Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting .264 Win Mag for elk

Hey there my friend. Within my stable of 6.5's resides a 6.5-06. Using the Barnes 120gr TSX has proved it very capable of taking elk cleanly with complete pass thru shots. I guarantee your 6.5-06 with your 160gr bullets is well capable of heavy game. Have no doubt!!!! Use it with complete confidence. Me & mine have taken elk with the 260 Rem/6.5x55/6.5-06/264 mag. All one shot kills. We take one to two elk each season.. Once you actually tale elk with your 6.5 you will understand. Just remember a proper sight picture, a squeezed trigger with the bullet properly placed = elk on the ground. Good hunting .

I haven't killed an elk, but my 264 shoots tiny little groups, that you could cover with a quater at 200 yards with this load.

WAM, the OP wanted to see experiences of the 264 on elk. The OP did not ask what anyone thought of the 264 or any other non-related BS. That's all, nothing personal at you and no "toughness" here. Thought this needed saying as it was not getting across but it was obvious. Take care out there. Mac

When the OP asked about the effectiveness of the 264 mag on elk it means a "6.5 bullet" at a certain velocity delivered to the elk. Regardless of the brass case behind the bullet. Since various 6.5's using a bullet like the Barnes 6.5 120gr TSX has proven to be effective on elk it seems reasonable to assume that out of a 264 it will fly faster & flatter. I see this as pertinent information... Every one who contributes bits of info on the 6.5 bullets at any velocity gives a better understanding to the OP of the 6.5's capability. I have taken a fair amount of elk myself & observed many taken by others with various cal's. The 6.5 whether it be a 260 Rem or a 264 mag has proven to be very capable. They will put an elk down & dead just as fast as any other cartridge with a tough deep penetrating bullet like the Barnes TSX properly placed. I have seen elk struck multiple times with large cal's & heavy bullets improperly place which finally put the elk on the ground & then required a finishing shot. Shot placement is important no matter what cartridge you use.

Mac, no offense taken. I think some of the comments did little to answer the OP’s original question, including mine. I find that many on this innanet are of the “ ready, shoot, aim” crowd. Good luck hunting in N. Ideeho from E. WA. Happy Trails

Yes they are. Same to you over there!

I have taken 1 bull elk (6 point) with my 264 using a Swift Scirocco II 130 grain. I have taken elk with numerous rifles shooting many cartridges. The 264 works well, as do many others.

8mmwapiti

I’ve killed elk with the 264 using 140 partitions, 120 ttsx, and 130 accubond. 140 partitions are my preference for elk, but I usually load 130 accubonds because I don’t only hunt elk. I did lose one with an accubond that I believe hit the shoulder based on her limp and good blood trail, at first. I really like the versatility of the cartridge for western hunting.

I cannot argue with your choice of the 140 Partition for Elk as I load that bullet in the Swede @ 2700 and the Creed @ 2800 and my Wife took 1 Bull with each load. Because I have not tried the 120TTSX yet, I wondered what you observed with that bullet that kept it out of 1st place for that application.

The Barnes 120gr "X" & now the 120gr TSX/TTSX have always given me & mine complete penetration with any 6.5 from the 260 Rem to the 264mag.on elk. We have never recovered one of the 120gr Barnes from an elk.The advantage the 264mag has is a faster, flatter trajectory. Consider a Barnes 120gr TSX at 3450 fps. Sighted + 1.5" @ 100, +0.35 @ 200 , -5.30 @ 300yds & -16.67 @ 400yds. That means from in your face to 300 + yds dead on hold. Time of flight is also incredibly fast for an elk round. For sure such a stout bullet is not needed for deer but keeping your 264 sighted with the 120gr TSX for both deer & elk will work.

I have been hunting elk and guiding hunters for most of my life, and I am getting to be an old man. Funny thing is that in all the years I have hunted and guided, I have never seen an elk shot with a 264 Mag.
I have seen them killed with 6.5X55, 6.5-06 and 260 Remingtons. What I can tell you is that all 3 of the above shells mentioned work fine if the bullets hold together.

But driving a bullet faster can make it come apart a lot worse, so my best guess would be to use a bullet of 140 or heavier, and get a Nosler Partition, Swift A-frame, any bonded or any expanding solid, and you'll be fine.

Stay away from any bullet that weights less then 60% of it's unfired weight when it stops.

The 264s I have seen used were all used against mule deer, and I can tell you that they were accurate and had a LOT of range, so I am sure you'll be fine using one on elk, as long as you shoot "elk bullets", not target bullets or any bullet that comes apart and completely sheds it's jacket.

Lack of reaction and longer time till fainting to 3-4 well placed rounds and similar effects with a similar 130TSX out of a 270 WSM on elk a year or two prior. Full penetration, but I get those with Partitions too.

Yeah, don’t use one of those 130 grain Berger VLD’s or 139 grain Scenars. For sure.

Where is Seinfeld when you need him?

Interesting...

How'd you get to 60%?

Did somebody declare war on mule deer and I missed it?

I've always been intrigued by the.264 and have had three, but have never hunted elk with any of them. However, I'm sure the cartridge would be adequate with a good bullet.

I haven't shot that many elk, but I've been on many do-it-yourself and guided hunts over the last thirty or so years. I've run across a number of hunters on both types of hunts but never found one that used a rifle chambered for any 6.5 cartridge. Last season, on a guided hunt in New Mexico, my guide told me of one of his clients that killed a bull the previous year with a 6.5 Creedmoor. So now I know it happens, even if it's not a .264...

"How'd you get to 60%?"

When I was CEO of Cast Performance several years ago we did a LOT of tests of our bullets and compared them to every other bullet we could, in penetration and cavitation. I have found that expanding bullet that retain 60% or more of their weight will nearly always give full penetration in large deer and elk too. It's not gospel, but it's a good rule of thumb.

You'll see I wrote 60%--------meaning AT LEAST 60%.

When shooting machined expanding solids in a 223 that weight 65 grains I found that in our ballistic test trough shooting into media and real bones that a 223 will out penetrate many 30 caliber 150 and 165 grain bullets that come apart. Notably the Sierras and some of the Speers. The "wound channels" are narrower, but far easier to control. Very few deviate from the direction of impact more then about 10 degrees. With fragmenting 30 cals it was common to get wide wounds, but the bullets can and often do turn as much as 30 degrees. On rare occasion I have seen them turn over 60 degrees.

A poor bullet that hits the heart or both lungs is still devastating most times. And hunters that are good marksmen do well with them most times, because they place them right. But a bullet that holds together also does well. Many times the "electric-kill" you see with the poor bullets is not quite as dramatic with a bullet that doesn't break up, but you don't loose game hit with them in the right place either. And they give you exits nearly every time if you are not pushing the edge of the envelope too hard. (as an example, shooting elk with a good .224 bullet is not likely to get many exists either, but 120 grain 25 calibers often do)

The positive point to a bullet that holds together is when the angles are not perfect and you need to break a bone on the close side of a deer, elk, moose bear or whatever. Burgers and many Sierras, as well as many Speer bullets break up on bone (even light bone like a rib) and not penetrate well, and very often don't penetrate straight.

This is my reason for my own preference in bullets.

I want exits, every time. I admit I don't always get them, but I do most of the time.

I want to be able to make the exit right where I want it, or to be or at lease very close to where I want it. Good bullets do this for me.

The fragmenting explosive bullet do kill very fast if you get them into the area of the chest you want them to be. But they don't always cooperate, and I have seen this so many times as a hunter and as a guide that I just don't take the chance much anymore.

60% + seems to be a good rule of thumb to follow.

Some "plain vanilla" bullets hold 60% or more a rule, so you need not always spend big money of a very good bullet. Many of the Remington Core-Lokts do very well (especially the older ones) and the Winchester Power Points seem to think they are Nosler Partition in many cases.
So it's not a matter of expense. Just paying attention to the jacket taper and thickness is a good way to start. Bonded core bullets are very good as a rule too.

Szihn: not quibbling with what you say. But velocity is a pretty important variable, too. Should it not be included in the discussion?

Absolutely. And a good point you bring up too.

But the base line remains. If you have a bullet that retains (as an example) 80% of it's weight at an impact velocity of 2300 and you fire it from a large magnum so it impacts at 2700 you may find that the excellent bullet fired from a 30-40 Krag is terrible from a 300 Weatherby. So your point is spot on.
My base line of "60% weight retention or more" covers all the bases, even when you thrown in impact speed. If your rifle will cause a bullet to come apart at realistic impact velocities, use something tougher.
By the same token, if you have a bullet such as a Barnes X or Swift A-Frame that is very good from a 300 Weatherby, but you fire it in a 30-40 Krag, you may find that it will not expand past about 125 yards, and in some cases not past 75 yards.

Select a bullet that expands and doesn't break up in YOUR rifle, and you will do fine on an elk hunt.