Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 264 win mag

Used those on game Rick?

has anyone tried reloader 25 in the 264, with a 140 grain bullet?

Yes, I burned up a pound of it in combination with several 140's. It scares the hell out of me, and I am pretty adventurous when it comes to handloading. I have worked with several wildcats, some before the advent of internet accessible data. And I developed loads for the 260 and the 7mm STW before load data was easily available.

Why does RL 25 scare me?

It produced unpredictable pressure spikes in my rifle, especially with the 140 Partition with its long bearing surface.

For example: on November 26, 2001 using the Nosler partition and RL 25.

71 gr produced a three shot string with muzzle velocity 3231 fps, 3239 fps, and 3239 fps.

66 gr produced 3090 fps.

But a carefully weighed charge of 69 gr produced 3045 fps on the first shot, 3188 fps with the primer completely blown free of the case on the second shot, the 3'rd shot produced 3309 fps.

RL 25 also gave unpredictable results with other 140 gr bullets, I recorded two shot on March 3, 2003 with 66 gr RL 25 and the 140 Sierra spbt. 1'st shot 2591, 2'nd shot 3006


I am still using the 300 264 cases I purchased in April 1995. Almost all of the cases which are missing from this lot, were damaged in my quest to tame Rl 25.

H 1000 turned out to be my go to powder for 140's.

good info Idaho Shooter. i heard a similar horror story from i guy at my range, but he is known for a lot of bs. i thank you for you help. Paul

Keep the info coming, boys. I can use it in my 6.5SLR.

That is not good to hear as in looking at the reloading book data for the .257 Weatherby I chose Reloader 25 for my Remington 700 CDL....

Will have to watch closely for any pressure signs...

Thanks...Bob

Had a 264 model 70 for 40+ years and shot deer, elk and moose with it. Used handloaded ww cases, 140 partitions and close to max 7828 (check your own loads and work up). Everything was a one shot kill with shoulder shots! Nothing ever went far or was drt. Moose went 30ft. Always aimed for opposite shoulder. Best gun but heavy at 9.5lbs. Skinny old fart with a 270 Tikka T3 now and it does almost the same with a lot less fuss and weight. YMMV.

Alliant lists 60 grains of RL 25 for a 140 gr 264 Win mag. hummmm

yep, almost all data shows "low" cause so many weaker 264's out there so you got to get a chronograph and work up a good load.

I'm not aware of any 'weaker' 264s out there. the .264 was always loaded to the nutz and never chambered in anything that couldn't take magnum pressures.

When I was working with my first can of this powder, I did not have the benefit of Alliant's data. The powder was not listed in any manual.

2'nd point: My rifle (with a 26 inch barrel) would have produced approximately 2700 fps with this can of RL 25 using a 140 at 60 gr charge weight. Not exactly what we buy a 264 for.

Bob, if you noticed the dates mentioned in my post. That was the first can of RL 25 to be seen in this valley when I purchased it.

I have heard reports that Alliant has improved the formula since those days, but I have a sour taste in my mouth for it. I can not imagine that I will be purchasing another can.

I do have an unopened can of RL 33 in the cabinet, waiting for a trial in the 264 with 140's and the STW with 160's.

I still have some Hornady 175's from loading a batch of Elk rounds for Garrett's 7 RM. I bet RL 33 would would work well with them in the STW.

I bet '33 would work well in your 257 with 117 gr or 120's.

All Alliant loads are on their website.

Not quite. The .264WM has always been a mid 60's KPSI cartridge. The ballistic labs just never use slow enough powders to show the potential of the cartridge. As such we end up with reloading manuals only showing 140's barely hitting 3000fps and then EVERYONE that wants to whine and compare it to a .270. It doesn't have anything to do with "weaker" actions.

No, What it has to do with is demand.

Until very recently, most of the data for the 264 was with the 4350's, the 4831's, and H870, because those were the only slow powders available at the time the data was developed. And H870 was actually to slow to work well in many 264's.

My results with H870 were so disappointing that I did not save any of the data from those trials. Suffice to say I could not break 3000 fps with a 140 and any compressed load.

For several decades, there was not enough demand for the 264 to justify any of the powder companies to spend the money developing new data, nor were there any new powders to develop data with.

But then, along came RL 22, and H1000, and IMR 7828, and then RL 25, followed by Magnum, and Mag Pro, and Retumbo, and more recently we have seen the introduction of RL 33, US 869, RL 50 and several other ultra slow powders aimed at the 50 BMG market.

Some of us more "adventurous" handloaders decided to treat the 264 and the new powders just like we would any new wildcat and start working up loads, as I did with the previously mentioned RL 25 loads.

And thanks to web forums, such as this one, word rapidly spread among experimenters as to what was working and what was not. The condemnation of RL 25 was pretty universal at this point in history.

I well remember when demand for new data with these new slower powders became such that our favorite gunwriter documented his experiments in the quest for 3200 fps with a 140. The internet was ablaze with discussion of John's article. It was the first new published data we had seen in decades.

And it was about this time that consumer demand began to pick up and RugRemChester saw the market increase and started producing rifles chambered for 264 again.

I started searching for a new 264 to purchase in 1979 when I first laid eyes on a loaded cartridge. It was sixteen years later before I finally found one in an LGS. (remember the world before the internet. before guntrader, and gunbroker sites were available, before search engines)

The new availability of cartridges like the STW series, the 30-378, the Ultramags, and the new found popularity of the 50 BMG as a sporting cartridge drove the development of new slow powders which drove the increase in popularity of new and old overbore cartridges. Which drove the development of data for those cartridges.

It is a synergistic relationship.

Doing just that tomorrow with some '33 and some sunny weather. Will post up some results. I do have a fast barrel based on results with 120's and 130's. In some instances, I'm getting book speeds with 3-4 grains less than book.

I, for one, will be very interested to hear your results.

what primers are you guys using in your 264s? i have conflicting reports on if a mag primer is needed or not.

If any cartridge calls for a mag primer, it is the 264.

60 plus grains of slow powders? I use the CCI 250 exclusively.

Agreed. I usually run Federal 215 primers.

Here's today's results:

T = 32-35 F
1:9 twist 25" bbl
All used Fed 215
Oehler 35 set at 10'

61.o Retumbo / 140 NAB v = 2,965 fps
61.o Retumbo / 140 A-Max v = 2,940

62.o Retumbo / 140 NAB v = 3,010
62.o Retumbo / 140 A-Max v = 2,975

63.o RL-33 / 140 NAB v = 2,905
63.o RL-33 / 140 A-Max v = 2,860

64.o RL-33 / 140 NAB v = 2,930
64.o RL-33 / 140 A-Max v = 2,890

It looks like RL-33 is about 4 grains slower than Retumbo in this specific application. The Retumbo numbers are pretty close to Hodgdon's published data of a max of 63.5 for 3,025 fps.