264 Win Mag Vs 7 Rem Mag

[Nunya53]

Just curious if anyone could share some insight why the 7 Rem Mag sent the 264 Win Mag to the dusty corner when it came out? Just doesn't make sense for a "Western" rifle. I have an FN model 70 in 264 that shoots great and I just picked up a model 70 Classic Sporter (NOS) in 7 Rem Mag for a price I couldn't pass up....

My Model 70 addiction is growing....I might need an intervention....

Nun

 

[FITASC]

MY understanding was that the 264 was rough on barrel life. That might have been from folks trying to hot-rod though. (This is from years ago when I bought my 7mm in 1980)

 

[Nunya53]

I've always heard that as well, but I can't believe there was that much of an advance in metallurgy between 1958 and 1962. I seems if one was a barrel burner, the other would be too....In any case, from what I've read, modern steel has put the barrel burner excuse out to pasture.....

I will shoot both and see what I like best

Nunya

 

[Scorch]

Yes, the 264 is rough on barrels, but one of the big arguments for the 7mm Mag is that it can be found in heavier bullet weights than those available for the 264 Win Mag in factory loads (175 gr vs 140 gr). So, too much barrel wear and not enough bullet mass were its primary faults.

 

[Pathfinder45]

I think it was chronographs that sent the 264 to the dusty corner when it was revealed that actual velocity was a close match to the already well established 270 Winchester, especially so if the barrel lengths were the same. The 7mm Remington Magnum gives a little better performance than the 270 and 30-'06, but not by a wide margin. With those two magnums, the rifleman sacrifices some magazine capacity in hopes of gaining a performance advantage. they would be more popular if it weren't for the fact that the 30-'06 and 270 are already quite outstanding. Factory loaded 30-'06 ammo is loaded to a lower pressure for reasons that I don't want to take the time to explain at the moment. But suffice it to say, that in the same strong rifles that your magnums are chambered for, it would be entirely safe to handload the 30-'06 to similar pressures. Thus, the '06 has the most to be gained, performance-wise, from handloading. It will do anything the 7mm Remington Magnum can do. But they are all good hunting calibers, and will get the same job done. How many shots do you really need, anyway? I have never owned a 30-'06, but simply recognize it for the gold-standard that it is.

 

[Don Fischer]

I also heard hard on barrels. But look up the two in a manual. Look's to me like with every weigh bullet 7mm mag runs off from the 264. If I remember right the early 264's came out with a 26" stainless barrel and they didn't blue but had some other process for blacking the barrel.

 

[RC20]

7mm is a severe barrel burner as well. 1500 rounds or so.

Metals have stayed the same (production advances have taken place)

No stainless back then, just CM. Stainless is the same as CM wear wise with some contending one or the other is better.

The only barrel I know of that has harder steel and longer life is a Lothar Walther who uses a European steel.

When you use large amounts of powder to move a small bullet that's a barrel burner. 300 WM falls in there.

 

[Scorch]

Metals have stayed the same

Pretty much. 4140 is still 4140. There are a few twists in the mix nowadays,
but most metallurgy has changed little in the past 50 years.

The only barrel I know of that has harder steel and longer life is a Lothar Walther who uses a European steel.

Harder steel is not used because barrels still have to be rifled, and they are not heat treated afterwards. There have been a few rebels over the years that touted harder barrels, but it is just too hard to rifle.

No stainless back then, just CM.

No, there were stainless barrels in many of the early magnums, even some non-magnum guns. Winchester even made some 1890s with a black nickel plated barrel back in the "teens" (1910-1919) to reduce corrosion from corrosive priming compounds and black powder. Some early Remington 700s in 7mm mag came with a black chromed stainless barrel marked STAINLESS.

I think it was chronographs that sent the 264 to the dusty corner when it was revealed that actual velocity was a close match to the already well established 270 Winchester,

Yes, ballistics of the belted magnums were hyped for consumers, but the marketing guys were forced to eat their words when chronographs started to become more common (late 1970s, by then the 264 was already dead). Not that magnums can't perform, they just aren't magic. People figured out really simple things like a 270, 280 or 30-06 can almost match a 7mm mag.

The Winchester Model 70 Westerner that introduced the 264 Win Mag had a 26" barrel to wring the most out of the big case full of powder. With a 26" barrel, the 264's ballistics can be quite impressive. So can any cartridge burning enough powder.

 

[jmr40]

It was the first year production 700's in 7mm magnum that used SS barrels and were given a black coating. Hunters weren't ready to accept SS barrels yet. That was changed roughly 1 year later. To my knowledge the 264 didn't have a SS barrel until the current Winchester, but I could be wrong.

How a cartridge is marketed initially can make it or break it. The 7 mag was sold as an elk cartridge that would equal 300 mags on game with recoil in the 30-06 range. It does just that. Of course so does the 264, but most hunters in the day just couldn't accept that a 26 caliber bullet would work on larger game.

 

[kraigwy]

I shot a lot of 7 Rem Mag, frankly I see no advantage of it over the 270 Win. Using 150 gr. data on the average you can get 200 fps more out of the 7mm, but that gap lessens at range, which doesnt matter at normal hunting distanced. I gave up the 7mm after 25 years or so for the 270, I didnt think the extra 200 fps was worth the extra recoil and rifle weight.

So my primary hunting rifle is the 270 Win..

But???

As much as I love the 270, now they have better long range bullets, I'm starting to wonder.

I've been playing with the 6.5 CM. Hornady has developed the 147 6.5 bullet. Its (according to the data hornady puts out), its about 100 fps slower then my 270 loading, but thats off set when you add distance. The 270 starts faster, but when you get out there things change.

I dont hunt at 1500 yards, but use it for an example. My loading for my 150 gr. 270 has a remaining velocity of 1035 and engery level of 357 ft lbs.

Where as the 147 CM has the remaining vel of 1132 fps and 418 ft lbs of energy.

To be fair I basing this on data not shooting. I havent tried the 147 gr bullets in my Creedmoors yet.

But in the future, the Creedmoor could easily beat out the 270 and 7mm. Rem Mag.

That remains to be seen I guess. Going to have to try the 147s and see what happens down range.

 

[BIGR]

I shot a lot of 7 Rem Mag, frankly I see no advantage of it over the 270 Win. Using 150 gr. data on the average you can get 200 fps more out of the 7mm, but that gap lessens at range, which doesnt matter at normal hunting distanced. I gave up the 7mm after 25 years or so for the 270, I didnt think the extra 200 fps was worth the extra recoil and rifle weight.

So my primary hunting rifle is the 270 Win..

But???

As much as I love the 270, now they have better long range bullets, I'm starting to wonder.

I've been playing with the 6.5 CM. Hornady has developed the 147 6.5 bullet. Its (according to the data hornady puts out), its about 100 fps slower then my 270 loading, but thats off set when you add distance. The 270 starts faster, but when you get out there things change.

I dont hunt at 1500 yards, but use it for an example. My loading for my 150 gr. 270 has a remaining velocity of 1035 and engery level of 357 ft lbs.

Where as the 147 CM has the remaining vel of 1132 fps and 418 ft lbs of energy.

To be fair I basing this on data not shooting. I havent tried the 147 gr bullets in my Creedmoors yet.

But in the future, the Creedmoor could easily beat out the 270 and 7mm. Rem Mag.

That remains to be seen I guess. Going to have to try the 147s and see what happens down range.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

I think I am starting to think about another cartridge such as the 6.5 CM. Started out years ago using a 30-30, then onto the 30.06 for deer. Took many whitetail deer with the 30.06, then I got the 7MM Magnum itch and finally just had to get one. Been using one for the past 6 or 7 years and to tell the truth about it, it has not killed those deer any better than the 30.06, since most of the deer I have taken have been 90 yards and closer. Yelp, I took one deer with my 300 Win Mag just to say I had done it. I am getting older now and don't get me wrong I am not a weakling or afraid of recoil, but heck I am finally starting to realize that a lighter, less recoiling rifle might just be more enjoyable. Thought about a .270 or something like the 6.5 CM.

 

[Geimer]

The 264 had too large of a case. It could not be loaded up
to case capacity for large bullets like 140 and 160, because
all the available commercial powders were too fast for that
really large case. It was the same case basically as a 7mm
Rem, but the bore was smaller.

Even a slow powder available then, 4831 was not slow
enough to come close to filling the case with a 140 or
160 grain bullet, So you could not USE the extra case
capacity. It was way overbore capacity.

You could get a lot of velocity out of it hand loaded with
those large bullets but still not beat a 270 much.

I had one of those early guns, and I bought a 50 pound
keg of H870 powder. That was slow enough that you could
get it near full without over pressuring the gun, and then
you had lots of velocity, but still you could not use the full
case even with that powder.

I rebarreled mine to 6.5 Remington, and I could get just
as much velocity out of that as I was getting out of the
264 and the case was a half inch shorter, but I could fill
the case up with H870 using 140 or 160 grain bullets and
shoot them over 3000 fps. I really liked the 6.5 Remington
and a friend did also, and talked me out of it. At that
point I bought a Savage 110 and barreled it to 6.5-06.
It gave the same performance as the 6.5 Remington mag,
and actually the case capacity was the same, I could fill
it up with H870 and use 140 or 160 grain bullets at over
3000 fps. Eventually I ran out of the H870 powder but
it must have lasted me for 25 years. Accurate 8700
is almost identical speed and is a great powder for the
6.5-06 or 6.5 Remington. I bought a bunch of powder
from GIBRASS.COM, and among it was 8 pounds of
WC872 which is just about identical to H870 that I used
for years.

The 264 was just too large of a case to be used with larger
bullets. You probably could find some powder to fill a case
up with if you used the lightest bullet available back then,
which was 60 grain, doubt if that is still available. You
could probably have got thatbullet up to 4000 fps, but why?
It is a varmit bullet, and a 220 swift would do the same
function with less fuss and bother.

The 264 was just a bad idea.

 

[GeauxTide]

A 160gr 7mm at 3050 versus a 140gr 6.5 at 3000 (maybe). I've owned a few 7's and, for me, the trick is to let the barrel cool between shots at the range. Besides, they never made the 264 in a LH persuasion.

 

[Dranrab]

At 3000 FPS for a 140 grain pill out of a 26 inch barrel, learned reloaders will tell you you are leaving at least 150 FPS on the table.

 

[Pathfinder45]

Not quite sure what Dranrab meant, but I can say that I have chonographed some 140 grain bullets at 3,285 fps from my 24" barreled 270 Winchester. Admittedly, pressures must have been quite high as the primer pockets would get a little loose after 3, and some times 2 loadings. That was the only pressure sign, but enough that I quickly throttled it down. I now consider 3,100 fps to be a reasonable maximum for 140's in that caliber with optimum components. We know darn well that you can match that with both the 264 Winchester Magnum and 7mm Remington Magnum, and even go perhaps beyond the safe limits of the 270 Winchester. But not by much, as you will soon develop the same symptoms of excess pressure.

 

[disseminator]

I am a 7mm fan and have hunted with my 1962 Model 700 STAINLESS that my Dad bought new and gave me when I was old enough. It's a great cartridge that has a lot to offer. The 264 is well known as a major barrel burner, that is what sealed it's fate by most accounts.

As for the 7RM being a barrel burner, that's not been my experience with many hundreds of rounds through my two rifles. (I also have a '94 26" Model 70 DBM Classic)

I guess I'll find out in a few hundred rounds but I don't see it, especially with the slow burning powders we have now. I use Accurate MAGPRO and vvN570 FWIW.

Velocities are impressive with the 7mmRM. I have proven loads from my Model 70 that push the 160 AccuBond past 3240 feet and a 175 ABLR to 3100.

That pretty well outclasses the 270 and the 264 Mag. Whether you need that performance or not is another question and an important one.

I favor my 308 and 7mm08 over the 7RM and 300 WSM for the simple fact that it's basically enough as I don't shoot past 500 yards and mostly Whitetail Deer hunt so the Mags aren't needed.

The simple answer is the 264 mags are overbore bigly.

 

[eastbank]

run a 7mm 162gr a-max bc 625 at 3000-3100fps, easy to do with a 26" barrel with the powders we have today. and thats good for 1700+-fps and 1000+-fpe at 1000 yards, it may not be needed at 400-500 yards but on out there its good to go. its not for sissies if you can,t handle recoil. i run a heavy barreled 700 rem with a 4.5x14 leupold with tds and after you work out your load all you have to do is learn about wind drift, not easy at the longer ranges. eastbank.

 

[reynolds357]

The .264 Winchester is a barrel burner. I have 3 of them. Two have been rebarreled. One needs a new barrel now. Accuracy usually starts going south at around 800 rounds. You burn a whole lot of powder to get a few (literally a few) fps over the .270 Win.

 

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

Alloys in todays barrel have reduce the 264s erosion problem substantially.
264 is faster and flatter shooting than the 7 Mag could ever hope to be.. Although the 7mm Mag has many more bullet weights available which does come in handy every now and then.

Given the choice between the two cartridges? 264 would be my preference. Probably because the word {Winchester} is engraved on the cartridges base not Remington.

After some checking up on. Their near identical in speed. No matter I still like the 264 better for the reason mentioned.

 

[disseminator]

One thing that always seems to get lost in these kind of threads is that what's good in a hunting rifle isn't the best for benchrest and vice-versa.

Magnum recoil really isn't an issue when you are shooting one or two rounds at game. You'll not even notice the recoil usually.

On the bench, after about 10 rounds of 7mmRM my shoulder lets me know it's time to stop. Likewise, if you are looking for a hunting rifle, you will have to kill a LOT of game to burn out a barrel in any rifle. Say you shoot a box of ammo every year to confirm your zero, then you use 5 rounds taking game, that means that if your 264 win mag burns it's barrel out in even 800 rounds you will be able to hunt with it for at least 32 years before accuracy degrades.

Fact is, most hunters don't even shoot 25 rounds a year and so the rifle will likely out last you.