257 Weatherby Mag vs. 264 Win Mag

257 Weatherby vs. 264 Win Mag

  • 257 Weatherby

    Votes: 33 50.8%

  • 264 Win Mag.

    Votes: 28 43.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • Total voters
    65
The Weatherby cartridge might be more expensive, but at least you can find it (albeit, not at your local WalMart store). .264 Winchester is getting harder and harder to locate-at least in my neck of the woods.

Either cartridge will benefit greatly from a barrel at least 24" long-and one 26" long might be optimum when trying to balance ballistics with practicality in terms of carrying/handling.
 
I haven't used the 264 Win Mag but know two guys who HAD one and could never get them to shoot as accurately as they wanted.
The 257 really needs a 26" barrel to come into it's best performance. Mine is a Vanguard with the 24" and it's just a little better than my 25/06 also with 24" while using a LOT more powder.
Regarding the ammo cost-Wby sells a cheaper type of ammo which uses Norma brass and bullets for about $30/box. Lots of shops don't carry it because you have to order in case lots and it doesn't use the name brand bullets. I ki9lled 3 whitetail does last fall with 1 shot each using this plainjane ammo. Another way to economize on ammo is to use formed .264 Win brass. This brass comes out just a hair short but that's not really an issue since the 257 has a long neck anyway.
 
I have and enjoy both. the 257 has alot more differnt bullets available and there easier to come by as most gun shops stock them. the 264 has the advantage of being about to load heavier bullets for a big larger game animal. Brass is more expensive for the wby but easier to find. Both have simular recoil and both are flat shooting hard hitting guns.
 
Thanks

Thank you Art,it says WIN.264 on the barrel.I admit i am not at all smart about guns.I have recently gotten interested though. I have been trading guitars for guns! I was going to start a music store but the building i had put a dep. on turned out to be a money pit.Anyhow,i advertised online and have been getting guns ever since.It's interesting.
 
Mobuck said:
The 257 really needs a 26" barrel to come into it's best performance.
Click to expand...

Yes, I myself would definitely want at least a 26" barrel for the .257 or the .264. and full Weatherby free bore on the .257.

If you go with a 24" or less barrel, you might as well just go with a .25-06, or .6.5-06, because that is the range of velocities you will be achieving.
 
sorry but i dont agree. Ive got a 24 in 264 and it sure does give a 120 a much faster velocity then my 2506 and i also have two 257s one has a 24 inch barrel and the other a 26 and my 24 inch gun actually will shoot the same load faster then the 26. Ive allways wondered why guys thought that the 264 needed a 26 inch barrel and the 7mag only a 24. there about identical. Those kind of thoughts came from back when the powders available now didnt exist. My 264 will push a 120 to 3300. Even my 26 inch #1 2506 wont quite reach 3100 with the same weight bullet. Actually the same goes for the 2506. Guys will think nothing of buying a 243 270 or 06 with a 22 inch barrel but think you absoultely need a 24 with a 2506. Velocity loss with each inch of barrel lenght is no more for a 2506 then it is a 270. Im not saying that adding 2 inches of barrel lenght to any of the wont USUALLY at velocity but those old opinions of what barrel lenght is needed for each caliber is just that. An OPINION
 
Good point, Lloyd. Ballistically speaking, lots of things that seem to "should be", when put to the test sometimes raises more questions than answers.
 
Lloyd, on an average of all barrels, longer is generally faster. Folks who do a lot of testing over a chronograph have long commented about the occasional variations they find--but the key word is "occasional".

Loose bore, tight bore, all those little variables...

I've seen beaucoup writeups for "cut off one inch at a time" chronographing over these last several decades. The velocity loss per inch ranges from 40 ft/sec to 100 ft/sec, depending on the cartridge. But that's for any one barrel, and not all barrels are identical.
 
Lets consider the .257 caliber and 100 grain projectiles.

Weatherby lists a velocity of 3600 fps for the .257 Wea 100 grain offering. All their published velocities are taken with 26" barrels. I haven't seen all hand loading references, but 3500-3600fps is usually the top velocities they publish. Perhaps there are, but I can't find any experimenters doing any better than that either. Weatherby already has it pretty much maxed out. The 25-06 can achieve 3200 fps+ from a 24" barrel, according to published factory and load manual data. Also you can find people claiming quite a bit more, but for honesties sake we can stick to published data.

Its entirely possible to lose a 100fps per inch with a .257 Weatherby. Its also possible to gain 30-50fps per inch with a 25-06. So, for me at least, that puts them too close to justify the expense of Weatherby brass alone. I personally, would hate to spend the money on a custom rifle and high dollar brass; only to find I was getting a 100fps velocity increase over a 25-06. After all, isn't velocity increase and subsequent trajectory flatness, what small caliber magnum rifles are all about?

Lloyd Smale said:
i also have two 257s one has a 24 inch barrel and the other a 26 and my 24 inch gun actually will shoot the same load faster then the 26.
Click to expand...

I don't see how comparing two different rifles with different barrel lenghts proves anything. Even if they are both .257 Weatherbys.

TL;DR For my money I'll go with the conventional wisdom, 26"+ barrel lengths for top velocity.
 
what it shows nate is that barrel lenght isnt the only thing in play when it comes to velocity. My whole point with this is that cutting 2 inches of barrel off of a 257 doesnt make it a 2506. If a 26 inch barrel was absouley needed in a 257 then theres no way my 24inch gun would shoot faster then my 26 and ill go back to my biggest pet peive with this crap. The 264. Back when it was introduced the so called experts claimed it was totaly overbore. A barrel burner with about any load and totaly useless without a 26 inch barrel. Now granted powders that are available now werent then and the slowest available was 4831 but at that same time in history guys were ranting about how good the 7mag was. there isnt two rounds that are any closer ballisticaly then those two. its funny nobody said back then that 24 inch 7mags didnt work. did they think that something majicaly happened when a 284 bullet was replaced by a .264 using the same case with both shooting 140 or 160 grain bullets? Id bet 75 percent of the 7 mags ever produced have 24 inch barrels. Funny how that round became probably the most popular western deer hunting round out there and the 264 died a fast death. What it came down to is a couple of know it all gun writers wrote a few bad things about its ballistics with factory ammo and called it a barrel burner which is rediculous. its no differnt in that respect then a 7mag, and the ammo companys never stepped up with decent ammo for it so it was pegged as a loud 270 which is far from the truth. Granted its no more then a 7mag but any handloader worth his salt thats worked with one knows its no 270. If its true that a 264 is useless with a 24 inch barrel ive sure fooled alot of deer.
 
I think alot of difference come if your buy or building looking at the 257Wby or 264mag.

I don't put much into hearing my 24" barrel is faster than my 26" barrel in the same caliber since no mention of what make are rifles and barrels and we sure don't hear what the velocity or loads are either.
 
This is an old thread but since it is back to life I have to vote for the .257 wby because I own one. Have never had a .264 so can't compare. I think somebody compared the .257 to a 7mm mag earlier in the thread. In my opinion my .257 is not comparable to my 7mm mag when it comes to moving up in game size.

The OP also mentioned doing a conversion with a Weatherby barrel. The chamber difference from a Weatherby with the head spacing done by the case belt makes me wonder how hard it would be to do a good conversion. ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top