264 Win Mag Vs 7 Rem Mag - Page 2

briandg · August 12, 2017, 04:09 AM

Until recently the .308 was second fiddle to th 06. The .264 had benefits, but there were several alternatives that had ownership of the catalog. Nobody c a red about the newfangled magnum that was just redundant.

The .280 Remington was not needed. The 6.5 Remington wasn't wanted. The 6mms rem was unwanted, nobody cared.

There were so many rounds that were created for no good reason to fill needs that either didn't exist or were already locked into a traditional round.

How many people knew the difference between the .270 and the .280? The difference between the .243 and the 6mm? They bought what they were comfortable with, and in that time it was essential that the new cartridge literally explode into the public eye and develop a following within a few years.

Pathfinder45 · August 12, 2017, 10:45 AM

Quote:

I don't get some of the numbers quoted for a 270W in this thread?!

I got my numbers from shooting over a chronograph. Keeping in mind, my 270 wears a 24" barrel. My most accurate load at 300 yards launches a 150 grain Nosler Partition with an average muzzle velocity hovering right on the 3,000 fps mark + or - very little. I know that a hand-loaded 264 Winchester or 7mm Remington can match or exceed what my 270 will do, but not by much, and if they were using the same length barrels, the difference would be smaller yet. If we were all shooting factory ammo only, there might be more of a difference, but I wouldn't know since it is quite rare for me to shoot factory ammo in a centerfire. As previously mentioned I have had 140 grain bullets at velocities that were admittedly too high to be good.

Kachok · August 12, 2017, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pathfinder45

I got my numbers from shooting over a chronograph. Keeping in mind, my 270 wears a 24" barrel. My most accurate load at 300 yards launches a 150 grain Nosler Partition with an average muzzle velocity hovering right on the 3,000 fps mark + or - very little. I know that a hand-loaded 264 Winchester or 7mm Remington can match or exceed what my 270 will do, but not by much, and if they were using the same length barrels, the difference would be smaller yet. If we were all shooting factory ammo only, there might be more of a difference, but I wouldn't know since it is quite rare for me to shoot factory ammo in a centerfire. As previously mentioned I have had 140 grain bullets at velocities that were admittedly too high to be good.

What powder are you using to push a 150gr 270 Win to 3,000fps? Fastest published load I see off hand is 2913fps with MAGPRO. I am only a hair above that out of my 270 WSM burning RL22.

RaySendero · August 12, 2017, 09:13 PM

I didn't find the 150 NPT to be as accurate as the SGK in my rifle.

Pathfinder45 · August 12, 2017, 09:48 PM

Kachok, if you have a typical 24" barreled 270 Winchester, pretty much all of the slowest burning rifle powders will get you there, or very close to it. Magpro is definitely one of them. I have that powder, but no longer have a chronograph to test it. The WWII surplus powder that was repackaged by Hodgdon as H-4831 is another as well, as is IMR 7828, Reloder 22, etc. I've played with all of these and more. But the thing is, if we're talking about a scoped, bolt-action, long-range-capable hunting rifle, then accuracy at 100 yards means nothing. It's at 300 or more yards where we need to be doing our accuracy tests. My pet load is sub M.O.A. for 5 shots at 300. I wouldn't care if I had to drop down to a lower velocity to get it. Most of the loads that look most promising at 100 yards in my rifle deliver 12" to 18" 5 shot groups at 300 yards. But the magic formula for this rifle uses Federal brass, Nosler 150 grain partitions, CCI-200 primers, and a fairly maximum charge of the long-discontinued, but fabulous, Norma N-205 powder. Forgive me for not say exactly how much of this wonder powder to use, because it is not a starting charge. How do you like your 270 WSM? I think that is the most interesting of the WSM line of cartridges. Is it a Model 70? I know that this thread is supposed to be about the 264 Winchester and 7mm Remington magnums, primarily. So, circling back on track, I think those are both quite potent hunting calibers, and if anyone has one that works well for them, they should stick with it. Sure, the magnums are sacrificing magazine capacity, but how many shots do you really need? Heck, my brother likes magnum cartridges in the Browning falling-block single shot rifles, and he's got a method where he is impressively fast on repeat shots. But clearly, the 264 Winchester and 7mm Remington magnums have potent rivals. And some of those that come to my mind, that I consider to be in the same class, performance-wise, include the 257, 270, and 7mm Weatherby's, along with similar WSM cartridges, the obsolete, but under-rated 6.5mm Remington Magnum, the wildcat 6.5-'06, the 6.5mm Norma, the 280 Remington and 284 Winchester, and perhaps best of all, the legendary 270 Winchester.

Pathfinder45 · August 12, 2017, 09:53 PM

As ray said,

Quote:

in my rifle.

That just it. All rifles are slightly to very different. What I like most about the .277 Sierra 150 grain Game King is that it is the closest bullet I know of to the Nosler Partition of the same weight, but at sustantially lower cost.

Kachok · August 13, 2017, 12:58 AM

Yeah I know slower powders are key, as I said I am using RL22 in my 270 WSM, the 150gr SGKs do a number on deer at 3,000fps last deer I hit was only 30 yards away and it knocked a 5 inch hole out the far side. Some people talk trash about the SGKs since they are old hat cup and core design but I have has good luck with them in both 270 and 7mm though they were excessively messy in my 30-06. Not exactly the same performance as the partition but no deer I ever met could tell the difference, SGKs gradually fragment going through game at high speed while the Partition expands violently but arrests preventing total fragmentation, both designs work very well but I tend to get better accuracy out of the SGKs 1/3 MOA out of the 270 WSM and 3/4MOA out of the 7mm-08.

briandg · August 13, 2017, 01:23 PM

There are any number of "improved" versions of the .270 that lessen the taper and long neck, but there is a chamber dreamer and die set, and forming brass to use. At one time the $100 cost of the process was worth it, for a cherished rifle.

You can easily replace a rifle for about the same cost of a complete conversion. Even with existing reamers, the barrel conversion may cost$150, give or take. Rcbs .270 improved cost $150, if a die must be customized, it will obviously cost more.

A heck of a lot of rifles were refit from .303 to the epps for a significant boost for a fraction of the cost of replacement.

RaySendero · August 13, 2017, 02:06 PM

Heavy for caliper SGKs are my choice for my deer rifles.
150 in 270W
165s in 308W
180s in 7.5x55

I switch to NPTs:
200 in 8x57
286 in 9.3x62

For 458 WM I use:
450 Barnes solids and
450 Swift-As

old roper · August 16, 2017, 07:07 AM

Nosler has always made 160gr Partition for the 270 and they always had loading data for it in their manuals. I'm just on the edge but I can shoot Berger 170gr in my 270Wby.

Speer made 170gr RN for the 270 and Lyman manual 45 max velocity for the 270 with that bullet was 2801fps next was 2777fps.

Matrix make 165gr VLD for the 270 but need 1/9 twist barrel and Kreiger making barrel for 270 with 1/8,1/9 barrels now.

briandg · August 18, 2017, 09:57 PM

Barnes used to make .270 bullets up to 180, I think that earlier they went higher. They made .308 up to 250, again, I think that they were even heavier when Fred himself was making them. People had barrels cut to use them. They believed in the high sectional density high velocity formula.

August 12, 2017, 04:09 AM	#26
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	Until recently the .308 was second fiddle to th 06. The .264 had benefits, but there were several alternatives that had ownership of the catalog. Nobody c a red about the newfangled magnum that was just redundant. The .280 Remington was not needed. The 6.5 Remington wasn't wanted. The 6mms rem was unwanted, nobody cared. There were so many rounds that were created for no good reason to fill needs that either didn't exist or were already locked into a traditional round. How many people knew the difference between the .270 and the .280? The difference between the .243 and the 6mm? They bought what they were comfortable with, and in that time it was essential that the new cartridge literally explode into the public eye and develop a following within a few years. __________________ None.

August 12, 2017, 09:13 PM	#29
RaySendero Senior Member Join Date: August 23, 2010 Location: US South Posts: 857	I didn't find the 150 NPT to be as accurate as the SGK in my rifle. __________________ *Ray*

August 13, 2017, 01:23 PM	#33
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	There are any number of "improved" versions of the .270 that lessen the taper and long neck, but there is a chamber dreamer and die set, and forming brass to use. At one time the $100 cost of the process was worth it, for a cherished rifle. You can easily replace a rifle for about the same cost of a complete conversion. Even with existing reamers, the barrel conversion may cost$150, give or take. Rcbs .270 improved cost $150, if a die must be customized, it will obviously cost more. A heck of a lot of rifles were refit from .303 to the epps for a significant boost for a fraction of the cost of replacement. __________________ None.

August 13, 2017, 02:06 PM	#34
RaySendero Senior Member Join Date: August 23, 2010 Location: US South Posts: 857	Heavy for caliper SGKs are my choice for my deer rifles. 150 in 270W 165s in 308W 180s in 7.5x55 I switch to NPTs: 200 in 8x57 286 in 9.3x62 For 458 WM I use: 450 Barnes solids and 450 Swift-As __________________ *Ray*

August 16, 2017, 07:07 AM	#35
old roper Senior Member Join Date: June 11, 2007 Posts: 2,155	Nosler has always made 160gr Partition for the 270 and they always had loading data for it in their manuals. I'm just on the edge but I can shoot Berger 170gr in my 270Wby. Speer made 170gr RN for the 270 and Lyman manual 45 max velocity for the 270 with that bullet was 2801fps next was 2777fps. Matrix make 165gr VLD for the 270 but need 1/9 twist barrel and Kreiger making barrel for 270 with 1/8,1/9 barrels now. __________________ Semper Fi Vietnam 1965 VFW Life member NRA Life Member

August 12, 2017, 09:48 PM	#30
Pathfinder45 Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2008 Posts: 3,224	Kachok, if you have a typical 24" barreled 270 Winchester, pretty much all of the slowest burning rifle powders will get you there, or very close to it. Magpro is definitely one of them. I have that powder, but no longer have a chronograph to test it. The WWII surplus powder that was repackaged by Hodgdon as H-4831 is another as well, as is IMR 7828, Reloder 22, etc. I've played with all of these and more. But the thing is, if we're talking about a scoped, bolt-action, long-range-capable hunting rifle, then accuracy at 100 yards means nothing. It's at 300 or more yards where we need to be doing our accuracy tests. My pet load is sub M.O.A. for 5 shots at 300. I wouldn't care if I had to drop down to a lower velocity to get it. Most of the loads that look most promising at 100 yards in my rifle deliver 12" to 18" 5 shot groups at 300 yards. But the magic formula for this rifle uses Federal brass, Nosler 150 grain partitions, CCI-200 primers, and a fairly maximum charge of the long-discontinued, but fabulous, Norma N-205 powder. Forgive me for not say exactly how much of this wonder powder to use, because it is not a starting charge. How do you like your 270 WSM? I think that is the most interesting of the WSM line of cartridges. Is it a Model 70? I know that this thread is supposed to be about the 264 Winchester and 7mm Remington magnums, primarily. So, circling back on track, I think those are both quite potent hunting calibers, and if anyone has one that works well for them, they should stick with it. Sure, the magnums are sacrificing magazine capacity, but how many shots do you really need? Heck, my brother likes magnum cartridges in the Browning falling-block single shot rifles, and he's got a method where he is impressively fast on repeat shots. But clearly, the 264 Winchester and 7mm Remington magnums have potent rivals. And some of those that come to my mind, that I consider to be in the same class, performance-wise, include the 257, 270, and 7mm Weatherby's, along with similar WSM cartridges, the obsolete, but under-rated 6.5mm Remington Magnum, the wildcat 6.5-'06, the 6.5mm Norma, the 280 Remington and 284 Winchester, and perhaps best of all, the legendary 270 Winchester.

August 13, 2017, 12:58 AM	#32
Kachok Senior Member Join Date: January 22, 2012 Posts: 304	Yeah I know slower powders are key, as I said I am using RL22 in my 270 WSM, the 150gr SGKs do a number on deer at 3,000fps last deer I hit was only 30 yards away and it knocked a 5 inch hole out the far side. Some people talk trash about the SGKs since they are old hat cup and core design but I have has good luck with them in both 270 and 7mm though they were excessively messy in my 30-06. Not exactly the same performance as the partition but no deer I ever met could tell the difference, SGKs gradually fragment going through game at high speed while the Partition expands violently but arrests preventing total fragmentation, both designs work very well but I tend to get better accuracy out of the SGKs 1/3 MOA out of the 270 WSM and 3/4MOA out of the 7mm-08.

August 18, 2017, 09:57 PM	#36
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	Barnes used to make .270 bullets up to 180, I think that earlier they went higher. They made .308 up to 250, again, I think that they were even heavier when Fred himself was making them. People had barrels cut to use them. They believed in the high sectional density high velocity formula. __________________ None.