The 264 Winchester Magnum... Part II

About hundred years ago, when cars had a maximum speed of twenty miles per hour and teenagers had to share the road with horse drawn produce wagons, people drag raced street driven hot rods for neighborhood pride and maybe a few bucks. I remember a black 1961 Chevy Bel Air bubble top; 348 cubic inch, 350 horsepower  solid lifters, three deuces and a 4 speed. Every Friday night he’d make the loop through Stewart’s drive in restaurant parking lot, trying to hustle a race. Even though none of us had actually witness the car win races, between the resonating rup-rup-rup idle and the car’s attitude and reputation, he had no takers.

One night, we  got to talking about the fastest 348 or 409 Chevy elapse times we had seen at the track… which led us to a more objective conclusion regarding the ’61 Chevy performance potential. So I borrowed my cousin’s 427 cubic inch, 425 horsepower Ford Galaxy, raced the Chevy and beat him by maybe a six or seven car lengths. Wiping out the Ford’s clutch, getting a ticket for “exhibition driving” and ending my street racing career that night were all secondary to the primary lesson – Logic and reason trump reputation any time.

The 264 Winchester Magnum is a cartridge with a reputation, however, in reality it is not a bully, it is not unimaginably fast and it doesn’t eat barrels for breakfast. It is just another overbore cartridge that fits into a  narrow niche between the infamous 257 Weatherby Magnum and exceptionally popular 7mm Remington Magnum.

Five bullets were initially selected for this exercise. The 100 and 139 nine grain bullets are more suitable for the 6.5×55 Swede or the 260 Remington as they are not designed in anticipation of the high impact velocity of the 264 Winchester Magnum. While they will hold together and probably hole punch coyotes, controlled expansion is probably not in the cards. Still, they are not so bad in this application that they will scream, cough and burst into flames as they leave a gun’s muzzle. At the last minute, UPS showed up and I was able to add two more bullets as noted on the table.

The handload data, below, also includes the 140 grain Nosler Partition #16321 and 160 grain Woodleigh PP #80A. Both are good heavier game bullets with ballistic coefficients that don’t undermine the cartridge’s long range potential and both are sturdy enough to stand up to the round’s velocity. For as much as I like the 125 grain Nosler Partition for deer hunting, the 140 grain is more convincing on larger body mass big game. The Woodleigh is a much better bullet for 264 Winchester Magnum applications than a round nose 160 grain bullet intended for lower velocity 6.5mm cartridges.

Twistin’. Twistin’. Twistin’ the night away…

My only concern with bullet selection was that the Woodleigh bullet at 1.380″ in length, compared to a 1.240″ more typical round nose, might tax the rifle’s 9″ twist rate, however, this proved not to be an issue. Most twist rate calculations use bullet length to determine twist rate, where twist rate is an imprecise metaphor for stabilizing RPM. Greenhill’s formula, the most frequently cited for twist rate calculation is fast and easy but, even by Greenhill’s standards, it is limited, probably because it was devised to calculate twist rates of blunt nose, jacketed bullets circa 1873.

*The Greenhill formula does not take into consideration bullet nose or base shape, jacket thickness or type or bullet sectional density. A rule of thumb is that velocities over 2,200 fps require a slightly slower twist than the calculated results and, for velocities over 3,200 fps, twist rates should be reduced by a rate of 1/2 turn for each additional 350 fps above 3,200 fps. Remington’s selection of a 9″ twist appears to be a touch of Remington wisdom and it compromises nothing when it comes to 0.264″ bullet weights. So why not spin the bullet with a 7″ and be done with the issue? Over rotating bullets exacerbate the effects of bullet design and production flaws.

Many of the loads listed below out perform mainstream handload manual data by as much as 150 fps of muzzle velocity. It’s not that the loads are materially different, but rather it’s because test barrel length for a universal receiver for this cartridge is typically 24″. All of the chronograph data collected here is from the 26″ barrel Remington Sendero. The original Winchester Model 70 Westerner that launched the 264 Winchester Magnum, also had a 26″ barrel so 26″ barrel data seems appropriate. Cartridges with this type should have a 26″ barrel or too much of their potential will end up in a cloud of unburned smokeless powder. Sure, it’s fun to watch, but…

Net case grain capacity is important, as are cartridge overall length, bullet length and seating depth references, so there is no suggestion of component substitution. It is always wise to initially back off a few percentage points on charges to accommodate any component manufacturing variations that might effect pressure. Hey! What’s the hurry?

Shooting impressions… None left by the recoil pad.

The most notable characteristic of the Remington Model 700 Sendero in this chamber is a lack of recoil. Could be me and the result of years of being pounded like a burger patty by heavyweight magnums, but recoil was not a factor when shooting this rifle. It’s a loud gun and not lacking at all in late afternoon visible multiple foot orange muzzle blast. The Sendero, with heavy barrel contour and target type stock appears to weigh much more than the gun’s actual weight of 8 1/2 lbs; about the same as a rifle length barrel flat top AR-15 or about three quarters of a pound more than a conventional sporter. Hauling it around on shooting data collection days, I didn’t really notice the gun’s weight and it was very comfortable when shooting. Handloading the 264 Winchester round is routine, but the cartridge rifle combination is good enough that care exercised in component selection and assembly is rewarded with improved down range accuracy.

The 264 Winchester Magnum cartridge and the Remington Sendero makes for a unique and purposeful combination and probably closer to the package Winchester should have structured when the cartridge was introduced.

The 264 Winchester Magnum… Part I
The 264 Winchester Magnum… Part II