I finally got my new .264 to the range yesterday.

Lookin' for info about what has worked well for other shooters. I've got a 27" Hart with a 1-9" twist which Hornady said would be good for that bullet. Lot of variation in load data. Some books min is heavier than other books max.

So far all I've tried is Retumbo and got a 1.4" 200 yard group with 63.5 grains, what Hodgdon calls max. (I started low and worked up.)

I was kinda wondering what other people are using under the 140 AMAX? Lookin' for info on 7828, MagPro, RL25.

If it doesn't shoot that bullet good, I'll be a little disappointed but ok 'cause it is really shooting the 120 grain ballistic tip pretty well. I went under .6 at 200 with H4831.

Tom

ramshot magnum worked pretty good for me with a 264 and a 140grain bullet.

i use 64.5 gr. 7828 under 140s for ~3150 fps. work up to it.

I've found Magpro very accurate in everything its fueled.

same for me but i'm only doing 3050... will hold under .5 moa at 550...

Thanks gents. Keep 'em a-comin'. - Tom

No 264 but my 260 sure loves that bullet. It's a fun one.

65 gr of 7828 under a 130 barnse shows some over pressure signs for me. And the barnse has all those relief rings cut in it so if anything it should be more forgiving for pressure.

I like this "work up to it" advice.

I worked up to it in increments that were far to large, being a rookie & such.

I have to find a happy place between 62.5 gr and 65 gr, but I'm definately sticking with the 7828. my 264 was a 1.5 - 2 inch rifle at 100 yds with factory loads.

I'm not done yet but I've not had trouble repeating .750" groups thus far with the 7828.

What I used....it worked good.

I got good results with R22 and a Win Primer. Consistantly under 1"(100). Don't remember the charge(I'm at work), but it was near the top of what the Hornady book lists. I was pretty happy with it. The bullet was seated where I wanted it to be and still fit in the magazine just fine. It's an older Rem. 700 with the blued stainless barrel.

If you are using the bullet for fun and long range varmints, they are the bomb! Don't even think about using them on game. I can't even get them to penetrate an antelope sufficiently to put them down fast. They flatten out like a penny. They are dang accurate, but will leave you wanting more on game. The 162 grain 7mm's are a WHOLE different animal and work fabulous on game.

I shot a nice buck antelope at 420 yards with the the 140's shot out of a 6.5-06 at 3,000 fps. The buck stood there and soaked them up. No penetration at all (about 2 inches), then pancaked. Strangest thing I have seen. He finally tipped over, but no trauma at all and caliber sized entrance holes. no stirred up innards, no exit holes, no penetration. Left me scratching my head. Flinch

Reloadersnest.com has one confirmed load using 140 grain Amax's and several unconfirmed.

i've killed deer with them from 60 to 379 yards and have had fantastic results. the deer at 60 didn't go all the way through, found it on the off side hide just behind the shoulder. all the rest have been pass through with major internal damage.

here's the buck...



Here's the recovered bullet...

Paul - looks like a Graybull optic on top correct

4-14 SF w/M1

Good looking rifle, NICE buck also!

it's a MK4 4.5-14M1. i switched it out for a MK4 3.5-10 M1 and put that one on a heavy 308.

Can't like the eye relief on the 4.5-14's though i do have a couple.

thanks, I love that rifle! the buck was a toad!!! for perspective i'm 6'5" and clipping 300 pretty close in this picture...

I took it to 65 grains of 7828 this afternoon. And to 64 grains of RL25. The RL25 was more consistent but the last 3 shots, with the max load of 7828, went into 0.49" center to center at 200 yards.

Oh, yeah, that's with virgin brass.

Lookin' forward to loading up the other half box and see what happens. I may have to upgrade optics. My old std duplex 4.5-14X loopy is not very clear anymore, it's had the snot beat out of it in the 15+ years I've owned it. Worn out several rifles, fallen off a cliff or two ..

Thanks, all, for for the input! I'll be offline now 'til about 11/7.

Nice shooting rig. Hope the season closes out well for you.

Mike

(double tap from crappy Iraqi internet)

Well Tom, for a 6.5 bore, I'd still say the best velocity is going to come from powders in the H 414/W760 and or 4350 range...

those slower powders are going to be hampered by the bore diameter of the 264...

as for the old Leupold... time to send it in to the factory, get it refreshed.. and have it back in a week...

Paul W... what a deer! its daddy must have been a Steer!
Congrats!

Well, the good news is, hopefully you'll be home for New Years!

Tom, any idea on velocities? My .264 should be here in the next week or two at most and I'm itching to get out. I'll have a brand new FX3 6 X 42 on it, but "only" a 26" barrel.

Let's hope....

Think lots of happy thoughts for the 157 Soldiers/Marines and thousands of US civilians working here after the pull out.

I will. BT/DT in 2004.

I have some good experience loading for the .264 Winchester Magnum as I was "taught" by a great guy who has loaded for it for 40 years. I have loaded for 3 of my own.

To get the most out of the .264, you must use the absolute S-L-O-W-E-S-T powder you can get your hands on.

I have loaded 7 different powders and done the testing with every 6.5mm bullet made.

The powders that have been recommended so far in this thread are relatively "pistol" powders compared on what you should be using.

You'll find the best velocities from powders like US-869 and WC-872. The US-869 may be too fast for optimum velocity even with the 140's. I'm using it with the 130 Swift Scirocco and get 3175 with the accuracy load.

Velocity will really be dependent on how your rifle is throated. If your rifle has little to no throat, the velocity will be low. If this rifle is being built, have your smith put some throat in it so when you seat that A-Max, the base is at the neck/shoulder junction. With the 140's and my last rifle that had plenty of throat, I was able to get over 3250 with the 140 and WC-872.

Good luck.

I take it you are getting ready to mount it.

ha ha ha ha... it wasn't giving any resistance!

it's sitting in my living room now...

thanks man. that deer was a once in a lifetime deer! never seen one that big before or after. horns don't mean much but i did have it mounted.

I've been running 65g 7828 and 140s for a few years now. Shoots great with 140 hornady Sp's and sierra game kings but I haven't been able to get the best accuracy with the amaxes and vld's yet. I need to work on them some more cause the 140 vld at 3200 fps will be a good long range load if I can get it to group well.

Bb

RETUMBO,RETUMBO,RETUMBO!!! about 68 grns with a 140 vld,WW brass fed 210, will make your 264 sing.My 2 love this load.
RS

That is the dumbest thing I have heard all week. The 6.5 doesn't hamper anything. I have great luck with R22, Magnum and Mag Pro, All slow powders and this is only in a 6.5-284.

I don't have a 264 mag right now but if I were looking for a load, I would not try anything faster than 4831. I would try Magnum and Magpro then R22 and 4831.

Well haven't I been stoutly corrected!

Yeah, some load notes show me you are correct...

20 grains more powder and you can get 100 fps or so more out of one with a 140 grain bullet as mentioned by Tom...

Gee Denny... I'll really try to watch my posts, so I don't have to subject you to the 'dumbest thing I've heard all week' statements...

Please accept my most sincerest apologies...

Is that better?

Just had to scratch my head when I first read it is all.

no harm no foul Dennis..

we all look at reloading differently...

H4831sc is my 'go-to' powder in my .264WM. Behind a 129grainer, 67 grains gives 3,163fps in a 24" barrel. 67 grains behind a 140 gives 3,014fps. AR2225 (Retumbo) IMO is too slow and only gave an accurate load at 64 grains under a 129 for 2,881.

HMMMM.... Guess I have to wonder where you landed on that goat.

Antelope, 6.5 140 AMAX, 2750 MV, 280 yards, Impact velocity pretty darn close to yours... in behind the shoulder, out behind the shoulder. FUBAR innards.



Coues, 6.5 140 AMAX, 2600 muzzle and 2599 impact velocity. FUBAR, including offside scapula.

RS Mag is the place to be with 140s in the 264WM, BTW.

Not IME.

I tested H-4831, RL-22, Retumbo, Ramshot Magnum, W-780, T-870, WC-872, US-869 with about every 6.5mm bullet manufactured from 130 to 140 grains.

The first 5 powders listed, considered to have a slow burn rate normally, act as fast burning "pistol" powders when loaded in the .264 Winchester Magnum. IOW, pitiful case fill percentages, unpredictable pressure spikes when working up, and anemic velocity.

The T-870 (surplus H-870 that is no longer produced by Hodgdon and is available at Thunderbird Cartridge Company in Pheonix) acted relatively fast as well when compared to the WC-872. The US-869 (currently produced by Hodgdon) and the WC-872 (a very slow burning surplus powder) will give you the best velocity in the .264. Velocity is THE reason we own .264 Winchester Mag's. It is capable of sending 140 grain bullets with high BC's downrange at 3200 fps. If you want to hamstring the cartridge, by all means load one of the other powders that give a 75% fill, lots of pressure, and around 3000 fps.

I settled on a good hunting bullet with a great BC, the 130 gr Swift Scirocco BC of .571. The BC is as good or better than most 140 grain target bullets and the bullet construction is a pure copper jacket bonded to a pure lead core able to withstand the impact velocites that the .264 Winchester Magnum is capable of producing when loaded to its full potential.

rcamuglia,

Litz measure the BC of the SII closer to 0.49 G1 than the advertised 0.57 G1.

Not close to the BC of the 140g target bullets.

kyre,
I did have to use Litz's G7 for the Scirocco to have reliable data past 1000 yards, but out to 1000 the published BC of .571 was on.

BTW, the G7 is .251 average.

The 140 grain A-Max (which I shoot in the Creedmoor) has a G1 of .585 according to Hornady. Pretty close to the heavily constructed/bonded Swift hunting bullet which is meant for heavily constructed Fur.

a little off topic, but was in Sportsman's Warehouse tonight and some black guy working there, was recommending powder to some California looking guy ( well dress and well groomed by local standards is what that means..)

They were discussing a 257 Weatherby...the SW guy was telling the customer he shoots a 257 WBY for deer and a 338/378 WBY for elk..

the customer was asking for powder and bullet recommendations...

the sales guy said he uses 117 grain RN Hornadys in the 257... and recommended 4 slow burning powders...

when the customer asked about what kind of velocities to expect, the salesman told him to expect a lot faster than factory ammo...

the 257 WBY and 117 grain bullets would be well over 4500 fps..

and then when the customer asked about the 338/378 WBY's potential, the black guy told him that he gets over 4000 fps with a 300 grain Sierra Match King...

which was furtherly humorous as the black guy was about 5ft 7 and weighed maybe 130 lbs...

after loading up the customers cart with all that stuff, he tells him " let me show ya this new Savage 338 Lapua we just got in!"

I guess BS does sell product, but I don't think this customer is going to be a happy customer when he checks out his results against the salesman's claims..

I walked past while the customer was fondling the Savage 338 Lapua and the sales guy was telling him with a good $2000.00 scope, one could easily take elk between 1000 to 1500 yards or more!...

I was being good... I didn't laugh out loud...I didn't tell the customer the guy was full of scheiss...I just smiled to myself and walked on my way...

Things are really bad when the POTUS has to take a part-time job at a sporting goods store........

Those numbers are legit!

I wonder what that clerks work record was ?

Not to sound like a Redneck... but this area is so whitebread... minus the Mexicans... Black folk are a real rarity here... and then a black guy in a sporting goods store is even more rare...

I'm not judging his personality... or basing anything on his skin color... but his honesty or lack of it, made me feel he should be peddling sporting goods at Walmart instead...

Seafire,
Ignorance is bliss. There is a good chance that the customer will never look up actual numbers but rather repeat what he was told to his friends as if it was gospel. He'll buy a couple of boxes of factory ammo, shoot at stuff, occasionally hit something, and be happy.

http://www.realguns.com/articles/330.htm some recently tested loads in this article. Remington Sendereo.

Retumbo, RL25, N570, H1000, RS Magnum gave some good velocities with 140-grain SST and Partitions.

I do not know if Hornady would say that A-Max and SST load the same.

Thanks for the link.

Um ... they went a lot farther than I did. Example, 140 partition with Retumbo. I stopped at Hodgdon's listed max of 63.5 grains. I hadn't gotten sticky bolt lift but I sure had some massively cratered primers. No way would I want to try to approach the 71.5 grains they listed in the article.

So .. it's good info, but definitely approach with caution.

Far as AMAX and SST ... dunno, but I found that ... I assume because of differences in bearing surface ... I can pour a lot more coal behind the AMAX than the partition.

Before I shoot my gun any more I need better optics. I'm shooting better than I can repeatably see. Got the ammo loaded but I think it'll be after Christmas before I shoot groups again.

Tom

He refers to Norma brass, which could be a factor. (A note in a metallic cartridge manual mentions forming .340 Wby brass from 8mm Rem brass and that the internal volume is about 5% less than Wby/Norma .340 brass. Said that max loads for Wby/Norma should be reduced 5% to accommodate the diff. If the max is 88 grains MRP for Wby/Norma, then it is about 83.5 grains in Rem brass. 4.5 grains looks like a lot to me.)

Quoting from the article:
"The data that appears on the handload table that follows is predicated on the use of once fired brass and this is not a minor factor. Nominal capacity for the 264 Winchester Magnum is 82 grains. New Norma brass checked at 85.5 grains and once fired Norma brass checked in the 88.0 grain range. That is a lot of differential when a 2.5 grain capacity change could mean a 12,000 PSI swing in pressure with an identical powder charge. Properly managed, the larger capacity case could yield an additional 25 - 40 fps while maintaining safe pressure levels."

Norma brass starts at 4% more internal volume than 'standard'. Gets up around 7% more internal volume once fired.

Ramshot 4.5 data:
Magnum 140 HDY A-Max 61.5 2,754 68.3 3,049 63,304 3.210
At that pressure, it's max in their 24" test barrel. WLRM primer.

Realguns tested at 69.5 grains RS Magnum with 140-gr SST in the Sendero. About 2% over RS data.

I think that is a false assumption they're making.

The difference in case volume at ambient conditions is essentially irrelevant, by the time the pressure has built to 35,000 PSI or so on it's way to full pressure, that new case has been blown out to the same volume as the once fired case.

I've never seen the slightest difference between new and fired cases from the same lot with the same bullet and charge. It seems to me just one more shaky assumption that brings the reliability of all of their information into question.

... but that's just me.

I think he means it is easier to put a large powder load into the once fired case. I doubt he considers the expanding brass resistant enough to act like a smaller internal volume case for developing pressure.

I took a look at the link provided and will tell you that the "data" they are "publishing" is VERY OPTIMISTIC, if you know what I mean

I was kinda wondering what other people are using under the 140 AMAX? Lookin' for info on 7828, MagPro, RL25.If it doesn't shoot that bullet good, I'll be a little disappointed but ok 'cause it is really shooting the 120 grain ballistic tip pretty well. I went under .6 at 200 with H4831.

My 264 loves the H4831.100gr ballistic tip, 100gr HP, 95gr Vmax all with 72grs H4831

Data at Hodgdon site for Retumbo is confusing - more powder for 160-gr than for 140-gr bullets. I think the same relationship appears there for all of the powders used with 140- and 160-gr bullets. Different bullets - 140-gr NP vs 160-gr Hdy RN - could they be so different in construction that max loads with the 160-gr Hdy use more powder than the 140-gr NP, and show lower pressures? Maybe, the lead in the shank of the NP slugs up, and causes a major increase in pressure over other bullet types?

Hodgdon data cut/paste to avoid typos:

140 GR. NOS PART Hodgdon Retumbo .264" 3.260" 59.7 2904 57,000 PSI 63.5 3026 63,000 PSI
160 GR. HDY RN Hodgdon Retumbo .264" 3.350" 60.2 2703 54,800 PSI 64.0 2846 61.000 PSI

Did they get data for the two bullet weights reversed? The velocities seem right.