Gentlemen.

I would be grateful for all your comments on the .264 Winchester Magnum - critics, praise, experiences, efficiency, deficits - everything worth mentioning.

Best regards,

Fritz

I have experience with one .264 rifle. It shoots very flat and kills deer like chain lightening. Accurate loads were a snap to work up .

Recoil with the lighter bullets is very comfortable. Muzzle blast seems about the same to me as 06 , 270 s, or 25/06 range of cartridges .

I think the .264 is much better than it's detractors have always claimed . It seems to me an ideal open country rifle for the lighter game.

[ 07-03-2003, 02:00: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

I've got one, and although I'm not normally a huge fan of belted magnums, I love it!

I've always thought that the 264 got a bad rap. I use 125 gr Partitions. It's easy to get them over 3200fps. Very flat shooting and really hammer the deer. Recoil is light. And barrel wear is not a problem as long as you don't shoot multiple shots and get the barrel hot. What's not to like? Jim

I have two friends that shoot the .264 Winchester, and I load ammo for them. Over the years I've learned a thing or two about this calibre.

It is a good calibre with a troubled past. The 6.5m/m offers a fair selection of bullets, as well as good sectional density. The problem: most bullets were designed for 6.5's that shoot some 400fps slower than the Winchester, they left gaping holes when used. Today, that problem is largely in the past due to better bullets, like the Hornady interlock. The moral: use premium bullets -be happy-.

Secondly, the twist rate used in the .264 prevented the use of the heavier(spitzer) bullets. Ocasionally one could get away with round noses in the 160 grain range, but why? Worse yet, the long 160's couldn't be driven that fast with out pressure problems. This isn't as bad as it sounds, because the 140 grain bullets have a sectional density of .287. This is the BEST bullet.

The lightest bullet,the 100 grain varmint special, is (IMHO) the one responsible for the .264's bad reputation. We've all heard the story: @#4* couldn't kill a thing, or barrel burnin' piece of *%&t. Face it, repeated firing of a gun with a hot barrel -kills- guns.

Next, for reasons no one will ever know, they chopped two inches off of the barrel length! That fabled handiness effectively neutered the .264, turning it into a .270. This couldn't have helped the reputation either. Fortunately, that too(I think) is a thing of the past. The new Winchester classics I've seen are wearing 26" tubes.

I often tease my friends, and tell them they should have bought a 7m/m Remington magnum. There is some truth in that ribbing, as Winchester should have gone with that bore size in the first place(IMHO). I'll bet they could have sold a gazillion of 'em.

Now all of the above might imply that I don't like this calibre...it just ain't so, I do. The .264 is a two bullet gun: the 129's and the 140's. The premium bullets add penetration, but are still subject to the same weight limitations. These two bullets will shoot a looong way, and pack a punch when they arrive.
So, put some bite in that bark -try them.

packrat

Fritz,

My best shooting mate has followed me down the path of having more than one rifle all chambered in the same calibre.

He has selected 264 and the rifles range from lighter weight guns through to bench style with Heavy Varmint taper barrel. Actions are Stainless Rem 700s with Jewell triggers and a Model 70. All rifles have match grade barrels.

His previous calibre experience has been extensively 257 Wby, 257 STW, 25/300 Win, 270/300 Win, 6.5/300 Wby, 7mm STW, 7mm Rem, 7mm/300 Win, 300 Wby and 300 Jarret. He has also been to Africa 4 times and shot about 120 plains animals up to Eland and used from 257 Wby to 300 Wby.

So in a nutshell, the 264 got through a long and fine filter

Mike

I have three 264's-all pre 64 M70's...I have found the cartridge to be inherently accurate BUT I have had difficulty attaining the old factory "standard" velocity of 3070 fps with the 140 grain bullet....IMR 7828 behind the 140 Sierra has produced the most accurate results as well as delivered the most consistent velocity performance.
Have used the 140 Sierra in the 264 on three whitetails and found it to be a great bullet..It has a plenty-thick jacket as it penetrated all three deer without causing excessive tissue damage even when launched at over 3000 fps....
Would not use the BallisticTip-type bullets in this cartridge for big game.....

There is magic in a 140gr going 3200f/s.To work a 264 has to be fast and very accurate,that's not easy.The rifle might not be accurate or like fast loads.Pushing a long bearing bullet hard down a 6.5 tube can build up pressures quickly, read SPIKE. A linear powder is nice. High pressures= high temperatures,barrel burning temperatures.Cool and clean it.I think it's great

Fritz:

Although a 6.5 mm fan, I have not gone the 264 route. I have found that anything over the 6.5 x 55 case or the 6.5 x 57 case is just burning more powder with minimal increases.

Handloading the above two calibers, I do get a lot better velocity that recommended on this side of the Atlantic, but as good or not better than European loads. We have too many lawyers on this side of the world.

I tried a test someone told me about and it was a sobering outcome. Put a white clothe in front of your muzzle by a few feet and shoot and see how much powder residue is on the clothe. doing so with a couple of people who had bigger 6.5s, it was amazing how much more powder was on the sheet over the 6.5 x 55, x 57 and the 260 Remington.

If you still want more horsepower, I would recommend looking at a 6.5 x 284 Norma, or a 6.5/06 or a 6.5 Ackley. I have heard over in Europe that one company in Germany has something that is the 270 Winchester necked to 6.5 ( 6.5 x 64?? maybe?)

Those should match the 264 velocity. Heck with a 260 Remington, in a 22 inch barrel I get 3350 fps with a 105 grain Nosler Semi Spitzer ( made for the Euro Market only for the critics, I get them as factory seconds here in Oregon) with 43.5 grains of IMR 4064.

YOU Swedes got it right back in the 1890s with the 6.5 x 55.

Sorry a senior moment:

If you got to be carrying the Magnum ( Magnumitis is what it is called here), consider the older 6.5 Remington Mag. It is more efficient ( read less throat erosion).

Since they relaunched the old 350 REM mag, maybe the 6.5 version will find its way out again.
Or the other thought is necking the Short Mags down from 7 mm to 6.5. Some factory might end up doing it.

Just throat erosion is the bad thing on a 264.
(and it does happen people)

I've owned a .264 for 38 years (the same one), I now own a second one, and have worked extensively with two more belonging to a close friend and hunting partner.

There's nothing majic about the .264, but there's nothing shoddy about it either. For game, the 140 Nosler Partition is hard to beat, but it needs a VERY slow powder to give it the kind of velocity that built the .264's repuation. There is a slew of new, slow powders on the market that I have not had occassion to try (RL 25, Retumbo, a couple of .50 Browning powders from Vhitavorri, and maybe one or two more), but good old H-570 and H-870 (now defunct) were excellent in the .264. My favorite powder, however, is WC 872, a surplus powder that does wonders in the .264. IMR 7828 is TOO fast for 140's, but is okay with 120's or lighter.

There is no way to calculate how many rounds my 1965 model Finnbear has had through it. My best guess is 3-4000. With it, I have taken gophers, jackrabbits, skunks, badgers, bobcats, coyotes, whitetails, mule deer, wild hogs, antelope, elk, turkeys, dispatched rabid dogs, and shot watermelons just for the joy of seeing them vaporize (that's what happens when you turn a 14-year old loose in the country with a gun). Today, it does show some roughness in the throat, but other than digesting a grain or so more powder for the same velocity, its accuracy is as good (and that's very good) as ever.

One of my guns has a 24" barrel, and the other a 26". There's about 75-100 fps difference in them. With the proper powders, you can get 3150 fps with a 140 out of the short barrel and well over 3200 out of the longer.

Stonecreek,

I was surprised to see that Hornady seemed to be perpetuating the myth about barrel wear in the 264WM by stating they had worn out a number of barrels to arrive at their data.

I cannot believe it is any harder than a 257WBY or a 7mmSTW neither of which merit such a mention.

Do you think the 270win is close enough ballistically from considerably less powder that other than a love of guns it is not necessarily worth it ie other than trying a different rifle (perfectly valid concept that as you know I am prone to) are there any situations where you would use one over the other?

Comparing the 264 to the 270 still show a good advantage if you compare bullets with similar S.D. and B.C.. The 120 grain 264bullet goes much faster than you can push a 130 grain 270 bullet with the same chamber pressures.

I still think ole man Weatherby had it right, velocity kills, and so does the 264 Win mag. A friend of mine has shot one for years, and loves it. Along this same line, I think of all the fat mags that have come out of late, the 270 WSM is the one I would be most interested in owning. For the rest, I would stay with the tried and true. Regarding being a barrel burner, hey, that is said of all magnums, either you believe in the terminal effects (with the correct bullets, understand) of magnums, or you dont.

1894: I have a .270 that is identical to my .264 (including barrel length). As far as which I would trust for a long shot on a whitetail, muley, or antelope, there's really no difference. The longest deer shot I happen to have made came with the .270, but the .264 would have made the same shot.

While the 140 grain .264 and the 130 grain .270 leave the muzzle at practically the same velocity, and theoretically the higher S.D. of the .264 would give it a trajectory and retained energy advantage, it is not enough to spell the difference in a hit or a miss at 350-400 yards, nor the difference in a kill or a wound.

On the other hand, if the quarry is something like elk, the heavier .264 bullet provides a bit more penetration. This would be offset by going to a 150 grain .270, at which point the difference in muzzle velocity and trajectory leans a bit more heavily toward the .264. HOWEVER, neither of these calibers should be used for long range elk (more than about 200-250 yards), so the difference is again insignificant.

Bottom line is, I like both cartridges, and use one or the other as the notion strikes me. I have no worry about "burning" out the barrel of either in my lifetime.

Fritz:

I second Seafire's observations. I, too, am a huge 6.5 fan, but have stopped short of the 264 WM. I have owned many, and currently have a 260, 6.5x55, 6.5x57, 6.5-06, and a 6.5-284 Norma.

IMO, the WM is great if you've got lots of barrel - 24" as a reasonable minimum, 26" is probably better, and preferrably at least a standard weight contour. The former is necessary to really wring out the velocity potential and the latter is to help manage recoil and barrel whip. Such an outfit would make a great bean field rifle.

However, if you're looking for more or less "magnum" performance I'd look hard at the 6.5-284 Norma. Unlike its parent case, this recently standardize round is designed for a long action. Norma makes two good factory loads, a 120 Nosler ballistic tip at 3150 (or thereabouts) and a 140 Nosler partition at 2950 (or thereabouts). This round has become quite popular with target shooters, and is capable of very good accuracy. Norma and Lapua make very good brass. Also, note that the 6.5-284 Norma actually operates at higher pressure than the 264 WM, 54,000 CUP (from the 284) for the former and 53,000 CUP for the latter. Very good results can be obtained with a 24" barrel, plus you'll enjoy a bit less barrel wear, a bit less recoil, a bit less powder consumption, a bit less muzzle blast, etc.

Admittedly, there are no flies on the 6.5-284, but if used in a long action, then it has only disadvantages as compared to the 6.5-06. The 6.5-284 will have slightly less case capacity, more expensive brass, the magazine will hold one less cartridge, and the magazine feed rails will likely have to be altered for the fatter case. In short, why accept these compromises unless necessary to squeeze the cartridge into a shorter action?

Neither cartridge is a .264 Win Mag, however. At 200 fps or so short of the Magnum in a given bullet weight, they are more in the (quite respectable) class of the .25-06. The .264 is clearly a step above either cartridge in terms of velocity and energy.

All rifles I have built on the 284 case required no feedrail modification (all were 700s I think). I also know some people with switch-barrelled rifles that use the same feedway with the 284 case and a standard case. Much of what is claimed by modern accuracy theory favors the short, fat 284 case. I expect that case life is also aided by the sharp shoulder and somewhat thicker case: less case flow and less bolt push.

Magazine capacity is a bit iffy. Some actions (especially ADL style) claim to hold 5, but do so tightly that it is quite difficult to close the bolt over them, making four the effective mag capacity. In this particular circumstance four 284 cases also works fine. Barring this particular circumstance, in general you do give up a round in the mag.

It is true that brass is cheaper for the 6.5-06, however it is a wildcat, which means case forming (admittedly easy in this case, no pun intended) and a misleading headstamp. Recently the Eurpoeans standardized the nearly identical 6.5x64 Brenneke. Unforunately, it's based on the 270 case length and not the 25-06 case length, so the factory ammo isn't a good fit in most wildcat chambers. There may be additional concerns about neck diameter, shoulder location, and case head diameter (I don't know if the 6.5x64 is exactly a necked down 270 or if it's a necked down 7x64 or 280.) Anyone?

I have little doubt that the 264 WM does have an advantage or the 6.5-284, especially with a 24" or longer barrel. However, I wonder how big the gap actually is (using pressure test results, each with their best powder), and how the difference responds to barrel length. Anyone have this data?

Gentlemen:

While no one will concede that the 264 will give a little higher velocity than any of the lesser 6.5mm cartridges, take a look at ballistic tables.

If a 264 WM will give 200 fps more muzzle velocity, how much more of that is being retained at 200yds, 300 etc.

6.5 mm Bullets are so aerodynamic, that higher velocity gains at the muzzle decline as the bullets moves toward its target.

While I love anything with a 6.5 mm bore, it is a very efficient bore and like anything else you get to a point of diminishing returns. While no one in here is going to knowingly tell other shooters how to spend their money, the Win Mag definitely has higher operating costs. If one is comfortable with that, then have a ball with it.

While I don't get caught up in the new short mag phase everyone seems to be going thru right now, I do think that if someone needs a .530 case head instead of a .473, then the short mags in 6.5 might be more Wallet friendly and cost effective. Most of us will admit, we are not really impressed if some guy burns out his barrel quicker than we can burn ours out.

For hunting, the high sectional density of the 6.5 bore on average, also negates the need for the additional velocity for penetration. The aerodynamics and BCs of the 264/6.5 bullets also really negates the need for high velocity.
Not a lot of guys on the high power long range shoots, carry 264 Mags. You do see a lot of 6.5 /284s tho. That says a lot to me.

I just answered one of my own questions. According to Charles Benke, the 6.5x64 Brenneke is exactly a 6.5-270. Just a bit of reamer work then to "tame the wildcat". Probably better off having a 6.5 bullet in a 270 headstamp than a 6.5 bullet in a 25-06 headstamp anyway.

[ 07-09-2003, 05:57: Message edited by: 9.3x62 ]

I've only seen it fired one time, about twenty years ago.

We were rolling into camp one day for lunch, and the friend I was with spotted a herd of aoudad high up on the mountain. I had a .308 and he had a .243. We watched the huge ram feeding off to the side of the main herd through the binoculars. They were at about 450-500 yards by our estimation.

Neither one of us felt comfortable with the shot. We drove on in to camp and went through everyone else's gear looking for the best option. We borrowed a friends 264. Win. Mag. I don't recall the weight of the ammo we found.

We went back out in the field and found the herd still feeding below the rim. The big ram had laid down, which was fine with us. We had to talk over the shot since neither of us had ever fired a .264. He got the shot since he'd spotted the sheep. He wasn't sure of the hold-over, so I told him to lay the horizontal crosshair on his back when he stood up, and let fly.

About ten minutes later the ram stood up to feed, and my friend touched it off. It seemed like it took three seconds before the bullet covered the range, and the ram dropped into the grass without flinching. We were both speechless. It was one of the best shots I've seen on wild game.

We would both have bought that gun that day if it had been for sale.

The 7mm mag. stole the show back then from the .264 mag, but it's still a Hell of a caliber.

Gentlemen,

thanks for your replies. They are indeed worth reading. You have given a lot of reliable arguments pro et contra.

The reason for my question about the .264 WM is a Sako M98 in the obsolete 8x60 (.318"), which I plan to rebarrel. I have handloaded the 8x60, but have bought a Mannlicher Sch�nauer for the same cartridge in S-version (.323"), and am afraid of mixing up the different bullets. And two different cartridges are more useful.

Here is the Sako:

With a 26" barrel, it will be a fine varmint/deer combo. There will be some nice 1,5-6x42 or 3-9x50 scope in swingmount, and good iron sights on it.

What do think about my concept?

Best regards and thanks,

Fritz

[ 07-13-2003, 21:12: Message edited by: Fritz Kraut ]

Fritz,

Nice rifle.

Love your signature saying! Don't let the guys who shoot the 300 Mags see that.

Don't know if it is common or even existant in Europe, but I was playing with the idea here in the USA, but a 338 on a 8 x57 case ( 338x57).
Close to the old 8mm ( .323 inches vs .338 inches) Intended for a short range cartridge, under 250 yds.

I recently bought a Winchester pre-64 Model 70 Featherweight in 264.Keep in mind that this rifle has a barrel only 22" long...I haven't begun trying out loads yet but I am about ready to. Knowing full well that I'm not going to achieve top velocity from my loads because of that barrel length, what powders would any of you suggest in order to get the most speed from a Nosler 125 gr. partition bullet? Something fast burning?

Fritz

Personally , for rebarreling your nice old Mauser , I would pick a 6.5 mm cartridge with the same head diameter as the original cartridge . That in spite of the affection I have for the .264 mag.

Big K

For the 22 inch .264 , maybe give RL 22 or RL 25 a try . My loading of a pistol length .243 leads me to think that , possibly , double -based powders can get you more velocity than single base powders in short-for-caliber barrels. And RL 25 works real well in my 24 inch .264 .

Certainly don't go any faster than something like 4350 .........

[ 07-14-2003, 07:32: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

I must say, Winchester did some strange things with their featherweight model back then. A 264 WM with a 22 in. barrel and a featherweight contour to boot!!?? On a related note, I think the lightest rifle I've ever hefted was a pre '64 model 70 featherweight in 358 Win. - the barrel was 95% hole - it looked alarmingly similar to a 410 barrel. All this and a steel buttplate - must have been a real pleasure to shoot...

Fritz,
I agree with sdgunslinger - go with a matching case head, perhaps a 6.5x64 Brenneke. Also, you must admit, a 264 WM is a bit at odds with your signature.

[ 07-14-2003, 09:41: Message edited by: 9.3x62 ]

Fritz

I'm not trying to discourage you from trying a .264 .........you will find it an amazingling swift killer on light game and nearly a death ray out a long ways . With 120 s at 3400 fps , sight 2.5 inches high at 100 yards . You can hold (high) right on hair out to 400 and still get a chest hit
.

I just think that old 98 looks too nice to chop up . Maybe such rifle are not that rare in your part of the world , in the states it would be too valuble to think about converting .

[ 07-14-2003, 16:20: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

Charlie Sisk at 24hr did a bunch of barrel length tests,one inch at a time,his maximum loss was 22f/s.He also tested slow and fast powders with his an-inch-at-a-time in a "overbore".Slow worked better and lost the least velocity.

Fritz, would you consider selling the 8X60? I collect Sakos and don't have that particular one.
Dr. Lou

Big K: I used to have a 264 Featherweight and have been kicking myself ever since I sold it. What I did was shoot 120 gr bullets (the old Nosler Solid Base)using IMR4350. It was easy to get 3100 fps, recoil and myzzle blast were light, and it hammered the deer. It was sorta like a super 25/06 in a handy rifle! IMR4350 is not the classic powder for the 264 but it has worked well for me in several 264's. If I recall, Sierra lists it as the most accurate powder...Let us know what your results are.. Jim

Big K, I would try Vihtavuori, or the Reloader powders first. They have constantly suprized me with their performance. I also think you should stick to the med. slow powders; the large case and small bore dictate that you do.

The real slow burners won't help with the light bullets, you'll only get more muzzle blast. Try N160,RL19&22 as well as IMR 4350 for a start.

Fritz, thanks for the response. I figured it may be difficult to import, but I thought I would ask. Although there are a few 8x60 Sakos floating aroung the US, they are very difficult to get a hold of. Regards, Dr. Lou

Ever notice how the .264 critics, including some writers who should know better, compare the .264 to the .270 on a bullet weight vs. bullet weight basis rather than SD vs. SD? Let's compare the 270/150 to the 264/140; then we'd have an honest comparison.

I'm not anti-270. In fact, I see it as a marvelously flexible cartridge providing a high level of performance even in a 22" barrel. But, comparisons should be honest. Most .264/.270 comparisons are not.

Ever notice how those same folks never criticize the .257 Weatherby, .270 Weatherby, 7 Remmy, or 7 Weatherby?

I've never been able to understand why the .264 is treated so differently from the others that are so similar in terms of case capacity versus bore diameter. Just bias, I guess.....

[ 07-29-2003, 04:11: Message edited by: BigIron ]

Big Iron;

I think the answer to the observation you made is because the number of people that carry or use the 257, 270 and 7mm Weatherbys are in the very small minority.

Of course the 7 Rem mag is just a sacred cow. It is still what I think is the start of overbore calibers that are not real barrel burners.

I once read an article and I don't even remember where. However I tried it and I regarded it as an eye opener for me.

Put a sheet or white fabric of some sort in front of your barrel by a foot or two and shoot a round thru the material. The more overbore the caliber is the more powder residue you will see on the material. In the real world this results in throat erosion.

Some people feel that it is an adequate trade off to have a faster round. I don't necessarily subscribed to that myself.

In 6.5 mm, I found that a case much over the 55 mm or 57 mm length, gives a very strong diminishing return of velocity gain over the volume of powder used, resulting in throat erosion and being called a barrel burner.

When I went to build a combo target rifle and stand hunting rifle I looked at the 6.5/284.
However after my research and playing with a few belonging to friends I knew, I settled on a 6.5 x 57. ( Just to be different from my several 6.5 x 55s.)

seafire......the .264 , 7mm mag and similar catridges may burn out throats and barrels faster than a 6.5x55 .

So what ? The faster catridges do offer many advantages in the field . They may burn out quicker and use more powder , but just pull out the .223 if you want to throw alot of shots or punch paper .

If going after a 30 inch muley , I'll grab the .264 ........

If extremely long barrel life is your criteria for cartridge selection , a 30/30 may serve you well........