Esoteric question please

[chetlongshooter]

Here is a question I have had for a long time. This might well pertain to more cartridges than I ask about but these two are what I have. Why is it that the 45-70 cartridge is so easy to load for and get reasonable results from just about any well made cartridge and bullet style? Next is, why is the 45-110 ,45-2 7/8ths, seemingly so difficult to find a good load, bullet style for? I read in the Matthews books and the "SHOOTING BUFFALO RIFLES" book about the ease of loading for the 45-70 vs other 45 caliber cartridges. Is this merely because of the preponderance of rifles chambered for the 45-70 vs the 45-110. The 45-110 was a popular cartridge chambered for the original Sharps rifles as was the 45-70. I can find no mention in any early records of any difficulty in loading for either cartridge. So, what say you all. Thank you for your time.

[gunlaker]

The main reason is that this is not true .

I have Shiloh rifles chambered in every .45 caliber case and they are all pretty easy to get to shoot very well.

However, the .45-70 is the smallest .45 case so it has less recoil and is easier to shoot. The increase in recoil makes it harder to shoot but most people's egos won't let them believe that the problem is in their inability to control the rifle so they think it must be that they haven't found the magic load yet.

Chris.

[mdeland]

I agree with Chris about the bore diameter of .45 but would add your observations is also correct. Some cartridges just strike a good balance between diameter, bullet weights and case capacity that will usually produce accuracy with many loads very easily. Same is and was true of the 32-40 .45 Colt, 375 H&H, 38 special, 30-30 Win to name a few. The 45-70 is just one of those very versatile well balanced cartridges. It can be loaded down or all the way up to nearly 45-90 velocities and maintain accuracy all along the way. Few other cartridges are this versatile with so many load combinations in my opinion.

[desert deuce]

Gunlaker would know and the idea of a balanced load for target shooting is addressed in Black Powder Cartridge News Issue 109 page 36.

Moreover, the practice of loading the big boomers down has shown positive results on the targets at longer ranges and may prove easier to accomplish the desired result than loading the 45-70 up depending on individual circumstances essentially related to the characteristics of the rifle and ability of the shooter.

It seems at times that the ability of the shooter is frequently not considered in the equation.

A 540 grain bullet powered by 78 grains of Swiss 1.5 in a 45-70 or 45-100 may be a place to start if shooting 600 yards and beyond.

There is only one way to find out.

[Raven]

Here is the direct answer to your Balanced Load Question.

The idea of a
“balanced” load is specifically the ability of the completed cartridge, used for this competition in any one rifle, to
provide maximum accuracy over the range of conditions present during a match, and is determined by the
performance on the target. What may work best in one rifle may or may not work best in another similar rifle. The
two major variables are the ability of the individual shooter and the characteristics of the rifle.

[bruce m]

78 gns of powder in the 45 2.1" case would suggest that a pp bullet is superior in that case for 600+ yards than a greaser.
bruce.

[august west]

Does this have anything to do with internal ballistics? I'm fascinated by the thought that (let's say) either the 40-90 straight, or bottleneck, might be a consistently better performer based simply on the shape of the case and therefore the shape of the powder supply as it burns. I can't see that a variety of straight cases of a single caliber would vary in that regard - all the 45's seem to be great shooters.

[martinibelgian]

The powder/ bullet weight ratio is an important factor here. Lots of powder and a light bullet, hard to get to shoot well.
Moderate charges and heavy bullets, things get easier. Fwiw, for me the no. 2 musket was easier to get to shoot well than a 45-70. And that's saying a lot...

[SFogler]

Gunlaker and DD make good points:
I don't see where my 45-70, 45-100s, or 45-110s are any different trying to find a balanced load. I do the same thing for each rifle to find the balanced load - it's no harder for a 45-70 than a 45-110. There will be more recoil in the longer cases because you can see how heavier loads perform in the bigger rifle. Because of case length you won't be able to do that in a 45-70. ODGs shooting long range went to 44/45-90s for a reason. But it seems some people think just because you can cram 110 grains of powder in a 45-100 you should automatically do so. That's not true either. One of my 45-100s shoots just fine long range with 78 grains of Swiss 1.5. Get a good chrony and find out what load in what rifle shoots best. I have three 45-100s and each one shoots best with a different amount of powder using the same bullet. I'd rather have more case length than I need than never know if I had enough case length because I couldn't pack any more into a 2.1 case.

[DaveC]

How soon we forget.

Back in the 90s (I think it was) Dave Gullo who astounded the shooting world by winning a big match with a .45-90. The calibers with heavy powder charges and long cases were terra incognita back then. How did he do it? Big .40s and .45s were “experimental rifles using experimental ammunition;” not ready for prime time. Bottleneck cartridges wouldn’t shoot; everybody knew that. But the .45-70, even back then, was shooting well.

That was because the U.S. Army spent a ton of gold-backed taxpayer money in the development of the cartridge. Much more than any gun or ammunition company could afford to spend on RTD&E, and impossibly more than any individual experimenter. It had to be accurate, powerful, economical, and reproducible no matter what arsenal or contractor was loading them, at the rate of thousands of rounds a day.

No wonder that everyone back then was advised to get a .45-70 as their first blackpowder caliber. Now, of course, the experiments have been done, and the old techniques have been relearned, and even improved upon. It isn’t such a big step into the unknown to get a .45-110 for starters, with a quarter century of development work done on it as a labor of love by dozens of top shots to refer to in working up loads. But still, the closest thing to a turn-key BPCR target caliber, for somebody going into the business cold, is still the .45-70.

[bruce m]

Gunlaker and DD make good points:
I don't see where my 45-70, 45-100s, or 45-110s are any different trying to find a balanced load. I do the same thing for each rifle to find the balanced load - it's no harder for a 45-70 than a 45-110. There will be more recoil in the longer cases because you can see how heavier loads perform in the bigger rifle. Because of case length you won't be able to do that in a 45-70. ODGs shooting long range went to 44/45-90s for a reason. But it seems some people think just because you can cram 110 grains of powder in a 45-100 you should automatically do so. That's not true either. One of my 45-100s shoots just fine long range with 78 grains of Swiss 1.5. Get a good chrony and find out what load in what rifle shoots best. I have three 45-100s and each one shoots best with a different amount of powder using the same bullet. I'd rather have more case length than I need than never know if I had enough case length because I couldn't pack any more into a 2.1 case.

how soon we forget, due to modern names for cartridges.
45 cal in America was considered in the day to perform best with 100 gns powder.
sharps developed the 2.6" case to do just this with pp bullets.
within a short time, possibly about a year, they had reduced the case length to 2.4" for the same charge, leaving less bullet in the case for better accuracy.
both were 45/100, one being 45/10/2.6 and the other 45/100/2.4.
the 2 7/8 case was often loaded with 90 to 100 gns powder with a heavy bullet deeper seated, as being more easily handled in the field without bullets falling out.
by the end of the era of long range shooting guys were using the 2.6 case again, loade with charges like 112 gns droptubed to fill the case with a wad, and breech seating pp bullets with an airgap of around 1/8"
some guys were still loading a primed case and muzzle loading powder to get bigger charges, then muzzle loading the bullet.
this habit came from the 44 bottlenecks where they wanted bigger charges than the case would hold.
then there is the confusion with 44 and 45 cals.
many 44s had groove diameters greater thaon 0.450", making demarcation between 44 and 45 very murky.
of course Winchester came out with their 45/90 dimensionally similar to the sharps 45/100/2.4, but it was an express cartridge loaded with lighter bullets and unsuitable for long range shooting.
bruce.

[Kurt]

The Maynards and some Remingtons were closer to the .45 caliber.
But a lot of the .44 calibers of those years were in reality a .42.

[beltfed]

That mis-naming of 44s has happened elsewhere, and more recent:
The 44 Magnum and 444 Marlin both actually use a .429" bullet, so are really 43 magnum and 430 magnum
Way back, also the 44-40 Started this all with 0.426" bullets. so , again, 43-40 "rounded off" .
and going the other way , the 38-40 is really a 40-40, with using 0.401 bullets
and it goes on with others
beltfed/arnie

[losttrail]

Yep, have read about and experienced the squirrely diameter issues myself with .44 Mag, .30 cal (.308 for American or .310 for Russian) and even my .40-65 which shoots .409 diameter. Should be a .41-65. How about .38 Special?

[martinibelgian]

I have a .45 Gibbs military match rifle. Supposedly .462. it actually is, but bore diameter.... So groove is more like .470.