Yea and allot of that talk was 7-Mag owners. The same was said about Weatherbys since their creation. In all my life I've only seen two burnt out barrels and they were both on M-60 Machine guns. My old 300 Weatherby hasn't seen 300 rounds and it was born over 60 years ago, my newest has yet to see a full box and it's almost 10 years old.

Want some Crow?

Just so happens I'm looking a PO's #2 and 65.5 grains of 4350 behind a 129 grain seems to be the most 4350 he used in that caliber. Page 375.

My old now deceased hunting buddy Virgil Roberson loved his Pre 64 Mod 70 Win w/26 in bbl..as did my Uncle Johnny in Oregon..but his had a very short bbl which negates the mag..in it..Virgil had
his chmbr throated 5% to increase the amts. of powder he could burn, ect. I loaded it for him for several years, and saw him take animals over 500 yrds w/it..I'd not use one for a target rifle..or much continous fire..ect as the bbl w/heat up rather quickly. DD

Same thoughts here. I put all the "barrel burn out" talk in the same category as "56mm scope objective" talk, and "270 vs. .30-06" talk-of no significance in 99+ percent of hunting applications.

In other words, there is a long list of factors to consider that are much more important than that one.

Hey now, don't knock the 56mm

DH: I don't have that issue, and if there really is a load there for the 264 with more than 77grains of IMR4350 (which I doubt), then I will concede the bet.

But that would not change the fact that IMR4350 is really a pretty fast burning powder for the 264WM. Yes, it can be accurate. I have a load using IMR4350 and 140gr Sierra BT's that is scary accurate in my rifle. But the load density is probably less than 60% (that means that the case is no where near full), and the velocity is well below the potential of the 264.

With IMR 4350 in the 264 case, you will reach unsafe pressures long before you ever fill the case with powder.

Advocating compressed loads of 4350 in the 264 is unsafe,reckless and stupid, IMO.

See my response above.

In the Ackley pocket manual from 1964 I have looks like for that weight you are correct HWY. He does list in this one higher charge of 68 gr with an 87gr bullet in the one I have. A previous owner of this manual actually had that heavy load marked.

Could have been my book, I am an Ackley fan.

Doubt it is your book, got it at an estate sale in Richardson Texas in the mid 90's. Has the guy's name and address still in the book and a few loads marked.

I see that, thanks. Guess ol' DH decided to conclude his end of the dialog. Hope he didn't stuff a 140gr Sierra on top of a case full of 4350 and pull the trigger!

Right after I got my 264 I called Sierra's techline looking for a starting point.
They recommended IMR 4350 and a 140 Gameking as their accuracy load. I don't remember the charge weight, but it was pretty tame.
I looked it up in a 1970s Sierra manual and it was a 2900 FPS load.
What's the point in that ?

Like buying a Ferrari and trying to run it on regular gas.....

The 264 Thor can be described graphically as the 6.5mm-8mm Remington Magnum 35-Degree Improved. The first sizing die was so marked. Before apoplexy sets in contemplating such a huge container pushing a 6.5mm bullet, I remind you of the recent success of the very similar 7mm Shooting Times Westerner, and the even larger 7mm ICL and 7mm Dakota. A fired 264 Thor case holds just a tad less powder than does a fired 7mm STW case. As I measure it with Oklahoma well water, the 264 Thor holds 93.1 grains of water to the base of the neck, my 7mm STW case holds 94.3 grains to the same spot, while a Super-X 264 Winchester Magnum case holds but 79.7.

Got this off the internet, If .264 Win Mag.case will only hold 79.7 grains of water to neck, how izzit that JJH gets 4350 to weigh 77 grains loaded halfway up the neck?? 4350 Powder (W/Voids) is heavier than water??

A) You never responded: please provide, if you can, the specific load you were referring to in Ackley's book which shows a recommended load of more than 77gr of 4350.

B) As to your case capacities that you got "off the internet". Here are a couple more:

http://kwk.us/cases.html
http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_case_capacity.htm

These references say that the water capacity of the 264 is 82gr and 81.5gr. This took about a 30 second Google search.

I also filled a case with water and weighed it. 82gr

You must enjoy making foolish comments.

Exactly where did I say anything about EXCEEDING a 77 grain loading?? All you have proved is that different cases contain more(or less)weights of water.My post adressed a compressed load of 4350 and did not cover bullet weight, etc. etc. Get all your facts straight before you criticize..

Ok. Please show the load that you cited in Ackley's manual which would be a compressed load using IMR4350 in a 264WM. Clear enough?

And.... Do you REALLY think it is safe to follow your loading suggestion for the 264, to wit:

"reload with compressed loads using IMR4350 and have a flatter shooting rifle than a 270"

...and exactly what bullet would you suggest cramming into that compressed load?

I'm wondering if you have ever seen a 264.

All he needs to do is give me the page number. On page 375 he shows a load of 65.5 behind 129 gr bullet at 3300 fs. Thats the most he shows.

You seat that bullet w/ 77grs you won't hear a crunch, it'll sound more like a jackhammer

Hwy-Man.

Don't think he has a page number.

Don't think he knows a 264 from a 223.

Don't think he has a clue.

i have a 264 wm and my load is a 140gr boattail with 59 grains of imr 4350,cci mag primer.and mine shoots .50 0r less at 100 yards

Perusing Ackley's book, he does include a load of 78.3/H870/140 for 3200 fps. Even with H870 being a ball powder--albeit not particularly dense--I bet THAT load is pretty heavily compressed!

P.O. Ackley liked to blow up guns, and he famously failed on a Jap Arisaka. We prudent modern riflemen would do well to approach Ackley loads from WAY below; that is, unless we want to blow up guns too.

FWIW, another hotrodder, Bob Hagel, lists a load of 68/4350/85 Sierra HP for 3809 fps. He doesn't mention the brand of 4350, but it almost certainly was IMR. Hagel also cited the 78/H870/140 load for 3139 fps.

See the attached chart..4831 has a slightly slower burn rate than 4350. There is no reason for insulting remarks on this forum, only ignorance...

If I remember correctly he did several controlled tests on actions to see just how much they could take, the blowups with the 6.5's were intentional. He was testing the strength of military actions, he also blew up some Remington, Springfield and Craig actions in that test.

And this has what to do with your previous comments about 4350 and PO Ackley #2? Are you saying it was a mistake.

This is like watching an episode of "Big Bang Theory"....