264 win mag for elk?

[mcseal2]

I will be applying for Wyoming elk again and think I have enough points built up to draw for sure this year. I've been toying with a few ideas of what to pack for an elk rifle next season and am undecided. I was planning to get a 300 magnum and shoot 200gr accubonds but realistically I'd likely only use it once every 3-5yrs when I draw an elk tag, and without a brake that is more recoil than I handle well.

I'm considering using my 264WM for elk. It's recoil is mild enough that I shoot it well. I'm very confident in my ability to precisely place a shot from kneeling with my bipod to 300yds, and further if I can get prone on my pack or bipod under good conditions. I have a Leupold CDS scope on the rifle and shoot it regularly on my range out to 600yds from field positions with my Rapid pivot bipods. The way I practice I have a pretty darn good idea of my ability and limitations and if I should or shouldn't attempt a shot. I think 500yds would be my limit that I'd consider shooting with this rifle on something the size of an elk, and then only prone under ideal conditions.

Assuming good shot placement how does everyone feel the 264 will perform on elk? My load I use is the 140gr AccuBond at 3000fps. How far do you think this load will deliver enough energy to perform on this size animal?

Here are some figures to consider. At 600yds the 140AB will still be moving 1967fps, over the 1800fps floor listed for the AccuBond.
Energy ft.-lb = 300yds 1885, 400yds 1640, 500yds 1420

Thanks!

 

[DrMike]

While I might prefer more frontal area, I do believe the 264 WM is adequate for elk under reasonably ranges. I tend to go for fairly close shots, and the terrain I hunt permits me to do so. Consequently, my 270 stoked with 130 grain E-Tips works very well on elk. My 325 WSM launching 200 grain ABs works even better and gives me a little more confidence. The 300 WSM loaded with 180 grain cup and core bullets will work very well on elk, and with a premium 165-168 bullet is quite sufficient to take down a large bull. Having said all that, I would not be uncomfortable using a 264 WM loaded with 140 grain ABs on a large bull elk. If you place the bullet in the boiler, it will ensure that you enjoy backstraps that evening.

 

[jmad_81]

I know they have been taken with less ( I prefer at least 7mm 160 AB or bigger). If the 264 is what you shoot the best then I would use that. The 140 AB should be up to the task as long as you do your part.

 

[Mountain Goat]

That bullet is still traveling over 2100fps at 500 yards, so you're still ahead of a 30-30 at the muzzle. :wink:

I'd certainly feel confident with that 264 given the time you've had behind the trigger, and can't imagine that 140gr AccuBond getting to the other side of the ribcage at least.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I guess that since there are a lot of people who shoot elk with a .270 Win, why would a .264 be a problem? Back when the .264 Rifles first started being more available around here (1960), there were several people that I know who bought the Pre 64 Model 70's in .264 to hunt elk in Washington. I know several people who killed either RM or Roosevelt elk with this caliber and had no issues.

 

[elkeater2]

If those AB's shoot accurately they should be fine. Just don't forget the PT! Some .264's seem to like them better, and you wouldn't be handicapping yourself any with them either.
Elkeater2

 

[JD338]

I think you will do fine with the 264 Win Mag with either the 140 gr AB or PT.
You just need to put the bullet where it needs to go.

JD338

 

[FOTIS]

I agree. There are some videos --- made by the long range gurus using 6.5x284's on you tube. They are knocking off elk at 700 plus yards with the 140 VLD. That said, with any reasonable bullet and at a reasonable range and good placement you are in with the 264 mag.

 

[Elkman]

mcseal2
Assuming good shot placement how does everyone feel the 264 will perform on elk? My load I use is the 140gr AccuBond at 3000fps. How far do you think this load will deliver enough energy to perform on this size animal?

Using your data I ran a ballistics chart showing energy (ft. lbs) of that load. If one is to assume the game writers are right that the minimum ft. lbs, for elk is 1500, and recommended is 1800 then the .264 meets that requirement at 300 yards. For a prespective a 300 win mag with a 180 gr bullet launched at the same speed meets that requirement at 550 yards. A significant difference. I think that the .264 is adequate especially with a skilled shooter but not out at very long range. There is always a chance that the animal will move at the same time as you shoot (as happened to me in 10) and a bad hit may result. If the range is limited and a good shot is made the .264 will kill them as dead as dead can be.

 

[1Shot]

First off if you have at least a 26" barrel on your rifle the muzzle velocity will be much better than that listed in most data because it is done mostly with 24" barrels. The 140 gr .264 bullet has about the same SD as a 200 gr .308 bullet. I have never killed an elk or ever hunted one because they don't live in my neck of the woods but I have kill hundreds of WT deer. I have been using a 6.5X55 and 264 Win mag with different bullet makes and weights for a number of years and I can attest that those long golf pencil looking bullets go deep and keep expanding. I have shot 6 deer with the 130 Nosler AccuBond with my 264 Win mag with an average muzzle velocity of 3350 fps. All have been DRT and I only recovered one bullet. It was shot into a 190 lb buck at 111 yards that was almost facing me with a slight left shoulder toward me angle. Bullet entered the edge of the left front shoulder smashing it then went through the chest making soup of the vitals and was found in the right ham next to the ball joint. Bullet was a text book mushroom and weight was 87 grs. That bullet still had to be doing somewhere around 3200 fps on impact and to do what it did and, going through bone and then the almost 5 foot length of a deer while staying together and still maintain two thirds of it's weight. Yes I think an Elk would become table fair in short order if you place one of them where it is supposed to go. I have a friend that has take of few elk with his 264 Win mag with 140 partitions with no problems when he was in the USMC stationed on the left coast.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Assuming gun writers know what they are talking about with 1500 ft pounds of energy being adequate for elk has always been a squirmy number and a stretch to me. I think that it probably is to most elk hunters who have had a couple issues with elk not dying conveniently but Bill, of all people, knows this and has related that sometimes it doesn't work per the script. That is saying that a .30-30 at 100 yards with iron sights is a great elk gun! After all, it has 1500 ft lbs of energy at that range! Not knocking the .30-30, just making a point.

For me, it is an issue of wounding and losing an elk especially when one's will trumps common sense in bullet or caliber selection. I have hunted elk for nearly 50 years, shoot well and don't shoot unless I have the angle and range to kill quickly. If you can shoot a .264 Mag, why not shoot a .338 Federal or .35 Whelan? Same recoil as the .264 Mag and they will kill and stomp all over an elk with a bullet over 200 grains and do it with aplomb at 300 yards!

 

[elkeater2]

If we apply the 1800 ft-lb "standard", then the 30-06 with 150's should only be used to 225 yds., and the '06 with 165's to 275 yds. I don't buy it.....There is a lot to be said for using the rifle you are most familiar with. 140 AB's or PT's in your .264 WM, fold the mirrors in and don't look back! :lol: :lol:

 

[REDGREEN]

264 + elk = dinner. My cousin used one for years for moose and deer. Bang flop.

 

[Elkman]

OK now that we have some discussion going, the next question is: should we use a standard? Ackley in his Manual published in the late 50's used the 1500/1800 rule of thumb. Until lately I had thought those numbers were fairly accepted by the members of the hunting community. We have all seen the videos and numerous posts touting the ability of cartridges with far less capabilities as being 600 yard confirmed elk killers. They are popular because their recoil is light and they are acccurate but do they provide for any margin of error?? Should we have a margin of error? On other posts I see the light 6.5's lauded as a DRT elk cartridge but they meet "neither" of the above criteria past 300 yards. Do we assume that every shot is the perfect broad side standing shot. Are we content with only taking that shot? Will the animal remain standing during those miliseconds between when our brain says squeeze and the 120 gr. bullet arrives.? At 3000 feet per second it takes 3/4 of a second for the bullet to reach the 600yard target. It the animal spooks at the same instant how far does it go in that time.? What is the result? A bad hit, is the animal recovered? Is there a blood trial.? Elk can be magical in their ability to absorb energy, and continue on their way. The longest elk that I can ever remember trailing (over a mile), was hit three times in the front shoulder with an 06 using 180 grain bullets. He was recovered because he left a heavy blood trail. They will also lay right down and die when hit well. We have to be able to shoot "whatever" cartridge/rifle that we choose well. But we also have to deliver the energy to get the job done.

Here is a comment I posted regarding the suitablity of the .243 for elk on another post.

I believe that most everything has been taken with a rock or spear also, but neither are my weapon of choice

I know this is not entirely on the subject but I believe worth discussion. So lets discuss !!!! :grin: :grin: :grin:

 

[SJB358]

I am in the camp that I would feel comfortable using my 264WM with tough bullets such as the 140 PT or AB, heck, I would even look at the Swift's and such. I can run the 140's into the 3100-3200 range pretty easily in my rifle and know from doing a few tests over the past year, that 140gr PT penetrated further than a 7WSM 160gr AB at 3100 did. I am not saying it is all conclusive or that a 264 is perfect medicine, but it does carry energy pretty well to my desired hunting ranges. Now, saying that, when I hunt elk, I have more choices, so I end up toting my Whelen, but you can bet good money that I wouldn't stay home if all I had was my 264WM. It isn't going to be the killer the 338/358 is going to be, but I have a feeling it would get it done with most any decent shot angle.

I tend to use the 1500 FtLb of energy at the POI as my rule of thumb and with tougher, high SD'ed bullets, I think it would get it done. I hunted fine when all I really had was my 270WSM and 300WM. They both did great work too. I just like the bigger bullets when creeping hillsides and off angle shots are going to be more normal.

Great topic, Bill brings up a great point for margin for error. I have ton's of error! Scotty

 

[mcseal2]

Good replys and discussion

I agree that the 264 is on the light end. At the same time like others posted I've seen great penetration on game by the long 6.5 bullets like the AccuBond. I read alot about the 270 and especially 270WSM being good for elk, and I think the 264 fits right in the middle of these.

I should have listed earlier also, I have chronographed my load and it is right at 3000fps average from my 25" barrel. I found the best accuracy and most consistent velocity there shooting 60gr of H4831. I tried Retumbo, H1000, and H4350 as well. I got more velocity with the slower powders but less accuracy. Also with the amount of practice shooting I do burning the throat out quickly for another 200fps is very possible.

I thought this would be a good discussion, it seems most agree that the 264 is adequate but not their first choice. I would go along with that. As I've posted here many times I like a 130-140gr AccuBond with a BC around .500 moving around 3000fps for an ideal deer load. This combo has proven effective on whitetail & muleys at any reasonable angle from 200-400yds for me over recent years. A 300WM or similar cartridge with a 200gr AccuBond at 2900fps would give me similar confidence on elk and that is why I was leaning that way.

I think it comes down to if I'm willing to wait for broadside shots, or if I want the ability to take the quartering or shoulder shot. I don't think I'd feel comfortable taking the tougher angles with the 264.

I have a Ruger 7 mag that shoots 160gr accubonds real well at 3000fps also but weighs about 11lbs, maybe it just needs to get a lighter stock. The current stock weighs 39oz. It was going to be my back-up rifle, but maybe I should spend a little on a good stock for it and use my 264 for back-up. I'm just not sure I'd feel comfortable taking any shot with the 7 mag I wouldn't take with the 264.

 

[SJB358]

I think it comes down to if I'm willing to wait for broadside shots, or if I want the ability to take the quartering or shoulder shot. I don't think I'd feel comfortable taking the tougher angles with the 264.

MC, that is exactly why a 264 is NOT my primary elk rifle. I want to be able to take a hard angled shot up close in the timber and not think about it. I know alot of folks that would never do it, but I hunt with the big guns for a reason. I am not saying complete rear end shots, but, I only have so much time to hunt, so any reasonable shot presentation needs to be capitalized on. Even then, I still came home empty handed this year! :twisted:

The 7 mag with the 160 falls in the same boat as your 264 in my book. Both are very comparable, great cartridges. When you step up to the 300 mag's and 180-200 grain premium bullets, your shots increase. I should say my shots increase. I know this isn't everyones thoughts, but elk don't stand broadside for me enough! Scotty

 

[Kodiak]

And it always gets real interesting when a hunter encounters a dozing Grizzly in knee-deep snow on a steep hill-side. Been there, done that! Just glad I was carrying my .340 Wby. on that hunt.
But this is a rare event .

 

[Oldtrader3]

I still feel that I would rather carry a .338 Federal (or on up to .340 Weatheby) than a .264 for most of my elk hunting. Part of my reasoning is that, in Washington, a lot of elk hunting is for Roosevelt elk and most are shot at somewhat less than 100 yards, especially on the western coastal side of the state. I would rather put 210 gr of Partition into an elk at 2600 fps then 140 gr at 3000+. The reason is small targets of opportunity and whatever you get shooting angles.

With these elk, you are mostly going to see parts of an elk and moving elk. These animals will not probably present a target while broadside and in the open. Often, I have been so close to elk that I could see the steam from their bodies but not them. If you get a shot, it is going to be shooting at what you have for a target and hoping that you penetrate enough to get it done. Sometimes through some bracken and leaves.

It also can be difficult to get a blood trail on an elk and to follow it in the rainforest while it is raining. That is why I like heavy bullets. My all time favorite load for this hunting was a .338 Mag with 275 Speer bullets.

 

[mcseal2]

Where I hunt in wyoming I haven't yet had a close opportunity. I have had time to shoot and get steady, but the way the land lays sometimes a long shot is your best opportunity. I've seen 3 elk shot by guys I was hunting with and shot one myself there. The closest shot was 330yds and mine was the longest at 468. I used a 7 mag with 175gr corelokt factory loads. That was before I started loading for everything, I used them to break in the barrel and they shot well enough I bought 200 for practice and used them on the hunt. I found it under the hide on the far side.