I dont see a lot of post regarding the 264 Winchester Magnum. Now as far as I am concerned, this is a mighty fine round. Flat shooting, easy on the shoulder, and is plenty of gun for everything in North America except maybe the bigger bears. There has been a lot of hoopla over the 6.5-284 in the last few years, but it seems to me that what the 6.5-284 is trying to be, the 264 Mag already is and more. Anyone else out there feel about them like I do? Have any favorite loads? Let's hear from you!
I have been looking at buying a SenderoII in 264 as I have never used this round but wanted to back when I was a kid.
It seems that the Sendero should sing with a 130 Swift, soon to be 130 Accubond or A-Max for Deer or Antelope. But most manuals I have looked at tend to show quite consevative loads compareed to other rounds. I can get a Coyote in 7WSM for a song, but this Sendero thing bugs me & I am a Sendero fan.
You will not make peace with the Blue Coats, you are free to go.
Some years ago, I and a couple of others tried the .264. Easy to reload for, they had average accuracy of 1/2 MOA at 600 yards and 3/4ths MOA at 1000 yards with Norma 139-gr. bullets.
As this cartridge is about 110% over bore capacity, they do erode the throat quite a bit. None of us got more than 700 rounds of best accuracy before they immediately opened up 4 to 5 times the previous average group size. Mine went about 650 rounds before the bullets seating depth dropped about 1/4th inch and bullets were barely held by the case mouth. In a accuracy test, I'd put 6 shots at 600 yards into about 3.5 inches when the 7th one moved out almost 4 inches. The next 4 shots went into about 18 inches.
Folks I know shooting the 6.5-284 are getting about 1500 rounds of barrel life plus accuracy is a bit better. Its much milder recoil makes it easier to shoot accurate because the rifle moves back less while the bullet's going down the barrel.
I think the .264 is a better hunting round 'cause it puts the same bullet downrange faster and flatter than the 6.5-284. If long range accuracy was one's first objective, the 6.5-284 is hard to beat.
ive had a 264 for quite a while now. shot my first mulie buck with it my first bull & cow elk, and my first antelope.
shot the factory corelock bullets for years until i discovered handloading. the best load was with the 140gr X's. cant recall the fps or the recipe but they were smokin' and printing sub moa.
I had a Win 70 264 and stupidly sold it. I had been kicking myself for years until I got a TC Custom Shop 264 barrel for my Encore. I haven't worked with it too much, but I killed a doe with the Hornady 129 gr SST and IMR 7828. Performed marvelously, but I think the 130 gr Accubond would be even better. I can't wait until they come out. The 264 Winchester Magnum is a great round!
Lefties are the only ones in their right minds!
(and I ain't talkin' politics!)
Got a pre-64 M70 Westerner with a 26" tube and a late model claw feed sporter with a 26" tube and they love the following two loads. Been using the 140's for years, but due to the speed and accuracy (and my liking Ballistic Tips), the 120's might get the nod for deer soon.
140 grain Sierra Game King - 63 grains of H4831 at a TTL of 2.49 and a MOAL of 3.295
120 Nosler Ballistic Tip - 66 grains of H4831 at a TTL of 2.49 and a MOAL of 3.295
The 130 Accubond might be a good compromise, but it is probably unnecessary with the two bullets mentioned above - pick any of the three and go for it!
I have a friend who has shot the 264 for many years. I have worked up several different loads for it and have enjoyed shooting it. It is a win 70 pre 64 sporter weight. The first thing I noticed is the light recoil compared to the other magnums. Very accurate, easy to load for, fun to shoot. The light recoil and flat trajectory are the benefits. The 264 is a barrel burner, if you want to shoot allot and not have to rebarrel often the 264 is not for you.