The .264 Win Mag - An Old Idea Worth Re-Visiting

[Davek1977]

doubletap

 

[Davek1977]

Point of fact.....I'm at a 100% recovery rate for deer shot with my .223. I've actually lost deer shot with a 7mm Mag. Caliber is only a fraction of the overall equation in any given situation

 

[cdb1]

For the longest time I shared the same sentiment as RPNY about using a .223 for deer. Over the past couple of years I've changed my opinion. Using the afore mentioned Winchester 64 grain PP's I've shot some Axis deer when hog hunting at night. All shots were less than 100 yards.

 

[Llama Bob]

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.

I guess this is part of it. I live in Colorado. It's easier to get a worthwhile elk tag than a good deer tag. I've seen them shot with everything from .243 up, and shot them myself with a range of calibers from 6.5 to .458. Most years I get an elk, and I've had camp and family members shoot a lot more. I've got a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. If you put an expanded bullet through both lungs and/or the heart of an elk, it will drop. They don't have any spares hiding anywhere. In order to do that, you have to place your bullet in the right place, and it has to have enough sectional density and weight retention to get there. There's nothing magical about it. Things I've learned:

• The high sectional density calibers (6.5mm, 7mm, .338) do better than the low sectional density calibers (.224 (I hate this is now legal), .243, .257, .270 and anyone using light-for-caliber stuff). The .308 cartridges are a special case, because high-SD bullets are available, but few people use them.
• You want an exit wound for tracking, because there's NOTHING you can do to guarantee a bang-flop. The one I shot with the .45-90 (400gr. Hawk) I got both lungs and the heart dead on. It went 75y in dense timber, dropping it's blood supply out the exit wound as it ran.
• Frangible bullets result in lost elk due to failing to reach the heart & back lung. Leave your SMKs, Scenars, A-Maxes and Bergers at home please. I would also avoid the Ballistic Tip. Weight retention is your friend.
• Cup & core bullets are OK if they hit at the right velocity, but bonded/partitioned have a much bigger velocity window and the cost difference is trivial
• Copper bullets work OK and have lots of penetration, but the wounds tend to be small and the animals don't drop fast. I don't use them personally.
• Impact velocity and frangibility increase the chance of a bang-flop. But frangibility also increases the chance of a lost elk, so velocity is your best bet to get them down fast. It's more important to have easy tracking than to gamble on no tracking.
• Most hunters underestimate the downsides of rifle weigh. The places the elk are are hard to get to.
• Hunters with big magnums miss a lot unless the practice a lot. Your average hunter has no business shooting a .300 or .338 WM.

It's kind of funny, because some outfitters will really play up the durability of elk to absurd levels. I guess it makes the whole things seem like a manly man hunt. I got a good chuckle out the the quote about elk being "thick skinned" a few pages back Skin one elk, and you'll realize how silly that is.

I have exactly zero doubt a .264 with 160 Weldcores will work fine for elk, and won't require waiting for any magic shot angles.

 

[RPRNY]

I guess this is part of it. I live in Colorado. It's easier to get a worthwhile elk tag than a good deer tag. .

Ain't THAT the truth! Wanted to do a GMU exchange on a 2nd rifle deer tag. Called CPW yesterday and the "Hunt Planner" laughed (in a sympathetic sort of way). No joy. Bought two OTC unlimited 2nd season elk tags last week without a worry.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I used to be a .223 critic myself until I started shooting one. I think that mostly had to do with AR's as I'm not a fan. I shoot about 5000 rounds of .223 a year with several bolt guns. I've never shot a deer with one but if you want bullet placement that would be a good tool.

How many hunters shoot 5000 or even 500 rounds a year with the rifle they use to hunt with? My main criticism of the 264/160 was ammo availability. At $3.30/rd 500 rds (factory) is going to be $1647 without tax. A good rule of thumb is a reloader will save about half that. It would still be around $800. When ammo is expensive or unavailable people don't shoot it much. I see that a lot with the 30 mags at the range.

140 gr bullets are very common for just about any 6.5 mm cartridge and that's what most people shoot. SD about .287 which is very good. Consider the 7 mm. It's been around for a very long time. There are plenty of 162 gr bullets and factory ammo available for 7 mm. SD is also .287. Also consider the 30 cal. 180 gr bullets are also very common. SD is around .270. All things being equal I'll take the heavier bullet every time for big game.

I would have to say that more game is lost to poor bullet placement than bullet performance. Most people won't even admit they lost a deer but you can see the poor marksmanship at the range just before deer season. I also see people here bragging about taking 500 and 600 yd shots. One has to wonder about that also.

 

[Llama Bob]

I'm probably shooting more like 5 to 50 rounds a year with my hunting rifles. However, I shoot quite a bit from field positions with other less expensive to shoot guns and have good zeros and DOPE on my hunting rifles before I take them out. I have no doubt I can do my part.

Interestingly I went to look at the CO big game brochure and it says .243 min for everything. I swear we switched to allow centerfire .22s a couple years ago, but either I'm remembering wrong, or we switched back. Either way, .223 and .22-250 are not elk guns.

 

[LoonWulf]

I perhaps made it sound as if I felt the .264 was less adequate than I feel it actually is. I would be willing to use it for Elk, after using the similar 7s for cows, and Id be confident in my ability to make it work.
Considering the likely situation of me being on and elk hunt and with MY limited knowledge base and experience, id take the largest gun I can easily get (id have to borrow anything larger than a 7 at this point), and shoot well, which would be a .300.....my old .300 in fact....If i could get larger i probably would.

Hunters with big magnums miss a lot unless the practice a lot. Your average hunter has no business shooting a .300 or .338 WM.

Id have to agree there, especially after being part of the "300" club for a while...a couple times...quite a few of the guys who i talked to used it as a crutch for poor marksmanship, or just lazyness. In a heavy gun its right at the edge of my comfort level, and in a light gun its right at the edge of my tolerance level, so when I had one i didnt shoot it that much. I did put alot of time on my other rifles, and shot the 300 enough to be confident in my ability to land a round on target within my acceptable range.
For the guys that grab a gun only a few times a year, I think the .264, .270s, and 7mms would all be better options than any of the big .30s.

 

[Davek1977]

LOL....out of the many guns I inherited earlier this year, the .300 mag was one of the last to get shot, simply because I wasn't sure what to expect, my biggest rifle being a 7 mag, but with a muzzle brake. I was actually surprised at how easy it was to shoot......I dont know what it was I was expecting exactly, and I'm not saying I'd want to shoot box after box of shells through it, but it wasn't particularly unpleasant, and I think I could easily learn to shoot it well enough..

 

[LoonWulf]

I find a sub 9lb the .300 to be unpleasant if i have to shoot more than 20-30 rounds in a hour or so, add a pound of gun weight and Im good, but ill feel it the next day. Like I said, all thru highschool my buddy shot a fairly lite .300, so I had a pretty good idea going into my first .300 what I wanted from it. I went with a 10lb gun, and a thumbhole stock, that .300 was one of the most comfortable rifles Ive ever shot....I also punched myself in the face a couple times cause I would sometimes warp my thumb over the top of the stock when i tried to shoot it fast...took me a while to quit doing that.

I dont own one anymore, just dont need that kinda bullet weight for anything I do out here. I also dont own a .223 anymore, for much the same reason.

 

[Davek1977]

Its probably not a caliber I would have sought out for my use, but, now that I have it, I might as well shoot it At least for awhile....as we've discussed, if I decide to change things out a bit later, its a Savage, so it won't be too difficult

 

[TN Outlaw]

I guess this is part of it. I live in Colorado. It's easier to get a worthwhile elk tag than a good deer tag. I've seen them shot with everything from .243 up, and shot them myself with a range of calibers from 6.5 to .458. Most years I get an elk, and I've had camp and family members shoot a lot more. I've got a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. If you put an expanded bullet through both lungs and/or the heart of an elk, it will drop. They don't have any spares hiding anywhere. In order to do that, you have to place your bullet in the right place, and it has to have enough sectional density and weight retention to get there. There's nothing magical about it. Things I've learned:

• The high sectional density calibers (6.5mm, 7mm, .338) do better than the low sectional density calibers (.224 (I hate this is now legal), .243, .257, .270 and anyone using light-for-caliber stuff). The .308 cartridges are a special case, because high-SD bullets are available, but few people use them.
• You want an exit wound for tracking, because there's NOTHING you can do to guarantee a bang-flop. The one I shot with the .45-90 (400gr. Hawk) I got both lungs and the heart dead on. It went 75y in dense timber, dropping it's blood supply out the exit wound as it ran.
• Frangible bullets result in lost elk due to failing to reach the heart & back lung. Leave your SMKs, Scenars, A-Maxes and Bergers at home please. I would also avoid the Ballistic Tip. Weight retention is your friend.
• Cup & core bullets are OK if they hit at the right velocity, but bonded/partitioned have a much bigger velocity window and the cost difference is trivial
• Copper bullets work OK and have lots of penetration, but the wounds tend to be small and the animals don't drop fast. I don't use them personally.
• Impact velocity and frangibility increase the chance of a bang-flop. But frangibility also increases the chance of a lost elk, so velocity is your best bet to get them down fast. It's more important to have easy tracking than to gamble on no tracking.
• Most hunters underestimate the downsides of rifle weigh. The places the elk are are hard to get to.
• Hunters with big magnums miss a lot unless the practice a lot. Your average hunter has no business shooting a .300 or .338 WM.

It's kind of funny, because some outfitters will really play up the durability of elk to absurd levels. I guess it makes the whole things seem like a manly man hunt. I got a good chuckle out the the quote about elk being "thick skinned" a few pages back Skin one elk, and you'll realize how silly that is.

I have exactly zero doubt a .264 with 160 Weldcores will work fine for elk, and won't require waiting for any magic shot angles.

Im just curious as my pea brain dont always comprehend clearly, when you made your 1st point about higher SD rounds, that i totally agree with btw, it looked like you grouped. 270Win with the poor SD rounds. Just curious if i seen that correctly?

 

[Llama Bob]

Im just curious as my pea brain dont always comprehend clearly, when you made your 1st point about higher SD rounds, that i totally agree with btw, it looked like you grouped. 270Win with the poor SD rounds. Just curious if i seen that correctly?

Yeah - the .270 even with150gr bullets has a sectional density quite a bit lower than the 7mm (175gr) and 6.5mm (160gr) calibers above and below it.

The twist rate was just set too slow to allow really high-SD bullets.

 

[TN Outlaw]

I agree with the majority of what you said and agree you can get several rounds in 6.5/7mm that have a higher SD than 130-150gr .277. Its just ive never seen it said that the .270Win is a "low SD round" A top fuel dragster is quicker than a Z06 Vette but i wouldnt ever say the Vette was slow. Lots of 270win rated for class 3 game too. It sure dont belong in the .224 (low SD) class after all the big game its absolutely anchored for decades.

Im a fan of several 6.5/7mm cartridges and own mult of each and agree they do have good SD/BC's and i think all 3 work just fine for large game. When comparing apples to apples, .270Win holds its own just fine. Especially as it applies to your avg hunter. You cant compare running longer handloaded Weldcore ammo in a .264wm or whatever 200gr 308win but pigeonhole the .270 to factory loads. Keep them both on the same playing field either way.

Most hunters will shoot factory available ammo and most of what ive ever seen for the .264wm was 120-140gr pills which have a SD of .247/.287. Factory .270Win 130-150gr is .223/.279. The heavier of the 2 are pretty close.

If your gonna run 160gr in the 264wm, ill put up my 160gr Nosler or 165gr vld or matrix or 169.5 ULD RBBT rounds. I have 2 boxes of Berger 170gr EOL Elite Hunter i think is what their called with a SD around .317! .270Win with 10twist wont run the 170's im sure but ive had good luck so far with 160's. When i get my 270 Allen Mag finished i hope to run some 195gr Matrix .277's.

So wether you go factory ammo or custom loaded, the .270Win wont be far behind the 6.5's and usually ahead of the .308's.

The 7RM with all its factory 175gr ammo is hard to beat and has proven better at elk hunting to me than the 270Win or the fast 6 5's with commercial ammo/availability/price/performance. Cant argue against it at all.

 

[Llama Bob]

Given the respective twist rates, there fundamentally no way a .270 can keep up with a 6.5mm or 7mm in terms of SD. A custom fast twist barrel would be required. This is true of both factory loads (e.g. the 160gr Weldcore load posted previously) and handloads. In general anything 160gr and above in .270 is going to be fair weather stable at best in a 1:10 twist barrel (or exceedingly un-aerodynamic to get length down enough to stabilize).

I will also note that I personally don't consider any bullet Berger makes suitable for hunting anything bigger than maybe antelope or white tail. While fragmenting immediately after impact produces some spectacular bang-flops, it also produces a lot of lost game due to the lack of an exit wound. and sometimes not reaching or just throwing a couple fragments into the heart & back lung. The two elk hunting trends around here last year were people shooting 6.5CMs where you would have previously seen .243s (which was an improvement) and ridiculous "elk snipers" shooting at long range with Berger and ABLR bullets. The ABLRs did OK, but the Bergers were a debacle from what I saw and heard.

 

[Llama Bob]

Got the M70 featherweight all set up. Put one of the new Leuplod 3-9 Ultralight 3-9x33 CDS scopes on it. Taking it out of the box, it's almost comically light. Leupold claims these have the same recoil tolerance as the normal weight scopes - we'll see.

Not the best picture, but you get the idea.

Fit & finish on the Portuguese M70s is pretty nice. Wish it was made in America, but MRC doesn't offer a featherweight so not much I can do there. If it shoots, I think this becomes the new light rifle.

 

[LoonWulf]

Thats a sweet rig....might have to add another gun to the battery rather than rebarreling....

 

[Llama Bob]

Got around to sighting the rifle in with 130gr Accubond factory loads. Recoil was quite tolerable - even pleasant. The Leupold ultralight didn't seem to have any problems. I only fired 5 shots - a 25y sighter, a 50y sighter (the two low shots) and a group of 3 at 100y. The group was sub-moa and I adjusted the scope to place it 2.5" high which should give a 310y point blank range at no more than +-3in.


The next step is to see how the gun regulates with much lighter and heavier loads. I'm going to order a box of the DoubleTap 160gr load, plus load my own 100gr partition load and some 85gr varmint bullets. With any luck they'll be OK left to right and the dial-a-turret on the little leupold will let me switch painlessly between loads. I feel like this is a caliber that moreso than most will benefit from switching between loads of radically different weight.

 

[LoonWulf]

NICE!

 

[RPRNY]

That three group is nice. POI with different bullet weights will be very interesting.

My Sporterized Swede varies very little at 300 yards and less with 140grs vs 160grs and is no more than 2" different with 123 grs. My T/C Venture 270 Win doesn't seem to care what you load it with, 130 grs - 150 grs all within the set MPBR per zero.

 

[dickydalton]

Got around to sighting the rifle in with 130gr Accubond factory loads. Recoil was quite tolerable - even pleasant. The Leupold ultralight didn't seem to have any problems. I only fired 5 shots - a 25y sighter, a 50y sighter (the two low shots) and a group of 3 at 100y. The group was sub-moa and I adjusted the scope to place it 2.5" high which should give a 310y point blank range at no more than +-3in.
View attachment 760554

The next step is to see how the gun regulates with much lighter and heavier loads. I'm going to order a box of the DoubleTap 160gr load, plus load my own 100gr partition load and some 85gr varmint bullets. With any luck they'll be OK left to right and the dial-a-turret on the little leupold will let me switch painlessly between loads. I feel like this is a caliber that moreso than most will benefit from switching between loads of radically different weight.

I tried to order the Double Tap 160s and they are unavailable loaded.

 

[Llama Bob]

I tried to order the Double Tap 160s and they are unavailable loaded.

I foubnd out you have to order them via phone as they're made to order.

 

[dickydalton]

I foubnd out you have to order them via phone as they're made to order.

Thank You for that. I'll call them.