close
Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Chatting and General Stuff > General Discussion

General Discussion Must wear red or OD green socks to participate. I can't see your socks, please be honest.


View Poll Results: 264 win mag or 7mm mag
264 win mag 115 40.21%
7mm rem mag 171 59.79%
Voters: 286. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

264 win mag vs. 7mm rem mag

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 01-08-2014, 06:27 PM
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Elkhorn Idaho
Posts: 534
Re: 264 win mag vs. 7mm rem mag

I think I can do better than that. Since their is so many doubting people I am building a Browning A Bolt (yuck) for a close friend of mine and will be finishing up this week I will video tape on the chrony what results I get. This will be interesting for me also. A factory barrel that is only 26 inches long. The COAL is not as far as I would like it but it does seem to work well in the modified Browning clip. The throat is of coarse what I put in all of my rifles I do not put the SAMMI spec 3 degree angle in it. I instead put a 1 degree minus 30. It matches the 175 Nosler LRAB much better and helps with the accuracy I want to achieve in all of what I build. It puts less strain on the bullet jacket ( Berger) This bullet will be seated .010 off this style of lands. This is tighter that I normally want but the customer is always right. The internet has made him a expert. If it was my own I would have it .035. Loads will be worked up from a starting point of 72 grains of RETUMBO in a Winchester case, Fueled by a Winchester MAGNUM primer. 3.5 in COAL. I typically like 3.7 with this bullet. I really am anxious what this puts out. If I had to bet on the 26 in factory tube and the shorter COAL with this seated so minimally off the lands I would guess 3150 as a minimum velocity Depending on if the barrel is Fast, etc. I must tell you that all bullets are MOLY coated. I will tape this and put it on this forum. Lets see who can guess the closest!!
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-18-2014, 12:43 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: morton wa.
Posts: 27
Re: 264 win mag vs. 7mm rem mag

the 7mm rem mag gives you better choices in bullet weights. i like the bc of the 7mm also. the 264 is a fine round no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 03-15-2014, 04:49 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3
Re: 264 win mag vs. 7mm rem mag

In 1987 I was in a pond shop and my Pastor said, "that 7mm rem mag is a good gun and it will shoot a long ways." $250. with a 3-9 on top. Seem to work for me. I looking for a new scope right now.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 03-19-2014, 11:42 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,298
Re: 264 win mag vs. 7mm rem mag

im with billr on this one unless u luck into an accurate load for the 264 early ur barrel will need replaced by the time u figure it out but that's half the fun in load development so i say burn the barrel then put another on and burn it to "yee ha!"
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 03-20-2014, 10:45 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,298
Re: 264 win mag vs. 7mm rem mag

Quote:
Originally Posted by idaho elk hunter View Post
What ever a 264 and 308 will do a 7mm (284) will do better! That will get Broz all fired up..
the 7 is just a 100 fps off the 06 if I wanted to load to 65,000 psi like the 06s clones "270etc." I could come pretty close to the 7 mag peformance with heavier bullets with higher BCs and SDs that ought to get you fired up
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-24-2015, 12:47 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3
Re: 264 win mag vs. 7mm rem mag

Got to go with the 264 Win, hands down! The grandfather of the 7mm, 338, and largely the 300 Win. Someone voted the 7mm over the .264 (or 6.5) because of bullet selection. I find there to be more than a great selection of 6.5 bullets! Someone else said that his 7mm Sendero kicked too hard. While it might kick slightly harder than the .264 win, in a 10+ lb rifle, there shouldn't be any problem with recoil, try shooting my 7 lb 300 Wby!!

While ultimately, I do like both cartridges, I prefer originality! If the .264 Win originally came out with a 24 inch barrel and the wrong twist to stabilize. However, if Wby had a 6.5 Wby, I probably wouldn't even be interested in this discussion. Kind of something grand about the Ackley Improved and Weatherby Cartridges! If Weatherby would have allowed others (Rem, Win, Browning) to freely manufacture his rounds in their rifles, I think that they would be more common! Remington has some special run 257 Wby 700 rifles (for example) those things are collectables!

If you guys are concerned about the short neck length, why not just lengthen it like I did?? I have a 264 Win with a .295 neck. The longer neck helps with seating, especially with longer VLD bullets! I shoot 140 grain bullets 3300 fps! Currently, I have over 2000 rounds thru the barrel and it is showing a little erosion. The last time I reloaded, I seated the bullet out .1 futher, and my groups have always been under 1/2. Instead of arguing back and forth about the short neck and the possible negative factors associated with it, just resize some 7mm Rem brass, use the longer neck and negate the possible negatives. On the plus side, it makes seating a whole lot easier!!

While I wish that Wby had a 6.5, I don't know why the .264 Win isn't more popular, other than it had the wrong barrel length and twist when it came out. With the slower burning powders, improved barrels, and better bullets of today there is more reasons to shoot the .264 Win.

My .264 Win is my favorite to shoot, and it has never let me down!!

Kill more wolves!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC