264 Win Mag with retumbo powder

RogueRiver

Handloader
Mar 13, 2005
430
1
I picked up some retumbo powder to give it a try with my 264wm. I was planning on using some 130 accubonds. I noticed Hodgon says max load is 64.1 grains with that bullet but a Hornady 129 grn is 67.5 grain. That seems a huge difference. Anyone using Retumbo with 130 accubonds? What load are you using? Or would 125 or 140 partitions work better with Retumbo??
 

1Shot

Handloader
Dec 5, 2008
1,435
5
I am using Retumbo and 130 Accubonds. I have a custom rifle 264 Win mag Rem 700 with a Shilen #4 27 3/4" long. I made my cases out of once fired Winchester 7mm Rem mag cases. Just run them through a full length 264 Win mag sizing die and trim to proper length. I did a work up and ended up with 66.5 grs Remtumbo, using CCI 250 primers with the 130 AB COAL is 3.450. Average speed is 3350 fps and half MOA accuracy. I have killed a dozen or so white tail deer with this load. BANG FLOP! This bullet is perfect for high velocity. I have shot these deer from 25 to a little over 500 yards and the bullet seems to work the same. I usually shoulder shoot them and the bullet exits with a quarter size hole and takes out the vitals really well no matter the yardage shot. I have only recovered one bullet. It was shot into a buck at 111 yards that was almost facing me with a left shoulder angle toward me. Bullet entered the front edge of the shoulder and was found in the right ham against the smashed ball socket. Bullet was a text book mushroom and weight was 87 grs. This bullet flies a little flatter than the numbers indicate in my experience. At 3350 fps it shoots reeeeeel flat.
 

gerry

Ammo Smith
Mar 1, 2007
6,113
11
RogueRiver":5stuztzj said:
I picked up some retumbo powder to give it a try with my 264wm. I was planning on using some 130 accubonds. I noticed Hodgon says max load is 64.1 grains with that bullet but a Hornady 129 grn is 67.5 grain. That seems a huge difference. Anyone using Retumbo with 130 accubonds? What load are you using? Or would 125 or 140 partitions work better with Retumbo??

I did work with Retumbo and the 130 gr AccuBond using the data for the 129 gr Hornady before they came out with separate data for the AccuBond. I did get up to 67.5 gr with no issues I could see. I believe on average the AccuBond will develop more pressure than the simple cup and core 129 gr Hornady but even with that there seems like the difference in data between them is a bit odd. The 130 gr Swift, 130 gr TSX, 140 gr AccuBond and 140 gr Partition all did well with Retumbo in my gun. Recently Retumbo has worked well with the 156 gr Norma Oryx and is currently sighted in with that load, before that it was the 130 gr Swift. It is a versatile powder in the 264 WM and you have a good chance it will work well for you. You may even consider a mono bullet like the 120 gr E Tip or TTSX, should be able to get them to go pretty fast with Retumbo.
 

Alderman

Handloader
Apr 5, 2014
1,143
207
Take this with a very large grain of salt but the difference might have something to do with bearing surface differences more than the weight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

SJB358

Ballistician
Dec 24, 2006
31,398
757
I used Retumbo with the 130 AB's and it worked great. I'd have to look back through my notes, but it was screaming fast and pretty accurate for me as well.

I think a variance in the data is cases. I had two different lots of Nosler cases. I mixed them together and man, that was a bad move. One three shot group would go under a nickel. The next shot locked up the gun. Couldn't figure it out until I started weighing cases and it became real obvious what happened.

But yeah, if I were starting again today, Retumbo would be near the top of my picks for the 264 Win. You should easily be able to get 3200 with a 140 and 3300+ with the 130's with any sort of decent load work up.
 

gerry

Ammo Smith
Mar 1, 2007
6,113
11
Alderman":17g8wq36 said:
Take this with a very large grain of salt but the difference might have something to do with bearing surface differences more than the weight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would agree with that, the 129 gr Spire Point has a short bearing surface compared to the 130 gr AB. The construction of the AccuBond is much tougher than the simple cup and core Hornady. That said I do think you can go a bit higher than Hodgdon shows with the 130 gr AccuBond, for some reason the 264 WM is somewhat down loaded with most companies data.
 

SJB358

Ballistician
Dec 24, 2006
31,398
757
gerry":13zj0pz5 said:
Alderman":13zj0pz5 said:
Take this with a very large grain of salt but the difference might have something to do with bearing surface differences more than the weight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would agree with that, the 129 gr Spire Point has a short bearing surface compared to the 130 gr AB. The construction of the AccuBond is much tougher than the simple cup and core Hornady. That said I do think you can go a bit higher than Hodgdon shows with the 130 gr AccuBond, for some reason the 264 WM is somewhat down loaded with most companies data.

You aren't kidding there.. Most data looks like a warm'ish 270 Winchester...
 

gerry

Ammo Smith
Mar 1, 2007
6,113
11
It seems a lot of Hodgdon's data is around 61,000 psi for some reason, the 130 gr AB is at 60,800 which seem kind of soft. With my 264 WM and 270 Win it seems like I only get about 100 fps more with the 264 using the same weight bullets using published data. The 264 has a edge for sure but the 270 Win is no slouch either. Loaded up to the same pressures though the 264 shines even more and uses a bullet with a better b.c. as well.
 
Top