Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 264 Win Mag vs. 270 Win.

Redneck,

Not trying to start an argument either. But I was trying to answer the original poster's question, not go into the long-range advantages of the .264--which, by the way, I do appreciate.

I've taken a lot of game out to 400+ yards with the .270, but am also a fan of the .264, having hunted some with a genuine pre'64 Model 70 Winchester before 6.5mm became the in-caliber among rifle loonies. And I have a .264 right now, along with a .270.

If the OP wants to get into handloading, in order to extend his horizons in several ways, that's another question than that in his original post. My answer was directed to that original post, from my hunting experience with both rounds, not to anything or anybody else.

You sure are spot on.

"Not a reloader" and "Shots under 300 yards" ended this debate before it began...

....or at least it would have if we weren't all rifle loonies and couldn't leave it alone!

Still, it's just not neighborly to pass on a chance to try to talk a guy into reloading.

Grin...

DJ

Wow, just maybe you're right about that too!

We're all frustrated, because we can't go hunting.

Most of us can't anyway.

The .264WM is a reloaders cartridge, more velocity is avalible to the reloader over factory cartridges. It's also better cartridge at long range. That said the .270 is a nice round. No reason not to own one.

Terry

Yeah that was just sort of a stacked comp....yeepers

I had a 25" .270 as well, it was a rock star for sure! And as I recall JB did one once upon a time as well. I'd of kept mine 25" but it wouldn't fit my scabbard so 23" it is.

IMO to 500 yds they're pretty much the same, past 500 well the bigger case takes over. Big suprise...!

And real world, I mean real world not many take game on a consistent basis beyond 500 yds. We'd be real suprised if we truly knew how many here did, let alone in the world of non rifle loonies.

Dober

Well, coming bck to the party a little late here..

But if you (the OP) wants to buy a .270, buy a .270..

But first, I'd get to reloading.

Mark or BobNH,

If you reloaded, and kept both rifles to 24", which would be better, a 270 win. or a 264 Win. Mag? Thinking of 0 to 600 yards or so. Which bullet would you use in either cartridge for that range of shooting and barrel length?
Thx.

John I have not worked as much with a 264 as I have a 270,so may not be qualified to really say.I have never killed anything but paper with a 6.5 of any sort.

With its greater powder capacity and the best 6.5 bullets,the 264 will show "better" at distances beyond 300 yards,and 600 yards will be far enough out for these differences to show up...by how much I really can't say.Take bullets of equal BC and it just isn't in the cards for a 270 to start them as fast as you can in a 264,because 270 bullets will be heavier,and the 270 case does not have as much capacity,so will not be able to start them as fast, and this is where the 264 will exceed what a 270 can do.

This doesn't mean you are helpless with a 270 out to 600 yards;only that the comparison is not really fair because, because of the disparity in case capacity.

With more ordinary hunting bullets, like, say a 130 Partition in 270 and a 125 Partition in the 264, the 264 will start those at higher velocity than a 130 in the 270 for the most part for the same reasons,so its ballistics should be better,and the 264 will shoot flatter.

I've never killed anything at 600 yards with any cartridge but would not expect there to be a huge difference in that regard.Hit properly with either one at 600 or under,and I'd expect animals to be dead with either one.

I have done very little in the way of real long range shooting(beyond 600 yards) but the only rifle I have used in doing so is John Burn's 264 with the 140 gr Berger....I can say I was impressed with what it did out to 1200 yards and this gave me a healthy respect for the cartridge.The 264 with a 140 gr Berger is a nasty little outfit!

I bet a SA based 7mm-08 burping 120's @3200fps via a 22" barrel really pisses you .270 guys off....grin!

All joking aside, I've never owned a .270 or anything .277" for that matter. Just never could find any love for it when the 7mm-08 in a short action can effectively duplicate it, I'll not even mention the .280....

Having said all that, from those that I have spoken with here and elsewhere in regards to the .264 Mag, it's seems no big feat to run 130's @3300fps via a 26" barrel with at least a couple different powders. That pretty much stomps the .270 in all categories. Load the 130gr Scirocco (.571 b.c.) to 3300 and it's not even fair to compare, 'though the new 150gr .277" LR Accubond should make things at least interesting.........


X-VERMINATOR

Having recently worked with two .264's (new Mod. 70, 26" and a Brown Precision-Sako action 24"), I'm disappointed in the cartridge after trying five bullets, four powders, and three primers. I quickly found that chamber / throat specs require most bullets must be seated quite deeply. Of course, this could be corrected with some custom gunsmithing. Old load data was much hotter than the current data I followed; as a result, muzzle velocities haven't been impressive. Model 70 accuracy was mediocre at best as it was tough to get groups under 1 1/4", though the Brown Precision did better. No doubt the .264's a hotter cartidge than the .270, but I doubt the degree of difference is of much significance for most any hunting situation.

Not really.. ..I can get 3200 any old day with a 130 from the 270 if I want to,and from a 22" barrel at that.

Have killed numerous times with 270's,7x57,7/08's and 280's I haven't seen one do a thing the other can't do on animals.....it's all same/same/to me and they all fall into the same pig pile .

To me there is no 7mm "magic" over the 270 without a magnum hull and the heaviest 160+ 7mm bullets.Standard cases don't cut it.

While in the subject,and this is my own view,but much as I like the 264,I see little use for it while there is a magnum 7mm around.

extremesolo,

I bought a 700 BDL .270 Win when I was 16. It was my only hunting rifle for many a season. I've used in CA's premium mule deer areas & many Rocky Mountain states. I have NEVER had to shoot ANY head of big game with it more than once. I made my longest shot with it.

I shot the barrel out of it, that & I might have screwed it up trying to clean it, which is another story. Long story short, I retired it for the much better elk rifle, a 7MM Rem Mag. Now don't get me wrong, the 7MM Rem Mag might just be the single best cartridge for all North American big game, or at least it's tied for the top spot with the .280 Rem, and the .30-'06, which really ain't any better than a .308 Win so we will put it way up there, and the 7MM-08 Rem could squeeze in there as well, and, oh, wait a second, I forgot to mention one that's closing in on the century mark but doesn't get much love here even though for some yet-to-be-determined reason has a phenomenal record of killing all kinds of North American big game with one shot: the venerable .270 Win.

Seems like I was a lot smarter at 16 than I was when I figured I had to have a 7MM Rem Mag to kill big game.

All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten and when I was 16.

The last of your rifles I'd purge is your .270 Win. But that's just me. Your mileage might vary.


Best of luck to you,

Tom

I'd take the .270 any day, it does a lot of thing well with less powder than the .264 Win. Before all you 7-08 fans chime back in, the .270 will offer more variety of factory loads for the non-handloader to choose from when they walk in the local store. As far as long range even the lowly 130 great SGK will work on large deer, the bullet I used stoked by a compressed load of I4831. I shot this deer on the north side of 560 yards back in 2006.




I used the 150 grain NPT on elk several times, but wouldn't hesitate to use a 130 NPT or all copper. I think the best balanced bullet right now for the .270 is the 140 grain NAB, and is what I plan to load in my new to me EW when it arrives.

Interesting thread... I have a new-to-me .270 to begin load development for, and a new-to-the-grandsons .264 (M70 XTR) to tinker with as well. Will chime in once I have some real world experience.

When I hunt pigs, the landowners want as many shot as possible.

For that reason - for me - the 5 in the mag of the 270 over the 3 of the 264 Mag, as well as the ability to recover quicker for a second and subsequent shots with the 270 because of less kick, is enough to say "go the 270".

These are my reasons though and perhaps irrelevant to the thread starter.


In reference to an earlier comparison of 150g 270 Win loads and 130g 264 Win loads, why wouldn't you compare like products, eg 150 .277 SST and 129g .264 SST?

No. The .264 WM has a MPBR ONLY 16 yards greater than the .270 WCF (321 yards vs 305 yards).

But there's the coolness factor, so I wouldn't sell it.

never shot a .270.

have/had eight .264s

no regrets

I've shot both quite abit. I'd take the 264 anyday

I get more like 3000 fps out of a 22" 7mm-08. A 22" 270 will do 3000 with 140s.

As for the 270 vs. 264 debate, if one stacks the deck with a 26" barrel on the 264, sure it will perform. You probably won't see the difference until over 500 yards. Is it worth packing around a heavier, clumsier rifle for that advantage? That's up to you. With similar barrel lengths the differences will be nil at typical hunting distances.

With similar bullet weights (in similar weight rifles), the 264 will be louder and kick harder. Not much, but it's there.

The 264 has the "cool" factor, but cool factor doesn't find you a box of ammo when you lose yours on a trip. A good number of gas stations, hardware stores, and hunting camps in Montana (and numerous other states I've visited) will have 270 ammo kicking around somewhere. That's worth quite a bit for the globe trotting hunter.