levers4life
Well-Known Member
I still hunt with dad's old model 70 sometimes. It's responsible for a lot of South Texas whitetails & New Mexico mulies. Been knocking them down since the early 70's. Wonderful cartridge!
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
264 win mag
- Thread starter soysauce
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
CONatureBoy
Well-Known Member
I built a 264 Win Mag around the Berger 156-grain EOL bullet. The rifle is based on a blueprinted stainless-steel Rem. 700 action and a 26"/1:7.5" fluted stainless-steel Krieger barrel. Jewell trigger, Tubb firing pin, Night Force scope, etc. I load the EOL with Reloder 26 powder. Shoots the EOL just over 3,000 fps into under a half MOA.
I've seen in this forum claims of muzzle velocities of 3,100-3,200 fps for the same bullet and barrel length in this caliber. These sound like hot loads to me. For instance, QuickLoad predicts that 67.1 grains of H1000 pushes the same bullet out of a 26" barrel to 3,008 fps at maximum acceptable pressure. QuickLoad predicts that 70.0 grains of Retumbo maxes out pressure at 3,043 fps, but that's a modestly compressed load (101.2%), at the default COAL of 3.340".
The SAAMI-standard 264 Win Mag that came to market around 1960 was designed with a 26" barrel having 1:9" or 1:10" twist, and shooting 140-grain bullets at claimed factory-ammo velocities of 3,200 fps. That's roughly consistent with what QuickLoad predicts for current-generation bullets and powders. For example, 66.1 grains of Reloder 26 yields a predicted muzzle velocity of 3,164 fps for a Berger 140-grain VLD. In this sense at least, the 264 Win Mag was ahead of its time.
Brass is easy. If you don't want to buy 264 brass, find yourself some 7mm Rem Mag brass and neck it down. That's it.
I studied the ballistics of all of the 6.5s carefully before building a 264 Win Mag. Just make sure you build your rifle with a 1:7.5"- or 1:8"-twist barrel if you want to shoot bullets heavier than 140 grains. Otherwise, if you can tolerate about the same kick you'd get from a 7mm Rem Mag, this caliber is hard to beat.
I've seen in this forum claims of muzzle velocities of 3,100-3,200 fps for the same bullet and barrel length in this caliber. These sound like hot loads to me. For instance, QuickLoad predicts that 67.1 grains of H1000 pushes the same bullet out of a 26" barrel to 3,008 fps at maximum acceptable pressure. QuickLoad predicts that 70.0 grains of Retumbo maxes out pressure at 3,043 fps, but that's a modestly compressed load (101.2%), at the default COAL of 3.340".
The SAAMI-standard 264 Win Mag that came to market around 1960 was designed with a 26" barrel having 1:9" or 1:10" twist, and shooting 140-grain bullets at claimed factory-ammo velocities of 3,200 fps. That's roughly consistent with what QuickLoad predicts for current-generation bullets and powders. For example, 66.1 grains of Reloder 26 yields a predicted muzzle velocity of 3,164 fps for a Berger 140-grain VLD. In this sense at least, the 264 Win Mag was ahead of its time.
Brass is easy. If you don't want to buy 264 brass, find yourself some 7mm Rem Mag brass and neck it down. That's it.
I studied the ballistics of all of the 6.5s carefully before building a 264 Win Mag. Just make sure you build your rifle with a 1:7.5"- or 1:8"-twist barrel if you want to shoot bullets heavier than 140 grains. Otherwise, if you can tolerate about the same kick you'd get from a 7mm Rem Mag, this caliber is hard to beat.
Last edited:
Trooper1
Well-Known Member
I have an Model 70 EW that just loves 130 ABs. Currently working up a load with 121 Hammers. 1/2 moa if I do my part. Get one. I think you'll be happy...
codyadams
Well-Known Member
Part of the reason is strong brass, which the brass is the main limiting factor. Quick load may say to stop at 58,000 psi or whatever is set to it, but that doesn't mean at 62,000 psi everything falls apart. And also, your quick load data isn't even close to what I see in mine, 70 grains would be very hot in this rifle, and my bullets are HBN coated to boot. 66.5 grains gets me 3085 fps, see my attached graph for my data in my rifle.
Point being, quick load, while a useful tool, is far from the end all be all. Same goes with load data from some random guy on the internet, be it me, you, or anyone else. Everybody has to find the acceptable parameters for their set up. I have seen guns made by the same smith with the same reamer be 150 fps or more apart with the same loads and barrel length. Guns vary, so it is more important to know how to read real world pressure signs than a computer program, albeit a useful one
Sorry to the O.P., this is rather off topic.
Don't hesitate about it. The win mag is a great round. First one i can remember was in the early 70's. My dad had a Remington 700 BDL and believe it or not used it for varmint hunting pushing a 85 sierra. I bought my first one in 86 and it has accounted for more Whitetails than I can remember. I have 4 different 264's now and still go to that caliber more than any other I own.
It is my understanding that when the 264 came out, the twist of the factory barrels was adequate for the bullets of the day, but nowadays many people prefer longer, heavier, bullets with higher B/C and sectional density. Just a little less punch than the 7Rem Mag, on both sides of the rifle.
CONatureBoy
Well-Known Member
I agree, of course, that QuickLoad generates maps, not territories. But they're very useful maps, especially for comparing bullets, powders, and calibers. In my experience QuickLoad is usually within 25 fps of actual muzzle velocities, as long as I'm careful to input all of the relevant parameters, especially cartridge and barrel length. (As far as I know, QuickLoad doesn't let the user input some parameters relevant to internal ballistics, notably ambient or cartridge temperature.) My point about the hot loads is that readers need to realize that claims of muzzle velocities well in excess of published velocities, or velocities estimated by QuickLoad, should be understood as statistical outliers, upper limits that one might or might not be able to duplicate safely if they approach handloading with appropriate caution.
To make a fair comparison between calibers, one should not compare hot-load velocities reported by a single hand loader (who may shoot a 28-30" barrel) with velocities obtained under laboratory conditions within SAAMI pressure guidelines, and using standard (22-26") barrel lengths, by professional ballisticians at Nosler, Hornady, etc., and published in reloading manuals. That's comparing apples to oranges. To answer the question "Which caliber shoots faster?", a more scientific approach is to pick a bullet and a barrel length, and then for each caliber you want to compare, use QuickLoad to estimate a maximum load with whatever powder achieves maximal muzzle velocity for the caliber, using the default (SAAMI) COAL and Pmax (SAAMI-specified maximum safe pressure) for each caliber. (H1000 might be faster in a 6.5-284, but RE-26 might be faster in a 264 Win Mag, for a given bullet.) Then you compare those muzzle velocities.
I realize that SAAMI specifies different Pmax values for different calibers. Some (especially older) rifle calibers may have Pmax values in the 50,000 psi range, while modern calibers are usually in the 60,000-65,000 psi range. If you read the SAAMI specifications, you'll
I recommend that novice hand loaders read carefully the "Velocity & Pressure" section (pages 5-35) of the current SAAMI Standards document at https://saami.org/wp-content/upload...99.4-CFR-Approved-2015-12-14-Posting-Copy.pdf.
I agree, of course, that QuickLoad generates maps, not territories. But they're very useful maps, in two senses: (1) they make for a scientifically well-founded, apples-to-apples comparison between calibers, and (2) in my experience developing dozens of handloads they're usually within 25 fps of actual performance, as long as I'm careful to enter the true COAL and barrel length, and to develop loads at roughly the same ambient temperature.
It is not scientifically sound to compare a single hand loader's hot loads either to max loads published in reloading manuals, or to max loads estimated by QuickLoad. A single hand loader's results for a single rifle (and bullet) are just one "data point," one member of a large statistical population of rifles. If that one rifle happens to produce exceptional muzzle velocities, we need to be careful to treat them that way: they're outliers, upper limits to what one might hope for. They're not scientifically well-founded estimates of what one may reasonably expect from any rifle randomly chosen from that population. Sure, carefully built rifles and pricey semi-custom rifles are a non-random sub-population of that larger population. They may have more favorable average numbers than the larger population. But (as a purely mathematical matter) a single sample from that sub-population does not provide anything close to scientifically adequate evidence for such a claim. Suggesting otherwise, and encouraging others to seek exceptional muzzle velocities by developing hot loads based on one shooter's experience, encourages others to wander into the Land of Unsafe Peak Pressures. Sometimes the first "sign of unsafe pressure" is the barrel or action failing explosively. That's a big risk to take, hoping to gain a few fps that for almost any shooter will never matter in the field (or even, for most shooters, in competition).
I encourage novice hand loaders to read carefully the "Velocity & Pressure" section (pages 5-25) of SAAMI's current standards, available for download at https://saami.org/technical-information/ansi-saami-standards/. Quoting from that section:
Due to the fact that sporting firearms for general distribution are typically manufactured to dimensional tolerances greater than those specified for test barrels, there should be no expectation that these velocities can be duplicated from any test utilizing firearms. This situation is further confounded by discrepancies in barrel length. Furthermore, once ammunition has left the control of the manufacturer, storage conditions outside those recommended by the manufacturer may cause variations in the velocity as measured using test equipment and procedures which conform to the requirements of this Standard.
Thus SAAMI reports a mean velocity of 3,105 fps for a 140-grain bullet in its tests at a maximum average transducer pressure of 64,000 psi (or crusher pressure of 54,000 cup).
One scientifically sound way to compare caliber performance is to look at these SAAMI numbers. Another way is to compare the maximum achievable velocities reported for a given bullet across calibers in a reloading manual. The professional ballisticians produce those numbers under very controlled conditions, repeating experiments enough times to obtain statistically defensible scientific conclusions about achievable muzzle velocities. Given a bullet, the numbers in the manuals can suggest which powders produce the fastest loads for a given caliber. That scientific, and it's also prudent, safe.
I use QuickLoad in a similar fashion. I compare calibers using the same bullet and barrel length, and using each caliber's SAAMI-specified COAL (the default value in QuickLoad), but choosing whatever powder maximizes muzzle velocity (at maximum safe pressure) for that caliber. That tells me, in some sense, which caliber is "faster." It's a fun exercise, and it can suggest which powders are likely to produce the fastest loads for a given bullet and caliber.
I strongly advise anyone reading this post to pay close attention to the advice in the reloading manuals about "approaching maximum loads with caution." I personally follow the "ladder procedure" (see https://precisionrifleblog.com/2012/07/13/creighton-audette-ladder-testing/ for details), and I work up in 0.5- to 0.2-grain increments, depending on various things. Not only does the ladder procedure help you find accuracy nodes, it helps you approach maximum safe loads with an appropriate degree of caution.
Finally, I advise novice hand loaders to find the most accurate load possible in an acceptable velocity range. I myself have done this with my own rifles in a way that results in all three of my long-range rifles having the same drop curve out to 600 yards. I don't have to try to remember three drop curves for three rifles. That makes it easier to hit near my point of aim in the field. Hot loads burn out barrels. "Speed thrills, but accuracy kills."
Last edited:
CONatureBoy
Well-Known Member
The SAAMI-standard twist rate is 1:9":
I believe that's been true since the cartridge was standardized. The twist rate was chosen to match 140-grain bullets. Heavier bullets (e.g. the Berger 156-grain EOL) require faster twist rates (1:8" or 1:7.5"). I haven't heard about factory rifles having those twist rates (yet). IMO that's why many folks don't consider the 264 Win Mag when shopping for a "modern" 6.5. . . .
I just sent two barrels out to get chambered in 264- win mag.
You should get one too!
You should get one too!
MagnumManiac
Well-Known Member
Not a single chance!
In fact, I didn't mention my F-class comp rifle 264WM that has 3 barrels, 28", 30" & 32".
I have hunted with it, but at 18lbs, it is cumbersome to say the least.
I have been looking at ordering a Win Model 70 Super Grade French Walnut in 264WM. Very nice looking rifles and will accompany my Kimbers with select walnut.
Cheers.
Trooper1
Well-Known Member
Those super grades with French walnut are pretty...I have one I got out of the custom shop years ago in 338 Win Mag. Almost too pretty to shoot...almost!
CONatureBoy
Well-Known Member
Very pretty!
I will compare but choosing the 6.5 WSM, is it all ballistics!
