.264 Win question(s)

[gmarr]

I'm looking at this caliber, I have an affinity for some of the more "not so mainstream" calibers, and was wondering how good a performer it is. More specifically, what are the comparable calibers? I generally hunt deer and hogs out to 200 or so yards. Any experience would help, thanks.

[T. O'Heir]

It's one of those cartridges that work just fine, but are very hard to find. Midway, lists 9 brands/loads of ammo, 3 of which are not on back order or completely unavailable(Winchester only loads it when they feel like it.).
Brass is the same deal and expensive. $79.99 per 50 for No$ler brass. Other 2 are on back order and "Unavailable - Limited Production".
However, it drives a 140 grain bullet at 2700ish to 2900ish. Similar to a .270 Win. in velocity and pressures.

[AllenJ]

My uncle has been using 264 Win Mags since I started hunting a long time ago (40+ years). He loves that cartridge and it has served him very well over the years hunting deer, elk, and hogs. 264 is a very overlooked caliber for some reason that is very capable. T. O'Heir brings up very good points about ammo and brass availability so if you do get one stock up when you find a source.

If you're looking for a 6.5 that is a little more common take a look at the 6.5-284 Norma.

[Doyle]

Great performer but at a price. High cost. Reputation for being a barrel burner. High recoil. For only 200 yds, you can get something much more manageable.

[Pathfinder45]

It's fine If you already have one you like. In the real world, it duplicates the performance of the 270 Winchester in barrels of equal length, but with shorter barrel life and reduced magazine capacity, and it will burn more powder, plus factory ammo costs more. You will be better off with a 24" barreled 270 Winchester. If you simply must have one, make sure it has a 26" barrel, or longer, or you won't really be getting what you pay for it. For the 264 man that hand-loads his own ammo, I believe you can simply resize 7mm Remington Magnum brass to avoid the higher cost of 264 brass if you don't mind the incorrect headstamp.

[Coppershot]

I have a 264 Win Mag in a 1959 Model 70 and it still shoots well with the original barrel. You need to watch out for over heating and I would leave plenty of cooling time between shots at the range. I agree with others that it may be more "boom and fuss" than you need for what you describe. Other options in 6.5 are the 6.5 x 284 Norma and the 6.5 x 55 Swede. These will do the job without the "boom and fuss."

[Llama Bob]

It's definitely overkill for deer and hogs within 200y although it will give you a nice flat trajectory. Where .264 Win really excels is combining heavy, high-BC bullets with high velocities. That makes it ideal for long range target shooting more so than hunting.

The downside is that the barrels burn out ridiculously quickly. It may be the worst semi-common caliber in terms of barrel life.

[handlerer2]

The 264WM is based on the same brass as the 458WM, 338WM, the 7mm Rem Mag is also of the same dimension.

I started reloading for magnum centerfire in 1976. I bought a MDL 700, 7mag, dirt cheap. Few people on the MS Coast were interested in magnum rifles and it was rusting on a Gibson's display case for $100. This was also my start at reloading for magnum center fire.

I now own and reload for 340WBY, 300WBY, 6.5x284. I can get over 3000fps with 140 gr Berger, with RL 15, with no signs of high pressure.

Point is , I remember a statement from the Speer manual of 1975. It noted in it data on 264WM that it was the flattest shooting, and had the longest maximum point blank range of any comparable big game rifle of it's time. Speer also stated that it was the definitive barrel burner. That after as little as 500 rounds the muzzle velocity would deteriorate to 270 velocities.

You can still get considerable more muzzle velocity from the 264 WM than from the 270. Not for long though.

If you are going to hunt only this is about as good ballistically as it gets. It could last a hunter for a lifetime, but will never be a range toy.

[old roper]

The 264 mag came out 1st later followed by 7mag/338mag and I've owned and shot all three and I don't think any of them be ideal for any volume shooting.

One of my hunting rifles is 30-338mag and if your a reloader 264 is good case and maybe was little lucky 264mag as I had 26" barrel.

[Boogershooter]

The 264 is an amazing performer if you reload. I don't know why but ammo manufacturers download it quite a bit. Look at all the fuss these days about the 6.5 bullets. It does have a bit of recoil but you already knew that because of the magnum name. As far as large game rifles the only magnum that kicks less is the 257 weatherby. A minute or so between shots is required to let a hunting rifle barrel to cool but I have a 264 long range set up that I shoot strings of ten in a minute. Around 1200-1400 rounds thru it and accuracy is still very much there.

[Boogershooter]

Nosler and weatherby both have made their own 264 magnums in the last couple of years. I'm sure they wouldn't have done that if there was no interest in 264 magnums.

[SSA]

As far as comparable calibers, it's between the 257 Weatherby and the 270 Weatherby.

[reynolds357]

I have 4 .264 Win mags. I love every one of them. They are no more a "Barrel burner" than the 7 Rem mag is one. For all practical purposes there is no performance difference in the two cartridges.