264 win mag vs. 7mm rem mag

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by crowsnest2002, Dec 10, 2011.

  1. 264 win mag

    41.8%
  2. 7mm rem mag

    58.2%
  1. crowsnest2002

    crowsnest2002 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    320
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    I'd like to start a rant on the 264 win mag vs. 7mm rem mag. It seems like everyone has something to say about these two and I'd just like to hear what you all have to say. I'm posting this as a poll just because I want to see where we are at in the long run on this debate. Please feel free to post any evidence you feel relevant to this discussion.
     
  2. BillR

    BillR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    409
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    I couldn't vote. I was working my way through the same question last year and finally just bought them both. 2 Remington 700 Sendero SFII's.
    Now with that said I shot and broke in both rifles and worked up loads for both of them till they both shot great. Probably much better than I ever could. I did find I liked shooting the .264 WM a bit better as the recoil was a bit less. Neither gun has a Muzzle Break. Shooting the 7MM with 168grn Burgers was just a bit more abusive than the .264 142grn SMK's were. So that is what determined what I would use. Both are very pleasant guns to shoot but if your shooting 30-50 rounds every Sunday all summer long the recoil becomes accumulative and you get a bit sore but I overcome that with a slip on Simm's pad and it made shooting prone with either gun almost a pleasure.
    Both guns will keep their bullets inside of MOA even at 1200 yds. Both guns will kill a deer out to my comfort range of 1000 yds. Both cost about the same to reload although the 7MM RM is easier to find brass for but you can neck down the same brass and use it in the .264 WM so that argument is null and void.
    The only real reason for going with the 7MM RM over the .264WM is barrel life. Other than that its like arguing Chevy/Ford.
    I did use the .264WM to hunt with this year and did well with it. But I figure that the barrel only has about another 100-200 rounds left in it before it gets replaced.
     

  3. guns_and_labs

    guns_and_labs Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    254
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    .264 WinMag. Less recoil, higher velocity, same or batter ballistics, what's not to like?
     
  4. theflyonthewall

    theflyonthewall Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    224
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    7mm RemMag for me. I love the multitude of bullet choices that are available and I can shoot some that are heavier if I want to chase Elk or Moose.

    On deer-sized and smaller critters, it's pretty-much a moot point IMO though.
     
  5. HARPERC

    HARPERC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,021
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    The biggest thing wrong with a 284 is it's not a 30. I vote 264 because if I want more I usually want more than 284.
     
  6. dragman

    dragman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,448
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    I would lean towards the 7mm mag. It has the better B.C's and depending on barrel length and configuration you can get the same speeds with douple or more barrel life. Not saying I don't like the 264 win mag but if I can only have 1 the 7mm wins for the reasons above PLUS not all states will let you hunt BIG game with a 6.5. I believe coastal brown bear in Alaska have a .30 cal minimum but everywere else the .284 is ok.
     
  7. crowsnest2002

    crowsnest2002 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    320
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    I like having all the inputs. I just like seeing what everyone has to say.
     
  8. BillR

    BillR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    409
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Well the vote right now is 12 to 12. Must be the reason I bought one in each caliber. Just could not make up my mind. :)
     
  9. DDT

    DDT Member

    Messages:
    21
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    My vote goes to the 7mm because of the selection of box ammo and componets for reloading.
     
  10. Long Time Long Ranger

    Long Time Long Ranger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,612
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    We had a very good discussion last year on these two and ballistics were posted. Since I have owned and shot both for many years I have a pretty good idea which one. The 264 is best in a hunting rifle with better ballistics and lighter recoil. Both are excellent for caribou, deer, antelope size game at longer ranges however neither are a good choice for elk size game when there are so many better choices for that. The 264 winchester has the best ballistics and with much lighter recoil can easily be shot without a brake long range. A light hunting rifle in 7mm with 168 grain and larger bullets affects a shooter more long range without a brake. This makes the 264 winchester the better choice for the game animals both are best at taking. A 264 winchester with the 140 berger will outshoot the 7mm remington with the 168 berger at the best effective ranges for these two cartridges and at the size big game animals these two are best at shooting.

    This is a long range hunting site and not targets. Berger now makes the 180 grain bullet for the 7mm and does well at targets. However when shooting at game you must look at what range the particular rifle does best at shooting game. The 7mm remington can not push the 180 grain bullet fast enough to increase the best effective range of the cartridge on big game. Your only looking at bc's in the .6's even when using fragmenting vld target type bullets. Not good for shooting large big game at long range when there are much better choices in cartridges, bullets and calibers for that.

    So back to the point where these two cartridges are most effective as long range hunters the 264 winchester is the best cartridge.

    Bottom line is neither of these are good choices for extreme range shooting at big game animals beyond a half mile when there are so many better choices out there. What limits these two cartridges for long range hunting beyond a half mile is that there are no high bc bullets available for the purpose like we have in other better calibers for long range hunting at large big game. When the best choice is a small caliber fragmenting 180 grain target bullet at only .6's bc you need to look further for long range large big game.

    I see to much stuff on here leading people in the wrong direction. There is a difference between killing stuff decisively at long range and just hitting it as you would hit a target. I have been doing this for many years and know the difference.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2011
  11. Long Time Long Ranger

    Long Time Long Ranger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,612
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Well, I just put this post in here to get it fired up and start a good argument but no takers I guess. I think most of you know I have over twenty top 7mm rifles in standard and all kind of wildcats and love to shoot them. I am like Bill, I think you just need both. I have a few 6.5's also. The truth is they are the same case necked to a little different caliber and very similar ballistics. One is a little better than the other depending on what bullet you use and the purpose so they flip flop according to those factors. My wife definitely likes the 264 winchester better because of the light recoil. They are both small caliber with no high bc hunting bullets with sufficient weight to make them good choices for large big game at long range such as elk when there are much better choices that should be used for that purpose. Heavy bullets in the 7mm can not be driven fast enough to change that much. They both fill about the exact same niche for taking deer, antelope and caribou size animals.
     
  12. BillR

    BillR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    409
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    :) My thoughts exactly LTLR. I like them both so bought them both. Figured that once I had them I would pick out the one I liked best and get rid of the other. Didn't happen. :) I like them both. I do like shooting the .264 WM a bit better though and all joking aside that is one heck of a long range deer cartridge. I had a crap load of Sierra 142 MK's that I picked up in a trade and had used them to break in the barrel and then used them to work up a load with. The range I had been shooting at goes out to 1200 yds and with that bullet I had been able to keep them in a 10" circle on more than one occasion. Neck tension seems to be the key for accuracy at that range. I also found that if I dropped from using the Fed 215M primer and went to the Win mag primer my accuracy increased a bit. I am using Nosler Custom Brass and in my opinion it sucks. I'm up to 5 loadings and am getting loose primer pockets. The chamber has a short throat on this gun and I'm going to get that lengthened out a bit as I'm seating the bullet way down into the case. Seems to be a problem with Remington barrels and my bolt face has a .093 firing pin hole and the primers bleed back into the bolt face no matter what load I use so I'm going to see if Remington will fix this but if they won't I will get a PTG bolt and put that in when I re-barrel it when the barrel is shot out.
    I used this load and bullet deer hunting this year and was totally amazed with what it did. Really tore that buck up inside. Hit him in the last rib and through the diaphragm and part of the liver. He did the high belly kick and hit the ground like a rug. Was able to get up on his front feet and was trying to crawl out of a gully when I hit him the second time and blew through the front elbow, lower chest and blew through the opposite front leg and with no front legs fell back into the gully. He was expired when I got too him. Not bad performance I'm thinking. That long heavy bullet has some punch. I think the .264WM will do well on Elk but I don't think I will use it for much past 800 on an elk although it would do the job and probably well.
    The 7MM Rem mag I think with the heavier bullet 168 grain burgers seems to be as accurate as the .264 WM and maybe a bit better at the longer ranges and if I was going to try for an Elk out to 1000 I would probably take it just for the fact that it has a heavier bullet and might just punch though larger bone better if it has to.
    One thing I did find though and that is 7MM Rem Mag brass is plentiful. The great part I learned is if you just run the 7MM Mag brass through the .264WM die you get a .264 Case and life is good. Wish it had the .264 head stamp but its easy for me to tell the difference between the two but I can see it would be possible for someone to screw that one up. Retumbo seemed to be the powder to use for either one as accuracy is good and velocity is good for both with low ES.
     
  13. Derek M.

    Derek M. Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,417
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Both are fine cartridges and can take an elk easily at 1000 yards. I've never owned a 264 WM but have a couple of 7mags. I prefer the 7 and only because I've got 20+ years experience with it and loading for it.

    I've killed a pile of animals with the 7mag in a lot of different states from the south all the way to Wyoming and Colorado, and a few Canadian provinces as well. Unless you are hunting big bears, the 7mag is all anyone would need for most all big game at most ranges.

    I'm sure the same could be said about the 264.
     
  14. Code4

    Code4 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    77
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    I own both and have only used both on feral Camels (large Game). 140 Woodleigh PPSN in the .264 and 160 Woodleigh PPSN in the 7mmRM.

    I'm with LTLR. I was dissapointed with the 7mmRM and believe it has been promoted beyong it's capabilities. It would make a great deer round over long range. I am presently trying to work up a load with 175 Woodleigh PPSN's for my next camel trip.

    The .264 was bought as a species specific rifle. I am setting it up for long range Springbok shooting in South Africa. It is very good within it's design parameters. I also had good results with it on huge Camel that would have gone #4 in Australia.

    I find it far easier to place my shots with the .264 which shoots 129 SST and 129 Interbonds the most accurately.