The 45-70 is a compromise?

[StrawHat]

In comparing the 405 WCF, the 45-70 and the 50-70, I am coming to that conclusion.

The more I shoot these cartridges, the more opinionated I become!

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc194/StrawHat/404550004.jpg

I have shot the 45-70 for nearly 50 years and a decade ago, I would have called it my favorite cartridge and possibly the best of the bunch. But then I started shooting the 50-70 and was impressed with how easy it was to load and how accurate it was in the field. And how hard it hit compared to the smaller 45-70. Granted the trajectory is skewed in favor of the 45 caliber but the Big 50 just seems to hit whatever it is aimed toward. The load I have settled on is the Lyman 515141 (or the Lee 515-450) self cast with 40/1 alloy, smeared with an olive oil/beeswax lube and loaded over a 69 grain charge of GOEX ffG, and sparked with large rifle primers. If you are thinking, “Hmmm, not real technical…”, you are absolutely correct. I try to keep things simple and that makes my shooting more enjoyable. I do not compete at 1000 yards, rarely do I shoot past 200, so all the tricks necessary to long range shooting are not required for my style. I still experiment with loads on occasion and am seriously considering the 50 caliber hollow base boolit GB mold.

Penetration also goes to the 45 Gov’t. And it is also one of the easiest loads to work up in black powder. And there are certainly more rifles and style available in the 45 caliber than either of the other two combined. But there is still something special about the 50-70 that makes it the one I grab when I head to the door for most of the shooting I do.

Now, the 405 WCF, on the other hand is no slouch either. A factory loaded 300 grain bullet at 2200 fps shoots flat and penetrates deep. So much of both that I have a box of factory kept in case I go to Africa. For everything else, my load is the Lyman 412263, cast at 30/1, smeared with the same lube as above but loaded over 28 grains of 5744 and sparked with a large rifle primer. Penetration is still amazing and the trajectory is the flattest of the three, from what I can tell in the field.

I am not a technical shooter so things like chronographs and ballistic gelatin are not found in my inventory. I shoot at tree stumps, rocks, ground hogs, deer and the odd 5 gallon pail. My realizations are from what I observe in the field from the butt end of the rifle. Others may find things differently and that is great but it is slowly dawning on me that the 45-70 is a compromise and I am beginning to favor the 40 and 50 calibers more.

[Le Loup Solitaire]

I can't speak for the 50-70 as I do not own one, but the other two cartridges are in fact pretty potent. Both when properly loaded to their fullest (and safe) potential are capable of delivering muzzle energy at or around 3200 ft/pounds and that is a lot of smack...certainly enough for anything in the western hemisphere and probably for several species in other parts of the world. They came from an era when magnums weren't around and they did their jobs well. I too shoot the 405 with the 412263, but don't go as high as 2200 in my Winny 95 as even approaching that MV, it kicks like a blue mule. In the 45-70 using Lyman 457124-a 385-405 grainer, again taking the MV up around 1700fps generates a lot of recoil in my 85 and 86. Its safe and accurate, but makes the day shorter quickly. As for penetration both combinations are impressive and can make kindling out of an 18 inch log standing on end, in short time. I settled on using 3031 in both calibers as they have worked real well for me. No unburned powder and decent accuracy. I have no doubt that the 50-70 if loaded carefully would be as good a performer especially in one of those long barreled RRB muskets, made for the militia or the Navy. I just might look around for one. LLS

[StrawHat]

All my loads are or approximate black powder ballistics. I no longer see the need to try to "improve" on ballisitcs that are pretty amazing. So my 45 and 50 are both loaded with black and the 405 is fed 5744 because it doesn't do well with black powder.

My 405 is chambered in a Winchester 1895, you mention 3031, which I used in the 45-70 a long time ago. What loads are you feeding the 405 WCF?

My 50-70 is a reworked 1866 Springfield and my 45-70s ran the gamut from single to double to bolt action.

Get yourself a good 50-70 and you might also find it a step up from the 45.

[runfiverun]

except that the 45-70 was first that's a good arguement.

[StrawHat]

except that the 45-70 was first that's a good arguement.


The first in what?

[Jim]

There's been a lot of advancement made in .45-70 ammo. (http://www.garrettcartridges.com/4570540tech.html)

[Le Loup Solitaire]

I use 40 grains of 3031 and that produces around 1500 fps which is healthy enough for me. You can go to 45 grains and that will generate around 1750-1800 which in an M95 starts to get somewhat more noticeable especially with a curved buttplate. I'll keep an eye out for an original roller in 50-70. LLS

[FRJ]

I love my 45/70, its a butt kicking son of a gun even when loaded to original carbine specs. I've only shot the 50/70 a few times in the distant past but remember that it too was a hand full of kick $$$!!!! I've never had the pleasure of shooting the 405 but from what I've read it too would be more than adequate for anything in N/A. While we may all favor one over the other I doubt that if armed with just one of them any of us would have to back down from anything here and very little in the rest of the world. FRJ

[slim400]

All I can do is agree to I have never shot a 50-70 or every seen one that I am aware I can say is that I have an sharps 1895 45-70 with adjustable sites and it is absolutely a fantastic firearm while it may be havey to haul around in the woods if I am hunting something that thinks I might be dinner I absolutely want something i know will stop it the 45-70 is the cartridge and is extremely accurate at long distances with lots of energy at delivery

[StrawHat]

There's been a lot of advancement made in .45-70 ammo. (http://www.garrettcartridges.com/4570540tech.html)


That's not exactly a safe load in any of my rifles. It says it should be used in Marlins made after 1998. I guess if I wanted to shoot a modern firearm, a bolt action in one of the Whelen cartridges would give me what I want. But I am still talking about black powder ballistics among the three cartridges.

[Texantothecore]

The reason the Army chose the .45-70 is that it outperformed the .50-80 at longer ranges which was a concern. Apparently retains energy more efficiently.

[Jim]

That's not exactly a safe load in any of my rifles. It says it should be used in Marlins made after 1998. I guess if I wanted to shoot a modern firearm, a bolt action in one of the Whelen cartridges would give me what I want. But I am still talking about black powder ballistics among the three cartridges.

I beg your pardon and stand corrected. I failed to catch that.

[oldfart1956]

O.K.....mebbe it's my eyes or this laptop screen but.....the ca'tridge on the top...ummm...is it actuall drooping down just a little? Seriously...look close. Audie...the baffled Oldfart...

[M-Tecs]

The chamber pressure on the Garrets is only 35,000-cup. Trapdoors max at 28,000. Most other 45/70's are chambered for cartridges that exceed 35,000-cup. Since Garret states 1998 Marlins or newer I would not recommend something other but they are hardly unsafe in most 45/70’s

[StrawHat]

O.K.....mebbe it's my eyes or this laptop screen but.....the ca'tridge on the top...ummm...is it actuall drooping down just a little? Seriously...look close. Audie...the baffled Oldfart...

Optical illusion. The 405 is as straight as any of them, except in that photo!

[HangFireW8]

The chamber pressure on the Garrets is only 35,000-cup. Trapdoors max at 28,000. Most other 45/70's are chambered for cartridges that exceed 35,000-cup. Since Garret states 1998 Marlins or newer I would not recommend something other but they are hardly unsafe in most 45/70’s

That's right. It's not a safety issue, it's a rifling issue. 1998 marks the changeover from MicroGroove to Ballard style. Garret is optimized for the Ballard, that's all. They will shoot safely from a pre-98 Marlin, but they may suffer from undersized boolit symptoms (inaccuracy, leading).

HF

[PanaDP]

I suspect the army went to the 45-70 instead of the stopgap 50-70 is that the increase in lead needed just wasn't worth any gains there might have been.

[evan price]

OK, then shoot the 45-90 or the 45-110.

[StrawHat]

I suspect the army went to the 45-70 instead of the stopgap 50-70 is that the increase in lead needed just wasn't worth any gains there might have been.

The original loading of the 50 used a 450 grain boolit. Same weight as the 45-70. The 45 is a flatter shooting cartridge, when I take it out after using the 50-70 for a while, I usually overshoot until I get used to it again. The same weight in a smaller caliber tends to penetrate deeper than the larger caliber, all else equal. But the pentration with the 50 is pretty good to begin with. To me, recoil is less with the 50-70, both from trapdoor single shots. The 1873 is a stronger action and coupled with the better trajectory meant more hits for untrained troopers.

I have shot a 45-90, and in origianl ballistics, I prefered the heavier boolit of the 45-70. The 45-110, I have not experienced. How does it stack up to the 45-70?

[PanaDP]

The original loading of the 50 used a 450 grain boolit. Same weight as the 45-70. The 45 is a flatter shooting cartridge, when I take it out after using the 50-70 for a while, I usually overshoot until I get used to it again. The same weight in a smaller caliber tends to penetrate deeper than the larger caliber, all else equal. But the pentration with the 50 is pretty good to begin with. To me, recoil is less with the 50-70, both from trapdoor single shots. The 1873 is a stronger action and coupled with the better trajectory meant more hits for untrained troopers.

I have shot a 45-90, and in origianl ballistics, I prefered the heavier boolit of the 45-70. The 45-110, I have not experienced. How does it stack up to the 45-70?

My understanding was the 45-70's military loading was a 405 gr bullet. Then around the time of the sandy hook tests, they developed a 500gr load for longer ranges. I don't know if that one saw field use.

My preference is for the 45 2.4" loaded with paper patched bullets. I am currently loading it with 100gr and a 500gr bullet like the original sharps loading and it is performing well. I'm still very much in the process of shrinking groups.

[nanuk]

except that the 45-70 was first that's a good arguement.

so what are you saying???

the 45 came before the 50?

[HangFireW8]

All cartridges are a compromise between velocity, recoil, muzzle energy, downrange energy, trajectory, barrel life, accuracy, efficiency, momentum, action size, and cost.

Maximize any one performance parameter and a different one will change for the worse.

[PanaDP]

except that the 45-70 was first that's a good arguement.

No it wasn't. The 50-70 came into use in 1866. The 45-70 didn't replace it until 1873.