264 mag vs 7mm mag

[okie2]

here is the reason the 7 mag beat out the 264
all though the 264 is still my favorite.
http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/bcompare.cgi

 

[FOTIS]

I do not have a login.

Can you enlighten us?


BTW I do think the 7mm is the better cartridge, that said I like the 264 much better.

 

[okie2]

here it is

Ballistic Comparison Summary Results
# Name Muzzle
Velocity
(Avg. f.p.s.) Muzzle
Energy
(Avg. ft-lbs.) Bullet
Weight
(Avg. gr.) Data
Points Case
Capacity
(Avg. grs. H2O)
1. LOAD: .264 Mag,140 gr,H-870,73.0 gr 3163 3111 140 n/a 80.7
2. LOAD: 7mm Rem,140 gr,Reloder-22,67.5 gr 3340 3469 140 n/a 80.8
3. LOAD: .264 Mag,120 gr,IMR-7828,72.0 gr 3396 3074 120 n/a 80.7
4. LOAD: 7mm Rem,120 gr,Reloder-19,70.0 gr 3570 3397 120 n/a 80.8
5. LOAD: .264 Mag,160 gr,AA-8700,75.0 gr 2900 2989 160 n/a 80.7
6. LOAD: 7mm Rem,160 gr,H-1000,74.0 gr 3160 3549 160 n/a 80.8
7. LOAD: .264 Mag,100 gr,H-4831,71.0 gr 3680 3008 100 n/a 80.7
8. LOAD: 7mm Rem,100 gr,N-560,81.6 gr 3760 3140 100 n/a 80.8

 

[Silent Sam]

Same case. Winchester did the work. Remington necked it up and took all the sales.

 

[reflex264]

I have had several 7 mags and a chrony. None of them got the velocities they were supposed to while my .264s did so easily. Now I don't have any 7 mags. reflex264

 

[reflex264]

With out having my notes handy the highest velocity I eve got out of a 139gr Hornady BTSP from the 7 mags was 3063fps with a absolute max dose of RL22 from a 26" barrel. I never broke 3000fps with a 150 or 154 and started showing pressure at the top end. I know lots of people love them but after trying 3 of them they just didn't work out. The badest thing I have seen is the .264s built with 27" barrels. reflex264

 

[BeeTee]

With out having my notes handy the highest velocity I eve got out of a 139gr Hornady BTSP from the 7 mags was 3063fps with a absolute max dose of RL22 from a 26" barrel. I never broke 3000fps with a 150 or 154 and started showing pressure at the top end. I know lots of people love them but after trying 3 of them they just didn't work out. The badest thing I have seen is the .264s built with 27" barrels. reflex264

Soft brass... I could never get my 300 Weatherby to shoot near factory speeds using Wby factory brass in the 1970s (made by Norma?). All that changed when I began using Rem 300 Wby brass in the 1990s. Then, I very nearly duplicated Weatherby factory speeds.

With Rem/Win brass, I can load the 7RM & 140NBT to 3300+ with a 24" bbl at what I consider safe max pressures (no ejector marks, no primer pocket expansion, pimers not cratered or overly flattened). I usually back off 100-fps from whatever load I'm developing for a safety cushion and/or best accuracy.

 

[1Shot]

In my experience the 264 mag is a much better WT deer killer than the 7 mag. The 7 mag may be better on large game like elk because of heaver bullets but I have never had the opportunity to hunt elk. I would not pass up a shot at any elk with my 264 pushing a 130 AB at 3350 fps.

 

[Bruce Mc]

My experience with the 7mm Rem Mag has been consistent with the figures listed. I don't have a .264 Win Mag but if I had a slick Model 70 sporter in .264 Win Mag I'd sure have a really difficult time deciding which was best. But I'd just say who cares and use them both. I believe the .264 is a caliber that has been greatly improved with the variety of very slow buring powders now available and the figures printed are a little low from what some of the posters here have worked up.

 

[OldMan]

With the right powder for the gun and bullet the 7 mag can shine! I haven't used the 7 in years, but I still have one in my gun safe that shoots the 175 grain Hornady at 2960 with great accuracy. To me that is where the 7 shines, not in the light weight class, it goes to the 264! The last 2 elk I shot with the 7 were DRT at 250 yards with that gun and load.

 

[reflex264]

Fellers first and formost I aint knocking the 7 mag. I know guys that take their game with them every year. In my case I use flat shooters in bean fields and my ideal was to have a 7 mag as a backup gun. My original ideal was to push 120gr ballistic tips at 3400fps which should have only been slightly less flat shooting than one of the 264s. I got some data from gents using that bullet that were getting 3400fps. At that time I had a 24" and 26" barreled 7 mag. Both guns topped out at around 3150 with Remington and Winchester brass. Not that this load wouldn't have worked but it was jsut slow enough to take the advantage away. I have taken hundreds of deer with the 264 and 120grs many way past 400 yards with a long of 620 yards.

At 600 yards using the same sight in the 264 and 7 mag the kill shots with the 264 are completely below the target with the 7 mag. Just the way it worked out. reflex264

 

[FOTIS]

It is true guys. That 160 gr makes all the difference in that 7mm rem mag.

 

[Oldtrader3]

You are right Fotis. Actually there are not too many bullets on earth that will outperform a 7mm Mag, 160 grain Partition for killing deer with a MV of 3100 and a BC of .480 to .560. Of course I have only been killing deer with the 7mm Mag since 1964.

Not really sure what Reflex said actually? Punctuation was not used and syntax was confusing in his last sentence.

 

[FOTIS]

My velocities were:

140 gr 3350-3400 with RL22
150 gr 3150 fps with IMR 7828
160 gr 3060 fps with RL 22

Never had any trouble reaching these in any 7mm mag.

 

[reflex264]

Sorry about that. To clarify I use life size deer targets to work out sight ins on rifles.

(This was a chart for a 45-70 load)

On the long range rigs I run a chart based on calculated data first. Using the same sight in at 100 yards for the 7 mag and .264,both with 120grs on paper it appears that they should be within an inch of the same POA at 600 yards. In real life the .264 shoots between 7 and 9 inches flatter. With both bullets traveling between 3100 and 3200 at the muzzle and the same impact point at 100 yards, the .264 hits the vitals and the 7 mag hits below the bottom of the deer body. Not that the 7 mag wont work but I hoped for a similar set up for the longer fields.

The only 160 I tried was the Sierra and the 26" was only able to hit a smidge over 2900fps with them. reflex264

 

[BeeTee]

Using the same sight in at 100 yards for the 7 mag and .264,both with 120grs on paper it appears that they should be within an inch of the same POA at 600 yards. In real life the .264 shoots between 7 and 9 inches flatter. With both bullets traveling between 3100 and 3200 at the muzzle and the same impact point at 100 yards, the .264 hits the vitals and the 7 mag hits below the bottom of the deer body. Not that the 7 mag wont work but I hoped for a similar set up for the longer fields.
reflex264

Actually, according to Nosler #6, the 264 Win Mag is capable of pushing a .458bc 120gr BT to 3309-fps. The 7RM can push a .417bc 120gr BT to 3570-fps.

According to http://www.handloads.com/calc/ , when sighted-in for a 300 yard zero at sea level, the 264 drops 43.56" below POA at 600 yards, while the 7RM drops 38.68". Gotta run both rifles at their designed max load to see what the real difference is.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Thanks for the additional information. I have never used Sierra bullets for anything but varmits.

I guess that I would want to see an optimised loading on a similar BC numbered game bullet in .264 vis a vis 7mm at actual game load velocities. Unless somebody is lying, a .475 BC, .264 bullet at 600 yards should have the same trajectory as a .475 BC, .284 bullet given 3100 fps for each.

 

[1Shot]

It all depends on how long the barrel is on a 264 Win mag as to the velocity. My 27 3/4" barrel gave me a touch over 3600 fps with 120 BT with a case full of Retumbo. :mrgreen: I get 3350 with 130 ABs.

 

[SJB358]

Same here, 3350 for the 130gr AB and 3200 with the 140gr PT. 7mm RM is going to a little faster with the same bullet, but the 264 is a screamer when it is loaded right. I think the Nosler data is a little tame and the powders used are a little too fast for the heavier bullets. Nosler factory 125gr PT's only runs about 3000 out of my M70 with a 26" tube. Scotty

 

[reflex264]

Using the same sight in at 100 yards for the 7 mag and .264,both with 120grs on paper it appears that they should be within an inch of the same POA at 600 yards. In real life the .264 shoots between 7 and 9 inches flatter. With both bullets traveling between 3100 and 3200 at the muzzle and the same impact point at 100 yards, the .264 hits the vitals and the 7 mag hits below the bottom of the deer body. Not that the 7 mag wont work but I hoped for a similar set up for the longer fields.
reflex264

Actually, according to Nosler #6, the 264 Win Mag is capable of pushing a .458bc 120gr BT to 3309-fps. The 7RM can push a .417bc 120gr BT to 3570-fps.

According to http://www.handloads.com/calc/ , when sighted-in for a 300 yard zero at sea level, the 264 drops 43.56" below POA at 600 yards, while the 7RM drops 38.68". Gotta run both rifles at their designed max load to see what the real difference is.

Hey Bee Tee. The problem once again was I couldn't get the bullets up to speed in the 7 mags. No way no how. Noslers book data is very cold for the .264 as you probably already know. Several powders will push the 120bt over 3400 from 26" barrels in the .264. In my sons 27" barrel 3500 is in reach. I still have no doubt in shooters with 7 mags getting the velocities they claim they are getting. Guy Miner for one is getting great velocities out of his Ruger #1 7 mag. If he told me he saw a cow flying over mt St Helens I would take his word for it. He is also aware that I tried 3 different 7 mags with the same results-low velocities.

I just have a problem with blanket statements like "The 7 mag is superior to the .264 and loading manuals prove it". In the real world it doesn't work.

I proved years ago that the .264 needs a 26" barrel. Even though I though everyone should take my word for it many didn't. I harrassed John Barsness (in a friendly fun way) about writing a .264 article till he did it. In the early part of the article he pulls out the rifle and factory ammo. In print from several writers we have read " 264 ammunition has always been slightly over rated for cosmetic reasons and rarely exceeds 3000fps in the real world". That basic same line was used by several gun writers over the years. It turned out that one of the writers had never shot a .264 and a couple others, if you read the articles used 24" barrels.

There was a conspiracy theory as to the reason 24" barrels kept showing up in magazines such as Remington paying the writers and such like. I personaly think it was just plain ignorance. The cartridge was designed for a 26" barrell and that is that.

Well John launched a few over the chrony and said " It does need a 26" barrel!"

Boys this is a never ending debate just like Ford vs Chevy. As long as we keep it real and fun I will participate for the duration. reflex264