405 RCBS cast in marlin

[charger 1]

When I bought that 86 the guy got rid of all casting stuff so he gave me a new RCBS 405 FN GC. I cast some a while back. I've been thinkin of givin em a go now. How does 50 grains of H4895 sound

[No_1]

Painfull

R.


When I bought that 86 the guy got rid of all casting stuff so he gave me a new RCBS 405 FN GC. I cast some a while back. I've been thinkin of givin em a go now. How does 50 grains of H4895 sound

[HCL]

The RCBS 45-405 is the most accurate boolit i have for my Marlin 1895. I have tryed several others and was not happy with the results. Have not used H4895 so could not answer that one; however 55grs of Benchmark will give you about 1950fps out of a guide gun, and 1in groups all day long at 100yrds. It is book minimum yet a very stout load, not to mention Benchmark is one of thier extreme powders so you dont have to worry about shooting loads in the summer you work up in the winter.
IMR-4198 is another powder I messed around with, accuracy was not quite as good as the benchmark and showed pressure signs very quickly with little variance in loads. Plus, not an extreme powder.
Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but if I rememeber correctly I read somewhere that the RCBS 45-405 is a copy of the original BP (Army) boolit?? Dont know if it is true, but sounds good.
Mike

[NVcurmudgeon]

After you've suffered enough Elmer loads, try 23.0 gr. 2400, or 31.0 gr. IMR 4198. About factory load equivalent, no filler needed, good accuracy, and shoot them all day. Enjoy! One who has tried it both ways.

[Four Fingers of Death]

It must be a good boolit, I had that mould some years ago, lent it to a 'friend' before I actually got to use it. I could never get im to return it :( Mick.

[BruceB]

There's a decent article in the current "Handloader" concerning loading for the .45-70 Marlin. One of the bullets used is the RCBS 405 (at 415 actual grains), and there are several tables for loads in different pressure ranges. He's shooting a 7-pound Marlin with 400s running over 2100 fps, and 500s at 1550. NO THANK YOU!

For perspective, remember that the famed .404 Jeffery made its African reputation with 400-grain bullets running at 2150....I can assure you that the .404 at factory levels is no joyride, and my .404 is about 1.5 pounds heavier than the Marlin, with a good recoil pad and well-shaped stock, both of which the Marlin lacks.

The article contains an interesting story, about shooting a bull cape buffalo with a Belt Mountain "Punch" solid bullet. The bullet penetrated both shoulders on the bull, and was recovered after penetrating BOTH SHOULDERS ON THE COW BUFFALO STANDING BEHIND THE BULL!!!! Again, this was from the Marlin lever gun. Not bad for an old saddle gun, hmm?

I sincerely believe that North American game does NOT require such max-effort handloads to be cleanly killed, with the POSSIBLE conspicuous exceptions of bison or coastal grizzlies. Even then, the original black-powder loads killed bison rather well, and I think I'd prefer the faster recovery and quicker second shot of a lower-power load when facing ol' bruin in thick willows. Clearly, penetration with SUFFICIENTLY-HEAVY and carefully-chosen bullets is more than adequate. I would NOT, repeat NOT take a .45-70 bullet lighter than 400 grains after anything bigger than small deer.

Note too, that cranking up the speed on the .45-70 (and thus the recoil) really gains relatively little in the way of trajectory benefits. A 400 at maybe 1600 or thereabouts makes a decent 150-yard rifle, at least. An extra few hundred fps gains rather little, and is much more difficult for a shooter to master and use effectively.

[Adam10mm]

Bruce, I have that issue. Bought it just for that article. Worth it. I read it once a week.

My rip snorting load is a 350gr Hornady FN with 47gr IMR4198 from the GG. Recoil is like a 375 Holland. SVL recoil pad makes all the difference (I'm 5-10 145#). The 350gr are excellent for bears and even elk.

Have some 405gr FN from OT I haven't shot yet.

Can't get good bullets with the Lee 405 mold. Frosty or wrinkled. Can't get a rythym down.

The 45/70 got its stopping reputation from a 405 @ 1300fps. Hard to believe.

[BruceB]

Yep, I have "heard" that the .45/350 Hornady is pretty good on big game. I have no personal experience with anything except cast bullets in the .45 -70 caliber, and no animals shot even with them...just normal messing-about type fun shooting.

I do, however, have a fierce attachment to HIGH SECTIONAL DENSITY in my game bullets (just like Elmer, hmmmm?) and my belief in that statistic is well-founded in my hunting experiences. In .270 caliber, at least 150s. In .30s, at least 180 and better at 200 for moose etc. In .338, at least 225, and often 250s. And so on. Note that my hunting never involved anything as small as white-tails until two years ago, and even then, the white-tails were the BIG Alberta examples.

Bullet construction certainly plays a role. A tough .45/400 may well out-do a super-soft .45/500, and a Barnes .30/180 TSX is most likely going to out-do a Partition .30/200 in terms of weight retention, etc. I want a bullet with enough weight remaining in the shank AFTER expansion to keep driving the bullet deeper. Hence, my belief that 400-plus grains are better in the .45-70 than anything lighter. With today's venturesome loading of the .45 Colt revolver cartridge with 300-plus grains in strong guns, many of the recommended .45-70 "RIFLE" loads with light bullets amount to not much more than a .45 Colt with a long barrel...think about THAT!

My bullet selection is based on the WORST possible scenarios. Most bullets on the market will "work OK" if everything is reasonable when the shot is taken. That doesn't interest me. I want the best possible projectile for the absolute rock-bottom PITS of conditions. This policy has served me well over several decades of hunting, and many scores of animals. I "adopted" the Nosler Partition in the early '60s, and it has only been seriously challenged in my affections in the last few years. I never regretted spending the money on the "high-cost spread" , and in fact consider it about the wisest investment I ever made in my financially-challenged life.

I've never hunted big game with cast bullets. Having succesfully made softpoint cast bullets which seem satisfactory for my requirements, I just may take them after elk and deer next fall ('08), but only if testing in the interim shows no weaknesses. If I can get Partition-type 60% retention after impact, I'll be a happy camper, but I'll be starting with around 380-400 grains initial weight to work with.

As you have doubtless figured out, I still wouldn't leave home to go hunting with my .45-70 unless the loads contained at least 400 grains of bullet.

[6pt-sika]

Never have gotten one of the RCBS 45-405GC moulds .

I do however have both of the Ranch Dog 45 cal gas check moulds (350 and 420) .And they do very well in my 45-70's and hopefully they will be alright in my (new to me) 450 Alaskan .[smilie=1:

[Adam10mm]

As you have doubtless figured out, I still wouldn't leave home to go hunting with my .45-70 unless the loads contained at least 400 grains of bullet.

Pretty much, except I make an exception for the Hornady Interlock 350gr FN. That is one tough bullet. I got to put down some elk at a local game farm here. Got T&Ts from 10ft out to 100y. I wanted to mix it up to see what practical ranges will do. I was thoroughly impressed.

Got some older 350gr FN (pre-Interlock) that would stay inside the animal. The new Interlock types in the 50rd boxes are twice as tough. I've shot huge mine rock boulders at 20y and still have about 200gr of bullet intact.

I like the 405gr+ in the 45/70. That is what is was designed around and that is what works best. I also like heavy bullets in guns (224-64+; 7mm-150+, 375-300;458-405+) for hunting.

The 300gr HPs are fun for small game though.:-D

[9.3X62AL]

Bruce--

Following a similar trail here with the cast soft-points soon. What test media will you be using?

I had the use of an RCBS 405 GC mold a few years ago. It would not cast large enough to fit my Ruger #1. This is a common condition with 45-70 rifles, undersized cavities.

[Nardoo]

I have couple of those 405 gn RCBS molds. They shot great out of my marlin but at the levels I wanted to shoot at (1800 fps) the lever kept trying to uncock itself on firing and the muzzle jump was too extreme. It shot about 1 1/2 MOA which was very pleasing.

When I traded the Marlin for a Ruger #1 45/70 I found I had to beagle those RCBS slugs up to .461" to get worthwhile accuracy.

I also have the RCBS 500 gn mold but have not had a chance to use it.

In the pic is also my Lyman 457124 that i had hollow pointed. Same story for it. Shot great in the Marlin but needed to be beagled for the #1.
Would be willing to swap the 457124 HP with 2 hollow point pins for a Lyman 457125.

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p317/nardoo/100_0229.jpg

[Char-Gar]

The last two deer I killed (Mule Deer) were taken with a Ruger No. 3 and the load was the 350 RN Hornaday over 53/3031. The recoil was horrendus, but it killed like the Hammer of Thor.

I use the RCBS 405 GC under 26/4759 in my Marlin levegun. I run the bullets through a .460 sizer to lube and crimp the gas checks. Accuracy is one ragged hole at 50 yards. Recoil is moderate and should kill deer as well as the "hell for leather" loads I have used in the past.

I have been shooting and hunting with the 45-70 for 45 years, and sooner or later a fellow will break the code that loads above black powder level are not needed in the 45-70. I am glad I figured it out before I detatched a retina or seperated a shoulder.

[charger 1]

350 RN Hornaday.


Arent those the unmentionables :twisted: :castmine:

[6pt-sika]

The last two deer I killed (Mule Deer) were taken with a Ruger No. 3 and the load was the 350 RN Hornaday over 53/3031. The recoil was horrendus, but it killed like the Hammer of Thor.



LOL's !!!!!!!

When I was about 16 I wanted a Ruger #3 in 45-70 . Went to a big gunshop in northern Virginia and looked at one . Then the price was about $175 NIB [smilie=1:

I had the money in my pocket to buy it and my pop kept saying "boy that thing will kick your butt" . I thought he was full of crap , but I still didn't purchase it .
But after what you have written maybe he knew of what he spoke .

However I still wish I had bought that little rifle :???:

[BruceB]

9.3x62Al;

I was actually making softpoints this afternoon, as well as smelting wheelweights at the same time.

The mould was the NEI 421-390, bought for the .404 Jeffery, but now under serious consideration as the hunting bullet for the .416 Rigby. The RCBS 416-350 is just a bit undersize, and the .417" sizing die barely touches the parting lines on the bullets. The NEI mould casts at .421 as advertised, and weighs just about exactly 400 grains in my WW alloy.

Sizing a .421 bullet to .417 is dead easy and doesn't even affect the grooves very much. The extra 35 or so grains of bullet metal won't hurt a thing, either. A dipper made from a 9mmP case drops 135 grains of pure lead, almost exactly 1/3 of the total weight, and that is my preferred ratio at this time.

I started by casting a bunch of pure-lead 'noses' from a small tin of lead floating on the melt in my furnace. Don't bother using the sprue plate, as it's much easier to just dump the lead straight into the top of the cavities. Once the noses were made (UGLY!), I removed the tin of pure lead and filled the furnace right to the top with WW, to allow convenient access for the mould to float on the melt for re-melting the bullets after the WW shank was poured on top of the soft nose. A pair of tweezers was useful for getting the noses positioned correctly in their cavities.

Leave a generous sprue to feed the bullet when it remelts inside the mould. It took about one minute of sitting the mould on the melt, before the sprue melted again. I used a wee bit of GENTLE rocking of the mould, to ensure the corners of the bases filled out. This agitation did not affect the positions of the two alloys, but do it GENTLY, if at all. I water-cooled the mould until the sprues solidified once again. Result: same as before, nice SEAMLESS two-alloy softpoints.

Testing medium is going to be a problem. Right now,I'm thinking about building a water trough with removeable lid (to minimize water loss at whatever out-of-town location where I do the testing). Early tests in water definitely gave some interesting results. We don't normally get newsprint any more, since the papers are either fiction or slanted!

Right now, I can hardly wait for Bullshop's report on what he says was a very successful trial of his cast softpoints......I'm assuming he's referring to moose.