The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 14, 2017, 05:42 PM   #26
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 3,778
Quote:
and with a 36" barrel you can mount 9 of them in your canoe and have your own mini battleship...
I cant, because I don't have a canoe. Would my jon boat work?
reynolds357 is offline  
Old November 14, 2017, 11:11 PM   #27
Roadkill2228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2014
Location: Nipawin, Saskatchewan
Posts: 249
As intriguing as the large cased 6.5s are, I would personally shy away from them. If I were to get a 6.5 of some flavor, one of the more efficient ones would be on my list, 260 Rem 6.5 creedmoor. My reasoning is that, while the shove will be less, the magnums will still have all the biscuits kuzzle blast of a magnum without the hitting power. The new high bc bullets in 7mm and .30 cal are no less efficient than anything in 6.5 and their greater projectile mass provides more "insurance" when using projectiles designed to expand or fragment at long range. The 6.5 magnums require longer barrels for lesser performance and power with just as bad muzzle blast. The medium cased 6.5s are a different story. Low blast, very light recoil, normal barrel length, and the ability to carry game killing amounts of energy and penetrating mass out effectively to appreciably greater distances than other cartridge of their recoil and blast level (the .243 kind of sucks)
Roadkill2228 is offline  
Old November 15, 2017, 06:56 AM   #28
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 39,225
"Would my jon boat work?"

Nah, that's just an armed barge.

But you're right, the .264 really requires a longer barrel in order to shine, and therein lies the problem... it was never available from Winchester with anything longer than a 26" barrel, and often not even that. I don't believe that the offerings from any of the other manufacturers were any better, meaning that to really take advantage of the cartridge's potential, you had to rebarrel your gun with a custom tube.

Really easier just to buy a 7mm Remington Mag., which offered almost identical ballistics but with a heavier bullet. And it didn't have nearly the reputation for washing out leads and throats that the .264 did.

And that's what most people seemed to do.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old November 15, 2017, 10:48 AM   #29
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 3,778
My experience is that the 264 win mag chewed up and spit out factory Winchester barrels. Stainless Liljas have a very acceptable life. I shoot one of my win mags in 1k competition when the wind is howling.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old November 15, 2017, 06:43 PM   #30
muzzleblast...
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2015
Location: Obwat, TN
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by reynolds357 View Post
My experience is that the 264 win mag chewed up and spit out factory Winchester barrels. Stainless Liljas have a very acceptable life.
Same here, except I went with Shilen. Had the smith leave a couple of extra inches on the tube.
muzzleblast... is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05139 seconds with 10 queries