264 Winchester Magnum

salasj · 11-15-2007, 07:24 PM

Does anyone have any load info for this round?

Lng Rng · 11-15-2007, 11:45 PM

Only thing I know about it is that when it first came out, it got the reputation as a barrel burner, and never recovered. They switched powders, and solved the problem, but it still has never been a popular round. I think it fires a 140 gr bullet around 3100 fps, but I could be wrong.

If you want something ballisticaly similar, I would go with a 270 WSM or 7mm Rem mag.

Midas · 11-15-2007, 11:50 PM

I'm not trying to be bossy, but you would be much better off with a 7mm Rem Mag.

lefty o · 11-16-2007, 10:03 AM

pick up a couple of loading manuals. getting load data from people you dont know on the internet is not in my opinion a great idea.

Ron AKA · 12-23-2007, 11:05 PM

I think the 264 is an excellent and very underrated cartridge. It has a very flat tragectory. Not surprising in that there are so many similar cartriges out there to be had. I have two of them, one (Remington 700 with SS barrel) which I bought as a teenager in the 1960's, and another (Browning) which I inherited from my father and was purchased a bit earlier. My father replaced the barrel on the Browning, because it seem to have a bit of trouble in keeping a tight pattern in target shooting compared to my Remington. It could have been that that barrel was "shot out", or it also could have been the age difference, or the trigger. I recall the Browning trigger to be hard and long to pull. I don't use it.

No idea how many rounds went through each gun. We reloaded and I estimate that we got about 20 rounds out of each cartridge. Typically I used 7 mm Remington brass (not necessarily Remington brand) and just sized it down to .264. The cartridges typically gave up by developing a split in the neck.

To answer your question, I did the reloading and typically used three differnet rounds. The 87 grain Speer was for fun. It did an amazing job of blowing up cans filled with water. 4831 was the powder and you put in as much as the case could hold - 70-71 grains? 100 grain Sierra was the coyote load, and was around 68 grains of the same powder, if I recall properly. 140 grain Sierra's were used for deer, and I recall about 62 grains. Later I used 140 grain Nostler for moose, and I can attest from first hand experience that this load has no problem bringing down a moose, just as well as my hunting partner using a 7 mm Remington. 160 grains was available but I believe is too big for this bore. In the early days the 4831 used was surplus machine gun power from the second world war, and you could get it for about $1 per lb.. Hodgson, later came out which a so called equivalent when the WWII suplus supply ran out.

I think if your range of use is coyotes to moose, then this is an excellent choice. If it is elk and moose only then as suggested by an earlier poster, then the 7 mm Remington is just as good or better. If you do a bit of research then I think you will conclude that the barrel burning reputation is a bit undeserved.

If you post again, and I remember to come back here, I can look up the specific loads. The guide I found is the the primer dimple. You can tolerate a bit of a ring around the firing pin dent, but not too much! You do have to work up to that in a safe manner, as the power available now is not the same as it used to be.

Hope that helps some.

nathangdad · 12-24-2007, 12:14 AM

There are several good reloading manuals by various firms in the marketplace. You might want to visit some of the local gunshops to find a manual or, at least, get a good reference. Having several different manuals will most likely give you a wide range of loads with different bullet weights.

Ron AKA · 12-24-2007, 09:45 AM

I dug out my old Lyman reloading manual, and found my memory was pretty good. Here are the loads for 4831 powder. Wt in grains, and velocity in f/s.

Bullet Wt - Suggested load, Velocity, Max Load, Velocity
87 - 68, 3438, 72, 3816
100 - 65, 3323, 69, 3555
140 - 60, 3059, 64, 3226

The next best powder looks to be the 4350, but I never used it so could not comment on how it performs. Here are the numbers:

87 - 63, 3473, 67, 3676
100 - 61, 3344, 65, 3510
140 - 55, 2960, 59, 3145

It used to be the other powders such as 4350 were much higher priced than the 4831, so I never really considered using them.

As always, start with the lowest load, and then work up, keeping an eye on what the primer looks like. The flatter the primer and the more obvious the dimpled rim around the firing pin indent, the higher the pressure.

300wsman · 12-24-2007, 10:15 AM

I'm getting the same vel. out of my 7-08/139 gr. sst's with 10 gr les powder.
300

Ron AKA · 12-24-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300wsman

I'm getting the same vel. out of my 7-08/139 gr. sst's with 10 gr les powder.
300

Perhaps at muzzle, but at 300 yards?

win39 · 02-13-2008, 06:10 AM

I agree with lefty O. Get a good reloading manual and find a load to work up. It's OK to ask for recommendations to see what other bullets and powder people are using. But check the manuals first, because this may be a home brew and you don't know if it will work in your gun. I would not use any load unless I found it in a manual. As far as the 264 Win. Mag is concerned, I don't have one, never have, but I plan on building one soon as stated in a thread that I started earlier. From what I have read and heard from people that owned them, it's an awesome caliber. Someone summed it up for me by saying this caliber was before it's time and the materials in barrels have improved. It was also brought to my attention that this caliber performs best with a 26" Barrel

Ron AKA · 02-13-2008, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by win39

I agree with lefty O. Get a good reloading manual and find a load to work up. It's OK to ask for recommendations to see what other bullets and powder people are using. But check the manuals first, because this may be a home brew and you don't know if it will work in your gun. I would not use any load unless I found it in a manual. As far as the 264 Win. Mag is concerned, I don't have one, never have, but I plan on building one soon as stated in a thread that I started earlier. From what I have read and heard from people that owned them, it's an awesome caliber. Someone summed it up for me by saying this caliber was before it's time and the materials in barrels have improved. It was also brought to my attention that this caliber performs best with a 26" Barrel

Remington supplied them with stainless barrels from day one. I have one that was made in the 60's and it shoots fine. They still sell them, and yes 26" or even 28" will pay in some extra velocity -- about 30-40 fps per extra inch. The Remington Sendero comes with a 26" 416 SS barrel.

Remington Model 700™ Sendero® SF II Specifications

rdale501 · 02-14-2008, 01:35 AM

All I can say is I have one and like it. Its a Mod.700 Rem. It's very accurate. It is an absolute deer killer. I has modest recoil. It got a bad reputation early on which was not true.

wirehunt · 02-15-2008, 06:08 AM

Interesting stuff. I'm just in the process of a rifle build and trying to decide between this calibre or 6.5/06, or maybe a hot running 260....

Ron AKA · 02-15-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wirehunt

Interesting stuff. I'm just in the process of a rifle build and trying to decide between this calibre or 6.5/06, or maybe a hot running 260....

There is also the 6.5mm RM, which Reminton is trying to get going again. From left to right: 260 Rem, 6.5mm RM. 264 WM, & 6.5x55. The 264 seems to be the powder capacity champ -- which is why it likes a long barrel.

If you are going to the trouble to have a custom barrel done, I would check into the issue of headspace and belted cases. Some believe that it is harder to properly headspace a belted cartridge. See this article, but keep in mind the author is selling something. I have reloaded my 264 cases up to 20 times without seeing evidence of the brass separation issue in front of the belt.

Headspace

Ron

samuel · 02-15-2008, 02:27 PM

I was going to answer that 20 times bit but will only tell others to be more cautious. sam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300wsman

I'm getting the same vel. out of my 7-08/139 gr. sst's with 10 gr les powder.
300

Yessir!I swallowed that one too. sam.

Odie · 02-15-2008, 05:22 PM

The .264 Win. Mag. is a manufacturing flop as far as rifle calibers are concerned. The .264WM is a flat shooter but unless you're a serious reloader and LOVE this caliber I would NOT purchase one. The 7mm Rem. Mag. is a superior choice, there is an abundance of factory loads compared to the .264, ammo is readily available for the 7mm compared to the .264WM, The 7mm is even a better choice for reloaders with a larger selection of bullets to choose from. And it will easily do anything and more that the .264 WM will do. As far as recoil is concerned bullet wt powder combinations play a role AND a biggy - stock design - I personally owned a Browning Stainless Stalker in 7mm Rem. Mag and at the shooting range it had the same or less recoil than my Remington BDL LSS in .30-06. I have heard that Winchester rifles are some of the hardest kicking rifles compared to Brownings and Remingtons of the same caliber. I personally shoot factory loaded Hornady Light Magnums w/150gr. SP Interlock bullets. My personal 100yd grps are at 1" w/ this load (this rifle has a factory 24" barrel), but I can't wait to see how accurately it will shoot the factory loaded Hornady Light Magnum w/ the 150gr. SST Interlock. Recoil w/ the Light Magnum loads is definitely more hefty! The .30-06 with a 24" barrel, approx. 100 factory loads to choose from and handload options galore make it more ideal than many other calibers, particularly magnums of similar power levels. The majority of magnums require a 26" barrel to achieve factory ballistics, gulp considerably more powder for the small performance jump obtained, weigh more, cost more to shoot/buy, and kick harder than most people are comfortable with. The '06 will seriously compete with the 7mm Rem. Mag and .300 Mags.(H&H and Win.). Ammo can be bought at any place that sells ammo. Conclusion - .264WM - trade for a more common caliber. Choose based on type of game you plan on hunting, shooting ranges (be honest with yourself), and if you must have a magnum, I would seriously look at the short magnums available. They provide similar performance as the long action magnums with less powder, shorter barrels (most acheive factory ballistics w/ a 24" barrel compared to 26"w/ long action magnums), slightly less recoil (every bit makes a difference in a shooters accuracy), and short action are typically more accurate than long actions because they are more rigid. As far a reload info. goes I have to agree w/ another writer. UNLESS YOU KNOW OR COMPLETELY TRUST SOMEONE, OBTAINING RELOADING INFO FROM ANY SOURCE OTHER THAN THE ABUNDANCE OF RELOADING MANUALS AVAILABE IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS! I would hate to see anyone harmed or killed because of such a mistake, as reloading can be extremely dangerous if not performed w/ extreme care and caution.

Ron AKA · 02-15-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samuel

I was going to answer that 20 times bit but will only tell others to be more cautious. sam

Sam, I'm not sure I follow your post. However, if you are questioning my account of getting 20 reloads out of one case in the 264, I will admit I have not kept detailed records. It was an estimate I made a while back (as I don't shoot that gun often anymore), and was based on the number of bullets I bought and how many cartridge cases I have.

One thing I am absolutely sure on is the cause of death of the cases I've thrown away. Every one split at the neck, or a snake-eye opened up and they nearly split. I'll admit to reloading a few of the snake-eye variety if it was really small! Never seen evidence of the separation near the belt. Now, if I took the time to anneal the neck area, then possibly the case separation may have become an issue.

These results apply only to my gun (Remington 700), and other guns which potentially have different belt vs shoulder headspace dimensions, may perform quite differently.

On the 7mm-08 I question how you could get similar performance as a 264, using a 140 gr. bullet. There is no free lunch.

Ron

wirehunt · 02-16-2008, 11:38 PM

I've never even heard of the 6.5 RM Ron so I'll be looking into that, thanks. Where does the 6.5/06 fit in with those in that photo?

Ron AKA · 02-17-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wirehunt

I've never even heard of the 6.5 RM Ron so I'll be looking into that, thanks. Where does the 6.5/06 fit in with those in that photo?

The 6.5-06 is just a necked down 30-06 or 270 case. Some info at the link below. I believe it is still a wildcat.

6.5mm-06 / 256-06

Compared to the 264 the case size on the 6.5-06 will only be about 0.1" shorter to the shoulder. The main difference is that the diameter at the shoulder is .436" on the 06 compared to .491" on the 264. So the 264 gains most of the extra powder capacity on diameter. You can find dimensions on quite a few cartridges here:

The Reload Bench: Cartridge Specifications

There is also the 6.5 mm 06 Ackley Improved.

Some info on it here.

6.5mm06 AI

Ron

wirehunt · 02-23-2008, 04:36 AM

I know of a guy with a 6.5/06 AI that has a lot of trouble gets bullets to hold together.

11-15-2007, 07:24 PM	#1
salasj Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: colorado Posts: 2	264 Winchester Magnum Does anyone have any load info for this round?

11-15-2007, 11:50 PM	#3
Midas Troll B' Gone Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Springdale, Arkansas Posts: 3,788 Images: 2 Blog Entries: 6	I'm not trying to be bossy, but you would be much better off with a 7mm Rem Mag. __________________ "Recoil lasts for a second, gravity lasts forever"

12-23-2007, 11:05 PM	#5
Ron AKA Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 704	I think the 264 is an excellent and very underrated cartridge. It has a very flat tragectory. Not surprising in that there are so many similar cartriges out there to be had. I have two of them, one (Remington 700 with SS barrel) which I bought as a teenager in the 1960's, and another (Browning) which I inherited from my father and was purchased a bit earlier. My father replaced the barrel on the Browning, because it seem to have a bit of trouble in keeping a tight pattern in target shooting compared to my Remington. It could have been that that barrel was "shot out", or it also could have been the age difference, or the trigger. I recall the Browning trigger to be hard and long to pull. I don't use it. No idea how many rounds went through each gun. We reloaded and I estimate that we got about 20 rounds out of each cartridge. Typically I used 7 mm Remington brass (not necessarily Remington brand) and just sized it down to .264. The cartridges typically gave up by developing a split in the neck. To answer your question, I did the reloading and typically used three differnet rounds. The 87 grain Speer was for fun. It did an amazing job of blowing up cans filled with water. 4831 was the powder and you put in as much as the case could hold - 70-71 grains? 100 grain Sierra was the coyote load, and was around 68 grains of the same powder, if I recall properly. 140 grain Sierra's were used for deer, and I recall about 62 grains. Later I used 140 grain Nostler for moose, and I can attest from first hand experience that this load has no problem bringing down a moose, just as well as my hunting partner using a 7 mm Remington. 160 grains was available but I believe is too big for this bore. In the early days the 4831 used was surplus machine gun power from the second world war, and you could get it for about $1 per lb.. Hodgson, later came out which a so called equivalent when the WWII suplus supply ran out. I think if your range of use is coyotes to moose, then this is an excellent choice. If it is elk and moose only then as suggested by an earlier poster, then the 7 mm Remington is just as good or better. If you do a bit of research then I think you will conclude that the barrel burning reputation is a bit undeserved. If you post again, and I remember to come back here, I can look up the specific loads. The guide I found is the the primer dimple. You can tolerate a bit of a ring around the firing pin dent, but not too much! You do have to work up to that in a safe manner, as the power available now is not the same as it used to be. Hope that helps some. Last edited by Ron AKA; 12-23-2007 at 11:10 PM.

12-24-2007, 12:14 AM	#6
nathangdad Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,438	Have you tried the major reloading manuals? There are several good reloading manuals by various firms in the marketplace. You might want to visit some of the local gunshops to find a manual or, at least, get a good reference. Having several different manuals will most likely give you a wide range of loads with different bullet weights.

12-24-2007, 09:45 AM	#7
Ron AKA Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 704	I dug out my old Lyman reloading manual, and found my memory was pretty good. Here are the loads for 4831 powder. Wt in grains, and velocity in f/s. Bullet Wt - Suggested load, Velocity, Max Load, Velocity 87 - 68, 3438, 72, 3816 100 - 65, 3323, 69, 3555 140 - 60, 3059, 64, 3226 The next best powder looks to be the 4350, but I never used it so could not comment on how it performs. Here are the numbers: 87 - 63, 3473, 67, 3676 100 - 61, 3344, 65, 3510 140 - 55, 2960, 59, 3145 It used to be the other powders such as 4350 were much higher priced than the 4831, so I never really considered using them. As always, start with the lowest load, and then work up, keeping an eye on what the primer looks like. The flatter the primer and the more obvious the dimpled rim around the firing pin indent, the higher the pressure. Last edited by Ron AKA; 12-24-2007 at 09:49 AM.

11-15-2007, 11:45 PM	#2
Lng Rng Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 944	Only thing I know about it is that when it first came out, it got the reputation as a barrel burner, and never recovered. They switched powders, and solved the problem, but it still has never been a popular round. I think it fires a 140 gr bullet around 3100 fps, but I could be wrong. If you want something ballisticaly similar, I would go with a 270 WSM or 7mm Rem mag.

11-16-2007, 10:03 AM	#4
lefty o Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: mn Posts: 4,785	pick up a couple of loading manuals. getting load data from people you dont know on the internet is not in my opinion a great idea.

12-24-2007, 10:15 AM	#8
300wsman Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 42	I'm getting the same vel. out of my 7-08/139 gr. sst's with 10 gr les powder. 300

02-13-2008, 06:10 AM	#10
win39 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 201	I agree with lefty O. Get a good reloading manual and find a load to work up. It's OK to ask for recommendations to see what other bullets and powder people are using. But check the manuals first, because this may be a home brew and you don't know if it will work in your gun. I would not use any load unless I found it in a manual. As far as the 264 Win. Mag is concerned, I don't have one, never have, but I plan on building one soon as stated in a thread that I started earlier. From what I have read and heard from people that owned them, it's an awesome caliber. Someone summed it up for me by saying this caliber was before it's time and the materials in barrels have improved. It was also brought to my attention that this caliber performs best with a 26" Barrel __________________ Benny

02-14-2008, 01:35 AM	#12
rdale501 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: oregon Posts: 398	All I can say is I have one and like it. Its a Mod.700 Rem. It's very accurate. It is an absolute deer killer. I has modest recoil. It got a bad reputation early on which was not true.

02-15-2008, 06:08 AM	#13
wirehunt Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Otago New Zealand Posts: 651	Interesting stuff. I'm just in the process of a rifle build and trying to decide between this calibre or 6.5/06, or maybe a hot running 260.... __________________ Happy Hunting

02-15-2008, 05:22 PM	#16
Odie Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1	.264 Win. Mag. The .264 Win. Mag. is a manufacturing flop as far as rifle calibers are concerned. The .264WM is a flat shooter but unless you're a serious reloader and LOVE this caliber I would NOT purchase one. The 7mm Rem. Mag. is a superior choice, there is an abundance of factory loads compared to the .264, ammo is readily available for the 7mm compared to the .264WM, The 7mm is even a better choice for reloaders with a larger selection of bullets to choose from. And it will easily do anything and more that the .264 WM will do. As far as recoil is concerned bullet wt powder combinations play a role AND a biggy - stock design - I personally owned a Browning Stainless Stalker in 7mm Rem. Mag and at the shooting range it had the same or less recoil than my Remington BDL LSS in .30-06. I have heard that Winchester rifles are some of the hardest kicking rifles compared to Brownings and Remingtons of the same caliber. I personally shoot factory loaded Hornady Light Magnums w/150gr. SP Interlock bullets. My personal 100yd grps are at 1" w/ this load (this rifle has a factory 24" barrel), but I can't wait to see how accurately it will shoot the factory loaded Hornady Light Magnum w/ the 150gr. SST Interlock. Recoil w/ the Light Magnum loads is definitely more hefty! The .30-06 with a 24" barrel, approx. 100 factory loads to choose from and handload options galore make it more ideal than many other calibers, particularly magnums of similar power levels. The majority of magnums require a 26" barrel to achieve factory ballistics, gulp considerably more powder for the small performance jump obtained, weigh more, cost more to shoot/buy, and kick harder than most people are comfortable with. The '06 will seriously compete with the 7mm Rem. Mag and .300 Mags.(H&H and Win.). Ammo can be bought at any place that sells ammo. Conclusion - .264WM - trade for a more common caliber. Choose based on type of game you plan on hunting, shooting ranges (be honest with yourself), and if you must have a magnum, I would seriously look at the short magnums available. They provide similar performance as the long action magnums with less powder, shorter barrels (most acheive factory ballistics w/ a 24" barrel compared to 26"w/ long action magnums), slightly less recoil (every bit makes a difference in a shooters accuracy), and short action are typically more accurate than long actions because they are more rigid. As far a reload info. goes I have to agree w/ another writer. UNLESS YOU KNOW OR COMPLETELY TRUST SOMEONE, OBTAINING RELOADING INFO FROM ANY SOURCE OTHER THAN THE ABUNDANCE OF RELOADING MANUALS AVAILABE IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS! I would hate to see anyone harmed or killed because of such a mistake, as reloading can be extremely dangerous if not performed w/ extreme care and caution.

02-16-2008, 11:38 PM	#18
wirehunt Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Otago New Zealand Posts: 651	I've never even heard of the 6.5 RM Ron so I'll be looking into that, thanks. Where does the 6.5/06 fit in with those in that photo? __________________ Happy Hunting

02-23-2008, 04:36 AM	#20
wirehunt Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Otago New Zealand Posts: 651	I know of a guy with a 6.5/06 AI that has a lot of trouble gets bullets to hold together. __________________ Happy Hunting