got a 7mm rem mag. really thinking about switching it to a 264 win mag. How tough will it be? How short is the barrel life really? I'm hoping to reduce recoil too and get a muzzle break installed. how much less will it probably kick?? Hard decision.
need help guys.
- Thread starter model 12 toby
- Start date
bozo699
Gold $$ Contributor
model 12 toby,
I have both, the .264 obviously given the same weight rifle and both using upper weight bullets will kick a little less but it is still a magnum rifle. I have been shooting 139's and 140's in my .264 and have over 1200 rounds through it and three shots will still clover leaf at 100 yards, I think they got a bad rap back in the 60's when they didn't have the barrel quality we have now, I have a Shilen match on mine and it has been great. I think if it was used for a hunting rifle you would never wear it out, JMHO Same thing with the 7mm, best of luck to you.
Wayne.
I have both, the .264 obviously given the same weight rifle and both using upper weight bullets will kick a little less but it is still a magnum rifle. I have been shooting 139's and 140's in my .264 and have over 1200 rounds through it and three shots will still clover leaf at 100 yards, I think they got a bad rap back in the 60's when they didn't have the barrel quality we have now, I have a Shilen match on mine and it has been great. I think if it was used for a hunting rifle you would never wear it out, JMHO Same thing with the 7mm, best of luck to you.
Wayne.
M12T, try the Sierra 140 SPBT #1905 in your 7mm, so you'll get a fair idea of the recoil you might expect from your .264 shooting the same bullet weight and decide whether it's worth adding a brake.
IMHO I think you might not need one, but I don't know the weight of your project and the rate of fire you intend to withstand. I fully agree with Bozo699, the .264 got a bad rap in the old days for a lot of bad reasons just like the Swift had one in the 30's.
The .264 is not for high volume varminting, it ain't no .223 and you shouldn't fire more than 10 shots before cleaning the barrel with a good copper/carbon remover while the tube is still hot, and, provided you wait at least 1 minute between 2 shots, the cartridge should impress you by its accuracy and trajectory for many years.
IMHO I think you might not need one, but I don't know the weight of your project and the rate of fire you intend to withstand. I fully agree with Bozo699, the .264 got a bad rap in the old days for a lot of bad reasons just like the Swift had one in the 30's.
The .264 is not for high volume varminting, it ain't no .223 and you shouldn't fire more than 10 shots before cleaning the barrel with a good copper/carbon remover while the tube is still hot, and, provided you wait at least 1 minute between 2 shots, the cartridge should impress you by its accuracy and trajectory for many years.
Personally I cant quite work out why the 264 Win Mag is even an option these days. It doesn't offer much over a 6.5-284 with 140s, even the 6.5x55SE can be cranked to around 2900 with 140s for a whole lot less powder and heaps less barrel burn.
I am running in a 6.5x55BJAI with fireforming loads at 52g N560 for 3005 fps with 140g AMAX. (24" barrel) The way its working I would expect to see around 3200 max for a few grains more powder with the FF cases. I will probably end up around 3000-3050 when loads are sorted, for around 55g of powder. Thats 20 grains less powder for similar performance..
To be fair I guess the 264WM promised plenty, was marketed that way and its only competition was military swedes that were under performing at the time. But it was reasonably quickly established that it couldn't perform to the level of hype at promised at release. I don't know that I would be in a huge rush to rebarrel from 7mmRemMag unless the barrel's stuffed. Just load 162 Amaxs down a fraction, put a brake on your existing setup or sell the rifle complete and put together a custom 6.5 on a more efficient round.....
Well maybe there's logic in there......but if you just like the 264WM...... what can I say
Its still a 6.5
I am running in a 6.5x55BJAI with fireforming loads at 52g N560 for 3005 fps with 140g AMAX. (24" barrel) The way its working I would expect to see around 3200 max for a few grains more powder with the FF cases. I will probably end up around 3000-3050 when loads are sorted, for around 55g of powder. Thats 20 grains less powder for similar performance..
To be fair I guess the 264WM promised plenty, was marketed that way and its only competition was military swedes that were under performing at the time. But it was reasonably quickly established that it couldn't perform to the level of hype at promised at release. I don't know that I would be in a huge rush to rebarrel from 7mmRemMag unless the barrel's stuffed. Just load 162 Amaxs down a fraction, put a brake on your existing setup or sell the rifle complete and put together a custom 6.5 on a more efficient round.....
Well maybe there's logic in there......but if you just like the 264WM...... what can I say
Its still a 6.5
6.5 x 55 swede? I'll look into it. I'm trying to go with a 6.5 caliber. have savages. 7mm rem mag and 243. want to change to some sort of 6.5 on either with just a barrel change. I'm going to decide by the 8th and get something started. I'm wanting to make contact with a varmint at 700 yards plus with some authority. I feel like the 243 is kinda weak. It's going to be shot with a bi pod and a bag only. I'm hoping to carry the rifle some. It'd be nice to have a flat a trajectory as possible but not pound me. I really like my 7mm but I'd like a little less of an event. I figure i'll get one with it by the end of sept but it's too heavy and too much lead and powder. ;D. thanks for the suggestions. all are very appreciated. back to the drawing board.
CatShooter
model 12 toby said:
I have a 264 WM that was bought specifically for varmint shooting (coyotes on a cattle ranch), and I love it - it is my second 264WM.
With the 95ger V-Max, it is string flat and very deadly on varmints to the size of coyotes further than you can hit them.
If you are old enough to buy a gun, then you are old enough to know there are no free lunches - don't believe that there is a cartridge that will equal the 264 WM with 20 grains less powder - Ballistically, it just can't happen.
The recoil of a 10+plus pound 264 with varmint weight bullets is light. You can shoot it all day.
Catshooter may be right however i have a 24"9twist hart 7-08 AI that pushes a 140 nos bt at 3025 with no pressure issues, most top loads ( Sierra and others )list the 264 140 at 3000 or less on Hodgden
The 100gr 264 at 3450-3500, the 7-08AI has the same capability 140's at 3000+ and 100s 3450-3500
In the 140 i am shooting h414 less than 50gr and in the 100 the load low to mid 50's gr.
something to think about,,recoil is moderate and a break would make it a peace of cake, long bbl life and
groups in the .300's
Bob
The 100gr 264 at 3450-3500, the 7-08AI has the same capability 140's at 3000+ and 100s 3450-3500
In the 140 i am shooting h414 less than 50gr and in the 100 the load low to mid 50's gr.
something to think about,,recoil is moderate and a break would make it a peace of cake, long bbl life and
groups in the .300's
Bob
CatShooter
bheadboy...
You cannot make ballistic comparisons between two cartridges by going to different websites - different companies use different standards, different barrel lengths, different chamber specs, and different methods to come to their recommended loads.
Run the two cartridges on a piece of ballistic software (like LFAD or QL), using the same barrel length, and same bullet, and same pressure.
I was recently told (by an "expert") that the 22 PPC is equal to the 22-250, with 12 grains less powder.
The 22 PPC is only 1 to 1.5 grains larger than the Remington .222 Magnum. So that makes the .222 Mag almost equal to the 22-250???
Not hardly! There is almost 400 fps difference between my .222 Mag and my 22-250, and they are both Remingtons and both have 26" match grade barrels.
Also... comparing different calibers is comparing apples and oranges. With equal weights (and cases), because of sectional density, the smaller bore will always have a lower muzzle velocity, but will have more velocity and energy down range. It is easy to manipulate the numbers - it is a tempting trap that will lead to bad cartridge choices.
You cannot make ballistic comparisons between two cartridges by going to different websites - different companies use different standards, different barrel lengths, different chamber specs, and different methods to come to their recommended loads.
Run the two cartridges on a piece of ballistic software (like LFAD or QL), using the same barrel length, and same bullet, and same pressure.
I was recently told (by an "expert") that the 22 PPC is equal to the 22-250, with 12 grains less powder.
The 22 PPC is only 1 to 1.5 grains larger than the Remington .222 Magnum. So that makes the .222 Mag almost equal to the 22-250???
Not hardly! There is almost 400 fps difference between my .222 Mag and my 22-250, and they are both Remingtons and both have 26" match grade barrels.
Also... comparing different calibers is comparing apples and oranges. With equal weights (and cases), because of sectional density, the smaller bore will always have a lower muzzle velocity, but will have more velocity and energy down range. It is easy to manipulate the numbers - it is a tempting trap that will lead to bad cartridge choices.
OK....
Now I don't have a 264WM, I have never reloaded for one so would have to rely on those who do...but I'm pretty much not interested in bland unsubstantiated remarks such as
don't believe that there is a cartridge that will equal the 264 WM with 20 grains less powder - Ballistically, it just can't happen.
I only know what is reasonably well understood, and yes I have to research to learn about the 264WM.... if you do the research rather than just rely relying on your emotional investment on what is in your cupboard, you may come to similar conclusions...
So rather than start comparing how long it is.... how about some real world data... cause QL is a useful tool but it does not determine the end result....
The reason you need a 26" plus barrel is because there is so much dam powder behind the projectile.... I would suggest a 32" barrel would be more appropriate...
Lets deal with the 20 grain less issue.....
Total water capacity of respective Cases...
260 Rem - 53g
6.5x55SE - 55g
6.5-284 - 65g
6.5x55 BJ Ackley - 62g
6.5-06 - 68g
& wait for it
264WM - 82g ..... have seen it recorded at 85g. Looks like 20 grains difference to me.... now the real question is comparative performance.....
In terms of performance, I have already told you what my experience is with my new rifle 3005fps with 140s out of standard brass while fire-forming. My expectations for around 3200 are based on similar results from another project running in F-Class over here.....
The 6.5x284... a well understood round.... can run up to 3200 with 140s.... but people typically run them at 2950-3000 for accuracy and barrel life.
So not referring to websites and just referring to my current loading of 52g N560 @ 3005fps with a 24 inch barrel....
What are you loading in the 264WM with 140s to get what sort of results...? Speed, powder and powder weight.... and barrel length to get a reasonable idea.....
And less of the trite "free lunch/if you are old enough" paternalistic BS...... ???
Now I don't have a 264WM, I have never reloaded for one so would have to rely on those who do...but I'm pretty much not interested in bland unsubstantiated remarks such as
don't believe that there is a cartridge that will equal the 264 WM with 20 grains less powder - Ballistically, it just can't happen.
I only know what is reasonably well understood, and yes I have to research to learn about the 264WM.... if you do the research rather than just rely relying on your emotional investment on what is in your cupboard, you may come to similar conclusions...
So rather than start comparing how long it is.... how about some real world data... cause QL is a useful tool but it does not determine the end result....
The reason you need a 26" plus barrel is because there is so much dam powder behind the projectile.... I would suggest a 32" barrel would be more appropriate...
Lets deal with the 20 grain less issue.....
Total water capacity of respective Cases...
260 Rem - 53g
6.5x55SE - 55g
6.5-284 - 65g
6.5x55 BJ Ackley - 62g
6.5-06 - 68g
& wait for it
264WM - 82g ..... have seen it recorded at 85g. Looks like 20 grains difference to me.... now the real question is comparative performance.....
In terms of performance, I have already told you what my experience is with my new rifle 3005fps with 140s out of standard brass while fire-forming. My expectations for around 3200 are based on similar results from another project running in F-Class over here.....
The 6.5x284... a well understood round.... can run up to 3200 with 140s.... but people typically run them at 2950-3000 for accuracy and barrel life.
So not referring to websites and just referring to my current loading of 52g N560 @ 3005fps with a 24 inch barrel....
What are you loading in the 264WM with 140s to get what sort of results...? Speed, powder and powder weight.... and barrel length to get a reasonable idea.....
And less of the trite "free lunch/if you are old enough" paternalistic BS...... ???
what about the 6.5 rem mag?
I'm hoping to push 95 v-maxes to 3400 or so and 140 a-maxes or berger 140 vld's to around 3000. I would like the gun to do with with moderate pressure. I don't really want to push the limits. seems nuts to me. i'd like to do it a grain or 3 before it's leaking around the primers and flatterning them.
I also was looking at the 6.5-06 but I don't think either gun will switch over easy. hornady reloading manual shows the 6.5 rem mag a little less than the 6.5-06. I'll probably shoot the 95's more often but it'd be nice to move up to 140's if i ever needed to.
I'm still wondering about the 264 win mag???? How many rounds you guys talking. It'll probabaly get shot round 400-500 rounds a year.
I'm hoping to push 95 v-maxes to 3400 or so and 140 a-maxes or berger 140 vld's to around 3000. I would like the gun to do with with moderate pressure. I don't really want to push the limits. seems nuts to me. i'd like to do it a grain or 3 before it's leaking around the primers and flatterning them.
I also was looking at the 6.5-06 but I don't think either gun will switch over easy. hornady reloading manual shows the 6.5 rem mag a little less than the 6.5-06. I'll probably shoot the 95's more often but it'd be nice to move up to 140's if i ever needed to.
I'm still wondering about the 264 win mag???? How many rounds you guys talking. It'll probabaly get shot round 400-500 rounds a year.
The issue is excessive pressure, comparing apples with apples has only any relevance in relation to at what point a case starts to exhibit excessive pressure. 50,000 psi is dangerous in some designs and others can handle 62,000 psi. Start low... work up, stop at first pressure signs, back off 1-2 grains and call that your max. Personally I like efficient case designs, I don't subscribe to the theory that more powder = more performance.
Any firearm can be set up at moderate pressure.... for the case design and brass quality and strength of action. Everything that I have mentioned is running set up well off max. Thats just good reloading practice. You will have exactly the same issues with the 264WM, you just get to burn a whole lot more powder for no better a result. Its a poor design.
Your primary issue is that you have a magnum bolt face action. You could bush it and run a 0.473/0.480 case so thats possible. That opens an opportunity to consider "standard" cases rather than magnum ones.
The 6.5-06 and Ackley Imp version is well understood in the States, delivers just as good performance as the 264WM for at least 10 grains less powder and probably is better on barrels as well.... if your not certain bout the european flavoured swede....
There is always the 6.5-284....
The 6.5 Rem Mag I don't know about, but its supposed to be 68g water capacity... brass could be an issue??
Personally I am a better mousetrap kinda guy, and I like hearing about better options (my wife probably doesn't) so I don't take offense at somebody coming along and saying hey this is good.
I also heard you say that you were interested in reducing recoil. You might have a better chance with that firing less powder and if you can get similar results??
But if you just like it.... all that other stuff don't matter..
Any firearm can be set up at moderate pressure.... for the case design and brass quality and strength of action. Everything that I have mentioned is running set up well off max. Thats just good reloading practice. You will have exactly the same issues with the 264WM, you just get to burn a whole lot more powder for no better a result. Its a poor design.
Your primary issue is that you have a magnum bolt face action. You could bush it and run a 0.473/0.480 case so thats possible. That opens an opportunity to consider "standard" cases rather than magnum ones.
The 6.5-06 and Ackley Imp version is well understood in the States, delivers just as good performance as the 264WM for at least 10 grains less powder and probably is better on barrels as well.... if your not certain bout the european flavoured swede....
There is always the 6.5-284....
The 6.5 Rem Mag I don't know about, but its supposed to be 68g water capacity... brass could be an issue??
Personally I am a better mousetrap kinda guy, and I like hearing about better options (my wife probably doesn't) so I don't take offense at somebody coming along and saying hey this is good.
I also heard you say that you were interested in reducing recoil. You might have a better chance with that firing less powder and if you can get similar results??
But if you just like it.... all that other stuff don't matter..
CatShooter
Sammy said:
That just about sums it up...
First off the 264 Win mag needs at least a 26" barrel to do it's thing, longer is better. If you want to just change the barrel your only option will be either the 6.5 Rem mag or the 264 Win mag or you will have to change the bolt head. If you already have a bunch of 7mm Rem mag cases laying around all you have to do to turn them into 264 Win mag cases is run them through a 264 Win mag full length sizer die. If you are going to be shooting 140 gr bullets GET AN 8" TWIST barrel. Retumbo is THE powder for the 264 Win mag, highest velocity with superb accuracy. I have a Rem 700 action with a 9 twist Shilen #5 CM 27 3/4" barrel. I found my best accuracy with 130 Nosler Accubonds with 66.5 grs Retumbo, WW case (Reformed from WW 7mm Rem mag), CCI 250 primer, loaded 10 thousands off the lands and it just happens to average 3350 fps. It shoots like a laser beam and drops deer in their tracks waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay a corss a bean field. I was getting 3600 fps and bug holes for 3 shots @ 100 with 120 Ballistic Tips but was afraid to use them because I do get close in shots on deer and was afraid that at that speed they would evaporate on contact. The 130 AB works for me at any range really well. As for barrel life the 264 Win mag will last about as long as a 7mm Rem mag under the same conditions. With either if you shoot them hot they will burn the throat out in short order. If you don't shoot them hot and keep them clean, as a hunting rifle, it will probably last 99% of people the rest of their and their grandchildren their whole lives. My hunting buddy and I have extensive experience with shooting WT deer as control hunters on a huge farm in NC for over 25 years. We have killed them with about everything from 22 through 45-70. It is our findings that the 264 Win mag kills WT deer in their tracks with most any shot to the front shoulder or heart/lungs with most hunting 130 to 140 gr bullets. It is our experience that deer tend to run off a bit with the same bullet placement from 139 to 160 gr bullets in 7mm Rem mag. If I was going after elk I would go with the 7mm Rem mag because the bullets are heaver and stronger constructed but for deer give me the 264 Win mag over the 7 Rem mag.
so I could change the bolt and barrel and make it a 6.5-06 or 6.5-06 improved? they are nearly the same length as my 7mm rem mag. that seems like a nice option. even a 6.5-06 regular looks really nice. barrel would probably last a long long time huh? That might be the ticket. hornady lists 95's at 3400 and 140 at 3000.
damn it. 243 to 6.5-06 or 7mm to 6.5 win mag???? lol. what would you do????? 700 yard ground hog. 95 grain v-max or 140 grain a-max. probably going to spend extra money and get muzzle break. probably 28 inch barrel. probably shoot 400 rounds a year tops. man this is tough. it's getting narrowed down though.
Copied this post from a hunting-washington.com forum.... interesting reading..
Posts: 64
Location: Elma, Wa
Re: 264WM Opinions
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2011, 08:42:26 AM »
The 264WM is one of those "love/hate" cartridges. It will drive a 140 upwards of 3300fps with H1000 or Retumbo, the problem is, its finicky as hell. Changing the load .2gr will turn an accurate rifle into a piece of scrap metal. Also, changing lots of powder generally causes another load development session. I have built a few and rebarreled mine 2x trying to figure it out. Barrels last 750-900rounds of full throttle loads. Sometimes less.
Suprisingly enough, the 6.5 STW will drive the 140's faster and hasn't been very finicky at all. Not sure why the difference, as its even more overbore, but its way more forgiving. The 6.5-06AI will get you within 75-100fps of a 264WM with 10gr less powder. Mine ran 3250 with a 140, which was only 50fps less than my 264WM did, both with 27" barrels. Less recoil, extremely accurate, very forgiving to load for.
With my builds I breakin the rifles and test accuracy before the customer ever see's them. I have standard loads that work with my reamers. Generally each caliber that I do has 1 or 2 loads that I use for accuracy testing. I have 9 for the 264WM. When you find a load that shoots, she is a sweetheart and can take any game in the lower 48 easily. When she doesn't shoot, you will be frustrated as hell!
Logged
Posts: 64
Location: Elma, Wa
Re: 264WM Opinions
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2011, 08:42:26 AM »
The 264WM is one of those "love/hate" cartridges. It will drive a 140 upwards of 3300fps with H1000 or Retumbo, the problem is, its finicky as hell. Changing the load .2gr will turn an accurate rifle into a piece of scrap metal. Also, changing lots of powder generally causes another load development session. I have built a few and rebarreled mine 2x trying to figure it out. Barrels last 750-900rounds of full throttle loads. Sometimes less.
Suprisingly enough, the 6.5 STW will drive the 140's faster and hasn't been very finicky at all. Not sure why the difference, as its even more overbore, but its way more forgiving. The 6.5-06AI will get you within 75-100fps of a 264WM with 10gr less powder. Mine ran 3250 with a 140, which was only 50fps less than my 264WM did, both with 27" barrels. Less recoil, extremely accurate, very forgiving to load for.
With my builds I breakin the rifles and test accuracy before the customer ever see's them. I have standard loads that work with my reamers. Generally each caliber that I do has 1 or 2 loads that I use for accuracy testing. I have 9 for the 264WM. When you find a load that shoots, she is a sweetheart and can take any game in the lower 48 easily. When she doesn't shoot, you will be frustrated as hell!
Logged
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.