These are not Rugers....I'm confused! 
Remington Model 700 sps 264
Saw one of these on gunbroker, and then I went to my local shop and got to handle one. I am seriously considering it. I am being told that there is only 750 of them being produced.
It has a 26" Stainless barrel.
Although they had an Interarms Mark X in 264 on the used rach as well.
Decisions, decisions, decisions.
It has a 26" Stainless barrel.
Although they had an Interarms Mark X in 264 on the used rach as well.
Decisions, decisions, decisions.
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
LOL, yeah I know. Not every good rifle can be a Ruger.
Iv met several people that swear by the 264 and some that swear at them. But thats the case with alot of cartridges. Playing with the Winchester Ballistics program I noticed that the 7mmRemMag shoots a little flatter than the 264 (using power points and the lightest offerings for each). The 264 does have a lighter recoil than the 7mm. For deer sized game the 264 will do the job. And you can always brag about how rare the gun is.
I have seen the ballistic comparison, and it is not like I need a rifle, have plenty. I want the 264, just because of it being the black sheep, and they are pretty rare in comparison to the 7 mag.
My ultimate plan is to have all the Winchester Magnums. Just a thing I have.
As far as ballistics, I have a 270 weatherby that smokes the pants off what the 264 could do, but I always come back to wanting one.
My ultimate plan is to have all the Winchester Magnums. Just a thing I have.
As far as ballistics, I have a 270 weatherby that smokes the pants off what the 264 could do, but I always come back to wanting one.
I used a secondhand .264 for about six months before the throat eroded so badly that it would no longer shoot the lighter bullets accurately. The barrel was already fairly worn when I picked it up for a song.
They have a bad rep as a barrel burner but with modern powders should be comparable to any of the smaller bore belted magnums. My Model 70 did not have a lot of room in the magazine and heavy 160gn bullets would have intruded into the powder space a fair bit.
Not sure why the .264 never caught the public imagination, it is a good cartridge and I would take one over a 7mm Magnum, all 6.5's just seem to work really well.
They have a bad rep as a barrel burner but with modern powders should be comparable to any of the smaller bore belted magnums. My Model 70 did not have a lot of room in the magazine and heavy 160gn bullets would have intruded into the powder space a fair bit.
Not sure why the .264 never caught the public imagination, it is a good cartridge and I would take one over a 7mm Magnum, all 6.5's just seem to work really well.
I always wanted a 264win mag too and a 284 also i figured i could use the bullets from my 6,5mm swede and my 7mm mausers to reload for them too. I been looking for a 280 remington but even the used ones are priced really high. I may buy a few 98 mausers and do a few builds in these calibers.
I think the only drawback is the speed of the bullets in the 264win mag it wears out the barrels way to early. But thats the case with any magnum isn't it if you shoot it a lot?
I think the only drawback is the speed of the bullets in the 264win mag it wears out the barrels way to early. But thats the case with any magnum isn't it if you shoot it a lot?
The performance of the .264's comparable to other magnums in the .270 and 7mm class, and the 6.5x68 as well, and powder charge weights aren't much different.
I would guess that it's fearsome reputation as a barrel burner came out shortly after its introduction in the 60's, with mainly factory ammo. I heard one report in particular from an NT croc hunter in the 70's who supposedly wore out a barrel in 400 rounds. We have a few more powders better suited to overbore cartridges now.
Just looking at what the round burns, and what it does, with modern powders it should be similar to a .270WSM or 7mm rem mag in terms of barrel wear. I haven't worn the barrel in my .270WSM out and maybe never will in my lifetime, but I'd expect at least 1500 rounds before acceptable hunting accuracy was lost.
I would guess that it's fearsome reputation as a barrel burner came out shortly after its introduction in the 60's, with mainly factory ammo. I heard one report in particular from an NT croc hunter in the 70's who supposedly wore out a barrel in 400 rounds. We have a few more powders better suited to overbore cartridges now.
Just looking at what the round burns, and what it does, with modern powders it should be similar to a .270WSM or 7mm rem mag in terms of barrel wear. I haven't worn the barrel in my .270WSM out and maybe never will in my lifetime, but I'd expect at least 1500 rounds before acceptable hunting accuracy was lost.
You know, I have read and heard about burning up barrels. I think that with the steel that they are using today, and the powders, technology has come a along way in firearms.
On another forum, I know a guy that has a ruger mark II 264, stainless steel barrel (90's model) and he says that he is at 600 rounds and counting, no accuracy issues as of yet, and I also know a guy on that same forum, that bought a Sendero in 264 and he states that he is at 400 and counting, says that the accuracy is actually getting better as he shoots it more.
So I think that barrel issue may be just the older firearms.
The interarms that I mentioned in the post above, could have a barrel that could burn up in a couple hundred rounds.
Also I don't shoot that much, if i get 100 rounds fired a year out of the 7 rifles that I own, I might be lucky. I would like to shoot more than i do, but unfortunately the things in my life are not permitting me to do so.
Anyway, I think I just talked myself out of the Interarms.
On another forum, I know a guy that has a ruger mark II 264, stainless steel barrel (90's model) and he says that he is at 600 rounds and counting, no accuracy issues as of yet, and I also know a guy on that same forum, that bought a Sendero in 264 and he states that he is at 400 and counting, says that the accuracy is actually getting better as he shoots it more.
So I think that barrel issue may be just the older firearms.
The interarms that I mentioned in the post above, could have a barrel that could burn up in a couple hundred rounds.
Also I don't shoot that much, if i get 100 rounds fired a year out of the 7 rifles that I own, I might be lucky. I would like to shoot more than i do, but unfortunately the things in my life are not permitting me to do so.
Anyway, I think I just talked myself out of the Interarms.
Im confuse a 7mm and recoil?Iv met several people that swear by the 264 and some that swear at them. But thats the case with alot of cartridges. Playing with the Winchester Ballistics program I noticed that the 7mmRemMag shoots a little flatter than the 264 (using power points and the lightest offerings for each). The 264 does have a lighter recoil than the 7mm. For deer sized game the 264 will do the job. And you can always brag about how rare the gun is.
dont go together i shot my brothers 7mm rem in m77 mach 2 the other day and it was painless.then again i think 3.5" shells done went and made me recoil retarded uh oh
Recoil Retarded - that is a good one.
When you enjoy shooting 2 1/4 oz of lead @ 1200 fps out of a 6 lb gun i think your recoil retarded.Dang thing has 30 fps recoiling velocity which is more like a rifle than a slow shotgun recoil .I like the recoil lets me know it's there lol.really after shooting magnum 00b 3" + 3.5" everything else is a 223.
I will agree tk, after a day of shooting 3 1/2" shells at ducks and geese I would gladly take a 7mmMag to the shoulder. But when compared to other RIFLES the 7mmMag packs a pretty decent punch. And Rugerfan, I think that one of the main causes of barrel failure is people not properly maintaining their barrels. I would definitely go for the 264 sps. And if the barrel does ever burn out, youll have a good excuse to really make the gun into a black sheep.
Recoil Retarded - that is a good one.
There are more than a few here than have that brain embolism.
I suppose the SPS would be good, as long as you get a decent wood stock for it.
For maximum point blank range type shooting (what most are used to) theI have seen the ballistic comparison, and it is not like I need a rifle, have plenty. I want the 264, just because of it being the black sheep, and they are pretty rare in comparison to the 7 mag.
My ultimate plan is to have all the Winchester Magnums. Just a thing I have.
As far as ballistics, I have a 270 weatherby that smokes the pants off what the 264 could do, but I always come back to wanting one.
270 Wea. will be a little flatter with several foot# more punch. However, because of available bullets if you are talking 600-1000 yds for Elk & down or target, things get a little different. For example, the BC of a 140 6.5 Berger is .612 & for a 150 gr. 277 Ber. it is .531. Way out there the 6.5 will pull away & be superior to the 270Wea with current bullets. With the 7mm, it(7) can still have an edge, with heavier loading such as 180 Ber, but the recoil chages, just as in going from the 7mm to a 300Mag with 210's.
I wonder what the street price is?
My Brother has had a Model 70 Westerner 264 since the late 60,s and the barrel is still good.I have 2 264.s one has seen quite a bit of shooting, accounting for 15 or so deer and it still has a good barel?I suppose if you just went to the range and shot round after round you could burn out a barell with most any round.I used to have a 220 swift that saw many many rounds through it and the lucky guy that ended up with it said it was the most accurate rifle he had ever owned.Funnny how these old rumors just keep hanging on and on and my observation its retold by people that have absolutely no experience with the subject.By the way My 264's are a Ruger Special run with blued action and Boat Paddle stock and the newest one is a Remington CDL 26 in, blued.I have put over 500 rounds through the Ruger and it still shoots as well as the day I got it.Recoil of the Ruger seems less than the Remington.Neither is bad.
I've wanted a .264 Win Magnum since around 1986 when I saw my friends uncle shoot a deer from a long way across his pasture with one and drop it in its tracks. He gave me the fired brass and the fascination began. It's an itch gone unscratched as of yet. I considered a Remington CDL in .264 but I'm not a fan of the fluting, but could probably overlook with the right price on it. I may just go with a Savage rebarrel.
I've wanted a .264 Win Magnum since around 1986 when I saw my friends uncle shoot a deer from a long way across his pasture with one and drop it in its tracks. He gave me the fired brass and the fascination began. It's an itch gone unscratched as of yet. I considered a Remington CDL in .264 but I'm not a fan of the fluting, but could probably overlook with the right price on it. I may just go with a Savage rebarrel.
I have that same itch, that year after year goes unscratched. My grandfather had an old winchester westerner in 264, and my uncle has one of them in a model 70.
I am also thinking about a Savage rebarrel.
Yeah Matt, I am in agreement, I would be ditching the synthetic for a nice walnut or laminant stock.
264 shooter.
When your ready to ditch that Ruger, lets talk!!!!!
When your ready to ditch that Ruger, lets talk!!!!!
I would insist on a 26" barrel for the .264 Winchester Magnum. Ruger made them at one time, but it was with a 24" barrel. Probably no real world difference but still, I would have to have the other 2". Personal preference.
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Shooters Forum
A forum community dedicated to Sport shooters, owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hand casting bullets, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
