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

In the April Handloader, Terry Weiland's article "In Defense of Belts" loses track of the title's stated subject, and decries 6.5 MM's in general, and the new 26 Nosler in particular, despite not having any experience with it, and says the .264 Winchester Magnum is obsolete.

Of course there is no definition of obsolete that would satisfy many at the fire, but I hold that the .264 Winchester Magnum is still one of the finest long range options out there for Western Game.

Some of the finest hunters I know carry nothing else in the field for Moose, Deer, Bear, Elk, Goats, Sheep, and Antelope. And any of the various 264's would kill the same range of game.

Would anyone here refuse to hunt because they were going to have to use a .264?

If you have one of these pieces of junk laying around and want to offload it fast PM me.

Yes, it is. Doesnt mean it cant be put to good effect, its just not very popular.
Does it really matter, if you like it?

Obsolete depends which definition you are using of the word.

No longer produced or used: NO

To replace with something new: Sure

It ain't dead!

Haven't read my friend Terry's article yet, but he does like to stir people up.

Apparently he has.

I think it was in "The Hunting Rifle" where Jack O'Connor uses the term obsolete about several rifles/cartridges. In context, I took it to mean they were no longer available in factory rifles, or loaded factory ammo, or were on the way out...not that they were ineffective.

Just think about some of the funky old Winchester lever action cartridges. They would still get the job done, if you could find them.

I think he was trying to keep the target audience from buying a rifle it would hard to keep in factory ammo.

Not a bunch of rifle looneys, who like something because it is rare.

Sycamore

10 years from now the 26 Nosler will be more obsolete than the 264WM.

I keep trying to find a reason to go below my 30's and 7X57 in Caliber, but the only two I think would get my wallet out are either a .264 or a .257 Weatherby, and they would have to have 26 inch barrels.

I should stake a claim to wildcatting the 26 Nosler: The MCN-Mags in 14 to 25, and 27 to 577. The world needs a .4427 Nosler.

IMHO, the 26 Nosler is DOA. A local dealer has got some rifles ordered, and is trying to convince me I need one. It ain't gonna happen. My .264's do just fine. No doubt the crowd who just has to have the latest and greatest will have to have a 26 Nosler, and will sing it's praises, until the next latest and greatest comes along. Then, that will be the end of the 26 Nosler.

Once upon a time the 264 was the 26 Nosler of its time.

I'm sure there were folks proclaiming the 264 dead on arrival too. Many cartridges come along, have their time in the spotlight, then become relatively obscure.

Examples are abundant,and it rarely has much to do with whether they are good or not.

The 264 Win Mag rocks with modern powders and high BC bullets.

JD338

Of course it does...cartridges are just canisters. Even old ones can benefit from updated powders and bullets.

All most of them do is change shape and style.But like women's shoes,makers have to invent something new to sell people.

To top it off I see this same writer has a story in the same issue of Handloader on keeping classic firearms shooting, focusing on old metric rounds - OMFG.

Writers should show some philosophical integrity.

Not as obsolete as silly and useless gun writers who have to struggle to find something "interesting" to write - in order to uphold their "credibility". Apparently this poor soul does not understand the purpose of a rifle or the performance of the 6.5x55, the 6.5/06 and the .264 Win Mag that hang around here. He should interview a once-shot/dead mule deer or antelope, or elk.

It is very infrequent that I find a writer I am disgusted with, Zumbo was tops, but this two faced bastard has gotten my ire up.

CCCC, IIRC, TW took a Dall sheep with a 6.5x55. And he has written of his fondness for the .257 Wby. I'm sure he also has enough grey matter to realize that the "canister size" ,as Bob puts it, between the .264 WM and the .257 Wby is not that great and that .264 bullets offer even more ballistic potential arguably than the .25s.

These guys write for groceries so any observation, opinion, expectation, or even an aspect of one of these they have is fair game for an article. It's probably still accurate to say that in the States the 6.5s are outside looking in despite the .260 and the 6.5x284 and their adherents. And the old dog, the .264, in the right platform (no 24" tubes) while excellent is not exactly common.

Relax; it's just an article, not a something he is trying to get accepted into the canon of Scripture..

I put forth the opinion that the term "obsolete" is a positive thing when it comes to guns and cartridges and that it stirs the nostalgic and collectors among us to rush out and buy one or maybe even several... LOL

I guess I'd probably pass as obsolete in many circles and I promise not to lose a whit of sleep over it...

Bob

Ditto!

He's an azz IMO and any round from the standards will appropriately deliver with an appropriate bullet and shooter to well 98% of shooters should be shooting. Ain't rocket science.

Well there's certainly worse things today than uncommon cartridges.....seems those are the easiest one's to get brass for these days.

I have some 264 brass....but no rifle.

Just in case...

I doubt that obsolete or outdated are terms that have as much meaning as they used to.

We have bullets today that can make a given round perform over a much wider spectrum of use when combined with the powders available. I killed a 200 lb+ deer last fall with a .223 and made a 3 inch hole through the off side shoulder, tore up the lungs and left the heart loose in the chest. That using a 53 grain bullet. My 30-30 pushes 150 grain Barnes TSXs at 2400 FPS. I never tried to see, but with 3 full grans of LeverEvolution to go before it hits book max I think it will be right on 2700 FPS. 308 Winchesters with 130 grain TTSXs are really, really nice deer rounds, something a few years ago we used 150s for.

We have a lot more we can do with all rounds now. That includes high performance rounds too.

He wouldn't be writing the article if there wasn't a market for it. The market is right here on these pages.

Good observation. Look at all the discussion its created. But, if the .264WM is obsolete, where does that leave me with the 6.5RM I just got?

In good hspe, I think. Just shoot it until you're obsolete.

To me, labeling a cartridge as obsolete simply means that the case design is no longer cutting edge. It doesn't mean that the chambering is going to disappear or stop working. Obviously if it did disappear or stop working, it would be called obsolete as well

Now I won't feel so out-of-place adding a fourth 7x57 to the cabinet.

It will do OK until they come out with the "28 Nosler" ; then it will be shades of 1962 all over again when Remington introduced the Rem. 7mm Magnum and the 264 Win. started it's downslide..

History does often repeat itself.....

Jordan,

Exactly.

I just looked up obsolete in our two big dictionaries, a Random House unabridged Webster's and the Oxford English Dictionary. The first line of the Webster's is "no longer in general use." The OED says, in part, "a discarded type or fashion."

Neither equals totally gone and disappeared, and I doubt if anyone could claim the .264 ever came into general use, or was a fashion. Instead it was a good cartridge that never beat out other good cartridges in general use or fashion, whether the .270 Winchester or 7mm Remington Magnum.

That's the reason it isn't a regular chambering among major rifle manufacturers. Like many rounds that never came into general use, it's occasionally chambered in special runs. My own .264 is a stainless-synthetic Hawkeye from Ruger's limited run a few years ago.

I hadn't read the article yet, so just did, and don't know what all the fuss is about. (Well, actually I do, but will get to that later.) Here's what Terry had to say just before the "obsolete" line:

"In 1958, Winchester introduced the .264 Winchester Magnum, one of the original short belted magnums. Loaded with a 140-grain bullet, it was a dynamite performer in many ways."

That doesn't sound to me like somebody trying to run down the .264. Instead it sounds like a fan, and knowing how much Terry likes the .257 and .270 Weatherby Magnums I can't imagine he feels differently about the .264.(I went on an elk hunt with him in 2012 and he brought his .270 Roy--a Mark V with a nice walnut stock from Weatherby's custom shop--and killed a good 6-point bull.)

In fact, the only part of the article I'd quibble with is where he says the .256 Newton "was nothing more nor less than the.30-06 necked to .264," which isn't exactly correct, though pretty close.

But he did NOT run down any of the 6.5mm cartridges in the article. Instead he pointed out the simple fact that 6.5's have never been big sellers in America. He didn't say they were ineffective or inaccurate, he merely pointed out that they never became as POPULAR here as various other cartridges in their same class, such as the .270 Winchester and 7mm Remington Magnum. And that is absolutely correct.

He also did address the belt issue thoroughly and, in my opinion, correctly.

Apparently the reason so many people who've posted here got upset is they didn't really know the definition of "obsolete," so chose to interpret that single word as an insult to one of their favorite cartridges, when it was not. Others chose those posts to take shots at gun writers in general, while not even READING the article.

In fact, this whole thread reminds of the one that finally forced me to become a Campfire poster instead of a just a lurker, many years ago. Somebody posted a 2-sentence synopsis of one of my articles on this forum (which at the time was called "Ask Ken Howell"). While the synopsis was correct as far as it went, and was positive, other people jumped on it, saying I'd left out many important aspects of the subject--even though THEY hadn't read the article.

Well, duh. A 2-sentence synopsis isn't a 3000-word article. So I posted in an attempt to clear up the mix-up (much like I'm doing here), which eventually got me roped into joining Ken, and the name of the forum changed.

I don't agree with everything Terry writes because, oddly enough, gun writers don't agree on everything any more than most other shooters. But he is very knowledgeable student of firearms history, and also a life-long and very experienced hunter, shooter and handloader. He's also more accurate in his knowledge and use of the English language than most other gun writers, partly because he was a professional (and international) reporter for many years before starting to do any gun writing.

Terry knew exactly what he was saying when using "obsolete," and his use was correct. Unfortunately, a lot of magazine readers aren't as well-versed in English, and many rifle loonies look everywhere they can for a chance to take offense. Which is really what this thread is about.

Hey John: this is just like being the pastor of a church!

Just kidding. Good post. Now I know what Travis means when he calls Ingwe and the 7x57 obsolete.

Mike

How to get a middle aged white guy wound up:

The (insert his favorite caliber) sucks.

I would not call the 264WM obsolete.......

In America " politically INcorrect" is closer!

Fixed it.

+1

No doubt. In fact the 26 Nosler will probably never sell nearly as well as the .264.

But I doubt Nosler ever expected it to, or cares. Instead it's an even more specialized cartridge for their limited production rifles. The major factor will whether it will be profitable, and I bet it will be.

Actually read a article this morning, regarding the 264 Win from you John in Handloader mag number 233 Febuary 2005. As usual it was well done.

Thanks!

Did a follow-up piece last year too, using my Ruger as the test rifle.

What should we call a cartridge that is no longer popular, not chambered in factory offerings or is expensive and hard to get? Just because something is old, dose not make it any less useful. The 30-30 is about as old as it gets for smokeless powder cartridge and its still as useful as the day it was introduced for example.

Hey no prob just speaking the truth. Over the years I've picked up lots of knowledge from your writing. Your style makes it easy to learn from. I've said it before your the best in your field bar none.


Find much difference between your 26 inch Winchester opposed to the 24 inch Ruger. Gotta add great pick up finding that Winchester. Looks like it's in excellent condition.

Terry Weiland may be somewhat knowledgable, efficient writer. But His name on the article usually causes me to skip it.

He has spent too much time as a reporter trying to the raise the ire of his readers. I read articles to learn, not have my emotions stirred. If that is the direction the magazines have been heading, I guess I am not missing much.

If the 264 is obsolete as a weapon, then all cartridges are obsolete. They all use the same technology.

7 STW,

About 50-75 fps difference between the 24" and 26" barrel, depending on bullet weight and load.

The 264 WM has survived for 55 years (1959-present); I doubt there will be a 26 Nosler in 2069.

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.

Funny you should mention rolling blocks, because my son picked up a number 4 in the nearly obsolete 32 Rim fire (OK, Obsolete), I saw the articles and web info on shooting it as a 32 RF, but that was a PITA too. I have beefed up the Screws and re-chambered it in 32 S&W Long, which may be obsolete too, but my local gun store had four choices of ammo for that chambering.

I think in general the percentage of 264 still used for game is as high as most cartridges, like I said in the beginning, some of the best Western big game hunters I know won't leave home without theirs.

I might have to do a local survey, but in the 24 years since we moved to this area of southwestern Montana (about an hour from where I grew up) I've only run into two .264's users. Well, three if you count me--and I bought my first .264 from one of the other guys!

I do KNOW, however, that the .264 has made something of a comeback in the past decade. Published my first article on it for HANDLOADER in 2005, when there was very little current handloading data, and none with newer, more appropriate powders--so literally had to work up my own loads, using a combination of case-head expansion and chronograph results.

After buying my Ruger I found a LOT of current data, with far more powders, and only a year after doing a write-up on all of that, find even more data available. Plus, my Ruger has a 1-8 twist, considered much more appropriate for 6.5mm rounds these days. No doubt Ruger used that twist because they were also using it in the 6.5 Creedmoor, but it's also an indication of increasing popularity.

Though I doubt the 6.5's have increased significantly in popularity among most hunters, who still buy a lot of .243's, 25-06's, .270's. .30-06's and .300 Winchester Magnums. A lot of rifle loonies have a somewhat skewed view of what's popular, since we spend so much of our time among other rifle loonies!

Carry on - looking forward to more of your good work

.264 Win Mags are still sought after in our part of the world. The original pre-64 Westerners are especially prized. So far, all of the new Model 70 EWs that have made it this far south and west have been .264 Win Mags. All that I have heard about were actually spoken for before the LGS got them in their hands.

Not a writer!

One of my past gun regrets is sending an early Browning Safari (long extractor) in .264, down the road because of muzzle blast from the 22" barrel. It was accurate, but a 24" or even a 26" tube would have been much better for noise and velocity. In retrospect, I should have just had a longer factory contour barrel fitted. I suppose in those days, I was into more of the collector mentality than I am today.

Jack

Thinking about this I can recall one old timer from Durango who used a 264 for much of his hunting in North America and Africa. This was back in 1979-1980;the next guy I bumped into was John Burns,and the third is an old pal of mine who happens to like pre 64 Winchesters,owned one, and has hunted with it a few times.

I have owned 3 that I recall and took one to Alberta. Other than this activity,I can't recall any other 264 users. I suspect the popularity of long range shooting/hunting has a lot to do with the minor resurgence.But still it isn't a cartridge that pops up very frequently the places I have hunted.

Gonna have to start prowling Web for a '59 Westerner, I guess. Though an EW .264 WM don't sound bad. Shame Tikka don't make a T3! Sorry for the blasphemy.

P.S. Sure hope all faithful here have read Hunter's Pale Horse Coming. Many icons squeezing rounds in that one...

Well for my part among Southern hunters....

I began center fire deer hunting in 1972 and have hunted Ar. La. Miss. & Al.

All together of the hunters and handloaders I've met there is a TOTAL on ONE (1) person who had a 264 WM. He also is one of many I introduced and got him involved on handloading.

That says something on the popularity/obsolence of the 264 WM.

Personally I have not one thing against the cartridge.

Here I must note that if the .264 was in "general use," then rifle loonies wouldn't get all excited about ordering one from a limited run. Instead they'd just buy one off the rack of a local store, like they can with .270 Winchester's and 7mm Remington Magnums.

From what I've gathered about the early history of the .264, it sold pretty well until the 7mm RM appeared in 1962, and then stopped dead--as did the .280 Remington.

Hunters who weren't around then can't imagine what a phenomenon the "Seven Em Em" was in those days. Take the early craze over the .300 WSM, multiply it 10 times, then extend it for a decade, and you might have some idea.

The fact that when the 264 win mag came out the gun writers of the day dubbed it a barrel burner and tha turned a lot of prospective buyers off and of course the 7mm arrived and it's fate was sealed.

I have not read the entire thread and this may have been mentioned previously.

There were also reports that the factory ammo didn't get the advertised velocities--though my old Speer #6 manual contains chronograph tests they did with a lot of factory ammo, and the Winchester 140's came reasonably close. I've also found it close in the .two .264's I've owned. (The 100-grain load didn't come anywhere near specs in the Speer test, and was discontinued a number of years ago.) Many powders of the day weren't particular good for top velocities, consistent velocities in varying temperatures, or long barrel life.

No doubt much of the recent modest rebirth of the .264 is due to newer powders and better long-range bullets, especially in 6.5mm, the current favorite among many long-range shooters. Which is why I did the testing for my second HANDLOADER .264 article with target and higher-BC hunting bullets.

The 45-70 hasn't become obsolete, so I'd say the .264 Magnum isn't about to hit the museum just yet.

Looking back on that time, what percentage of 7 mags would you guess are present today resultant from that nonsense?

What would you project will be left of the WSM/WSSMs in thirty years?

I think the OP doesn't know the difference between unpopular and ineffective.

The .264 is certainly still effective.

If "obsolete" is synonymous with "Best Big Game Cartridge Ever" then I guess I would agree with the author.

When we balance delivered killing power and recoil the .264 Win Mag/140ge VLD stands at the top of the heap. The 7mm Rem Mag is a close second.

A few .264 Win Mag picts just for fun.

A 400yd Muley and 980yd Bull.



Same rifle with a 150yd Whitey:



Near to far the .264 Win Mag is "The Best Big Game Cartridge Ever"

I'm guessing here but.....

I think the 45-70 is more popular and used than the 264. ??

Uhhh, can you say 'prejudiced'??

My first center-fire rifle was a 7X57mm rolling block I ordered from Golden State Arms in 1956 for $7.97 plus shipping (about $3). It was in crummy shape with all the grease/cosmoline spread on it. I spent many pleasant hours cleaning it and re-finishing the stock and fore-end with tung oil. The barrel exterior is pitted (none of these South American rifles were very well cared for) but the bore is pristine.

I take it to the range 3-4 time a year and it takes me back 55 years! Lots of fun!

JB, I enjoyed your post and those photos of the good-looking game you bagged - at some distances - with that .264WM. Can't quite figure how a guy can do that with a cartridge so obsolete. Maybe you could write and explain that to the gun writer who made the declaration.

Is "prejudiced" synonymous with "unbiased".



Well I didn't do the shooting, just saw the results.

I did kill a little bull this year at an even 1000yds with the .264 Win Mag. Glad the bull never read that the ol .264 Win Mag was obsolete or he might have decided not to die.

Someone want to share some 140 VLD load data?

John (either John)?

Obsolete? Of course not. Not pushed by the industry. Have to come up with something new always. Had a moron tell me my 300 H&H mag was ,yet he couldn't hit the same steel plates at 4 to 800 yards with
His new fangled whatever.

I guess my .264 Winchester Magnum doesn't realize it's obsolete...














...I didn't let it read Terry's article or this thread so it won't ever find out.

PROBABLY.....in rifle 'loonyism'

David,

I tried several powders in my Ruger .264 for an article in HANDLOADER, and Ramshot Magnum, Reloder 25 and Retumbo worked best. In my rifle 63.5 grains of RL-25 shot the smallest groups woith 140's, and showed zero signs of high pressure with cases or over the chronograph, even though it's 3.5 grains over Alliant's max. But am in the process of trying some even slower powders now, which are more temp-stable than RL-15--though 25 would work fine if you're not hunting in widely varying weather.

I should add that in my first .264, a pre-'64 Model 70 Westerner, Magnum turned out to be the best powder with 140's. There wasn't any published data then, but the load I settled on (68.5 grains) turned out to be just about exactly what Ramshot lists as their maximum among 140's today. It got around 3220 fps and very good accuracy from the 26" barrel.

I believe John Burns uses Retumbo, but he also uses a longer throat than standard. He'll probably be along to clarify.

John,

Thanks for your reply. What issue of Handloader? How can I get a copy?

I'm not sure of the exact issue, but it appeared around the middle of last year. If you log onto www.handloader.com there's information on getting back issues.

At least the writer who termed it "obsolete" caused this nice thread on the .264WM. I have learned some things.

In thinking about the 30:06, 7x57, 6.5x55, .300 H&H, .264WM and others, am nearing the conclusion that most gun writers become obsolete well before the cartridges about which they write.

While I would not recommend it I can tell you that 72grs of Retumbo gets just shy of 3250 fps in my long throated chamber and a 26 inch barrel. 1800 rnds and still accurate.

I have shot this load in factory Remington .264 Win Mag chambers and have worn out them out in 1200 rnds. It is way over book loads and almost assuredly way over SAAMI max pressures. I am not saying it is a safe load, only that I have shot quite a few of them and never died.

I believe the throat geometry has more to do with the short barrel life than the high pressures.

Dang Burns, when I asked you for your secret load, you told me 68 grains........

If you think the .264 is obsolete put the barrel on one in your mouth and pull the trigger. Then let us know how you feel about it in a couple hours.

I know of an antelope on my wall that can attest the 264 is not obsolete.

No I told you 71grs of Retumbo was a max in Factory Rem 700s. I have shot 72 gr in a bunch of them.

As always I am not recommending anything, just stating my experience.

As has already been stated here, Muledeer did a great job on the articles. When the weather gets a little better I am going to take his data and shoot it in the 24" Rem and the 27" Gatlin custom to see how our velocity compares. I have seen over 100fps difference between my 26" gun and my 24" gun. When I have to kill something a long way off I do pull out a .264. Here is the boogieman with way over 2000 shots down the tube. No deer is safe with this thing in the field.......

It seems to me what isn't obsolete is some individuals thinking through a lack of experience.....