Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Is the .264 Obsolete?

Is the .264 Obsolete?

Maybe he is right; the 264 just might be obsolete. I haven't read any articles of anyone killing elephants with it lately (as did some of the turn-of-the 20th century hunters like D.W.M. Bell).

PTG is already offering wildcat reamers in 25cal, 277cal, 7mm, 30cal, 325cal, 338 and 375. I shoot a virtually identical case in the 458AccRel ... and the ARs (AccurateReloading) are in 416/458 and 470 caliber.

The case is pretty interesting ... whether Nosler appreciates it well enough to offer the 'wildcats' will be the deciding factor. Mate and I are already arguing over which of the 'wildcat' reamers to bring in. Damn gunsmith who'll do the ordering however has gone fishing for a week. Guy must think he's retired or something!

Just waiting for Lee to make 26Nosler dies, could you have a word with them? They open up real easy and are infinitely cheaper than custom die sets!

Just to get back on topic ... as long as ammunition is being made no cartridge is obsolete. When reloaders have a decade of making brass from other cases ... then its semi-obsolete. If you have to scrounge to find dies ... okay, its obsolete!
Cheers...
Con

Mule Deer, I enjoy and appreciate you contributions here on the Fire, much because of the knowledge and experience behind those writings. On the other hand, it does seem odd, and even humorous, when one �gun writer� seems to find it necessary to go to such length to defend or justify what another �gun writer� publishes. You yourself said that writer does like to �stir things up� and, if that was his goal, he may have succeeded. However, such stirring often lies far from presenting solid info, data and useful insight that appeal to, and add to the knowledge of, readers who wish to grow.

I am not the least upset by his article, and particularly not because he maligned one or more of my �favorite� cartridges. None of those are my favorite, but I know some things about their effectiveness and know full well, from a practical standpoint, that the .264 WM is not at all obsolete. Not upset � but a bit disgusted by such writing for the apparent purposes of stirring things up among those who would rather learn something useful, and of getting one more article published. Who needs that?

You write that the fellow knew exactly what he was saying when he used the term �obsolete�, then cite a couple of dictionary definitions and go from there in defending him. However, that comes across as definitional hair-splitting when one considers other recognized definitions of �obsolete�, such as: �no longer in general use; fallen into disuse; of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date; replaced with something newer or better; out of use or practice; not current; unfashionable or outmoded�. Or, if one wishes to get pedantic, let�s go back to the mid 1500s for the Latin root (obsoletus) in its past participle form (obsolescere) �to fall into disuse�.

I don�t think those terms describe the subject cartridge, and think it will take more than a wordsmith defense to place that piece of writing in a good light.

he gets paid to entertain and to induce thought. he succeeded. why nitpick any further?

not said to anyone in particular. just out loud.

Most of the rounds I use and shoot are obsolete, from 9,3X72R to 325 WSM.

My "264" is a more-obsolete than the youngster 264 Win, but I kill deer fine with the 6.5X57R.

Getting ruffled at the truth is pretty common among rifle-loonies.

not in my house, it is very much alive

Well I love 6.5s, and I am obsolete... so maybe that was what was being referred to,, or at least to justify the statement...

Well, unlike many Americans, I read the article. Nothing in there ruffled my feathers. I think he said 6.5 mm's were great, but not popular, and if not for reloaders, would have likely died out in America.

He said belts were not bad, even if not needed.

He did say the .264 WM was obsolete, and the 6.5 RM had an even shorter life.

I thought the article was kind of about belts, and kind of about 6.5's and kind of about the Nosler .26.

I think the author would be a good guy to have a beer with.

Sycamore

Talking about obsolete cartridges is like talking about little green men from Mars....there ain't no such thing in either case.

CCCC,

Notice that none of the definitions you list means "extinct," which is what others apparently think is the meaning of "obsolete"--including, it would seem, you.

That aside, my major point was wondering how siskiyou thought Terry was running down the .264 after saying: "Loaded with a 140-grain bullet, it was a dynamite performer in many ways."

Glad you find it amusing that I'm defending the article, but as noted in my post I've seen a lot of ignorant and even stupid Campfire comments on various magazine articles, often by people who never read the articles. I've also gotten a lot of ignorant and stupid letters. One, for instance, objected to the phrase "the subspecies of humans known by some as rifle loonies." This guy felt insulted by "subspecies," which he thought meant some very low form of animal. Personally, I would have round-filed his letter, but the editor of the magazine asked me to respond, so I did.

While I don't respond to every letter or post by people who somehow interpret "subspecies" as a pejorative, or "obsolete" as "the cartridge you're using is a POS" (especially right after the writer praised the cartridge) I do respond to some, and will continue to now and then. I hope you continue to find this amusing.

Well, apparently one does, anyway.

Sycamore

All I've got to say is y'all need to read Stephen Hunter's latest book, The Third Bullet. All kinds of 6.5 goodness.

As for me, I'm a '59 model and like other things which came into being that year. Already have several .22 WMR envelopes around the house, but still need a .264 WM, a .358 Norma Magnum and a bright red '59 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz convertible.

Guess the .264 will come first on this bucket list, just because they're a bit more common. To frost the cake, I rediscovered something: I was born on Day 264 of the Julian Calendar.

Cosmic Rifle Loony Nirvana, boys!

Check out this trip down Memory Lane:
Guns Magazine April 1959

Hunter does keep up with all the latest gun and gear. I've have to pick up a copy!

This one is about what was available in late '63, John...

Absolute great book. Can you tell from my username that I enjoy Hunter's works...grins.

Gotcha!

Dad's a fan too. We ate up there and enjoying the post-meal conversation. I had to sneak in his gun room and snap a pic of one of the shelves..Mr. Hunter keeps good company...

I have thought about the term obsolete, and the only cartridges I think are not obsolete by Mule Deer's definition from the dictionary are the 5.56 Nato, the 7.62X39, and the 9mm Parabelum, though that nomenclature is obsolete. I am not sure if the .22 rim fire exists or not anymore.

In all honesty no cartridge was ever in general use worldwide.


Certainly the 264 is made from current use technology: the belted magnums seem to be surviving along with the .473 family, while none of the Rums, Saums, and other newer iterations seem to be achieving non-obsolescence.

It seems the term obsolete is about worthless in the description of cartridges, though I think the .43 Egyptian qualifies, just to show I am not dogmatic about it.

Mule Deer I appreciate your input, I think you have good ground here for a thoughtful article.

For some reason or other the phrase "tilting at windmills" comes to mid here. Can't imgine why

Siskiyou,

Thanks for your input as well.

A lot would depend on what sort of general use. I mean, do we mean humans in general, or big game hunters in general? The latter is, I suspect, what we've been talking about--and the .264 has always primarily been a big game cartridge. If we're talking big game cartridges, the .30-06 is probably the most generally used on the planet. (And among recent centerfire cartridges, the WSSM's are probably the most obsolete....)

For a couple of years I've been thinking about an article on centerfire rifle cartridges that were chambered ONLY in one factory rifle--and if that rifle wasn't produced anymore, then that round would have to be considered obsolete. The inspiration for the idea was the .348 Winchester--but even it wasn't chambered only in the Model 71 Winchester (and Browning reproduction) as apparently some European double rifles were chambered in .348! Which makes sense, as it's a rimmed medium-bore that would be perfect for a lot of European driven game.

Odd you should bring up the .43 Egyptian. I almost caved the other day when a Rolling Block .43 Spanish showed up on the used rack at a local store, in good shape with a very shiny bore. But which .43 Spanish cartridge is it chambered in, and which version is the most obsolete? I'm not put off by having to jump through some hoops to handload some older cartridge, but after some research this one looked like more of PITA than it was worth.