264 Win Mag

L

ligonierbill

New member
I've often purchased a rifle for the caliber; it's my obsession. But this time I wanted the rifle, and the caliber came with it. So I'm fixin' to load some.

Interesting that Winchester issued a 6.5mm round in 1958. All the rage now, but certainly not then. There was the Swede, of course (yes I have one) and the 256 Newton. Talk about ahead of his time, Charlie Newton developed a 6.5mm based on the 30-06 (256 refers to the lands) in 1913. And there are even a couple for sale on GB, albeit very pricey.

Now, I know the 264 Win Mag is pretty much a dead round. If not killed by the 7 Mag, the current crop of 6.5s have certainly finished it. Doesn't bother me. So who's loading this round, and what can you share?
 
Have no real experience with this particular round. So forgive me if I say something inaccurate.

I'm afraid you will have to handload. Die set can be had for a bit more money. I know a place or two who have those if you are interested.

6.5mm lighter bullet on a big belted brass can produce a lot of speed. However, the 300wm has a nickname, neckless wonder. In order to accommodate longer bullets, the brass neck is shortened. That also implies limit on heavier (longer) bullet with higher BC. I expect similar issues with its 6.5mm variance.

High speed, low BC, light bullet is a combination that I don't like. Monkeying a ballistic calculator you will see why. I'd rather have heavier, higher BC bullet at lower speed. It is more efficient and as effective. That means I may choose other rounds over this one.

-TL



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
I load for a 6.5-06, which in the 100fps neighborhood of the 264. 120/129 cup and core were bombs at 3000fps. 140s were little better, so I stuck on 125 Partitions.
 
I'm putting together, a piece at a time when I find extra money to spend, an ar-10 upper in 7mm SAUM. Can't wait when I get hold of the last component.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
The .264 Win Mag has a reputation as a barrel burner. Certainly true with full house loads of the IMR powders available in the 50s through the 70s. It may not be the most overbore cartridge out there, but it must be in the top few.

For a while, Winchester put a 26" stainless barrel on the model 70s in .264. Didn't do much to solve the rapid throat erosion issue.

You're shoving a rather large bucket full of powder down a rather small hole each shot, and that tends to erode barrel steel faster than smaller, more "balanced" cartridges. You might have better barrel life with some of the newer powders on the market today, I don't know for certain.

The .264 Win Mag is also very LOUD. (again, lots of powder, small pipe). Was hunting chucks with friends one time, (back in the 70s) where we shot .222s, .22-250s, even .25-06 without raising any eyebrows. One time a guy brough his .264. After a handful of shots, the farmer who owned the place showed up, asking, "just what the hell we were using", because he thought someone was dynamiting his stock pond! :eek:

Once he was shown the monster magnum long range chuck rifle, he was fine with it. Thought it was stupid, but he was ok with us using it. :rolleyes:

Get a good set of dies (don't cheap out), I recommend RCBS, and don't worry about ammo, as cases can be formed from the plentiful 7mm Rem Mag or some of the other common magnum brass.

I don't have or load for the .264 Win, so I can't share load details, always wanted one, never got around to getting one, all I can offer is keep track of your loads, round count, barrel throat and accuracy. From what I've always heard, if you get a couple thousand rounds before the barrel is toast, you're doing better than most.

I'm sure exceptions exist. Good Luck and enjoy!
 
Your .264 is just a case of taking a good thing too far.

Our friend .44 Amp already gave you all the details.

The 25-06 was almost too far.........some would say it got there.

Unless it's a single shot it's not a handy gun.

Big boomers with 26 inch barrels can be entertaining as something to show off.

Like a trophy wife........they can also be a little too much.
 
wont touch the point made above ^ but i will offer this, the 243 is also noted as a "barrel burner" (without controversy not as much as the 264, but still...) if you have enough twist for it, the longer barrel with slower burning powder and heaver bullets will extend both your range and barrel life, some times even doubling it. at least in the 243, as well as upping the velocity. it's a win win situation if you have enough twist to stabilize the pill.

just a couple pennies worth
 
Over the years I have realized that speed is pretty much meaningless. By that I mean when you look at ballistics, get out past 300 yards and no matter what the velocity, you get a big drop.

In the end I hunted with 7mm factory as it shot as well as anything I loaded up and it was a few sight in shots before hunting season and one shot during (if I got anything, sometimes no shots)

When I went to target shooting, I load as low as I can get velocity wise with accuracy.

There is some advantage to speed if longer distances and wind but........

If its a fun cartridge for the owner that works. 6.5 was a serious cartridge back in the day, Italy, Japan and the Swedes (probably some more).

With shot placement that is true of all rounds and the right bullet, it works as good as anything.
 
hmmm
zero'd @ 100 yds 243win 107gr smk @2920 ft/s MV the drop at 400yds is 5.23 moa

zero'd @ 50 yds ruger american 22lr with 36gr federal HP 1280 ft/s MV the drop is 6.25 moa

apples and bananas i know, but i would say speed is everything.
 
Thanks for the input GeauxTide. That's probably why Sierra cuts off their loads for 130 and 140 grain bullets at 3,000. I'm going to give the Barnes 127 LRX a try. My limited experience with these bullets is all good, but every rifle is different.

PS: No one has mentioned it, but I did consider that this barrel may already be shot out. But if that's the case, I'll just go with something sensible, like a 26 Nosler. That's not a magnum, is it?
 
Last edited:
My older Hornady book shows loads to 3200fps from a 24" barrel with their 129gr bullets.

Not sure if its economically practical today, but in the old days, if only the throat was toast, one way of restoring the accuracy was to have the barrel set back and rechambered so the eroded throat was removed by the newly cut chamber. Yes, that did shorten the barrel a bit, but often restored accuracy at the cost of a few fps performance loss.

As far as speed matters, it depends on what you're doing and how much speed there is. Speed affect time of flight, and along with bullet shape (BC) that affects drop and wind drift.

A hundred to two hundred fps usually doesn't make much practical difference, but 400-600fps + can, and often does.

For example, a .224" slug at 3200fps (.223 Rem) and the same slug at 3800fps (.22-250) are significantly different critters.

Likewise a 400gr .45 slug at 1300fps (.45-70) and the same slug at 1800 (hot handload .45-70 in a suitable rifle) are VERY different things, on both ends!! :D
 
I've never been particularly impressed with the .264.

I was never able to get really good accuracy out of the ones I worked with, it can be very hard on barrels, and to be honest, for the amount of powder that it consumes, the ballistics just aren't that special.

Plus, it's on a belted case, and I abhor belted cases.
 
I once discouraged a coworker from buying a .264 on the grounds of short barrel life. But he was not a high volume shooter and it would have lasted him a long time, I should have let him have his fun.

All I can suggest to the OP is to crack the manuals and do one of those quickie ladders to get a load without much shooting.
 
I've got several that are far worse bore roasters than the 264 mag--just as long as you are "eyes open" what you're getting into and know you'll likely need a replacement barrel soon if you use it for anything beyond "once a year get a tag filled"--well then, go for it!

I do a few things to try to prolong barrel life as best I can. When I develop a load, I only shoot 5 or 6 cartridges at a time and generally time the shots pretty far apart. I generally try to find moderate speed loads--just because it can go much faster doesn't mean you have to. I keep the bore scrupulously clean and try to use a powder that gives as clean a burn as possible (avoid the sand-blast effect). I also use Miltec to try to "condition" the metal (though I have no idea whether or not it has any real benefit to resist heat damage; they say it does). I've also read that cryo treatment helps with over-bore cartridge barrels.
 
As usual, the discussion wanders, and no one really answers the original question. Well, I guess we did. The answer is, "No", nobody here is loading 264 Win Mag. But also as usual, a lot of points made and opinions expressed. That's great; it would get boring otherwise. So I will offer some responses.

Belts. They were only necessary on the originals, of course. But a lot of people grabbed those big cases and started developing their own. Why they didn't go with the 404 Jeffery is beyond me. But people actually started expecting a belt on a "magnum". I blame Roy Weatherby. But you know, those rounds did, and still do, work just fine. The 257 Weatherby (1944) is still a hell of a round. Have one. My other "belted magnums" include 7mm Rem Mag, 300 H&H (actually uses the belt), 8mm Rem Mag, 338 Win Mag, and 416 Rem Mag. I've only shot critters with the 7 and the 338, but they certainly did the job. As a loader, the belt is a minor nuisance easily avoided.

MPBR. A combination of ballistic coefficient and muzzle velocity. If you have to pick one, it's BC, but why not both? "Hold on hair" was Roy Weatherby's mantra, and I'm starting to think that way. Nosler introduced their 26 Nosler as a MPBR cartridge. And, by the way, that round leaves my 264 in the shade.

"Magnums" in general. The term has fallen out of favor. Nosler doesn't call their big cartridges that, nor does Lapua. They kick! Oh my! They're unnecessary. That's true. We could really all hunt with a 30-06. But, you know, I tolerate recoil fairly well. And I like that MPBR with some punch at the end. It's every hunter's choice, so long as his marksmanship matches his ambition.

The rifle I've bought is a Flaig "Ace" with a 26" barrel and a (forgive my weakness) muzzle brake. L, S & B is the seller, and they always post a professional review. (I know. They rated the bore on a gun I sold through them a "4".) This one is "8", so I don't think it's shot out. Flaigs is a part of my youth. Went there with my Dad. And the gun was restocked with a HS Precision worth almost as much as I paid. So I am going to have some fun.
 
Jeffrey is parent brass of a few new cartridges; 7mm SAUM and 7mm WSM. Magnum is supposed to be long. Those new rounds are more fat and stocky, rather than being slender.

The next caliber I'm going to tinker is 7mm SAUM. Staying with short action is economical for me.

Nothing wrong with having both BC and speed. But having high MV at the expense of BC is suboptimal. I'm afraid that's what the old magnum brass offers.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
"Well, I guess we did. The answer is, "No", nobody here is loading 264 Win Mag. "

I loaded my fair share of .264 in the early 2000s.

As with every other belted cartridge I've ever had the "joy and privilege" of loading, I don't care for it.

"Belts. They were only necessary on the originals, of course."

Actually, they really weren't necessary even then. H&H came up with the belted cartridge, allegedly as a means of better controlling headspace for rifles that would be used in Africa and Asia in very hot conditions.

Given that there were many very successful non-belted cartridges used in Africa in the same time frame (.416 Rigby, .425 Westley Richards, etc.) I understand the intent, but I don't think it really solved any problems and it was H&H's way of trying to stand out in the crowd.

I think the durability of the belt on magnum cartridges is likely very much what you said -- people expected it given the phenomenal popularity of the .375 H&H as an all round do everything rifle and, to a large degree in the United States from Ben Comfort, who used a .300 H&H Magnum to win the Wimbledon Cup at Camp Perry in 1935.

Back to loading...

I used IMR powders -- 4064 and 4032 -- and W760 with 140 gr. bullets.

I got the best accuracy with 4064 (but it was nothing to write home about) and, IIRC, the best velocity with W760, but 760 seemed to give significantly higher pressures.

I wanted to try a slower powder like Reloader 22, but at the time it wasn't available for some reason.

I finally decided to pack it in when things just weren't heading the way I wanted and returned the rifle to the primary owner and that was that.

Like you, I've always been quite fond of 6.5mms, primarily military 6.5s and especially the Japanese Arisaka cartridge. I feel that it is truly an overlooked gem.

Anyway, the powder selection for .264 is significantly better today than it was 25 or so years ago when I was messing with it, so best of luck.
 
Tangolima, what does brass have to do with ballistic coefficient? That is a characteristic of the bullet. I can load a 130 SGK 6.5mm bullet in a 6.5x55 (I do), a 264 Win Mag (I will), or a 260, a 26 Nosler, etc, and it will have the same ballistic coefficient.

Mike Irwin, I'm looking at Reloder 25, Ramshot Magnum, and Vihtavouri N568.
 
Last edited:
From old reading, the factory WW 140 was a "two diameter" bullet because the chamber has no cylindrical throat, just the 2 deg. leade into the rifling.

The .26 Nosler has about 0.11", the 6.5 CM at 0.2" is getting close to "freebore." Room for more bullet to hang out of the neck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top