While I'm a supporter of the 6.5 PRC and think it will prove to be a good round, note that the magazines don't say anything about it being a barrel burner, yet the 264 WM continues to be labeled. Both 264 & 6.5 PRC ballistics are nearly identical. I have a Sendero 264 and love it, but do wish it had a 1:8 twist for the heavier bullets. Mine will shoot 130's but not as accurately as 120's. 140 boat tails are not an option for under 1 MOA. Enjoy the PRC!
Apparently you have never noticed that the .264 has burns a lot more powder for relatively little added velocity about the 6.5 PRC. In fact, the .264's powder capacity, with a bullet seated, is almost 30% greater than the PRCs--and the heat of more burning powder is a MAJOR factor in barrel life.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
I guess you're right that the 264 WM still has another 150fps over the PRC, which has about 200fps over the Creed. I thought I'd read that the PRC was roughly the same as 264 WM but not so. In working with my 264, I've noticed considerable differences in barrel heat depending on powders and of course charges. I migrate towards moderately slow powders rather than the super slow stuff and the barrel stays a LOT cooler. Admittedly, a 264 most of the time cannot benefit from its case capacity, but I've not seen evidence of erratic performance running charges of only 59gr.
I still find it funny how the 264 gets labeled as a barrel burner and no one talks of the 26 Nosler, 6.5-300 WM. Somehow these get a pass. The PRC is an interesting round and at some point I'll probably have one.