To a degree yes, faster twist would be good, but another reason it lost favor is the fact that it had to have that 26 inch barrel. Those that wanted shorter barrels, would loose to much FPS.
.264 Winchester Magnum
- Thread starter FNSafari
- Start date
That would be a sweet CM/PRC eater
FNSafari
Gold $$ Contributor
The fact that Winchester made the .264 in a Featherweight verson with a 22" barrel sure didn't help its performance reputation.
I don't get this barrel thing it's a long range cal not a scrub gun I see the same comments in my own country and the main instigators are the ones that sit high and shoot low like me personally I don't se a 32" barrel a problem for a long range barrel in fact the best one I ever shot was a 375 chaytac it has a 36" tube and all I can say is what a fine rifle that thing is and I wish it was mine .
I too recently picked up a M70, 264wm, but mine is a 1975 vintage, closet queen, well preserved. My very first load was with a Hammer 110HH, over 64.8 grains of H4350. Well, it shoots in a dot, at just over 3500. I've shot this type of bullet, in a different caliber, but similar size and speed, and experienced no meat blow up, but inside was soup. Total cardio pulmonary upset to put it mildly. My point is bullet selection is as important as shot placement. These bullets do not blow up.
Muzzle blast must have been ferocious!
jackieschmidt
Gold $$ Contributor
There is a lot of revisionist history concerning the 264 Win Mag. Mainly by those that are not old enough to remember when all the hoopla began.
The simple fact was, Winchester overhyped the cartridge from the beginning, giving unrealistic velocity figures for the components of the time and not telling the buying public, and shooting editors of magazines, that their data was garnered from test barrels in a length that was never going to appear in an over the counter rifle.
Things are different now. You have a high capacity case that with the components available today, can go head to head with any .6.5 out there.
Unless you just cannot stand seeing a Belt on the head of a cartridge.
The simple fact was, Winchester overhyped the cartridge from the beginning, giving unrealistic velocity figures for the components of the time and not telling the buying public, and shooting editors of magazines, that their data was garnered from test barrels in a length that was never going to appear in an over the counter rifle.
Things are different now. You have a high capacity case that with the components available today, can go head to head with any .6.5 out there.
Unless you just cannot stand seeing a Belt on the head of a cartridge.
This is the truth. When the 264 was introduced, there were three viable powders for it, 4831, H570, and H870. Today, there are several good powders, which will allow you to achieve advertised factory ballistics.There is a lot of revisionist history concerning the 264 Win Mag. Mainly by those that are not old enough to remember when all the hoopla began.
The simple fact was, Winchester overhyped the cartridge from the beginning, giving unrealistic velocity figures for the components of the time and not telling the buying public, and shooting editors of magazines, that their data was garnered from test barrels in a length that was never going to appear in an over the counter rifle.
Things are different now. You have a high capacity case that with the components available today, can go head to head with any .6.5 out there.
Unless you just cannot stand seeing a Belt on the head of a cartridge.
The short throat on the original 264 chamber was a bit of an issue if you wanted to use conventional bullets. With proper throating and the right loads, the 264 will indeed hit 3200 fps, with 140's, from a 24" barrel. The original 9 inch twist was adequate for any of the bullets available at the time, but I preferred an 8. I always tried to talk customers into the 8 twist. At the time, Douglas made an 8 twist but Shilen stuck with 9. I think Hart made an 8. One real good barrel I had was a gain twist which started at 12 and finished at 8 at 24 inches. WH
I've shot belted mags for so long, that when you learn to properly resize them, I've gotten great mileage from them. And you are right on all the earlier hoopla from winchester, but at end of the day , as you said, with our newer components, and powders, it is a very usable cartridge, that got a unjustifiably bad rap.There is a lot of revisionist history concerning the 264 Win Mag. Mainly by those that are not old enough to remember when all the hoopla began.
The simple fact was, Winchester overhyped the cartridge from the beginning, giving unrealistic velocity figures for the components of the time and not telling the buying public, and shooting editors of magazines, that their data was garnered from test barrels in a length that was never going to appear in an over the counter rifle.
Things are different now. You have a high capacity case that with the components available today, can go head to head with any .6.5 out there.
Unless you just cannot stand seeing a Belt on the head of a cartridge.
I'm using Peterson 7mm mag, (long), resized neck ONLY. Fired, adjusted to .002 bump. Works great, chambers nicely, no ring around the belt. Mine just plain shoots. It was a closet queen that is very welcome as a stable mate, and will serve me well when called upon.
FNSafari
Gold $$ Contributor
The interesting thing about the claim that the .264 WM wore out barrels quickly, was probably true, if the shooter was using rifle for rapid fire varmint hunting or other uses that overheated the barrel. Heck, I know a fellow that torched a 6.5 Creedmoor barrel in less that 1K rounds by doing rapid fire exercises. He couldn't believe it until he looked down the tube with a borescope. No free lunch with overbore cases, but lots of performance.
Last edited:
wboggs
Gold $$ Contributor
Agree, I bought a M70 in 1958 and the twist was fast enough for a 140gr but I could never achieve factory velocity numbers ih the 26" barrel. Lack of a variety of 6.5 bullets and ammo availability hurt it. You always has the .270 which was a great cartridge in a 22"barrel but the 7mm Rem Mag was the nail in the coffin.
k80skeet
Silver $$ Contributor
Barrel life was just awful even letting rifle cool. 300 rounds and fire cracks were everywhere.
Somebody Abused the Hell out of that barrel.
Hopefully someone sold it to someone who rebarreled and is still shooting it.
k80skeet
Silver $$ Contributor
After shooting out (3) barrels one stainless steel (factory barrel) and one carbon steel Douglas and one stainless Hart barrel. The factory barrel lasted longer than the other 2 because I didn't have a bore scope. The gunsmith that removed that barrel now uses it for a training tool in his classes. There is no rifling for the first 6" ahead of the chamber worn smooth.
I don't own a .264, but if it's anything like my .25-06 that I used to hunt with in high school, the lighter per caliber bullets blow up at high speed. I observed more meat destruction from it than I did with my 375 H&H which seemed to just punch a hole.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.