Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
264 Win Mag VS 270 Whby
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lloydsmale" data-source="post: 666964" data-attributes="member: 41442"><p>Im not trying to claim the 264 is the best at anything. What im saying is it gets a bad rap from stuff wrote about it 30 years ago before there were powders out there that would make it work as well as it does today. Whats funny is how a round will get a reputation and never be able to shake it. Its like the 243vs6mm arguement. Rem put the wrong twist on barrels back in the day and to this day the 243 outsells it a 100 to 1 even though the 6mm is clearly a better round. </p><p> </p><p>The 264 suffers a simular fate. Its about as close to the 7mag as any round can be to another. Yet the 7mag sells like hotcakes and people who have never worked with a 264 will call it overbore and a barrel burner. Shoot the same pressure loads with the same powders and the differnces between barrel life and velocitys between them isnt enough to even talk about The 7win mag and the 300 win mag both suffer with the same short neck but sell like hotcakes while the 264 never really got out of the grave. Im not one that thinks that 6.5 bullets are something majical like some do. Id be the first to say that a 7mag does everything a 264 does and a little more and that anything they do can be done by a 270wby or a 7 wby.</p><p> </p><p> I own a 257wby, 264mag, 7mag, 300 win mag and 300 wby mag and like them all. I dont shoot a 1000 yards so i wont comment on how one is superior to another at that game and dont really care. I do get a chance to kill more deer at long range then most. I do crop damage shooting every year and take between 50 and a 100 deer every year. Ive seen them all work and know what does work and what doesnt. I try not to shoot past 500 yards but have pushed that limit a bit and my 264 will knock the cork out of deer at long range. Is sub moa at the range and has been going for over 10 years without burning a barrel. Granted i dont sit and shoot 500 rounds a month out of it. Its a hunting rifle. It usually gets a new load worked up every year which intails maybe a 100 rounds at most and then is used to shoot maybe a dozen deer each year. It shoots as well today as it did the day i bought it. Would i use it for a 1000 yard match? probably not but then i dont have a gun in the safe thats capable of shooting well enough to do that. that takes specialized equipment and is an overkill for what i use a rifle for. My whole point in this is that the 264 isnt the lemon alot of guys say it is. Most who badmouth it have never even tried it and are just passing on internet bs and opinions gained from gunwriters that do more writing then they do hunting.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lloydsmale, post: 666964, member: 41442"] Im not trying to claim the 264 is the best at anything. What im saying is it gets a bad rap from stuff wrote about it 30 years ago before there were powders out there that would make it work as well as it does today. Whats funny is how a round will get a reputation and never be able to shake it. Its like the 243vs6mm arguement. Rem put the wrong twist on barrels back in the day and to this day the 243 outsells it a 100 to 1 even though the 6mm is clearly a better round. The 264 suffers a simular fate. Its about as close to the 7mag as any round can be to another. Yet the 7mag sells like hotcakes and people who have never worked with a 264 will call it overbore and a barrel burner. Shoot the same pressure loads with the same powders and the differnces between barrel life and velocitys between them isnt enough to even talk about The 7win mag and the 300 win mag both suffer with the same short neck but sell like hotcakes while the 264 never really got out of the grave. Im not one that thinks that 6.5 bullets are something majical like some do. Id be the first to say that a 7mag does everything a 264 does and a little more and that anything they do can be done by a 270wby or a 7 wby. I own a 257wby, 264mag, 7mag, 300 win mag and 300 wby mag and like them all. I dont shoot a 1000 yards so i wont comment on how one is superior to another at that game and dont really care. I do get a chance to kill more deer at long range then most. I do crop damage shooting every year and take between 50 and a 100 deer every year. Ive seen them all work and know what does work and what doesnt. I try not to shoot past 500 yards but have pushed that limit a bit and my 264 will knock the cork out of deer at long range. Is sub moa at the range and has been going for over 10 years without burning a barrel. Granted i dont sit and shoot 500 rounds a month out of it. Its a hunting rifle. It usually gets a new load worked up every year which intails maybe a 100 rounds at most and then is used to shoot maybe a dozen deer each year. It shoots as well today as it did the day i bought it. Would i use it for a 1000 yard match? probably not but then i dont have a gun in the safe thats capable of shooting well enough to do that. that takes specialized equipment and is an overkill for what i use a rifle for. My whole point in this is that the 264 isnt the lemon alot of guys say it is. Most who badmouth it have never even tried it and are just passing on internet bs and opinions gained from gunwriters that do more writing then they do hunting. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
264 Win Mag VS 270 Whby
Top