.264 has less factory loaded hunting ammo (I think the 7 Mag is the No 1 magnum chambering of all time);
Faster muzzle velocity (due to shooting substantially lighter bullets),
Flatter trajectory than 7 Mag (higher BC bullets that are substantially lighter than the 7 Mag high BC bullets)
burns barrels/throat faster (barrel life somewhere from 1,200 to 1,500 rounds),
kicks slightly less than the 7 Mag (lighter bullets).
These two chambering essentially share the same 82 grain belted shell casing. With the 6.5, you have a tighter bore and throat, so it burns that surface area faster than the 7 Mag. With the 6.5 you're also shooting lighter bullets from the same shell casing which leaves more room for powder, when combined with the lighter bullets you get faster velocities but more throat burn.
I looked really hard at the .264 as a 1,000 yard+ paper puncher - but ran into the barrel life issue and stopped dead in my tracks. I mean pushing the 142 Sierra MK at 3,100 fps prvides unreal ballastics and virtually eliminates the wind as a factor. Stated another way you could eat 6.5x284s for lunch for 1,000 yards.
The .264 has a big hunting following, as they tend not to shoot too many rounds each year - they are amazing for their knockdown power and have serious penetration (large number of elephants killed with the .264 Magnum - NO BS).
JeffVN
Faster muzzle velocity (due to shooting substantially lighter bullets),
Flatter trajectory than 7 Mag (higher BC bullets that are substantially lighter than the 7 Mag high BC bullets)
burns barrels/throat faster (barrel life somewhere from 1,200 to 1,500 rounds),
kicks slightly less than the 7 Mag (lighter bullets).
These two chambering essentially share the same 82 grain belted shell casing. With the 6.5, you have a tighter bore and throat, so it burns that surface area faster than the 7 Mag. With the 6.5 you're also shooting lighter bullets from the same shell casing which leaves more room for powder, when combined with the lighter bullets you get faster velocities but more throat burn.
I looked really hard at the .264 as a 1,000 yard+ paper puncher - but ran into the barrel life issue and stopped dead in my tracks. I mean pushing the 142 Sierra MK at 3,100 fps prvides unreal ballastics and virtually eliminates the wind as a factor. Stated another way you could eat 6.5x284s for lunch for 1,000 yards.
The .264 has a big hunting following, as they tend not to shoot too many rounds each year - they are amazing for their knockdown power and have serious penetration (large number of elephants killed with the .264 Magnum - NO BS).
JeffVN