264 win mag vs. 6.5x284

[Deerhntr71]

Trying to decide which one I would rather have? I am starting to reload if that makes a difference.

 

[woods]

Lapua brass puts the 6.5x284 over the top by a LARGE margin

 

[lloydsmale]

264 for me. More capasity=more velocity=flatter shooting and harder hitting.

 

[Nomosendero]

I do like Lapua brass & use it in some cartridges, but Nosler makes 264 mag brass, so you can get good brass, though maybe not the very best.

I can't tell what you are going to do with it, for volume shooting the 6.5x284 wins, but a 260 or CM would be better for that.

For occasional long range shots on Elk sized game I would want the extra vel. & resultant terminal effect of the .264.

 

[RT2506]

I have never had the 6.5x284 but do have a 264 Win Mag that is a shooter. The longer the barrel the better. Mine has a 27 3/4" Shilen and with 130 Accubonds it averages 3350 fps with Retumbo and is a tack driver and will reach waaaaaaaaaaay across a bean field and drop a deer in mid munch.
I guess it really boils down to what you want the rifle for. If it is target work then the 6.5X284 might be better but for hunting I like the 264 Win mag for just that little more velocity.

 

[fisherman983]

264 win mag all the way...I have 3 of them and would never shoot anything else. there is a huge following for the 6.5-284 and I have never understood it when it comes to pushing high bc 6.5mm bullets when the 264 is going to do it faster although its not as efficient it still does it faster and better. like another said, get a long barrel a 26" minimum to optimize performance. ive killed 4 antelope, couple black bears, a mule deer and about 10 blacktails with mine and none of them took more than a couple steps

 

[roninflag]

i have 2 6.5-284s . my brother has one 6.5-284 and a .264. for hunting i wold go with the 264. for matches the 6.5-284.

 

[HARPERC]

The .264 if the rifle is put together with a proper barrel length for the case capacity.

 

[Greyfox]

I think the choice really depends on what you want to do with the rifle. For mid range shooting with conventional bullets many like the 264 better due to the higher velocity. For sheer long range accuracy using the best high BC bullets, my experience has been that the 6,5x284 typically trumps the 264 mag. For shooting from 50 yards to 1000 yards the 140 VLD's at 2950-3000FPS seems to be the sweet spot with excellent terminal performance on game over this entire range. This bullet seem to have been made for the 6.5x284, as it currently offers the best ballistics for this caliber, and, it is a remarkably accurate combo with a 1:8 twist. The VLD's tend to blow apart on game at very high velocities at closer ranges. At 500-1000 yards I doubt a mule deer could tell the difference between the two calibers. I think there are a couple of other benefits to the 6,5x284. As much as people comment on the barrel life of the 6.5x284, it's better than the 264. Recoil is nil, and it a cinch to load, particularly with good Lapua brass available.IMHO.

 

[cornstalker]

I have to go with my standard answer. You need one of each...

 

[lloydsmale]

everytime a post comes out about the 264 people hint that if you dont have at least a 26 inch barrel its useless. Ive got a 24 inch barreled hawkeye. Its no tack driver. typical ruger it took a ton of load developemnt to find a couple good loads that shoot moa. It will push a 140 to 3200fps and a 130 to just over 3300. thats about everything your going to get out of a 7mag and alot more then a 270! I know that this is a long range fourm and some here want the absolute most velocity out of there guns. But that 24 inch 264 is a deer killing machine and its fairly light and handy to carry. I also had a 24 inch vanguard 257 and now have a cdl in 257 with a 26 inch barrel and it gives about 75 fps differnce and the same is about the differnce in my 300 wby 24 inch and 26 inch guns. I dont think any load in any one of those guns goes more then a 100 fps faster then in the longer barrel. Alot of this predudice came from the old days when 4350 was considered slow and 4831 was the mag powder. Now with modern powders many rounds considered overbore are far from it. Same goes with barrel life. The 264 had a bad rap for years. Im sure if you run something like 4350 at 60k its going to eat barrels for lunch. that and the fact that most factory ammo for it was ww ammo and they used ball powders at those burning speeds and thats just more of a barrel burning recipe. Id bet the differnce in barrel life between the 264 and the 7mag is but a couple boxes of shells if you load properly and if you load your 264 with powders like re25, 7828, h1000 ect its going to last longer then a 6.5x284 thats loaded with re17 or 4350 ect.