Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
NEW 6.5 WIN. LONG RANGE MAGNUM!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="sable tireur" data-source="post: 1530823" data-attributes="member: 27307"><p>I think it depends on where you read about rifles, cartridges and bullets. I've seen more mention of the .264 Win Mag in the last few years than the 20 years prior to this. Reason? From the beginning with the release of the .264 WM, there was the initial hype generated by Winchester and their advertising agency support. But, as with all new releases, we entered the field testing phase complete with field hunting reports which in some situations did not bode well for the cartridge. Imagine that!<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite11" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll Eyes :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /></p><p></p><p>Then the gun rag writers jumped in to castigate the cartridge because it was foretold that it might be a barrel burner. No testing just throw it out there and see if the poop sticks. There was no call for a better powder formulation or a slightly sharper shoulder or a slightly longer neck, just bad press over a supposition. But this is the technique used to sell magazines, controversy, even if it was created internally. This term 'barrel burner' has been applied to several cartridges just like the Scarlet letter used so long ago. Say it or write it in a public venue and it has to be true. Right? Not necessarily.</p><p></p><p>I've been producing several .264 WM rifles each year but for clients who understand ballistics and the art/science of reloading. The range of new powders has been a boon for nearly every reloader no matter the cartridge/bullet combination. But it has invigorated cartridges like the .264 WM because these powders defeat the term 'barrel burner' without compromising performance. </p><p></p><p>Bullets are currently enjoying a lot of promotional efforts through new developments not only in production but the math used to generate the designs. Put 2+2 together and you have new life breathed into an older, established cartridge. The interest is also enhanced by the increased relevance of longer range shooting and hunting. </p><p></p><p>The belt? Just another hurdle placed in the way of the advancement of a whole line of cartridge. Originally the design was to enhance positive headspace for cartridges which used longer sloping shoulders. The application of the term 'magnum' served to set the tone for naming any other cartridges featuring a belt even when the belt became superfluous. Personally, I have never had any reloading or shooting problems when making a choice to chamber a rifle for a belted magnum. But again, the writers had to have something to write about and the manufacturers of cartridge cases had to have something to use to promote the sale of the 'beltless magnum' cases. </p><p></p><p>The rest of the good news though is that there are other cartridges with the same or similar case capacity as the .264 WM and offered in the beltless format.</p><p></p><p>Time marches on and the public's knowledge base and the will to be deceived will continue to know no boundaries. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite9" alt=":eek:" title="Eek! :eek:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":eek:" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="sable tireur, post: 1530823, member: 27307"] I think it depends on where you read about rifles, cartridges and bullets. I've seen more mention of the .264 Win Mag in the last few years than the 20 years prior to this. Reason? From the beginning with the release of the .264 WM, there was the initial hype generated by Winchester and their advertising agency support. But, as with all new releases, we entered the field testing phase complete with field hunting reports which in some situations did not bode well for the cartridge. Imagine that!:rolleyes: Then the gun rag writers jumped in to castigate the cartridge because it was foretold that it might be a barrel burner. No testing just throw it out there and see if the poop sticks. There was no call for a better powder formulation or a slightly sharper shoulder or a slightly longer neck, just bad press over a supposition. But this is the technique used to sell magazines, controversy, even if it was created internally. This term 'barrel burner' has been applied to several cartridges just like the Scarlet letter used so long ago. Say it or write it in a public venue and it has to be true. Right? Not necessarily. I've been producing several .264 WM rifles each year but for clients who understand ballistics and the art/science of reloading. The range of new powders has been a boon for nearly every reloader no matter the cartridge/bullet combination. But it has invigorated cartridges like the .264 WM because these powders defeat the term 'barrel burner' without compromising performance. Bullets are currently enjoying a lot of promotional efforts through new developments not only in production but the math used to generate the designs. Put 2+2 together and you have new life breathed into an older, established cartridge. The interest is also enhanced by the increased relevance of longer range shooting and hunting. The belt? Just another hurdle placed in the way of the advancement of a whole line of cartridge. Originally the design was to enhance positive headspace for cartridges which used longer sloping shoulders. The application of the term 'magnum' served to set the tone for naming any other cartridges featuring a belt even when the belt became superfluous. Personally, I have never had any reloading or shooting problems when making a choice to chamber a rifle for a belted magnum. But again, the writers had to have something to write about and the manufacturers of cartridge cases had to have something to use to promote the sale of the 'beltless magnum' cases. The rest of the good news though is that there are other cartridges with the same or similar case capacity as the .264 WM and offered in the beltless format. Time marches on and the public's knowledge base and the will to be deceived will continue to know no boundaries. :eek:;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
NEW 6.5 WIN. LONG RANGE MAGNUM!!!
Top