sambo3006,
No, the .264 doesn't seem to have that quirk! It's also easy to get to shoot well, if the brass is of consistent dimensions, especially the neck thickness--which tends to be a problem with 21st-century Winchester brass. That's why I used necked-down 7mm Remington Norma cases in my first .264 in 2004: Their necks were very uniform, and they worked very well.
The major problem I've seen with the .264 is short barrel life, as several people have already mentioned. This is caused not just by the large powder charges compared to the bore-size, but the shoulder angle directing more of the hot powder gas into the rear of the rifling.
The .243 Winchester is also known for short barrel life, due to its combination of shoulder angle and a short neck--which is why David Tubb developed his 6XC cartridge. It has only slightly less powder capacity than the .243, but a steeper shoulder and far longer neck--which extends barrel life considerably.
Many of the commercial hunting cartridges introduced in the 1950s and 60s had a combination of shoulder angle and short neck similar to the .243's and .264's, one reason many more recently introduced rounds have steeper shoulders, and often longer necks. Both tend to extend barrel life. The 26 Nosler's barrel life tends to be at least as long as the .264's, despite its much larger powder capacity, because its sharper 35-degree shoulder tends to direct more powder gas inside the neck, rather than into the bore in front of the case mouth.
Whether all of that is relevant to hunters who may only shoot a rifle a few hundred times in their life is another question! But it is a factor that's changed case design over the past half-century.
