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

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.