And way overbore for all but the slower/slowest rifle powders, there were problems with barrels in early rifles. The .220 Swift has the reputation as a barrel burner also. And in it's day, a deserved one.
Barrels are better than they used to be, and different powders available go a long way to minimizing the problem, and so does the style of usage. Not letting the rifle get
hot goes a long way in preserving the barrel throat.
Unless you plan on using it as a match rifle and shoot hundreds of rounds in practice, I don't think your .264 barrel will lose "big game" accuracy for several thousands of rounds. No one can make an accurate prediction, there are too many variables involved.
On the other hand, there is no free lunch. Performance comes at a cost. Parts wear. It is the price of doing business. Even if the your .264 turns out to be a "barrel burner", what other cartridge will give you that same performance without being one?
As to being a barrel burner, even if not hastened by the way you shoot it, how many rounds
should it last? More than a few hundred, certainly, but how much more? 3,000? 5,000 rounds before accuracy is shot beyond reasonable standards? More?
Compare the cost of 3,000 rounds of factory ammo against the cost of barrel replacement. Where is the break even point?
There is a real good chance you will spend more in the cost of ammo than the cost of the entire rifle before you come close to wearing it out. The reason so many guns last a lifetime is that so few people actually shoot them enough in their lifetime to wear them out. But you
can do it if you try hard enough!
