The 6.5 160 has a sectional density of .328, the 7 mm 175 rates a .310 and the .30-06 has a sectional density of .331, in terms of the 2 largest factors of a small bore quick kill, the 06 comes in 3rd due to lower velocities. One cannot compare weight straight across the board. And in recoil, and the .264 can put out that penetration and speed with less punishment for the shooter.
The .264 Win Mag - An Old Idea Worth Re-Visiting
- Thread starter Llama Bob
- Start date
- Status
cdb1
Member
CoalTrain49 said:
If it is a minority it is not a very small one. I've talked to a fair number of elk guides(no moose) when they were in the area attending the Dallas Safari Club convention. Their opinions on elk cartridges run the gamut just like with this thread and every other elk cartridge debate that has ever been.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that any number of posters on this thread have elk hunting experience, have done research,
and their conclusions differ from yours.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nuts/2012/06/conversation-around-campfire
Last edited:
I guess I'd argue that statement. My 7mm has anchored many deer where they stood in its 20 some year career, and not one of them complained of being "too dead" nor was meat loss a factor due to using proper bullets. That said, I'm sure a .264 would have done the exact same thing to any deer I shot with it, and think that statements claiming the 7mm and .30 caliber options are "far superior" to any .264 mag loads for elk are, in a word, laughable. Put the bullet where it belongs, and that elk wont have time to determine the diameter of the bullet he was shot with, because he'll be dead. If you put the bullet somewhere other than the vitals, that same increase in bullet diameter isn't going to mean the difference between a recovered animal and a lost one in the vast majority of cases. You can argue SD, velocity, hydrostatic shock and whatever else you care to, but the fact is, as long as range is kept to common-sense levels for your ability, no one, including the elk, will know the difference.
I went from 7 Mag to .275 Rigby for deer and antelope.
OP
OP
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
If I shoot out a barrel shooting at big game and predators, I'll be the happiest man aliveMay the .264 rest in peace, inside a lovely fence, with pickets of shot out barrels.
RPRNY
Member
I'm with you on 180 grs 308 at 2800 for elk, but your statement was that "6.5mm isn't even in the same league". That simply is not true. It doesn't mean you have to love it, use it, or endorse it. But suggesting that the 264 Win Mag isn't suitable for elk, especially when you have suggested that 223 is suitable for deer (different thread), is simply a failure of logic. As a fellow believer that shot placement is paramount, how can 160 grs delivered by a flat shooting, low recoiling cartridge with a very high sectional density bullet not deliver when used by a competent shooter? For the vast majority of elk hunters 264 Win Mag is probably the largest magnum they can shoot and a far better choice than any of the 30 cal + magna. In fact, I hunted last Fall with a chap using 7mm Mag and it was just too much for him, as would have been 30-06. Many so-called hunters put in minimal trigger time and are barely adequate shots who would be far better served with "lesser" cartridges and being much closer to their quarry.
What we haven't discussed is how good the 7mm-08 is! I had my first introduction to the 7mm-08 last year just ahead of elk season and I was extremely impressed. It is, in my opinion, better than its parent cartridge as a hunting round and really optimizes the 308 Win case. But alas, another thread...
CoalTrain49
Member
I did say that. I would also say that the 223 is a marginal cartridge for deer and isn't in the same league as a 6 mm.
Obviously some feel a 264 WM is adequate for elk. But the fact remains that 99% of the factory loads for 6.5 mm are 140 gr. or less. The link provided for the factory ammo was from Double Tap and the cost was $3.25/rd. In my mind this makes the 264 WM exclusively a reloaders game for most if you are going to become proficient with the 160 gr load.
So we get back to shot placement. In the case of the 223 I think ammo is cheap enough that people will become proficient with their marginal cartridge choice. A cartridge in common use for deer for one good reason, lots of available commercial hunting ammo in a popular cartridge. I wasn't alone in that observation.
So I'll back up and say the 264 WM/160 gr would be adequate if you were proficient with the rifle. How you get there will be expensive unless you reload. I truly don't accept the idea that someone can shoot a few rounds a year and be proficient with a rifle.
Last edited:
RPRNY
Member
Much like the deer I shot with a 7mag didnt complain of being "too dead" those I shot wioth a .223 never complained about not being "dead enough". Again, much of this argument is much ado about nothing, as we aren't talking armor plated animals at thousands of yards. Put a good bullet through the vitals, and dead is dead.
outlawjw
Member
The .264 dropped by the wayside because there was a better choice of bullets for 7mm RM & the two being so close together on everything , so the 7 won . Having said that , there is nothing wrong with the 6.5 mag that the 7 mag noes not imitate, tit for tat give me & most everyone else the tat.
Bbear
Member
yup, 264 is totally unsuitable for elk. Guess I'll go back to my 25-06 that I used to take my first two elk.
cdb1
Member
I didn't know there were any deer that large around San Angelo.
Bbear
Member
cdb1, they're all behind high fences, but, that's for another thread.
This one was taken in Colorado last fall. Complete pass-through of the 142 gr NABLR
This one was taken in Colorado last fall. Complete pass-through of the 142 gr NABLR
Gordon
Member
I used the .264 as an antelope, caribou and Muledeer gun for a couple decades and found it perfect. I took it Mountain sheep and goat hunting but got skunked 
Yes I did shoot a few way out there, farther than the guys I was with could believe. When I went elk hunting I always took the 7mm Rem mag with 175 grain Corelokt factory loads or a .300 Weatherby with 180 Nosler Partitions , tried the .338Winmag for that too but it kicked very nastilly in my Ruger 77 which wasnt that accurate so I let it go (as I did the 7mmRem) . These days I shoot all big stuff with a .375 H&H with 260 grain Accubonds and all medium stuff with a .270 WSM with Barnes copper bullets . The 6.5mm new bullets might well be great in the .264 really really far out, but you really are not hunting out there IMHO.
Yes I did shoot a few way out there, farther than the guys I was with could believe. When I went elk hunting I always took the 7mm Rem mag with 175 grain Corelokt factory loads or a .300 Weatherby with 180 Nosler Partitions , tried the .338Winmag for that too but it kicked very nastilly in my Ruger 77 which wasnt that accurate so I let it go (as I did the 7mmRem) . These days I shoot all big stuff with a .375 H&H with 260 grain Accubonds and all medium stuff with a .270 WSM with Barnes copper bullets . The 6.5mm new bullets might well be great in the .264 really really far out, but you really are not hunting out there IMHO.
cdb1
Member
I was kidding.
Corn-Picker
Member
The problem with discussing the suitability of 223 on deer is that "deer" is an ambiguous term. A Florida whitetail doe might be 70 lbs, so 223 is plenty IMO. The record whitetail buck (from Minnesota) was 500+ lbs, in which case I wouldn't use a 223. I think the 6.5 WM would do fine on either
RPRNY
Member
The problem with discussing the suitability of 223 on deer is that "deer" is an ambiguous term. A Florida whitetail doe might be 70 lbs, so 223 is plenty IMO. The record whitetail buck (from Minnesota) was 500+ lbs, in which case I wouldn't use a 223. I think the 6.5 WM would do fine on either
Well stated.
However....South Dakota deer are big and hardy, and I've taken both whitetails and mule deer here with the .223, and knowing my limitations, wouldn't hesitate to do so again. That said, I can afford to wait for a textbook shot within the range I feel comfortable with, as our ranch is teeming with deer and theres bound to be another opportunity. If I were on a once in a lifetime hunt where I may be lucky just for an opportunity at a shot, I'd certainly choose something more versatile.
CoalTrain49
Member
I think a lot of people would be shocked to find out how many deer are actually harvested with a 223. Not legal in this state however. We have a few living in our neighborhood. I see them almost every week walking down my driveway. In the fall my dog is constantly running them out of our orchard. Legal to shoot them here but nobody ever does. All private property and the neighbors would raise hell if you did.
Last edited:
RPRNY
Member
I have a @ 1906 manufactured Marlin 1892 22lr that my grandfather used during the Depression to guard the apple orchard at the farm in VT from deer predation, and feed the family of six kids. Still have the farm in VT too, though the orchard has gone to seed. That 22 and a single barrel 20 ga, now lost in the mists of time, were what he had. And not the money to buy anything else. Didn't make it a great choice. Didn't make it an ethical choice. I'm certain deer ran away wounded and died without being found. They were desperate times.
In this day and age, we have rules about hunting, and nobody who has the time to post regularly on this Forum is so hard up as to be subsistence hunting with their only rifle in 223. So there's no excuse. The point was made above that there are whitetail out there not much bigger than the coyote the poodle-shooter is good for. Fine. But using a 22 cal round on decent sized deer is unethical and a poor choice. That so many on the internet are such incredibly talented snipers, hunters, and "operators" is remarkable!! I'm sure most of them can deliver sub-moa 5 shot groups on a moving deer at four hundred yards, and use a 17 HMR on anything closer with great effect. But in the real world that just isn't true.
In this day and age, we have rules about hunting, and nobody who has the time to post regularly on this Forum is so hard up as to be subsistence hunting with their only rifle in 223. So there's no excuse. The point was made above that there are whitetail out there not much bigger than the coyote the poodle-shooter is good for. Fine. But using a 22 cal round on decent sized deer is unethical and a poor choice. That so many on the internet are such incredibly talented snipers, hunters, and "operators" is remarkable!! I'm sure most of them can deliver sub-moa 5 shot groups on a moving deer at four hundred yards, and use a 17 HMR on anything closer with great effect. But in the real world that just isn't true.
Uased within its limits, its an entirely ethical choice. If the hunter has no ethics, and can't pick and choose his shots, that is not the fault of the cartridge. I do not consider myself unethical in the slightesst hunting with a .223 I make no claims about putting sub MOA groups on moving deer at 400 yards with a .17hmr, but harvesting a deer....pretty much any deer in N. America, can be done with a .223 and a proper bullet. AS adament as you are that its a poor choice, the dead deer seemed to think it worked pretty well. Don't want to use one? Fine....no one is forcing you to...but to assume someone is a rediculously unethical sniper wannabe operator because he chooses a different legal weapon than you would is unfair and insulting, frankly.
RPRNY
Member
No. 22 cal is unwise and unethical, a priori. That you are sufficiently talented that you can get away with it may be the exception that proves the rule. But it is unnecessary. And that makes it unethical, albeit not illegal. Since unethical is not necessarily against the law, you are free, in those jurisdictions where it is legal, to use it. Doing so evidences a poor regard the deer being shot, unless they are the little coyote deer. You may of course rebut. But. In this, I am right and you are not, and no rebuttal will change that fact.
I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, personally I agree with Dave, its on the HUNTER to be ethical.
Ive shot lots of 80-150lb axis deer with a .22LR, mostly at night doing game control, but a few during the day as well. I eventually "upgraded" to a remington 700 ADL in .223, with a 1-12 twist. It shot the 70grn speers, and 64grn WinPPs pretty good, but excelled with 52grn AE hollow points. I mostly shot when the deer would look away from the light at night and expose the back of their heads, but the 52s had plenty of punch to get into the chest cavity and I would shoot just behind the shoulder if that shot presented itself. I could have used a larger rifle, i had a .30-06 at the time, but ammo was 25 bucks a box, and the .22 and .223 were 5. The .223 also didnt leave me deaf after taking a few shots.
The longest shot i could comfortably take free hand with either was 50yds, If i was shooting from the truck i was confident out to 100 with the .223
My buddy and his dad had the game control permit for the cornfields above our house, and he usually shot a .300. He was comfortable with it and would take body shots across the cornfields. When I went with them I usually used a larger rifle, or didnt shoot.
I relate that just to illustrate why I feel the .223 AND the .22 were perfectly ethical choices for my particular uses.
I feel this relates to our discussion about the .264 which IMO is much less marginal than a .223 loaded with cheap "varmint" bullets. I believe its a perfectly ethical choice for other folks, who know the terrain, the quarry, and are willing to wait for the shot, but for ME who would probably be on a "hunt of a life time" to be going after Elk, I would take the largest rifle I could comfortably shoot. Most likely a .300 loaded with 180s or heavier.
Ive shot lots of 80-150lb axis deer with a .22LR, mostly at night doing game control, but a few during the day as well. I eventually "upgraded" to a remington 700 ADL in .223, with a 1-12 twist. It shot the 70grn speers, and 64grn WinPPs pretty good, but excelled with 52grn AE hollow points. I mostly shot when the deer would look away from the light at night and expose the back of their heads, but the 52s had plenty of punch to get into the chest cavity and I would shoot just behind the shoulder if that shot presented itself. I could have used a larger rifle, i had a .30-06 at the time, but ammo was 25 bucks a box, and the .22 and .223 were 5. The .223 also didnt leave me deaf after taking a few shots.
The longest shot i could comfortably take free hand with either was 50yds, If i was shooting from the truck i was confident out to 100 with the .223
My buddy and his dad had the game control permit for the cornfields above our house, and he usually shot a .300. He was comfortable with it and would take body shots across the cornfields. When I went with them I usually used a larger rifle, or didnt shoot.
I relate that just to illustrate why I feel the .223 AND the .22 were perfectly ethical choices for my particular uses.
I feel this relates to our discussion about the .264 which IMO is much less marginal than a .223 loaded with cheap "varmint" bullets. I believe its a perfectly ethical choice for other folks, who know the terrain, the quarry, and are willing to wait for the shot, but for ME who would probably be on a "hunt of a life time" to be going after Elk, I would take the largest rifle I could comfortably shoot. Most likely a .300 loaded with 180s or heavier.
By your logic, handgun hunting, bowhunting, muzzleloaders, etc are ALL unethical choices, because, in your eyes, it is unnecessary to use such a weapon when a more powerful one is an option. I happen to be of the school of thought that every hunter should be familiar with his tools, and that all laws aside, it is up to him too know what his or her capabilities are, combined with the capabilities of the weapon they've chosen. Ethics comes from the heart, it isn't a caliiber or choice of weapon. Too, the "I'm right, you're wrong, no matter what" argument is pretty childish from someone who professes to lecture others about ethics
- Status
