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

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.....

I didn't mean to imply you were holdin' out on me......

The 264 is about as obsolete as the....well....the 26 Nosler, the 7mm LRM, the 300 WSM,etc etc.

I don't think anything invented since the 30/06 or 7x57 is "obsolete". Unpopular maybe, but not obsolete.

Sit in the butts and listen to bullets from any of these cartridges come cracking over your head from 500-600 yards away,and we won't think any of them are obsolete.

Bob,

"Unpopular" is EXACTLY what obsolete means. As I noted in an earlier post, the primary definition in an unabridged Webster's dictionary is "no longer in general use."

This does NOT mean .264's don't exist, or are ineffective--and that's definitely NOT what the author of the article said. Apparently I need to repeat what he wrote in the sentence just before using the fateful word obsolete: "Loaded with a 140-grain bullet, it's a dynamite performer in many ways."

Another word people often misunderstand is "moot." (You should get this one, because you're a lawyer.) Ask 10 people the meaning of moot and they'll say "irrelevant," but it actually means debatable, hypothetical or theoretical. Something moot CAN be irrelevant, but that's not the meaning. Similarly, something obsolete CAN be extinct or dysfunctional, but that's not the meaning.

Here's a parallel to the .264: For the past decade I've been driving a Ford F350 pickup made in 2000. It still runs great, partly because I maintain it well and partly because it's only used when the room and power is needed, as when pulling my 20-foot trailer or bringing home a dead moose. As a result it's driven less than 10,000 miles a year.

But it's obsolete, because relatively few F350's made in 2000 are in general use. I wouldn't get upset if somebody called it obsolete, just as I didn't get upset when reading the article, and leap to my computer to defend such a slur against my own .264.

Apparently, however, many shooters always stand ready to defend their cartridge's honor. We've seen this many times before on the Campfire, sometimes in similar circumstances, where something in a magazine article is quoted out of context, or people misunderstand some relatively innocent word.

In many ways this thread is much like the ".270 versus .280" threads that pop up regularly. It keeps going not due to any real substance but because rifle loonies like to argue about minutiae, even if they're mistaken about the minutiae. And I'm sure Rick Bin is happy, because lots of posts allow him to charge higher advertising rates.

Okay, I had my say. Now everybody can go back to defending the honor of the .264 against cyberspace libel.

John I should have looked up the definition of "obsolete" before posting.I shoulda known better

I equate it with "useless"... obviously that's not correct I guess.I did read Terry's article and could not find any issue with it either.

I guess my point is that some otherwise excellent cartridges fall in and out of favor with the majority of shooters for reasons that have nothing to do with their merits...the 264 is one of them,as is the 280 Remington.

Both had the misfortune of bumping into the tidal wave of popularity known as the 7 Rem Mag,and had the 270 Winchester nipping at their heels with a 30+ year head start. All this means they lost the popularity battle,but it takes nothing away from their respective merits as BG cartridges....which was my central point, I think.

And since we have been in the smokeless era for over 100 years now,we see that with updated bullets, good rifles,and modern powders,even the old timers can make surprisingly good showings which was the reason for my reference to the old 7x57 and 30/06.

In any event the 264 is the only cartridge with which I have hit a rock at 1300 yards (on purpose),so it has my endorsement.

Hell I almost bought one the other day but decided to keep flinging 7mm bullets instead.

I did look up the word obsolete and here are a few more definitions that seem more inline with how I would use the term.

1. No longer in use: an obsolete word.
2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction: an obsolete locomotive.
3. Biology Vestigial or imperfectly developed, especially in comparison with other individuals or related species; not clearly marked or seen; indistinct. Used of an organ or other part of an animal or plant.
tr.v. ob�so�let�ed, ob�so�let�ing, ob�so�letes
To cause to become obsolete.

Now I might have agreed with the term, obsolete, if we were talking about the .270 Win or the .280 Rem.

To label the .264 Win Mag obsolete in any way is simply wrong and the author should be should be forced to hunt with a 30-06 (talk about obsolete) for the rest of his life.

264 Win Mag RULES.