» Advanced

Go Back   Shooters Forum > Rifle and Rifle Cartridges > Rifles and Rifle Cartridges
Register FAQ Members List Donate Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-11-2007, 04:53 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 35
.264 Win.Mag. vs .270 Win.


Registered Users do not see the above ad.


I was kind of tinkering with idea of getting a .264 Win. Mag. I researched some ballistics tables comparing the .270 Win to the .264 Win. Mag. I was suprised how little difference there was. Looking at the cartridges side by side you would think there would be a considerable difference. Anybody got any ideas why the .264 Win. Mag doesn't blow the doors off a .270 Win.

locktime1
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-11-2007, 05:30 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jefferson Parish (via N.O.)
Posts: 9,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by locktime1
I was kind of tinkering with idea of getting a .264 Win. Mag. I researched some ballistics tables comparing the .270 Win to the .264 Win. Mag. I was suprised how little difference there was. Looking at the cartridges side by side you would think there would be a considerable difference. Anybody got any ideas why the .264 Win. Mag doesn't blow the doors off a .270 Win.

locktime1
Couple of ideas:

The 6.5 is one of the calibers where a 26" (or 28") barrel seems to really pay off.

A lot of 6.5 data doesn't seem to be up to the full potential of the round. Some of that may be dure to the variable nature of 6.5 bores and bullets over the years (which isn't really ture of today's bores, but are still some odd sized 6.5 bullets).

Whatever difference there is doesn't really kick in untill well down range, so I'd judge more by the 500yard ballistics than by the muzzle velocity.

Some people are just 6.5 fans.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-11-2007, 08:03 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Laramie, WY
Posts: 817
As you say, ballistic data shows these to be comparable in performance. I would opt for the 270 Win. because of wider range of ammo choices and availability. There has always been talk about the .264 eroding barrels pretty quickly. I cannot substantiate this criticism but I know that 270 barrels seem to last most folks a lifetime.
__________________
WyoStillhunter
"Hunt close, then get closer."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-11-2007, 08:04 PM
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 19,772
No kidding???????????
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
NRA Certified Police Firearms Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NAHC Life Member

"Firearms only have two enemies - rust and politicans" author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-12-2007, 03:50 AM
pruhdlr's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Edge of the swamps in NW Fla.
Posts: 1,620
To me the .264 is a true "overbore" round where the .270 is not.

If I wanted a weapon to do double duty as a varmint/deer cartridge,I would surely pick the .264, if handloaded.

The .270 has been around for some time and the facts on "killability" speak for themselves. Heck,just ask(he's up there somewhere) Jack O'Conner. He killed everything with the .270.

IMO, the .264 is a very ineteresting loading. I don't own one........but wish I did. -----pruhdlr
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-12-2007, 01:57 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Regina Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 601
Hi locktime1, I am a real 270 win fan and have been somewhat involved in loading for both the 270 & 264 win mag. I have shot the same 270 for many years and it was bought used and it still a great shooter. My cousin owned a 264 and sold because it was starting to burn out.
In my opinion if you need a magnum I would go to a 300 win for a start. I shot a 375 H & H for many years and just kept my 270 in the safe. I have now decided that everything I am going to hunt does not know a magnum from a slingshot(just kidding) so I sold my magnum rifles. Owning magnums was fun but I have shot just about every big game animal in Saskatchewan with a 270 so I decided to go back to it.
What ever you decide have fun with it and enjoy our prevledge.
__________________
Keep the Son in your eyes.
Your brother in Christ:
Dan
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-13-2007, 04:51 AM
whitehunter35's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 837
Gents,

I think there is some issue with the 06 length magnums performing as advertised. Some combinations will, but normally I have seen them 100-200 fps slower than published velocity data, and in my case I shoot a 26" barrel.

Not the case with the 270. In fact, my gun tends to do better than published velocities (24 in barrel). So, if the bullets are about the same size, and flying at nearly the same speed, all the romp and stomp doesn't make much sense to me.

I am continuing to tinker with my magnum, and a few combinations are starting to extend the gap between the two, although I am not sure if the temperature had something to do with it, or not.

That said, I think the 264 is a dandy cartridge, and has enough appeal other than just in pure velocity that would make it worthwhile.

Best to you friend.

Steve
__________________
Experience is a hard teacher, because she gives the test first, and the lesson afterwards.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-13-2007, 04:40 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: north dakota
Posts: 517
I'm on the other side of the fence my 270 just can't keep up with my 264's on my chrono. Mind that all I shoot are handloads. The 270 shoots well but not quite as well as my 264. Just my 2cents.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-14-2007, 09:10 PM
Darkker's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mesa, Washington
Posts: 1,680
Couple of things out of Whack.
First off, With the Exception of Nosler, NO ONE has pressure tested ANY of their loads in 264 WM for almost 10 years.
Don't believe me? Call or write to them, that's what I did. That's how I know it.
And as Nosler says in their loading manual the 264 IS NOT the barrel burner that everyone has touted.

This being said I built a 264 with a 26" E.R. Shaw barrel on a 110 action about 2 years ago. I found that my chrono and MOST books don't agree. My chrono showed that the 264 is quite a bit faster than the 270.
Also remember that the 6.5mm's are alot more efficient than the 270 bullets, and have very high sec densities for any given bullet weight.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-15-2007, 03:38 PM
M1Garand's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkker
Couple of things out of Whack.
First off, With the Exception of Nosler, NO ONE has pressure tested ANY of their loads in 264 WM for almost 10 years.
Don't believe me? Call or write to them, that's what I did. That's how I know it.
And as Nosler says in their loading manual the 264 IS NOT the barrel burner that everyone has touted.

This being said I built a 264 with a 26" E.R. Shaw barrel on a 110 action about 2 years ago. I found that my chrono and MOST books don't agree. My chrono showed that the 264 is quite a bit faster than the 270.
Also remember that the 6.5mm's are alot more efficient than the 270 bullets, and have very high sec densities for any given bullet weight.

I think we're really splitting hairs here and talking paper ballistics, which is pretty much a moot point. The 6.5's will have slightly higher BC's/SD's but in reality will it make a difference if the same class animal is shot with either? I really doubt it. The 264 is at it's best with 26" barrels and anything less I think really governs it's performance. Speer did some tests with both in 22" barrels. The 130 grn 270 was 127 fps faster than the 140 264 140 grn according to their tests. With a 26" barrel, the 264 gains an additional 220 fps. That's quite a performance jump!

We have to keep in mind that most 270s come with 22" barrels. The M70 Supergrade had a 24" as do the M700 CDL and CZ 550 I'm not aware of any others except possible the Kimber 8400. All others have 22" or less. The significance here is that the 22" seems govern the performance as it does in the 264. Both Ken Waters and Jack O'Connor found they got 100+ fps more with the 24" over the 22".

All in all I think what buried the 264 was the 7mm Rem Mag. In his review of the 264, Ken Waters wrote that he believed Winchester made an error in selection of bore size as this was a big game cartridge. He felt that either a 270 or 7m Bore size on the same cartridge would have been a better choice as the 270 or 280 could do anything it could on the smaller big game species while he preferred the 7mm RM or 300 WM for larger species for their ability to utilize heavier bullets. I think in hindsight...he was probably right..the 7mm RM came out a few years later and was an immediate success. Had Win went with the 7mm...it very well could be the 7mm (or 284) Win Mag as one of the most popular cartridges instead of the 7mm RM.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-15-2007, 04:31 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 2,262
The 264 Win Mag and the 7mm Rem. Mag share the same case both based on the 458 Win Mag case same as the 338 Win Mag.......
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Load Data for Lyman Sabot Slug hiramabbif Shotguns, Shotgunning, and Shotshell Reloading 18 12-22-2010 11:49 PM
Recoil Threshold Limit? markkw Rifles and Rifle Cartridges 97 06-12-2010 07:12 PM
.264 win mag northernboy Rifles and Rifle Cartridges 12 02-07-2004 06:39 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:15 PM.

< Contact Us - Shooters Forum - Archive >

 
 

All Content & Design Copyright © 1999-2002 Beartooth Bullets, All Rights Reserved
View Privacy Policy | Contact Webmaster | Legal Information
Website Design & Development By Exbabylon Internet Solutions
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2