Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Question for JB - 264 Win Mag

I'm having a Model 70 338 rebarreled to 264 Win Mag. I was thinking of having it 26" like the old Westerners - but my gunsmith recommends 24". He thinks it would be more accurate. It's a Kreiger barrel - so does length affect accuracy (harmonics?)

Wouldn't the loss in velocity make it like a loud 270? Ive already got a 24" 270W.

What's a good powder to start with for 140G TTSX?

Thanks,
Jeff

Not JB but I love the .264. I had one with a 24 inch barrel, my preference is 26. But longer barrels are my normal preference.

FWIW - a friend of mine built a 264 Win Mag a couple of years ago and went with 26” barrel. His gunsmith recommended it for that cartridge so opinions vary but he has been very pleased with that 26” barrel length in that cartridge.

You will see 25 fps or so adding or subtracting barrel length.
Charlie

Is that per inch Charlie?

I’ve had several 264’s. A Westerner and Sako’s. All had 26” barrels. I’d go with the 26. I load 140 grain ballistic tips with IMR 4350 powder. I’m thinking of trying the 120 Barnes. I use the 120’s in 6.5 Creeds and 6.5-06. They slice and dice pigs really well, very accurate also.

Yes, per inch.
Charlie

Ngrumba,

All I know is that I've owned and handloaded for two .264s. The first was a used pre-'64 Westerner that belonged to a local rancher friend for quite a while. The bore was in decent shape, and it would group three shots of some loads into around .8 inch at 100 yards. Muzzle velocities with 140s ran around 3220 using Ramshot Magnum and Reloder 25.

The second was a like-new Ruger Hawkeye stainless/synthetic with a 24-inch barrel and 1-8 rifling twist, rather than the 1-9 of the Westerner.
It grouped better, down to around .6 inch for three shots at 100. Muzzle velocities were 50-100 fps slower than with the 26" barrel with the same bullet weights, but I don't think that was due to barrel length as much as changes in methods of pressure-measurement during the years between owning the two rifles.

All the data when I owned the Westerner was CUP, meaning measured by lead-crusher machinery. The data when I owned the Ruger was PSI, meaning it was measured electronically, which is today generally considered more accurate.

Plus, they were different barrels. In my experience the only really valid way to measure velocity gain/loss is by chopping the SAME barrel an inch at at time and reshooting the same loads.

I've got a 264 WM in a Model 70 Westerner. I've got a thing for M70s, and all of their magnums (with the exception of the 375 H&H) used to have 26 inch barrels. The long barrels never caused me any concern. If you hunt the really thick stuff, then maybe a shorter barrel would be better, but if not, 26" is the way to go. I've recently had good success using H1000 powder with the 127grain Barnes LRX bullets.

Mine was a rebarrel on a FN Musketeer , it cane with a bad news 22" barrel . Greydog suggested a 26", I went with a handier 24 " . So I get 3150 into well under an inch, so what.

I have experience with only two .264s, both were Winchester pre-64's one had a 26" barrel the other had a 22" barrel. The 22" rifle was nothing more than an ear-splitting .270. It was quickly sent down the road. I was pleased with the other one. My thinking is that why not go with the 26" barrel, you'll get a little more velocity and that is what the .264 is all about anyway and the muzzle blast will be less as well.

26" is fine. The .264 shines out in the open where the extra length doesn't hinder. I have never wished my .264 was shorter.

I use 7828 and RL33 in mine with 130AB's. Good luck!

I had a couple .264 Winchesters one with 24" and one with 26" barrels, just a loud and heavy .270 IMHO. The Ruger #1 with 26" barrel was about 40 FPS faster with 140's, as I remember. Hate being a buzz kill, if 40 or 50 FPS matters go with the 26" barrel.

That's a good point. Tough to better a .270 unless you're hand loading and have that barrel. If not, what's the point?

Go with the 26" & Ramshot Magnum is the powder your looking for.

41

I seem to remember some gun writer publishing an article around 20 years ago suggesting the same thing....

Another vote for 26 inches. My 264 has a 26” Kreiger barrel. Shoots a 125gr Partitions at into bug holes at about 3350fps using 7828.. Quite a few deer over the last 10 to 15 years. None took even a step.

If in close quarters, I have other rifles.

MD, I do remember that article, maybe written by some Swede who lived in Montana.

I'm no gun writer.

The only advantage a 264 has over the 270 is at longer ranges which suggests open country which makes 2 more inches of barrel no problem.

Just an opinion.

Remington's 264's were all 24", I think. So that's what I had. If I were to build a rifle or have one built for me, it would have a 26" barrel. I sort of need a 264...

Not to hijack the thread, but did the 264 have the same issue with pressure deviations that the 7RM has?