Rem. 700
I bought a remington 700 7mm mag barrel. could someone tell me which stock will go back on it and is it long or short action thanks
0
-
I purchased my Rem. 700 BDL stainless synthetic .264 win mag in oct of 2002 i heard that there were only about 300 of these rifles made on a special run... remington wouldnt give me exact production #s on it but they did say that it wasnt a catalogged item. i was wondering if you knew how many were made and how much these rifles may be worth 0 -
Wheeeeew. The .264 Mag, Well it is best to be stainless, and Ruger put out some of these in the last couple years (in Stainless)with engraved floor plate. I would venture a calculated guess = real Money? $600 - $650. But I an't shooting another one of these Demons. Shot a Remington 8 times and prayed the owner didn't bring out another box of ammo. The Concussion would give me a Flash Headache with every shot. Recoil was not all that. [;)]
Ronnie G. Perkins0 -
delta i never heard of .264 win mag i have a 700 bdl .300 win mag in stainless how do they compare.
rusty10 -
The 264 Win Mag was a commonly discussed caliber a few years back. I believe there were a few nimrods that were using rifles in this caliber for LONG RANGE coyote/varmint medicine. I do not have the low-down (my Bible of Modern Cartridges) at hand but you sould see some more replies shortly.
I wish I could recalll the parent case,...I hate to guess it was a 300 Win. Mag. necked down...
SEMPER FI0 -
The 6.5mm (264cal) bullet from a magnum charge was impressive with respect to trajectoty and velocity. The big "to do" with that caliber was "it is a barrel burner". Well,..all rifles burn barrels,..some just a little faster than others[:p]. I beleive that the 270wthby mag and 7mm rem mag/wthby mag,..pretty much overshadowed the 264 as it had far less bullet selection and was only .013" and .020" smaller in daimeter than the other two,..so it's gain in speed was relatively minute. It was an overbore by every definition IMHO. The rifle market with resepct to calibers is a fad thing,..and much of it is controled by marketing and not flat out performance.
with an 8 twist barrel,..and 140gr pills,..it is quite easily capable of some serious long range work. This is why quite a few of the long range guys are chambering rifles in the wildcat 6.5WSM. A rose by any other name.......
why chase the game when the bullet can get em from here?....
Got Balistics?0 -
RUSTY: The .264 is on the same Hull as the .300 Win Mag, and the 7mm Remington Mag. There were quite a few of these Bad Dazzes Mfg. by Ruger, More so than Winchester or Remington. Normal 26" Barrel, Ballistic Coefficient is very impressive, (JUSTC has already mentioned; Flame Cutting, or Throat Erosion). Which directly attributed to their wain and near demise. Same with the .220 Swift.
With the Advent of Stainless or Chrome Moly Barrels the .264 could rise as the Phoenix! But: This Awe inspiring Caliber proves a little too much for the Bench or Varmit Shooter.
I have always considered the 6.5 to be as near the perfect Caliber as Possible to Concieve. Accuracy, Coefficient, (which includes DROP). Between the 6mm and the 7mm, which have proven themselves many a time. SO I build a 6.5 Remington on a Browning Hi-Wall, 26" Heavey Octagon, Chrome Moly, 1-10 twist. (Which would be a .264 Short Mag.), needless to say: The Rifle is very impressive and will shoot anyload, and takes all of the fun out of working one up. From 95 grain Ballistic - 142 Grain Match King. The 6.5 Browning is nothing short of Amazing. The Fairly New .260 by Remington, is a Superb Caliber, taken from the .308 case and necked down, is equivlent to the 6.5 Swede, (which is another Fine Caliber) is known throughout the Nationals as; 6.5-08, ask the Big Boys if they are Impressed!
You hear "Un-Leash the Power" And I think of the .264 Win Mag. Completely Different sensation than shooting the .338 Lapua Mag, or the .30-378 Weatherby. I have shot enough ammo to stock an Armory, and Enough Rilfes to Re-Arm the Iraqis. I can say with all Sincerity: "The .264 Win Mag, is an expereince I will never forget".
[^]
Ronnie G. Perkins0 -
remington nut,
To get back to your question. A non-catalog, low number production run does not necessarily mean that a particular rifle is collectable or more valuable than otherwise. Large retailers make use of this so that they can have a firearm that is unique to their establishment and offers them a greater discount with the manufacturer. This can range from the retailer's name imprinted on the recoil pad to a completely different stock as in the case of the newer Winchester WSM's made for Wal-Mart. Here is another link to try for some possible information: www.remingtonsociety.com
Since Remington doesn't list a rifle chambered for the .264 Win. Mag. as of today, it could be anyone's guess as to the value. I don't think that it would be more than the value of Remington's current stainless models. Just my opinion.
Now, the .264 WM was not derived from the .300 WM or the 7mm Rem. Mag. since the .264 was announced in 1958 and released in 1959, the 7mm Rem. Mag was released in 1962 (and made by Remington) and the .300 WM was released in 1963. The basic case used for the .264 was the .458 Win. Mag. necked down. This case is 2.500" long as is the .264 but the .300 Win. Mag. is longer at 2.620".
"Barrel Burner" - You are getting a ringside seat to this problem if you keep up with the news on the .223 WSSM and the .243 WSSM. Winchester is having the barrel throats lined with Stellite to cut down on throat erosion and this with stainless steel barrels.
The .264 WM and the .220 Swift were slammed with this nomenclature, but not necessarily due to being "overbore" as is usually suggested. There are two significant problems with these cartridge designs that contribute heavily to throat erosion: poor selection of powder at the time of release and shoulder angle in conjunction with neck length.
There weren't a heck of a lot of powders for the .264 WM in 1959. Most were either too fast or the slow powders were shaped like long logs. The too fast we understand but what is usually forgotten is that the long logs were not burning completely in the case, but continuing to burn as they entered the throat and beyond, where they did significant damage. We are very fortunate to have an incredible selection of powders and burning rates to choose from today which can tame a lot of the "barrel burner" attributes.
An equally important aspect of these cartridges is the fact that they have short necks in relationship to their very moderate shoulder angles. The .264 WM's neck is less that 1 caliber long with a 25 deg. shoulder so that when the still burning powder is being expelled from the case, the shoulder angle guides it directly to the sides of the throat where the damage occurs instead of being stopped by a sharper shoulder or a longer neck. A sharper shoulder angle causes the burning powder to re-circulate in the neck/shoulder area as well as directing the powder and plasma to intersect with the sides of the neck instead of the the throat. Even though the .220 Swift has a longer neck, the shoulder angle of 21 degrees directs the burning powder and plasma out beyond the neck and into the throat area where the damage takes place.
I'm sorry that your question got hijacked but I hope that this helps a little.
Best.0 -
nononsense, I am impressed with your answer to this question! I think that was one of the most clear concise answers to a question I've seen in a couple years! KUDOS!!! to you! GHD 0 -
nononesens,
Thank you for your input... i weighed the pros and cons of this caliber cartridge before buying it... and although i will admit i think i had more cons than pros i am highly pleased with the .264 Win Mag...
*Throat Erosion* in this case is a good thing in my opinion... because i do all my own handloading with all my rifle, pistol, and shotguns i ran into the problem of having to deep seat my bullets in my .264 because *after market* bullets for reloading are made one demensional.. factory bullets are 2 demensional and arent .264 caliber till the are further back on the ogive... to get the proper head spacing i had to seat my bullets deeper hence increasing working pressures... but i can reach higher velocities with lesser grains of powder... so says my chrony i have no signs of high pressure on any of my brass and with throat erosion i will work into my proper C.O.A.L. over the years.. giving me more room to fine tune my loads..
Your answer to my question was good but i still havent had an answer from anyone and probably never will on production #'s on this particular rifle... all i know is i have seen them on here (gun broker) for upwards of 1000 N.I.B. and only paid about half of that for mine new... i appreciate your help and look forward to further answers from you in the future
Rem. Nut0 -
Yep, I figured the 220 Swift would come up as soon as I read the words "throat erosion"... I think for the most part on factory rifles, throat erosion went out with Linda Lovelace. I owned a Remington VSSF in .220 Swift and following all factory recommendations the gunsmith said it looked nearly new, I don't recall the amount of rounds fired through it, but it should of at least been showing a little wear.
Back to the subject, someone else said what I've always heard, just because something was in a limited run or short supply doesn't always make it more desireable or worth more money, sometimes it makes it less desireable or loses value quickly (only to regain value MANY years later after most owners have converted to a more well-known chambering). I had a great example of that when I started, but now I can't recall it - must be past my bedtime...0 -
Sorry about your original question: But "Bambihunters" answer is about as true an correct as you can expect.
The .264 Remington Rifle has 1-9 twist - Case dia. .532 (same as the 7mm Remington mag - case length -2.500 (same as the 7mm Remington Mag)- rim to shoulder is .005 thousands longer than the 7mm Remington Mag. (thickness of a thin piece of paper) Same shoulder angel as the 7mm Remington Mag. 25 degrees. Twist is 1-9 while the 7mm Rem Mag is 1-9.5
Winchester felt the necessity to replace the .220 Swift with the .225 Winchester Cartridge! (wonder why?)
Summation: The .7mm Remington Mag hulls can be sized to fit the .264 will ease. The .264 hull can be fire formed to fit the 7mm Remington with ease. If you want more precise answers: Information is readily available in any good reloading manual. [;)]
Ronnie G. Perkins0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments