264 Winchester Magnum

Doug627

Doug627

Member
Platinum User
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
3,528
Reaction score
10,602
Location
Columbus, Ohio
I know everyone is in love with the 6.5 Creedmoor but I am old school. I'm not saying the 6.5 Creedmoor isn't a good round, I'm just not interested in it. Besides, anything the Creedmoor can do I believe the 264 can do too and probably better. For those that reload this cartridge, what is your favorite bullet? What accuracy do you get to 1000 yards? Thank you in advance for your responses.
 
Register to hide this ad
My 264 is a Mid 60's Flagg Custom on a Military k98 Action with a Douglas Premium 26" Heavy barrel. It has been a very long time since I loaded any but my two favorite bullets were 87 gr Sierra HP at close to 4000 fps with IMR 4831 and 140 Sierra SP @ 3200+/-.

I never fired at more than 250 yards back then but 1/2 MOA was normal.

The way those high comb stocks recoiled, my muzzle would jump about 12-16" off the bench, so I had it Mag-na-ported and that did away with the excessive muzzle jump.

Ivan
 
Last edited:
I had two pre 64 m70 264 mags. Neither shot for squat. Then had Mark X and it didn’t shoot either. Gave up on 264mgs. My thoughts are you can have a custom rifle built for any cartridge and it will preform with the right bullet and charge. Some cartridges get bad Reps from off the rack deer weight hunting rifles. Just the other day somebody said a .260 Rem will do anything a Creedmore will do, so will a 6.5 Swede in the right rifle.
 
I've had three .264s: a post-'64 Model 70 with 26" barrel, a custom Sako with 24" barrel, and a Remington Sendero with 26" heavy barrel. None were extremely accurate, but the Sako was probably best. The original '60s advertised ballistics depicting a 140 grain bullet at 3200 fps is very difficult to achieve safely, though perhaps it's possible or almost possible with some of the newer very slow-burning powders. I never was able to get there with any 140 grain bullet.

I was intrigued by this cartridge until I had first hand experience with it and did a lot of load development. I much prefer a .270 Winchester. From a practical field perspective it will pretty much do all a .264 Winchester Magnum will and it doesn't need a 26" barrel to do it.
 
Rumor has it that recoil with the 270 Winchester, the 6.5 Creedmore & the 6.5×55 Swede are significantly less, as well...?

I don't know much about the 260 Remington...

Cheers!
 
I reloaded for my new Winchester Mod. 70 back in the 70's and thought it was king of the hill in fps and reaching out and touching something.

How wrong I was.

On one Nevada hunting trip there was a Mule Deer on a far hill side, as three units moved up a dirt road to work an area for some "meat".
We all saw the buck that looked like it was 400 to 450 yards away and walking up the hill to gain distance from us.

Someone shot first and I missed with my 1 & 2nd shot but the person with the 264 Magnum drill that buck on the 1st shot that he fired, after we gave up.

I was very impressed with how fast that load was getting to that deer and how it put it down.
I knew that my 270 was not the fastest load in that hunt that day and I still remember that, to this day.

Lots of "Super rifles" out there but then again you have to remember the little, slow, 30-30 has killed more deer than any round used in the U.S.A.

I still love my old 30-40 Krag.

per post @11;
the .22....... true.
it has killed a lot of deer, if the state allows it.

Maybe I should have added, "Legally", with tags, in my post. :D
 
Last edited:
264

I have a pre-64 winchester model 70 with a 26" barrel , rifle will shoot under MOA with hornady 140 gr. w/ imr 4831 and the old H-870 , also liked the nosler 120 gr. w/ imr 4831. That rifle has accounted for a couple of mule deer and 1 antelope .
 
Doug627 said:
My deer rifle is 6.5X55 Swede. It shoots lights out. The 264 will be a long range firearm.
Click to expand...

For a long range 6.5 mm, look into the 6.5 x 284. It is the ballistic twin of 264 Win Mag, and uses a little less powder for the same performance. A close friend had 3 built and loves the round. Great brass is made by Lapua & Norma, so-so brass is made by Hornady, and trash bras is made by Winchester!

My friend has military connections, and sent one to Iraq with II Force Recon, 2 years later he got it back with a nice letter saying, "It sent 8 turbans to see Allah, at a great distance." I had a chance to buy it, but didn't (silly me!)


Savage makes a nice long range gun in that cartridge called "F-Class". MSRP $2100ish, I have another friend with a F-Class in 6mm BR, with good ammo they shoot in the 1/10-1/4 MOA groups up to 1300 yards. the 6.5x284 will easily get you past a mile (1760 yards), much further and you need solid alloy bullets, that easily run $4 per projectile!

While I like my 264, it truly is a relic of days gone by, and didn't weather the test of time like the 7mm Rem Mag & the 300 Win Mag. (in post #2, I talk about my 308 and 338 LM, but if I was starting over for the heavy hitter at very long range it would be in 30 cal. 300x340 Weatherby, 300 Lapua mag, for 2 miles or 300 Win Mag for 2 Kilometers)

Ivan
 
Uh, Ed... About those little, slow 30-30s having "...killed more deer than any other round in the U.S.A."

I 've seen it opined frequently that the lil' ole 22lr is responsible for more dead deer than all the other calibers combined...?

Jus' sayin' what I seen?

Cheers!
 
I don't think there are any bad bore diameters or cartridges in the 6 mm to 7 mm range, but there are some mediocre barrels and bullets from 70 years ago that held back the success of some cartridges. If the 6.5 Creedmoor came to market 60 years ago with a slow twist barrel and average grade bullets like we used to have, it would be another face in the crowd. Remington demonstrated this over and over again with setups that didn't quite meet the market nor show significant advantage over what was already available. Winchester launched its share of forgettable chamberings with myriad short concoctions.
 
Part of the reason the 264 achieved the claimed velocites and they did come close was the original bullets were supposedly 2 diameter with the rear/base of the bullet at the correct size with the rest of the shank of the bullet somewhat smaller. But it made the round a bore burner and many did not shoot all that well. I have had 3 all pre 64s and the one that shot the best was an UGLY example restocked by an old fellow who lived near me. He lent it to me with some early ammo and it shot great. I killed my longest ranged head of game with that thing and it was a bang flop moment on a windless day up in Montana(a rarity for sure). It was farther...lots than I would shoot any game animal any more. My Leica range finder said 640 yards so it was probably pretty close to that. I bought the rifle after he passed and put an original Win stock back on it. Talking all this 1000 yard and mile shooting is great but it is all so specialized shooting you really can't hunt easily on foot with those rifles....and the average hunter can't shoot that well unfortunately. My old Kimber 06 is a 400 yard rifle these days and that is more than enough. If I need a deer any more I'll shoot it at 40 -50 ft out the back window here at home. Antelope a couple hundred yards. I have another Kimber or two but one is a 300 Win Mag and I haven't used it in 6 years
 
My only experience with the .264 WM was helping out on a double homicide where one was used inside a house at near contact distance. That was impressive.

My bride and I both have .260 Ruger Compacts, and they kill deer and antelope like the Hammer of Thor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top