264win mag VS 6.5 Creedmoor?

slammedsi · August 30, 2012, 09:01 PM

I am going to buy a Ruger M77 in one of these two rounds. I'm unsure on which to get. What are your thoughts on these two? I Reload so not concerned about price of ammo. It will be used for everything from bobcats to mule deer, and everything in between. Ranges from 50 to 500 yards. Will most likely use a Nikon Monarch 4-16x42 BDC scope as i have a new one with no home for it yet. So what does everyone think? What would y'all pick?

4runnerman · August 30, 2012, 09:37 PM

Both rifles are ideal for your intended purpose. I have not shot a 6.5 before,but i have shot the 264 many times. That was one sweet shooting peice of art. So for my limited ( but worthless expirence )

. I would go with the 264.

Bart B. · August 30, 2012, 09:40 PM

Creedmoor; 3 to 4 times longer barrel life, easier to shoot accurately and also easier to make shoot accurate. Darned belted cases are a pain in one's wazoo to shoot well.

trg42wraglefragle · August 31, 2012, 12:55 AM

What about 260 or 6.5x47 Lapua?

I wouldn't be as keen on the 264 win as the Creedmoor, 260 and 6.5x47 are much more common and there are plenty of reloading components for them.
Lapua makes brass for the 260 and 6.5x47 if that's any advanatge.

For a hunting rifle I'd be tempted to go for a more common round just in case you need to buy factory ammo for some reason.

slammedsi · August 31, 2012, 09:10 AM

TRG, Ruger doesn't chamber a M77 in either of the mentioned calibers.

I had herd that the 6.5 wasn't such a barrel burner. Hence why I'm leaning towards that one.

Lloyd Smale · August 31, 2012, 09:38 AM

Quote:

TRG, Ruger doesn't chamber a M77 in either of the mentioned calibers.

sure they do. They chamber both in the m77. Me if 500 yard deer hunting was truely on the agenda id go with the extra power that the 264mag has. At that range even the 264 is probably not a bit more powerful then a 243 at 300.

603Country · August 31, 2012, 01:56 PM

If I was going to shoot targets, I'd go with the 260 or the Creedmore. If I was going to shoot varmints or deer, I'd go with the 264 mag. Same bullet choices, and there are a lot of them, though there's the barrel twist to consider if you want to shoot the heavy end of the bullet spectrum. I'm not a belted mag fan personally, but you can partial resize or neck size the fired cases to extend case life. Barrel life is a consideration, but probably not a big consideration with what you plan to do.

I own a 260 and I won't sell it to get a 264, but for your needs just consider the 264 a 260 on steroids.

slammedsi · August 31, 2012, 04:37 PM

Llyod, Thanks. I did some google serching and found they do infact made them in 260. Learned something new today haha. I would never take a shot on a deer at 500 yards but on yotes or pigs are another story. I wouldnt seceond guess a shot of that distance on a yote. Anyone else have any usefull info to add for a newb like myself?

603Country · August 31, 2012, 05:00 PM

While I did recommend the 264 for your needs, I have used my 260 out to 400 on pigs and coyotes. Unless you just want the extra horsepower of the 264, the 260 or the Creedmore will do all you want. I've read that Ruger puts a 26 inch barrel on the Creedmore. If so, that'll help you get the 120 grainer up to 3000 fps. I've been real pleased with the accuracy and the hunting effectiveness of my 260.

Scorch · September 1, 2012, 03:03 AM

Two entirely different beasts, kind of like trying to decide whether to buy the Boss Mustang or a minivan. The 264 Win Mag shoots as flat as a string, lots of energy left out at 600 yds to do the job. The Creedmore is a good round for 300 yds shooting. If I were going after big game, definitely the 264; if I were going after varmints and just target shooting, definitely the 6.5 Creedmore. I would not buy a 264 for high-volume target shooting, you would get tired of all that muzzle blast pretty quick. And while I have no doubt the Creedmore would kill a deer at 500 yds, it would be a lot more challenging delivering the goods on target at that range.

Bart B. · September 1, 2012, 06:27 AM

Scorch:

Quote:

I would not buy a 264 for high-volume target shooting, you would get tired of all that muzzle blast pretty quick.

Thousands of folks have shot 26, 28 and 30 caliber magnums at targets in competition since 1935. And none of them got tired of all that muzzle blast.

Scorch · September 2, 2012, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Thousands of folks have shot 26, 28 and 30 caliber magnums at targets in competition since 1935. And none of them got tired of all that muzzle blast.

That's true, Bart, but few of them started with a magnum. Most started out with something milder.

Bart B. · September 2, 2012, 07:12 AM

That's true, Scorch, so maybe my comment should be applied to only those that started out with magnums. Even if the numbers are only a hundred or so, it still applies.

Most folks I've talked with about muzzle blast feel the difference between a 22 inch barrel on an M14/M1A shooting heavy loads at long range has about the same apparent muzzle blast as 30 caliber magnums' 28 inch barrels. That's been my experience, too.

warbirdlover · September 2, 2012, 07:18 AM

I'd avoid the .264 due to the short barrel life. I'd also pick something other then the 6.5. But the .264 is SOOOOOOO sexy!!!

slammedsi · September 2, 2012, 07:26 AM

Well after much debate. I have decited to give the creedmore a try. A local gun shop has a new one on the shelf. Monday I think I'm going to see what I can get it for.

Lloyd Smale · September 2, 2012, 09:28 AM

Quote:

I'd avoid the .264 due to the short barrel life. I'd also pick something other then the 6.5. But the .264 is SOOOOOOO sexy!!!

Ive owned at least one 264 for the past 20 years and have yet to burn out a barrel. Granted it dont sit and target shoot with one or varmit hunt with one. I do change loads about every year and my gun probably gets a minimum of a 100 rounds a year. At that rate id doubt youd ever wear a barrel out and bottom line is most dont even shoot there hunting guns that much. Right now i have a m77 and its probably 8 years old or so and the barrel looks as good as new. I kind of chuckle at guys that claim the 264 will wear a barrel out in a week but never complain about a 7 rem or 7wby mag. All three are so close as to make it a non argument for barrel life. Alot of the bad rap the 264 got was in the original winchesters that used a bit softer steel in there barrels and back then the slowest powder available to loaders was 4831 and most factory ammo used 4350. Keep in mind that back then the 2506 and even the 270 had the barrel burning reputation. Loaded with something like 7828 re22 re25 h1000 ect you will put many many shots downrange before the barrel is shot and id bet not more then maybe a 100 or 2 less rounds then the identical gun in 7mag will allow.

tobnpr · September 2, 2012, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Monday I think I'm gunna go do some jewing.

No place for that bull**** here.

Quincunx · September 2, 2012, 10:38 AM

Slammedsi, just to chime in....

First, just in case you still decide to go with the .264, my suggestion would be to consider a newer Model 70 with the 26" tube. IIRC, the Ruger has a 24-inch barrel. Though the difference won't make Maryland go for Romney, the experience of most (myself included) seems to show that the extra 2" does help wring a smidgen of extra performance from the round.

N.B.: Soapbox mode now engaged.

Second, just a gentlemanly request to refrain from using the term "jewing." I'm goyische myself, but most of the mishpokhe are "Red Sea Pedestrians" (anyone remember that movie reference?) and while I (and they) understand the supposed good-natured humor of the term as many use it, it's still a bit offensive ---though usually unintentionally so, and I'll take it as such here. It recalls a time when tolerance and goodwill were, shall we say, practiced a little less often than preached. As my late ex-father-in-law Sidney might say, "Don't talk mishegoss, ya goniff, or I'll give ya a klopf on the kop!"

Thanks.

slammedsi · September 2, 2012, 12:01 PM

Quin I apalgize, I'm a red blooded texan that's herd and said that saying sence a small boy. Some times I forget others find things offencive that I don't. But thanks for kindly asking not to say it.

Quincunx · September 2, 2012, 11:09 PM

No biggie, my friend.

Mobuck · September 3, 2012, 08:04 AM

Do you want absolute best accuracy from a 6.5 bullet or the probability of making a hit on game at unknown ranges under field conditions?????
Simply put, that the diff between the two cartridges.

Bart B. · September 9, 2012, 08:34 AM

I used a .264 Win. Mag. in long range matches in the late 1960's. Only bullets that shot good were Norma 139-gr. FMJBT nickel plated ones; held 3/4 MOA at 600, 1 MOA at 1000 yards. For 640 rounds. Then it went south in 3 shots to almost 3 MOA at 600. Hadn't dropped a point for 13 shots, then lost about 15 in the last 7.

mnhntr · September 9, 2012, 11:00 AM

6.5 is way to big for cats if you are selling hides. If you are deciding between those two calibers the Creedmore has a longer barrel life and it is a great round for factory match ammo. I would be looking at a .204 ruger for bobcats or a .22-250.

slammedsi · September 9, 2012, 11:50 AM

I don't sale them. Just to thin them out. I ended up buying a no. 1 in 6.5 creedmoor. I haveent gotten the scope mounted. But did buy a box of 120,129, and 140 gr bullets to try out once Ive gotten it all together.

August 30, 2012, 09:37 PM	#2
4runnerman Senior Member Join Date: January 16, 2010 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,577	Both rifles are ideal for your intended purpose. I have not shot a 6.5 before,but i have shot the 264 many times. That was one sweet shooting peice of art. So for my limited ( but worthless expirence ). I would go with the 264. __________________ NRA Certified RSO NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional Last edited by 4runnerman; August 30, 2012 at 09:45 PM.

September 1, 2012, 03:03 AM	#10
Scorch Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2006 Location: Washington state Posts: 15,248	Two entirely different beasts, kind of like trying to decide whether to buy the Boss Mustang or a minivan. The 264 Win Mag shoots as flat as a string, lots of energy left out at 600 yds to do the job. The Creedmore is a good round for 300 yds shooting. If I were going after big game, definitely the 264; if I were going after varmints and just target shooting, definitely the 6.5 Creedmore. I would not buy a 264 for high-volume target shooting, you would get tired of all that muzzle blast pretty quick. And while I have no doubt the Creedmore would kill a deer at 500 yds, it would be a lot more challenging delivering the goods on target at that range. __________________ Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs. But what do I know? Summit Arms Services

September 2, 2012, 10:38 AM	#18
Quincunx Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2005 Location: People's Republic of Maryland Posts: 421	Slammedsi, just to chime in.... First, just in case you still decide to go with the .264, my suggestion would be to consider a newer Model 70 with the 26" tube. IIRC, the Ruger has a 24-inch barrel. Though the difference won't make Maryland go for Romney, the experience of most (myself included) seems to show that the extra 2" does help wring a smidgen of extra performance from the round. N.B.: Soapbox mode now engaged. Second, just a gentlemanly request to refrain from using the term "jewing." I'm goyische myself, but most of the mishpokhe are "Red Sea Pedestrians" (anyone remember that movie reference?) and while I (and they) understand the supposed good-natured humor of the term as many use it, it's still a bit offensive ---though usually unintentionally so, and I'll take it as such here. It recalls a time when tolerance and goodwill were, shall we say, practiced a little less often than preached. As my late ex-father-in-law Sidney might say, "Don't talk mishegoss, ya goniff, or I'll give ya a klopf on the kop!" Thanks. __________________ A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. --- Cicero

September 2, 2012, 11:09 PM	#20
Quincunx Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2005 Location: People's Republic of Maryland Posts: 421	No biggie, my friend. __________________ A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. --- Cicero

August 30, 2012, 09:40 PM	#3
Bart B. Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2009 Posts: 8,927	Creedmoor; 3 to 4 times longer barrel life, easier to shoot accurately and also easier to make shoot accurate. Darned belted cases are a pain in one's wazoo to shoot well.

August 31, 2012, 12:55 AM	#4
trg42wraglefragle Senior Member Join Date: April 21, 2008 Location: new zealand Posts: 856	What about 260 or 6.5x47 Lapua? I wouldn't be as keen on the 264 win as the Creedmoor, 260 and 6.5x47 are much more common and there are plenty of reloading components for them. Lapua makes brass for the 260 and 6.5x47 if that's any advanatge. For a hunting rifle I'd be tempted to go for a more common round just in case you need to buy factory ammo for some reason.

August 31, 2012, 01:56 PM	#7
603Country Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2011 Location: Thornton, Texas Posts: 3,998	If I was going to shoot targets, I'd go with the 260 or the Creedmore. If I was going to shoot varmints or deer, I'd go with the 264 mag. Same bullet choices, and there are a lot of them, though there's the barrel twist to consider if you want to shoot the heavy end of the bullet spectrum. I'm not a belted mag fan personally, but you can partial resize or neck size the fired cases to extend case life. Barrel life is a consideration, but probably not a big consideration with what you plan to do. I own a 260 and I won't sell it to get a 264, but for your needs just consider the 264 a 260 on steroids.

August 31, 2012, 05:00 PM	#9
603Country Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2011 Location: Thornton, Texas Posts: 3,998	While I did recommend the 264 for your needs, I have used my 260 out to 400 on pigs and coyotes. Unless you just want the extra horsepower of the 264, the 260 or the Creedmore will do all you want. I've read that Ruger puts a 26 inch barrel on the Creedmore. If so, that'll help you get the 120 grainer up to 3000 fps. I've been real pleased with the accuracy and the hunting effectiveness of my 260.

September 2, 2012, 07:12 AM	#13
Bart B. Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2009 Posts: 8,927	That's true, Scorch, so maybe my comment should be applied to only those that started out with magnums. Even if the numbers are only a hundred or so, it still applies. Most folks I've talked with about muzzle blast feel the difference between a 22 inch barrel on an M14/M1A shooting heavy loads at long range has about the same apparent muzzle blast as 30 caliber magnums' 28 inch barrels. That's been my experience, too.

September 2, 2012, 07:18 AM	#14
warbirdlover Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2009 Location: central Wisconsin Posts: 2,324	I'd avoid the .264 due to the short barrel life. I'd also pick something other then the 6.5. But the .264 is SOOOOOOO sexy!!!

September 3, 2012, 08:04 AM	#21
Mobuck Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2010 Posts: 6,846	Do you want absolute best accuracy from a 6.5 bullet or the probability of making a hit on game at unknown ranges under field conditions????? Simply put, that the diff between the two cartridges.

September 9, 2012, 08:34 AM	#22
Bart B. Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2009 Posts: 8,927	I used a .264 Win. Mag. in long range matches in the late 1960's. Only bullets that shot good were Norma 139-gr. FMJBT nickel plated ones; held 3/4 MOA at 600, 1 MOA at 1000 yards. For 640 rounds. Then it went south in 3 shots to almost 3 MOA at 600. Hadn't dropped a point for 13 shots, then lost about 15 in the last 7.

September 9, 2012, 11:00 AM	#23
mnhntr Senior Member Join Date: April 9, 2008 Posts: 972	6.5 is way to big for cats if you are selling hides. If you are deciding between those two calibers the Creedmore has a longer barrel life and it is a great round for factory match ammo. I would be looking at a .204 ruger for bobcats or a .22-250.