264 Win Mag

ligonierbill said:
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.
Click to expand...
The cartridge's COAL and brass length limits the type of bullets that can be loaded. High BC bullets usually have long ogive. They may not fit if the brass is long. The brass neck can't stay on the bullet's bearing surface if you try to seat it lower to make it fit in magazine. 300 wm tries to improve this by shortening the brass neck, and hence the nickname.

Newer cartridges take the approach of fat and stocky brass, making them more accommodating to high BC bullets.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
I think something missing from the discussion is an appreciation of the technology of the time.

The .264 Win Mag showed up in 1958. Where were the very long hi BC bullets then? 20-30 (40?) some years in the future. It was made to use the "standard" 6.5mm bullets of the era, AND fit in a 30-06 length action. Max loaded length is exactly the same as the .30-06, at 3.340".

IT shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that it is not optimized for bullets that didn't exist when it was designed.

Belts on magnum cases? H&H is entirely responsible for both, the belt and the name "magnum". They took the word "magnum" from the wine industry, where it meant a larger than standard size bottle. And it was fitting as the "magnum" case was larger (and longer) than the standard size rounds of the day.

And, that day was back in 1912, the same year the Titanic sailed and sank. The .375 H&H case was 2.850" long, with a loaded length of 3.600". It is a long tapered case that does not have much of a shoulder.

H&H was concerned with reliable headspacing in bolt action rifles, and particularly dangerous game rifles, and the belt worked well for that, without the drawbacks of a large rim. Its not well remembered today, but H&H also produced the .375 Flanged (rimmed) Magnum for use in double rifles and single shots. Same case but no belt, it had a rim, instead.

In 1925 they introduced the .300 H&H, same length as the .375 but even more tapered with a long shallow shoulder and the belt to headspace on. Both rounds were very popular, and over the years since, were the main cases used by wildcatters to develop the belted magnums of the 50s and 60s.

Why did they go with the belted case, instead of using the .404 Jeffery or some other large non-belted case? Sure, it would have been more efficient, we know that, NOW, but the H&H belted case was available, and much cheaper than the .404 or other rounds.

Ackley "improved" the .300 H&H by blowing out the case to a much less tapered body and giving it a short steep shoulder. Weatherby (and others) took note of that and made their own magnums, all based on the H&H brass.

The buying public associated the belt with the high performance magnum rifle rounds as they all had them, since all (or nearly all) were based on the H&H belted case, because that's what the wildcatters had available to work with.

and that's what the market came to expect and demand, even when the case shoulders were adequate for reliable headspacing.

Winchester introduced three belted magnum rounds (all based on the H&H case, shortened and blown out) in the 50s, the .264, the .338, and the .458. Remington brought out their 7mm Magnum in 62, and Winchester's .300 Win Mag came along a year later. That was a bit over 60 years ago now.

Time marches on, technology advances, some things get better, others (like me) just seem to get older. :D

60 years ago we were driving on bias ply tires and burning leaded gas. A lot of our cars didn't even have seatbelts. Yes, we're a lot better off today, but back then, like the belted magnums, it was as good as it got in those days.
 
GeauxTide, I forgot to put my little emoji at the end of that statement:D

TL, I get your point now, but I'm not talking about the very long, very heavy for caliber bullets out recently. If it were just the leade, I could change that. But I won't have the twist rate. It will be a near thing with the 127 Barnes LRX and 130 Sierra TGK.

44AMP, true words. But you can't run a '64 Mustang on unleaded. You can run a .264 Win Mag on the newer powders. Vihtavouri's N568 came out just 3 years ago. Advertised for the latest round of high capacity cartridges, it works pretty good in the old ones, too.
 
Vihtavouri's N568 came out just 3 years ago. Advertised for the latest round of high capacity cartridges, it works pretty good in the old ones, too.
Click to expand...
I'm using VV powders more and more these days--used to be they were premium-priced compared to others--but now they are the same or less. That n568 looks interesting and I'll have to try as an alternative to LRT/H1000/Retumbo etc for the "biggie" 70 gr + cartridges I load for. I've found for "mid-ground" magnums, say in the 60gr +/- area, generally a somewhat faster powder works better and is more efficient, I use N555 a lot and it works great for some of those. H1000 is the "king" of big magnums for me-especially when paired with long barrels.
 
Last edited:
The first belted case cartridge, the .400/375, was introduced in 1905.

It wasn't intended to be a dangerous game cartridge -- it was a general purpose cartridge, around the same power as the 8mm Mauser or .30-06.

Reliable headspacing was already available with rimless dangerous game cartridges -- Jeffrey proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt with the .404 Jeffrey, which was also introduced in 1905.

It was doubly proved by the .425 Westley Richards, introduced in 1909, and triply proven with the .416 Rigby in 1911.

So, I continue to doubt that H&H was actually solving anything at all other than giving them a decidedly marketing driven "aura."
 
ligonierbill said:
TL, I get your point now, but I'm not talking about the very long, very heavy for caliber bullets out recently. If it were just the leade, I could change that. But I won't have the twist rate. It will be a near thing with the 127 Barnes LRX and 130 Sierra TGK.
Click to expand...

Like AMP44 said, such heavy bullets weren't available when the cartridge was first introduced. It would be restrictive to try today. Single loading is an option. With it's barrel burner reputation, it may be just a way to compensate for the eroded throat.

It is surely a fun caliber for chasing speed. But other than that, I would choose something else.

-TL



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
So, I continue to doubt that H&H was actually solving anything at all other than giving them a decidedly marketing driven "aura."
Click to expand...

You're probably right, and its definitely proven the belt isn't needed, when there is enough shoulder for positive headspacing.

But look at the way gunmakers / designers often worked back then. If they had doubts, they either didn't do it at all, or did something they had confidence in. And, there was also generally a space of a few years between someone proving something would work and it becoming the general practice.

H&H put belts on their long sloping cartridges because they had some doubts about headspacing those rounds on the shoulder and the believed the belt was the solution, if you didn't use an actual rim.

Browning's early pistol rounds are all semi rimmed cases. After the 9mm Luger proved a semi rim wasn't needed, his later rounds were rimless.

yes, the belt gave H&H something unique and became a factor in sales appeal.

There are none of the old original lever guns made in .45 Colt. True or not, the story is that the gunmakers at the time believed the rim wasn't enough to work reliably in a lever gun, so they never made any. Today the .45 Colt case has more rim than it originally did, and will work in lever guns.

Remember is wasn't just the physical dimensions or mechanical function alone it was also the attitudes of the times. It is tough today, for many of us, to remember how much they didn't know, and how much of what they did know has been proven unnecessary in the years since.
 
44 AMP said:
IT shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that it is not optimized for bullets that didn't exist when it was designed.
Click to expand...

From discussions with my dad about his .264 it may be the other-way-round at least partially. Designed for the .264 were bore-riding bullets with the fore part of the bullet a bit smaller than the base. Idea was to reduce bore friction with reduced contact with the lands and increase velocity.

Can't find any of those bullets easily any more. And you really don't want to drive the cast bullets designed that way at maximum .264 velocities unless you really like cleaning lead from the barrel.
 
The .264 Win Mag showed up in 1958. Where were the very long hi BC bullets then?
Click to expand...

The 6.5 WWH (264x.300 Weatherby) did pretty well with 139 gr bullets in the early 1960s. There was a gunzine wildcat, the .264 Thor, which I recall as a .264 Win Improved but the few mentions I see of it today say it is a full length Magnum similar to 6.5 STW.
 
"There are none of the old original lever guns made in .45 Colt. True or not, the story is that the gunmakers at the time believed the rim wasn't enough to work reliably in a lever gun, so they never made any. Today the .45 Colt case has more rim than it originally did, and will work in lever guns."

That's actually a multi-part consideration with the .45 Long.

1. It did have a very small rim.

2. It didn't have an extractor groove until much later in its life, which made the issue of a small rim even worse.

3. When the .45 Long was introduced, commercial companies were only just starting the transition from copper cases to brass, while the military wouldn't begin the transition to brass cases for a decade or more.

Copper was a LOT softer than brass, making it much easier for an extractor to rip through the rim on a sticky case. But, early brass cartridges, while stronger than copper, were still much softer than today's cases and were still prone to ripping through at the rim on a sticky case.

So yeah, no rifles in .45 Long for a long, long time.
 
"And you really don't want to drive the cast bullets designed that way at maximum .264 velocities unless you really like cleaning lead from the barrel."

When I worked at American Rifleman a coworker routinely drove lead bullets through his .300 Winchester at near top velocity and with very good accuracy.

The secret? Paper patching.
 
Ahhh, finally a 264 man. What twist are your barrels? And what are you shooting? I'd rather not rebarrel mine, but if I can't get a decent load, I will. I've had plenty of new barrels installed, even did two myself. But if I can keep that cute "Flaig Ace" script and get something working, I'll be happy.
 
Picked up the Flaig Ace from my FFL this week. A pretty rifle, love those old Mausers. I loaded starting loads of N568 under 140 SGK, 130 TGK, and 127 LRX. Mounted and lasered a Leupold FX-3 6X scope. Next week I'll run these and report.
 
Mike Irwin said:
So, I continue to doubt that H&H was actually solving anything at all other than giving them a decidedly marketing driven "aura."
Click to expand...

That's probably right. The only other explanation that occurs to me is there was, for a long time in the 19th century and bleeding into the 20th century, a belief that a cartridge was more efficient if the neck angle was shallow for funneling gas down the tube. A shallow neck angle provides less certain headspacing than the more abrupt transition of a larger angle shoulder does, so I have speculated that the belt was originally there for certain headspace during rapid chambering when a cartridge had a shallow shoulder angle. I recall reading that Hatcher had found the 30-06 could lose up to 0.006" of head-to-shoulder length being chambered quickly into an Enfield during rapid fire. So it follows that a rimless and beltless cartridge with an even smaller shoulder angle would see even more shortening during rapid chambering.

That said, if you aren't trying to set a world chambering speed record with your bolt, as some shooting rapid-fire Match Rifle matches might be hoping to do, then the belt is likely of no advantage, and sizing your brass to headspace on the shoulder rather than the belt makes good sense to do. A caution, though: while hosting several of us in his armory back around 1993, Jeff Cooper said that when he shot his lion at 11 paces, he fired the first shot just as his peripheral vision saw the tail go up (precursor to pounce) and he put two shots from his "Lion Scout" into it, and the guide said it sounded like one shot. Cooper had demonstrated his speed with a bolt to us, and it was startling. I doubt any semi-auto action would exceed it. Besides, as long as it is faster than the time needed to bring the gun back down on the target, that's all you can take advantage of, anyway. So, not wanting to excessively shorten a case during rapid chambering of a cartridge with a shallow shoulder angle in an urgent situation might well be a valid excuse for having a belt.
 
OK, first range session. I just took 5 each 140 SGK, 130 TGK, and 127 Barnes LRX, each with a modest load of N568. Worked fine. Tracks QL predictions pretty close, and now I'm calibrated to sneak in a bit more powder. I ran the Sierras at 30 yards, as I had only lasered my scope, and dead on at 30 puts me close to where I need to be. But I moved back to 100 for the LRX, since I was zeroed and that's the bullet I really wanted. Alas, they weren't kidding about that 1:8 twist. I believe my Mauser is 1:9. Pretty wide spread, and I did not have nice round holes. Not totally keyholed, but definitely wobbling. The Barnes measures 1.399, the 130 TGK 1.379 (they say 1:8 also), so I'll run with my 140 traditional GameKings at 1.252. Not ruling out the TGK, but I don't want to toast the barrel futzin' around.

BTW, I mentioned this gun came with a muzzle break, which I left at home. Don't know why they added that; this gun does not kick much at all.
 
Both bullets are not stable with 1:9 twist, I'm afraid. I would stay with bullets shorter than 1.165".

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top