually in powder manufacturer's published data and having actually talked to some of the ballisticians at the powder companys who think that it's nuts to use powders like US-869 (I was told it was way too slow) really makes me doubt a lot of the info they put out.


What do you think?

The reason you don't see data for the .264 using powders of more appropriate burning rate like US 869, the two very slow Vihtavuoris - 24N41 and 20N29, 50BMG, etc., is that since the .264 is no longer very popular and is produced in only one or two currently manufactured guns, no one has bothered to spend the time and money to work up new data for this cartridge with newer powders. If you'll check the data in the latest manuals from X, Y, or Z bullet or powder company, you'll find that it is identical to the data in their last three or four editions of their manual. Many have dropped reference to one of the few really slow powders available twenty years ago -- H870 -- simply because it is no longer available. What you are left with is data for the faster (IMR) version of 4831 as your "slowest" powder. That powder is fine in the .264 -- if you're shooting sub-100 grain varmint bullets.

As you've found, for the serious .264 hunting bullet weight, 140 grains, you have to have a much slower powder to get it up to the speed the cartridge was designed to yield. Don't buy a .264 unless you are prepared to be your own ballistician.

Spot on Stonecreek,

I'm glad to have had your input along with all the other knowledgeable folks here when I got mine.

But still the question remains.

I really don't think the guys who work at the powder companys really know that to get the best velocity with the heavier bullets, powders like US-869 must be used. If you and I know that, why don't they?

I realize that the .264 doesn't have a big following, but they still chamber new rifles for the caliber. You would think that the powder guys would update their data.

My second Centefire rifle was a 264 pre 64 Mod 70.

I used old surplus 4831.

Some target shooters used very slow ball powders and had SEVERE fouling problems.

Newer powders burn cleaner, still it is something to watch for.

I would think RL 22 and IMR7828 might be good powders for the 264.

Also let me add that even with Weatherby's info they showed IMR 4350 giving top velocity and great accuracy.

No doubt pressures were high.

1000 yard shooters used IMR 4350 [many years ago] for top accuracy in the 30/338 and 300 Win Mag.

There is just something about IMR 4350.

I be a bee in Hodgdon's bonnet about Retumbo. Hell, they even have data for it in the .25-06.

In my 7mm Rem magnum, it is sub-moa with EVERY load combination I've tried.

SS

might have to do with the fact that it is another wildly overbore cartrige. maybe thier solution to the problem... get it lit and get it burned up fast. so happens that maybe 4350 is the best powder for that idea.....not fast enough to make dangerous pressures but still fast enough to cook thouroughly before problems arise. more of a real compromise, you get enough pressure to get the bullet out of the barrel decently, with out the worry of secondary flame fronts so common in overbore situations with what is commonly thought of as a cartrige that needs very slow powders. i would think it would lack the potential velocities the .264 can make, but they have to cover thier arses on cartriges like these....that's one way to do it and still make halfway decent speeds....
maybe that doesn't make sense, it was just a thought. i haven't looked at the data. does the load density reduction for the faster 4350 compared to slower stuff look to be in line with other cartriges or does it look considerably greater ?.

The majority of my load data has IMR4350 on top. I use 4831 for 7mm RM and it is listed, but it is not #1. Retumbo is listed in Speer #4.

Thanks for all the responses Gentlemen!

The fact remains that the .264 Win Mag must have the slowest burning powders available to achieve its velocity potential with the heavier bullet weights. I have found this out first hand after being appropriately directed by the Gurus of the .264 Win Mag here on the Forum. I tested about 8 different powders in my rifle over a chronograph with 129 and 140 grain bullets. The absolute slowest powders that often produced compressed loads developed the velocity that the cartridge is capable of.........3200fps with the 140gr bullet in my 26" barrel.

Now.....

I find this very perplexing that the manufacturers of the powders capable of producing the best loads do not show data for them. The faster burning powders give horrible load density, pressure problems, and render the cartridge impotent unless one is content with velocities that can be attained with other lesser 6.5mm rounds.

The powder guys need to work up new data with appropriate powders.

Folks, you have to realize that the 7mm Remington Mag, .300 Win Mag, 30/338 are different animals than the .264 Win Mag. The only way you will realize this is to try loading for the .264

Thanks Stonecreek for launching me ahead of the curve!

I think you need to make a call to Hodgdon and get them up to speed as well!

Cool topic - very pertinent. So when will somebody share their recipe for US869, RL25, Win 780 and others in 264.
Just so you know, I'm down to > 2 lbs of H870, have tried Retumbo (not very accurate for me), and am patiently waiting for somebody to come on line with new loads & powders for my personal favorite.

quote:

I would think RL 22 and IMR7828 might be good powders for the 264.

I would tend to agree. And I would add MRP2 to this list as well as Hodgdon's ORIGINAL surplus H4831, if someone still has some left.

I've tried RL22 and 7828. They didn't have the accuracy I've come to expect using H870. I think they are too fast.

Several years ago, John Barsness (sp?) wrote an article about the 264 with modern powders.

Using a 140 gr. Speer bullet, these are his loads:

RL-25 64.0 gr. 3130 fps
MRP2 65.0 gr. 3114 fps
Magpro 65.0 gr. 3207 fps
Retumbo 65.0 gr. 3171 fps
Magnum 69.0 gr. 3240 fps

He felt that Magpro and Magnum gave the best combination of accuracy and velocity in his rifle

I agree with the frustration of the absence of new load data for the 264. Per the comments above I have found that 7828 works best for me with 140 grain (Nosler Partitions)and 4350 for 125 grain and 100 grain loads. The 4350 loads tend to be more accurate although they have slightly less velocity.

I obtain 3,185 fps with 7828 with an old load reported in an IMR reloading brochure and achieve 3,250 and 3,590 fps, respectively with 4350 in loads reported in various reloading manuals. This is from a post-64 Winchester with a 24" barrel.

In spite of a lot of flak from companions I love this caliber and consider it a near-perfect deer and varmint caliber. Additionally though I have killed a 300 pound black bear with one shot with a 140 grain Nosler Partition handload.

I have been struggling a little with my new .264. I guess I will have to try some of these SLOW powders. I appreciate this kind of wisdom. This just might put me on the right track.

Matt

Mornin Gents, My 70 SG loves 65g of 7828 w/ either 140g Parts or Horns. It's over some books, but all signs indicate it is safe in my rifle. It shoots as well as I can hold it.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
Several years ago, John Barsness (sp?) wrote an article about the 264 with modern powders.

Using a 140 gr. Speer bullet, these are his loads:

RL-25 64.0 gr. 3130 fps
MRP2 65.0 gr. 3114 fps
Magpro 65.0 gr. 3207 fps
Retumbo 65.0 gr. 3171 fps
Magnum 69.0 gr. 3240 fps

He felt that Magpro and Magnum gave the best combination of accuracy and velocity in his rifle

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!

I found his article online when I first got my .264 and I loaded to his specs. Don't try it. The pressures were way too high and the loads (after I shot them and checked published powder co. data) were way over max. All of the powders he recommends are too fast. I had pressure problems.....blown primers, ejector marks on case heads etc....pretty much a nightmare.

I found even IMR 7828 too fast for the .264 with 140 grainers. The powders that gave me the best velocity with manageable pressures were the slowest available. US-869, T-870 (from Thunderbird Cartridge co. in Arizona. I bet it is H-870). I also would bet that 50BMG would be a good choice. I know that Blair uses Vhitovouri N-570 and I would try it too if I could find some. I hear it won't be available till fall. I did find that the Win 780 supreme gave great velocity with the 129gr bullet in my rifle..... over 3300fps

If Stonecreek would chime back in, he could advise on his use of surplus powders like 5010 and could help you with starting loads.

My STOLEN .264 MS De Schulnig liked

156/ 160's with 58gr IMR4350
and
140's with 55.5gr 4831

both very accurate

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
My STOLEN .264 MS De Schulnig liked

156/ 160's with 58gr IMR4350
and
140's with 55.5gr 4831

both very accurate

No doubt accurate, but also very slow. You might as well be using a 6.5x55.

I agree that the powders in Barsness article were generally on the fast side for the .264. I also have to assume that his gun had to have had a rather generous chamber and perhaps loose barrel in order to digest those loads. I know that the several .264's I've worked with would not.

I used H-570 in my .264 for many years. It's kernals were like logs and slow and required each load to be weight separately. H-870 was almost identical in burning speed to H-570, but I never got the same accuracy from it. Incidentally, the load that worked well in my particular gun with a 24.4" barrel was 72 grains of H-570 pushing a Speer 140 at 3139 as measured by the wonderful but tedious original Oehler Model 10 chronograph.

During this same period of time I had piles of surplus 4831 -- one of the most consistent powders I've ever worked with. Even with bullets as light as 120 grains, the old, "slow" version of 4831 would exhibit pressure signs well before "optimal" theoretical velocities were reached.

The loss of H570 and the poor accuracy performance of H870 cause me to look at surplus powders. I stumbled across WC-860 and WC-872. Each lot of surplus powders can vary, so don't take my comments for gospel, but I found their burning rates to be very similar and WC-872 provided better velocities and accuracy. In one of my guns (the one I've been shooting for 45 years this fall), a compressed case full of WC-872 yields 3150 fps with a 140 Nosler Partition, extremely low standard velocity deviations, and outstanding accuracy -- all without pressure indications.

I haven't tried US 869 (no need to for me since I have enough WC-872 to last for a while), but I would assume it to be an excellent choice. In fact, it may well be the commercial version of either WC-860 or WC-872, or a near clone. The same goes for H50 BMG, Vhitavourri 24N41 and 20N29.

The highly touted Retumbo isn't really all that slow, but would likely do fairly well with sub-140 grain bullets. The same is true of RL-25, which is only slightly slower than RL-22, which in turn is very close to IMR-7828, all of which are much closer to the H4831 category than to the .50 caliber powders.

If you just want to kill a deer with more-than-adequate .270 Winchester performance, then load your .264 with some 4831 until primer pockets begin to loosen, then back off a grain or so. You'll have some respectable 2950 fps ammunition. If you want your .264 to shine like the specialized long-range cartridge it can be, then find yourself some appropriately slow powders that will boost the 140 grain bullet up to its 3200 fps potential in 25-26" barrels.

Thanks for your help Stonecreek!

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
No doubt accurate, but also very slow. You might as well be using a 6.5x55.

Guess that's one reason I do

Actually, just never took the time to work with one as you have.

I did work with the 6.5 Weatherby-Wright-Hoyer
and slow powders for a while.

When the 300 RUM first came out,I chose to move up to it for my mid-weight long range shooting.

With my beautiful MS gone , never replaced the caliber nor worked further with it.

Too many rifles--too little time--

Speaking of slow powders. I have just "inherited" an unopened can of H5010. It's not practical to try to work up a load, when you only have 1 lb. anybody in need of some H5010?

the big problem is that it's those slow powders that are so "needed" that make the overbore cartridges a bomb waiting to go off. it's the whole reason overbore+heavy bullet is such a pain in the arse. you gotta get it going slow and easy and that gives the powder plenty time to lite somewhere else and cause major pressure spikes and uncontrolled burns. a faster powder lights, burns up now and you get what you get as far as pressure before there's more/enough combustion space for a secondary flame front to develop. you get less pressure,thus less speed, but no grenades,....and so... no need for a magnum case.
it seems, as i have reasoned out of what i found with my 6.5x.270AI, that even the .270 AI case is way overbore for the 6.5mm. bore. all the problems i have been having with it point to way too much case volume for the bore. accordingly, i would assume an '06 case "blown out" would be the same. as good as the 6.5 bore is, it seems very critical to case volume, appearently big enough to throw a useably heavy enough bullet for big critters but not quite big enough to put a proportional amount powder behind it.
that's why i say stick with the 57mm. case and improve it...... that's about all the bore can handle reliably.

merlinron: Very slow powders behave MUCH more predictably in large cases. Faster powders leave a lot of powder space, which in turn makes room for the powder to be in various positions within the case, and also creates the possibility of Secondary Explosion Effect. On the other hand, very slow powders that take up most or all of the case capacity tend to produce the lowest shot-to-shot variations and are largely immune to the S.E.E. phenomenon since there is no available space in which S.E.E. can take place.

There is absolutely no question that (all things being equal) the faster the powder, the greater the velocity and pressure variations, and the slower the powder the more consistent the velocity and pressures.

There are a few "slow" powders like the rather squirrely H1000 (not really very slow in this context) that exhibit unpredicted pressure/velocity spikes, but all of the truly slow powders that are well-suited to the .264 behave in a quite linear fashion.

merlinron,

I've always noted that faster burning powders cause higher pressures and pressure spikes which is in contradiction to what you are saying.

I think that it can be demonstrated by looking at all the hubhub directed at Seafire and his Blue Dot loads for the .223. It makes sense that the possibility for a blow up would be higher.

quote:

There is absolutely no question that (all things being equal) the faster the powder, the greater the velocity and pressure variations, and the slower the powder the more consistent the velocity and pressures.

what you are saying is absolutly true and correct for all and most any "normal" cartrige, but we aren't talking about any "normal" cartridge here. overbore conditions are the most unpredictable trouble makers that exhist and don't have any respect for anyone's rules that would apply to the normal range of case volume to bore diameter. you really never know just what they are going to do.

quote:

all the problems i have been having with it point to way too much case volume for the bore.

merlinron: could you provide a few specifics as to what problems you have had and what made you conclude that such problems "point" to overbore issues? And why the 6.5 bore would be worse than any other? It's hard to respond to generalities.

All I can say is that I have reloaded for quite a few 264s, and IME, they are no more, no less, contrary than any of the dozen or so other cartridges that I have tinkered with. I'm curious to hear your specific problems. thanks

olarmy, if search my threads, you will find that my first few posts when i joined will be about this issue with my 6.5x.270improved.i am beginning to believe even that case is too big for the bore. sorry for the generalitiess, as i am not a gunsmith and only know what i have learned from my own guns i can't get more specific beyond what i have learned.

I was able to get some US869 but now I am wondering were I can find some load data. I am planning on using a 130gr bullet. I just need a start point to work from. Any help would be much appreciated.

Matt

I just checked Hodgdon's online reloading manual - no info on US 869 for 264. I asked them, in their booth at Reno, how 869 compared w/ 870 and if they would work up some loads for the 264. The poor guy manning the booth was either being extremely PC or knew a heck of a lot less about reloading than I do. In any event, he told me "never to attemp to substitute powders". My comment was "duh". When pressed about developing loads for the 264 he said "it is not a very popular calibre and it costs of lot of money to develop loads which probably wouldn't work anyway". I just left him there. Sure wish we could create a little buzz out there to get Hogdon to say it works or it doesn't.

Like Stonecreek says........

When you get a .264 Win Mag, be prepared to be your own ballistician.

The US-869 works great....

R --

I just noticed that the most recent Speer manual (at least the most recent one I have) lists US-869 in the .264. I think their load runs close to 3100 fps with a 140 grainer. In my experience, recent data for the .264 seems to be rather conservative (after all, this is a case designed for 55,000 CUP). I suspect that you can wring a little more velocity out of US-869 at sustainable pressures, depending on your individual gun.

Thanks Stonecreek,

Yeah, I topped out at around 3250 in my 26" barrel. What was shown as the max load in the Speer Manual, if you would be so kind?........

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
Thanks Stonecreek,

Yeah, I topped out at around 3250 in my 26" barrel. What was shown as the max load in the Speer Manual, if you would be so kind?........

It's the Speer Manual #14. With 76 grains of US869 they show 3042 fps out of a 24" barrel.

How much US869 did you decide was tops in your gun? I'm going to guess around 79-80 grains? Did you have to "settle" the powder to get it all in, or was there adequate space in the case?

Thanks Stonecreek,

Sorry about the delay getting back to you. The rifle in question has been at my gunsmith's for a replacement barrel even though it was new. It was a bad barrel; real rough. I had just done the powder testing and some prior load developement before it was scoped and the problem was found, so, not having loaded for it for a while I had to check my records.

I noted that 80 grains of the US-869 gave 3230fps with no pressure signs. The load was very compressed. I did not tap the case to get it to settle but I'm sure I will when re-developing for the new barrel. I think (at least for that barrel) that I could have gone to 81 or more grains without pressure problems. I think the problem would be getting the bullet to seat with that much powder in the case.

With the T-870, which I believe you and I think is really surplus H-870, I went to 78 grains and a velocity of 3215fps.

I think that loading some rounds around these loads will produce something very accurate. The barrel it had loved the GK in 140 grains. It would shoot groups a little over an inch at 300 yards after about 7 foulers, be good for about 10 shots them go all to heck from there. While cleaning it, you could actually feel and hear a patch being grabbed about 6" in front of the throat. I had it scoped and it was rough as heck........back to the shop.

Both were tested with the 140 Sierra GK by the way.

Your figures for US869 and Speer's figures for that powder lead me to believe that it is very similar, if not identical, to WC 872 surplus powder.

You can get a tad more powder into a once-fire, neck-sized case than into a new one, of course. Plus using a drop tube will let you crowd in another grain or two. I've found WW brass to have a bit more capacity than R-P, and somewhat more that a large batch of Herter's brass I have in this caliber. The Herter's brass is really good stuff, having been made for them by Norma in Sweden, but it has the least capacity of all. (I also have some Herter's .222 Magnum brass which is either Lapua or Sako from Finland.)

I believe that T-870 is a bit slower than the old H-870. 78 grains of the old H-870 (with a 140 gr. bullet) would be a primer popper with most guns.

Like you surmized, the US-869 may be the commercial version of the WC 872...........

John Barness's rifle was an Westerner,my results match his Magpro and Magnum(my choice)but at a couple more grains.That is the only modern data I have seen. I have custom 264 with a "normal" throat,instead of the short throated SAAMI chamber.The "normal" really takes all the excitement out of reloading the 264WM.

When I had my .264, it was a Westerner, and the only problem I EVER had was the throat....It was made for that Winchester PowerPoint. That made the throat WAY too short for Sierra or Hornady 140s.
I alway swore I'd rethroat or maybe rebarrel to a longer chamber.
I gave the rifle to a friend that helped me out of a real jam, and never replaced it.
I quit using the rifle after IMR7828 came out, and loved it, but would have given almost anything to use some of the newer, slower powders.
I'm still in tears because I can't get H570 any more, and I don't have any small-bore magnums, presently.
The .264 is NOT over-bore capacity with the SLOW powders, not as Ackley defined it. It is a fine, long-range cartridge for medium-sized game. I used to tell people that I had to fill the barrel with salt so the meat wouldn't spoil by the time I got there.('Course, I couldn't leave it there for long, as it would ruin a barrel...don't ask me how I know. lol)
The barrel doesn't last long, as a LOT of powder goes downrange through a small hole, but hunting accuracy will last 3000-5000 rounds,as long as you don't try to do it in one day(or even one week)
Loading it down to, say, 2800-2900fps with a 140 gr is ridiculous...If it won't do it's job, can it! It will!! AND it'll do it well! Just load it like it's supposed to be.
"SEE" MAY be caused by SLOW powders when the bulk is GREATLY reduced. I never could see much use for a jacketed bullet at 1000-1200fps, anyway, so could see no use for reducing a slow-burning powder to those velocities.
I DO try, from time to time, to play with reduced-velocity rounds in big-game cartridges, including magnums, but I use powders like Bullseye, Red Dot and 700X and cast boolits.
Sure wish I could get another .264 Mag, <sigh>
Have fun,
Gene

John Barness chronyed a Winchester factory,and it was on spec,31something,so the 3200 is certainly doable.Loading manual data sometimes has me puzzled,like Nosler runing a 6.5-06 at about the same speeds as a 264. My take and experence,is that the short throated 264 can be so spikey,that to stay within the limits,they under load it.