» 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 Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 3.00 average. Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-08-2009, 04:29 PM
Tang's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,262
.264 Win Mag vs 7mm Rem Mag


Registered Users do not see the above ad.


Just trying to get some conversation going here. Seems really quiet lately.

So which one do you think is superior, seeing as how they are both based off the .338 Win Mag.

Also, can one of you .264 owners, sell me a dummy round for my collection ? Pleassssse
__________________
Volatile & Unstable
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-08-2009, 05:18 PM
roberto mervici's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: quebec, canada
Posts: 242
How do you like it Tang I will mail it to you free whit pleasure, do you like it:
1- Empty case resized no tip.
2- resized no primer whit bullet in place.
3- Both.
_______
roberto
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-08-2009, 05:20 PM
Tang's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,262
roberto, I can't PM you, so if you will give me your email address, I will send you my mailing address.

I want one sized with a bullet seated, and no primer will be fine.
__________________
Volatile & Unstable
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-08-2009, 06:06 PM
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,932
Tang,
I think they're very similar and you would do fine with either. I don't have either one, but do have a 6.5-06, and it's accounted for two cow elk to-date, using 140 gr NP's. One of my elk-hunting buddies has a 7mm RM and normally uses a 175 gr bullet and he's had no trouble with it on elk.
__________________
NRA Endowment Member
SCI Member
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-08-2009, 06:20 PM
unclenick's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hilliard, Ohio
Posts: 10,934
I would suggest you look through the bullet catalogs for both diameters on the web sites of the different makers and see if one selection suits your purposes better? If you have it in mind to shoot some specific bullet style, just seeing what is available in that style for each caliber might make the decision for you?
__________________
Nick
__________________________
Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
"First contemplation of the problems of Interior Ballistics gives the impression that they should yield rather easily to relatively simple methods of analysis. Further study shows the subject to be of almost unbelievable complexity." Homer Powley
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-08-2009, 06:35 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 344
Both cases are basically the same with a .020 difference in bullet diameter. However, they are now loaded to different pressure levels, with the .264 being the higher of the two. If the 7RemMag were loaded to the same pressures as the .264Win, as it once was, the 7Mag would be the winner hands down, while handling heavier bullets for bigger game.
According to some "pundints" who were not big fans of the 7Mag, the 7RemMag was loaded down to 52,000CUP from 54,000CUP (few companies even load to this high of level) because it displayed "spiked" pressure readings under "mysterious" circumstances. It's "odd" that none of the cartidges from its "parent" or "brothers" utilizing this case display this proclivity for pressure spikes. Certainly it closest "kin", the .264, does not display this "hazardous" condition.
The results of loading the 7RemMag to 30/06 pressure levels makes it barely ahead of the .280 Remington and behind the 7Weatherby Mag, while burning 5 to 10% more powder to keep up with the 280 Ackley Improved and 7mmWSM. It's one of those situations that reminds me of how marketing initially "killed" other fine cartridges like the .257 Roberts by down loading 117 bullets in a round nose configuration when they were fully capable of launching that weight at 100 to 200fps faster in a "spitzer" form.
Some might point to the case and say it is because of the "short neck" requiring pressure reduction; however, the .300WinMag has a similar short neck without the reduction of pressure or velocity. Besides, neck length of a cartridge has never been the sole criteria for limiting case capacity unless it is accompanied by a short "lead" (or throat) to the riflings or a short magazine.
If you look at the various reloading manuals for the 7RemMag, some list 175gr loads a full 200fps slower than Nosler or Duponts older manuals (pressure data included with Dupont). Were the SAMMI specs for the 7RemMag that far off that there are multiple variations by rifle brand? Or, was there some design "flawn" in the cartridge case that only manifests itself in the .284 diameter bore that doesn't show up in the .338 or .264 diameter bore? I really can figure out why Remington would deliberetly "scuddle" their 1962 "star" when it actually came close to matching the ballistics of the original "Mashburn Magnum" criteria??? It started out with everything going for it, high velocity (3070fps for a 175gr bullet), high B.C. for "ultra" flat trajectory, and reasonable recoil (about the same as an '06). It's been used successfully all over the world to take animals as large as Brown Bear and "Cape Buff" (not usually legal). Now, it barely makes the list for Elk nowdays.
I think the 7RemMag has taken a "bum rap", which doesn't detract from the .264 in the least. The .264 is a fine cartridge that is loaded correctly and has never ceased to deliver the performance promised. The .264 never caught on where 6.5's were an odd caliber in our "hunting field". Maybe if the .260 and 6.5X55 continue to get "good press" it will get "noticed" again. The 7RemMag is just a better cartridge IMO for game larger than caribou.
Unless Remington stops introducing a new cartidge every year that competes with "itself" and re-establishes the old pressure criteria it onced used, the 7RemMag will be "doomed" to "second class citizen" status. It would be a shame to see smaller capacity, less capable rounds in the .284 bore over-shadow such a fine performer over the issue of a couple of thousand PSI!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-08-2009, 07:14 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 827
I have used both for deer.It depends on what you plan on shooting with the rifle.If you plan to do a good share of Elk hunting I would suggest the 7mm Mag.If deer sized animals are the primary target then either will do.I am a bit partial to the 264 myself but, thats my preference.I killed a fair amount of the local deer with a 7 MM Mag shooting 154 gr Hornady's at about 2800 fps.My Dad on the other hand loved the 140 gr Sierra loaded to near max in His 7 MM Mag that I am the proud owner of.My Son and I have killed a bunch of deer using the 264 and Barnes 120 gr X-Bullets.Its a great combination for deer sized game.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-08-2009, 07:20 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by riley View Post
Both cases are basically the same with a .020 difference in bullet diameter. However, they are now loaded to different pressure levels, with the .264 being the higher of the two. If the 7RemMag were loaded to the same pressures as the .264Win, as it once was, the 7Mag would be the winner hands down, while handling heavier bullets for bigger game.
According to some "pundints" who were not big fans of the 7Mag, the 7RemMag was loaded down to 52,000CUP from 54,000CUP (few companies even load to this high of level) because it displayed "spiked" pressure readings under "mysterious" circumstances. It's "odd" that none of the cartidges from its "parent" or "brothers" utilizing this case display this proclivity for pressure spikes. Certainly it closest "kin", the .264, does not display this "hazardous" condition.
The results of loading the 7RemMag to 30/06 pressure levels makes it barely ahead of the .280 Remington and behind the 7Weatherby Mag, while burning 5 to 10% more powder to keep up with the 280 Ackley Improved and 7mmWSM. It's one of those situations that reminds me of how marketing initially "killed" other fine cartridges like the .257 Roberts by down loading 117 bullets in a round nose configuration when they were fully capable of launching that weight at 100 to 200fps faster in a "spitzer" form.
Some might point to the case and say it is because of the "short neck" requiring pressure reduction; however, the .300WinMag has a similar short neck without the reduction of pressure or velocity. Besides, neck length of a cartridge has never been the sole criteria for limiting case capacity unless it is accompanied by a short "lead" (or throat) to the riflings or a short magazine.
If you look at the various reloading manuals for the 7RemMag, some list 175gr loads a full 200fps slower than Nosler or Duponts older manuals (pressure data included with Dupont). Were the SAMMI specs for the 7RemMag that far off that there are multiple variations by rifle brand? Or, was there some design "flawn" in the cartridge case that only manifests itself in the .284 diameter bore that doesn't show up in the .338 or .264 diameter bore? I really can figure out why Remington would deliberetly "scuddle" their 1962 "star" when it actually came close to matching the ballistics of the original "Mashburn Magnum" criteria??? It started out with everything going for it, high velocity (3070fps for a 175gr bullet), high B.C. for "ultra" flat trajectory, and reasonable recoil (about the same as an '06). It's been used successfully all over the world to take animals as large as Brown Bear and "Cape Buff" (not usually legal). Now, it barely makes the list for Elk nowdays.
I think the 7RemMag has taken a "bum rap", which doesn't detract from the .264 in the least. The .264 is a fine cartridge that is loaded correctly and has never ceased to deliver the performance promised. The .264 never caught on where 6.5's were an odd caliber in our "hunting field". Maybe if the .260 and 6.5X55 continue to get "good press" it will get "noticed" again. The 7RemMag is just a better cartridge IMO for game larger than caribou.
Unless Remington stops introducing a new cartidge every year that competes with "itself" and re-establishes the old pressure criteria it onced used, the 7RemMag will be "doomed" to "second class citizen" status. It would be a shame to see smaller capacity, less capable rounds in the .284 bore over-shadow such a fine performer over the issue of a couple of thousand PSI!

Have you or anyone loaded the 7mm up to those specs and checked for signs of pressure?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-10-2009, 06:49 AM
recoil junky's Avatar
Elk Whisperer (Super Moderator)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Craig CO. Elk Hunting Capitol of the World!
Posts: 4,644
THis is kinda like comparin' a .270 to a 30-06 .020" difference, yet they both will kill elk with the right bullet.

I hava a 7 mag but not a .264.

I have a 30-06 but not a .270.

Why? That's what I have because they are easy to get ammo for. Not that I need to go buy ammo, because I reload anyway.

Oh, and the 7mm Rem Mag is based on a 300H&H case, not a 338 WM.

RJ
__________________
Keep your powder dry and when you go afield take the kids and please..........wear your seat belts.
I am the ORIGINAL recoil junky , often imitated, but never equalled.
Proud Father of a SoldierMedic in The 82nd Airborne 325thAIR White Falcons
IUOE Local #9
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-10-2009, 10:05 AM
Tang's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by recoil junky View Post
THis is kinda like comparin' a .270 to a 30-06 .020" difference, yet they both will kill elk with the right bullet.

I hava a 7 mag but not a .264.

I have a 30-06 but not a .270.

Why? That's what I have because they are easy to get ammo for. Not that I need to go buy ammo, because I reload anyway.

Oh, and the 7mm Rem Mag is based on a 300H&H case, not a 338 WM.

RJ

In reality, doesn't all belted mags go back to the H&H ?


By the way, you can run a 7mm RM case through a .338 die, and it fires just fine.
__________________
Volatile & Unstable
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-10-2009, 10:25 AM
recoil junky's Avatar
Elk Whisperer (Super Moderator)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Craig CO. Elk Hunting Capitol of the World!
Posts: 4,644
So will a .264, .334 OKH (which was the original .338 only with .334 dia. bullets back in the 50's) but actually, they all started with the .375 H&H if you want to get technical. If you do some research, you'll find that OKH, mostly Charley O'Neill, did a bunch of wildcats based on '06 brass and .375 H&H brass.

Good ole Elmer took the chamber drawings of several of Charley's creations and sold them to Winchester before Don Hopkins could get them patented. Hence the .264, .338 and a couple of others. That's why Jack>>>Elmer.

RJ
__________________
Keep your powder dry and when you go afield take the kids and please..........wear your seat belts.
I am the ORIGINAL recoil junky , often imitated, but never equalled.
Proud Father of a SoldierMedic in The 82nd Airborne 325thAIR White Falcons
IUOE Local #9
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-10-2009, 12:13 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 827
I reload for the 264 and 7mm mag.
I have a couple 7 mm Rem Mag cases in my 264 ammo box.Got mixed up on the bench and didn't notice untill I had already reloaded them.They shoot just fine also.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-10-2009, 10:21 PM
unclepaddy's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Elk Grove Ca
Posts: 1,306
I shot quite a few 140 grain loads out of a .264 mag. (I lost the gun when I divorced "what's her name".) It was effective on deer, elk and wild pig, but not spectacularly so. It shot nice and flat, and has a small advantage over the 7 mag at longer ranges, if you are looking at trajectory. I have limited experience with the 7 mag, and I sold the only rifle I ever had chambered in it soon after I purchased it. Just a casual look at the ballistic tables would keep me from getting too excited over a 7 mag. Inside of 300 yards, it is about the same as a .270 ballistically if you shoot 140 grain bullets, and the .270 uses way less powder. I will say that if you like to shoot lighter loads like 120 grain and less, and particularly 100 grains and less, the .264 is a smoking round in that category. If you like a "heavy varmint" or a long range deer cartridge, it would be a good thing, provided you used stoutly constructed bullets for the deer.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-05-2010, 07:19 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: West of Chicago, Ill. and Ozark Mountains
Posts: 2,841
Tang i used to have both those weapons but got talked out of the .264 Win mag! I still have the 7mm magnum in a model 70 Winchester, stainless barrel and Mag Na Ported too.
It is one of my long range rifles.

OK I honestly believe the 7mm Remington magnum is the better of the two, especially if your going to be hunting larger big game animals such as elk, moose or bear. Some folks forget that you can shoot those 175 grain bullets and also those 195 grain bullets if you handload. This makes the 7mm Remington magnum far more versatile over the .264 Win mag caliber. Also years ago, the .264 was getting to be known as the rifle you changed the barrel out on within a 1000 rounds. It sure did not help it's following much.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-05-2010, 09:27 AM
TMan's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NJ - But Not For Long :)
Posts: 2,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrockncash View Post
Have you or anyone loaded the 7mm up to those specs and checked for signs of pressure?
I do it all the time. I use a couple of parameters for case head expansion that are common, and check velocities. Other reasonable approaches are to check velocity with incremental increases in charge weight, and when you reach a point of diminishishing returns, back down a couple grains and load away. If case life is OK before primer pockets get loose, it's likely a safe load. I know one guy who looks for the hottest listed load for the bullet weight, and goes for it. I keep an eye on the obituaries for his name and picture. He's still around.

I've owned one .264, and three 7RM's over the years. I sold the .264 when I bought my first chronograph, it was no where near published velocities, and I was not comfortable adding more propellant. It was not particularly accurate.

In any case, I don't think the 7RM has taken anything like a "bum rap" and I suspect it will be around when most of the Super Short/Ultra/etc. Mags are in a museum. For antelope and mule deer on the open plains of WY, or similar shooting, it's as good as the best.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-05-2010, 11:32 AM
Signalshifter's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 196
The 7mm Remington is a much better cartridge the the 264 Winchester. I have hunted with both and the 7mm is much better in Wyoming with the winds we have the long range potential the .264 was supposed to have just did not materialize. For a short time after this cartridge was released it was the darling of Wyoming Game and Fish officers. They found out real fast that it was a great at demolishing good eat'n meat. As has been pointed out the published velocities where somewhat overstated this because they where chrono'ed with 28 inch barrels. The 6.5/06 is a far better choice if you want a .26 caliber cartridge. Be sure to use RWS bullets. The 6.5mm diameter is very popular in Europe and Scandinavia so it is very well developed there. To look at the excellent line RWS bullets go here; http://www.rws-munition.de/en/projec...e.htm?navid=15 I have used the H-Mantel bullet in my .375 H&H and it is a fantastic design.
__________________
From Wyoming where gun control is how well you can aim.
Kenneth A. Crips Radio Station W7ITC, ARRL, Life member of the NRA

Last edited by Signalshifter; 04-11-2010 at 10:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-05-2010, 12:24 PM
Water-Man's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N. Georgia
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Signalshifter View Post
The 7mm Remington is a much better cartridge the the 264 Winchester. I have hunted with both and the 7mm is much better in Wyoming with the winds we have the long range potential the .264 was supposted to have just did not materialize. For a short time after this cartridge was released it was the darling of Wyoming Game and Fish officers. They found out real fast that it was a great at demolishing good eat'n meat. As has been pointed out the published velocities where somewhat overstated they because they where chrono'ed with 28 inch barrels. The 6.5/06 is a far better choice if you want a .26 caliber cartridge. Be sure to use RWS bullets. The 6.5mm diameter is very popular in Europe and Scandanvia so it is very well developed there. To look at the excellent line RWS bullets go here; http://www.rws-munition.de/en/projec...e.htm?navid=15 I have used the H-Mantel bullet in my .375 H&H and it is a fantastic design.
+1 for the RWS. It's what I use for my 6.5x55 Swede.
__________________
Vietnam Veteran
1964-1965
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-05-2010, 02:08 PM
zb338's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 397
I had a .264 that shot light bullets very well. I couldn't get it to
shoot heavy bullets so I sold it. When you hit a varmint with it
the varmint just blended in with the landscape. My farthest lucky
shot ever made was with the .264. A pasture poodle at 550 yds.

Zeke
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-11-2010, 10:42 PM
Signalshifter's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by zb338 View Post
I had a .264 that shot light bullets very well. I couldn't get it to
shoot heavy bullets so I sold it. When you hit a varmint with it
the varmint just blended in with the landscape. My farthest lucky
shot ever made was with the .264. A pasture poodle at 550 yds.

Zeke
That is one of the big problems the .264 had it was not throated nor did it have a rate of twist to stabilize anything above an 140 grain bullet. The 156, or 160 grain round nose bullets would key hole badly. Below is an example of just how good the 6.5/06 is
.264 Win Mag.....140 grain SP bullet, 3,150 fps, loaded with 67.0 gr hodgon h1000
6.5/06...............140 grain SP bullet, 3,005 fps, loaded with 51.0 gr IMR 4350

Source... http://www.handloads.com/loaddata/default.asp
__________________
From Wyoming where gun control is how well you can aim.
Kenneth A. Crips Radio Station W7ITC, ARRL, Life member of the NRA
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-02-2010, 10:04 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: West of Chicago, Ill. and Ozark Mountains
Posts: 2,841
Well I have the .264/06 (6.5/06) and the 7mm Rem mag! My 7mm mag is set up for long range shooting and that it will do to the tune of lacing those shots on target out to 600 yards and keeping them under 7.5 inches. A very easy rifle to shoot since it is Mag Na Ported too. It is a little heavy for a totting gun in the mountains, weighs in loaded at around 8.7-lbs with the scope. This rifle is being moved from the vault to be a gift for a younger person this year. Nothing I have walks the dog like the .300 RUM Ultra Mag using a 190 grain Sierra BT bullet!!! It is one flat shooting "son of a gun"

My .264/06 is in the featherweight version with a synthetic stock and it is a lightweight by comparison. However it is set up to hunt at distances that are under 350 yards only. It's pencil barrel is good for 3 shots and places them under 3/4 inches most of the time. It is just a fun gun to carry or shoot down range. It is now my go to rifle around the place, using 100 grain bullets.
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
Win 70 from 300 win mag to 300 H&H Mag Exodus8 Rifles and Rifle Cartridges 21 09-30-2012 06:43 PM
Anyone chronograph their 7mm rem mag loads reneerick Rifles and Rifle Cartridges 35 01-18-2011 05:57 PM
338 win mag vs 300 wby mag red85 Rifles and Rifle Cartridges 20 10-25-2010 05:27 PM
160 gr 7mm Mag Barnes Bullet load? scotts Handloading Procedures/Practices 7 03-25-2009 07:07 PM
i need gunsmith help on 7mm rem mag jssbastiat Gunsmithing 3 10-23-2008 01:01 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:23 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