Cartridges of 1873

[BlueTrain]

As I lay in bed last night dreaming of Twin Lakes, Alaska, I got to thinking of rifles, eventually thinking about the .45-70. After all, that is bear country. In the late 1800's, after it was introduced in 1873, the .45-70 may have been considered the standard big and dangerous game rifle in this country. There were other similiar rounds, mostly other .45 caliber rifles and the .50-70 was still popular and all these were in the same class. The .38-55 and .44-40 were not in that class. Now these might be considered marginal in the original load, at least for very large game like moose and brown bear. The first competition probably came from the .30-06, though many rifles in .30 Government were happily used by people who appreciated the lack of smoke, even before the '06 came along.

Then I got to thinking about the rifles they were using during this period. Mostly they were a little heavier and had rifle length barrels, around 33-inches in the Springfield. Winchester and Marlin lever actions were not that long but generally (I guess) longer than the barrel lengths more popular these days. There were Springfield carbines but a special cartridge was used for them, same with the .50-70, I believe. Hard to find much information about the .50-70 but obviously the .45-70 is still going strong.

Eventually I began wondering if it was possible that the black powder, .45-70 round, with either the 405 or the 500 grain bullet, when fired from a longer barreled rifle could have been more powerful than a current production, standard pressure .45-70 round, this time with either the 300-grain or the old 405-grain bullet, fired from a shorter barrel rifle. In this sense I suppose I can only refer to foot-pounds of energy over a 300-yard range or something like that as opposed to a less objective "killing power" factor, no matter how you measure it. In the same way, I wonder if the original .45 Colt load as used in a 7 1/2 SAA was more powerful than a current load fired from a 4" S&W Model 25. In any case, I am excluding the hot-rodded "Ruger-only" loads.

I know it is only an academic exercise and in a way, front loading the results by comparing long barrels to short barrels but that is the main point in the first place. The real question is, have we come that far in 130 years?

 

[Jim Watson]

.45-70 as loaded for BPCR will take 65+ grains of powder in a modern drawn brass case and drive a 520 gr bullet 1200 fps from a 30 inch barrel. I don't know anybody shooting light bullets, I am a target shooter and range and stability are what is needed.

I have read that 40 grains of black will push a 250 grain .45 revolver bullet over 900 fps from a 7 1/2 inch barrel but it falls off pretty fast in shorter barrels.

 

[maas]

i might be wrong, but wasnt the 30-06 called the 30 government?

 

[BlueTrain]

The .30 Government is usually called the .30-40 Krag. The 1895 Winchester was chambered in that caliber and later, both the .30-03 and the .30-06. Supposedly Winchester is producing the 1895 in the carbine length this time.

At least one shooter claimed he could get 1,000 f.p.s. from a Colt 7 1/2 inch barrel or maybe a Ruger but that was years ago and I don't know what sort of load he was talking about. None of these loads, especially referring to the rifle loads, were all that fast but the heavy bullet meant a lot of retained energy downrange, irregardless of the bullet design. There were hollowpoint bullets in use during the black powder era, though I doubt they were common.

One of my points here is to question the effectiveness of these large bore, old-fashioned rounds for large game today, assuming for the moment that large game today is no larger than large game a hundred years ago. I know that there are some writers who are enthusiasts for these old cartridges and take them hunting like they were meant to be. And for target shooting, some target shooters of a hundred years ago just might surprise the current crop, seeing as how most of them did their shooting standing up.

 

[Gewehr98]

Still plenty effective.

My 535gr BP .45-70 Sharps loads, launched from a 32" barrel, retain almost 1000 foot pounds of energy past 400 yards. The load is 70gr of Goex Cartridge, and a Paul Jones Creedmoor bullet with a relatively high BC - not the flatnose levergun rounds one sometimes thinks of. They do that while still remaining comfortable to shoot, something I'd have trouble with in a big bore belted magnum.

http://www.pauljonesmoulds.com/45_caliber.htm

 

[BlueTrain]

How much does your Sharps weigh? I gather from what little research I did on the subject that even when a .45-70 was considered adequate for sporting purposes for anything on this continent, seven pounds was thought to be enough as far as weight was concerned. The theory was that you had to carry the thing all the time but you woundn't notice the recoil shooting at game anyway. Yet a different writer perhaps 70 years later (but still 45 years ago) thought heavier barrelled rifles a little better, for snap shots, no less.

 

[Mike Irwin]

The .38-55 wasn't introduced until 1884, and only then as a round for Ballard single-shot target rifles. It didn't really enter the sporting market until Winchester adopted it in 1894.

I think you're giving far too little credit to the many other rounds that were available commercial in the last quarter of the 19th century. If you take a good look at the ballistics of the different black powder cartridges, you'll fine one interesting thing -- power levels weren't that very much different among the many cartridges sharing a common caliber. That was the nature of black powder -- to get an appreciable boost in velocity/power you had to increase the powder charge dramatically.

 

[BlueTrain]

I have seen other references as to the lack of any real difference in performance as a result of different powder charges for a given caliber, though that has obvious limitations. I am also aware of the large number of other calibers in use between the Civil War and the turn of the century, many of which were for single shots. However, I mentioned the ones I did because the .45-70 (and the .45 Colt) still enjoy a measure of popularity. Others have only come back into popularity because of Cowboy Action Shooting but that was outside of the scope of my thinking. You are also no doubt aware of the so-called "high speed" loadings for the .44-40 that used to be available. I don't know when they were introduced (as high speed loads), nor do I know when they ceased production of such things, but again, that was outside the scope of my thinking.

I wouldn't mind being the first on my block to own a .38-55 but I'm probably too late for that, for all I know.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"You are also no doubt aware of the so-called "high speed" loadings for the .44-40 that used to be available. I don't know when they were introduced (as high speed loads), nor do I know when they ceased production of such things, but again, that was outside the scope of my thinking."

High Speed loads weren't just available in .44-40, they were also available in .32-40, .38-40, and, believe it or not, even. 45-70.

They were introduced sometime after 1892, possibly after 1900. The impetus was the introduction of the MUCH stronger Browning-designed lever-action rifles, which could take the higher velocities and pressures generated by the new smokeless powders.

Production of some of the high speed cartridges may have continued into the 1920s, possibly as late as the 1930s, but World War II put a decisive end to most of them.

It's likely, though, that the many reports of people grenading old Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers or Winchester and Marlin rifles also had a lot to do with it. Just as now, far too many people couldn't be bothered to read the warning labels on the boxes.

A .44-40 High Speed cartridge in a blackpowder Colt would normally blow out a chunk of the cylinder, in a Winchester 1873 it would blow the side plates off and destroy the locking bolts.

You don't want to know what one of these cartridges would do to a Springfield 1873. Suffice it to say that a personal injury lawyer would probably follow the ambulance, or consult your widow at the morgue.


"I wouldn't mind being the first on my block to own a .38-55 but I'm probably too late for that, for all I know."

Oh you think so, eh?

Check out this page: http://www.hr1871.com/Firearms/Rifles/buffalo.aspx

IIRC, Marlin also made a recent run of lever action rifles in .38-55.


"However, I mentioned the ones I did because the .45-70 (and the .45 Colt) still enjoy a measure of popularity."

Remember, though, that both cartridges were also largely forgotten for quite a few years and had to climb to regain their former popularity. We had a recent thread about that.

 

[Gewehr98]

Using the bathroom scale...

How much does your Sharps weigh?

It's just over 11 pounds, but I should find somebody with something more accurate for when I do the sanctioned matches with their weight limits. The full-octagon barrel on my 1874 Business Rifle is stout, but I've seen other Sharps variants that look like they're using a huge 34" axle shaft for a barrel.

The recoil isn't bad, truthfully - more of a slow shove compared to the sharp jab of a big belted magnum. You do, however, have to take barrel time into account, and make darned certain you follow through smoothly on each and every shot.

 

[BlueTrain]

The writer who I said thought the current crop of rifles were on the light side (writing in about 1960) also commented about the dwindling selection of .45-70 cartridges but he thought the ones still being made, at that time, were the best ones. He also regretted the absence of the .25 Stevens or something like that. Never saw one.

My first new rifle was a .45-70 H&R. I thought it was sufficiently flat shooting at any range I was able to shoot it on, not that that was very long, but what did I know. I do know it would leave a blue mark on my shoulder. I bought it while I was still in college. My next .45-70 was a Ruger No. 1 and it was much more pleasanter to shoot, if I could put it that way. Easier to manipulate, too, and it wouldn't bruise my shoulder. Since then I have tired of single shots. One must keep up with the times.

I never used a black powder load in either one. I never knew there was a high-speed load for the .45-70, though I know there were longer cartridges that would presumably have had a higher velocity. And speaking of Marlins, their Cowboy Action Model 1895 (if I'm calling it the right thing) is pleasingly old fashioned and holds a more useful number of cartridges. A little muzzle heavy it is, though, but it is probably a better gun than the Winchester (M1886?). Marlin has also made some .32-20 lever actions.

All the things that make life worth living.

 

[Mike Irwin]

The writer was probably talking about the .25 Stevens rimfire round, most commonly chambered in the Stevens Favorite rifle.

A useful and accurate round, but not as popular as the .22 Long Rifle (another Stevens creation).

During the Depression and in the run up to World War II production many calibers were dropped from production stats and for the most part were never brought back.

One of the big exceptions is the .22 Winchester Rim Fire round. Every few years they make a special run of it and people snap it up.

 

[BlueTrain]

I am pretty sure the writer was referring to the .25 Stevens rimfire. At least one other gun enthusiast thought there was place for a rifle just a little larger than a .22 rf, so he had a Ruger No. 1 made up chambered in .32 S&W long. There was mention of this unique rifle in a coffeetable book about the Ruger Number 1. You probably have a copy.

I must confess I did no research at all at home since starting this thread. However, the other thread about velocities of old .38 special cartridges makes me wonder if rifle cartridges have also lost some of their power over the years. Even things written 40 years ago frequently mention that certain cartridges, usually 8mm Mauser and .303 British, are not loaded to the same level as they are overseas, the manufacturers making allowances for older guns (and pre-98 Mausers) usually being the reason. In the case of the .45-70, the reason is always because of the large numbers of trapdoor Springfields around. Well, I haven't seen large numbers myself, but I can understand. After all, I started off with a reproduction of one and it was made exactly the same way the first one was.

Anyhow, I wonder what the old timers would have thought of the .300 magnum, the .458, and all those other modern conveniences? I know they liked the .30-30. How did they kill all those buffaloes with those old guns?

 

[Jim Watson]

The writer I recall talking about a return of the .25 Stevens rimfire about 1960 was Elmer Keith. He said the .22 Magnum was ok, but he'd rather have the bigger bullet, as usual.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, now, Elmer Keith would have thought 11 pounds to be on the light side for a Sharps but he definately liked large calibers and heavy bullets.

The writer I mentioned before was the now almost forgotten Henry M. Stebbins. He apparently published several general interest books on guns and shooting up through the 1950's. His article I mentioned was published in the 1962 Gun Digest, edited by John Amber, who also wrote the book about the Ruger No. 1. The year 1962 was nothing special for guns but the Ruger .44 autoloading Deerstalker was new then and Stebbins liked the idea. The .223 Remington was still in the future then. You could still buy a Savage 99 and Savage bolt actions were the lowest priced rifles you could buy. Anyone care for a J.C. Higgins? Customizing the .45 Auto was already a cottage industry in 1962, at least for target shooting.

Basically Stebbins also believed that the current crop of new calibers offered nothing over what we already had. Most of them were really more for the specialist, by which I believe he meant the more experienced hunters. But as he said, speed is what sells. However, he admitted that high velocity probably sold a lot of Express black powder rifles in the 1890's. He also said nobody much missed the older, heavier barrelled rifles of the past but he thought rifles had gotten too lightweight. Oddly enough, two pages further on, he complains about pistols getting too heavy!

I gather there was both a .25 Stevens short and a .25 Stevens long and even a .32 long rifle rimfire. I guess the concept of a short and a long version of a cartridge has just about come and gone, the current thread about a .38 Special short notwithstanding.

 

[Jim Watson]

Ah, yes, I fondly remember Henry M. Stebbins and his pals Bert Shay, Tom Florich, and Oscar Hammond.

I have 'Pistols, A Modern Encyclopedia', 'Rifles, A Modern Encyclopedia', and 'How to Select and Use your Big Game Hunting Rifle', plus a number of articles in Gun Digests of the 1950s and early '60s.

Pity there is nothing as literate up to date for current models.

 

[BlueTrain]

A couple of his articles turned up on the internet and from what little I have read of his writing, I would group him with a small number of other authors who would be enjoyable to read, no matter what they were writing about. Another interesting footnote about going over a stack of material written over the course of the last century is noting how a few writers, military men, were getting promoted. My first reference to Townsend Whelend was as a lieutenant and finally as a colonel. With a name like that he should have made general. The same 1962 Gun Digest had an article by Captain George Nonte but he only made major. (I only made buck sergeant).

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I gather there was both a .25 Stevens short and a .25 Stevens long and even a .32 long rifle rimfire. I guess the concept of a short and a long version of a cartridge has just about come and gone, the current thread about a .38 Special short notwithstanding."

Yes, and not just with those calibers, either.

Most of the rimfire calibers (and even a lot of centerfire calibers) had long and short versions.

But, to take it an extra step, there were also quite a few Extra Long calibers, which were dimensionally identical to the Short and Long cartridges other than case length. Often the bullets were the same, as well. Most frequently the Extra Long cartridges were for rifle use.

The reason for these cartridges?

In black powder days, increasing the case length to hold more black powder was the only viable way to get more power out of a cartridge.

Smokeless powder allows far greater flexibility, as different powder types give vastly different burning characteristics.

Don't write off the concept yet, though. It's still being practiced in some ways.

The .40/10mm, the .357 Mag./.357 Maximum, the .45 Long Colt/.454 Cassul...

 

[BlueTrain]

So, the old timers were just as interested in velocity as we are. They just had more technical limitations than we do now. Of course, it might be more correct to say we are simply up against a different set of limitations and a man has to know his limitations.

Again concerning the bygone loads that have disappeared, there were gallery loads or target loads, including such for the .45-70, which is still the primary focus of this thread. I don't suppose you would call it a gallery load but at one time, supposedly, there were low power, round ball loads for the .45-70. In fact, I believe the Speer reloading manual lists round ball loads but I rather doubt they are much used. One of the reasons I maintained an interest in the .45-70 long after my first one was the idea that it would be easier to reload than a bottleneck case. Although I did accumulate a working supply of empty cases, I never reloaded the first one.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"So, the old timers were just as interested in velocity as we are."

Yep, I guess that's an accurate way of looking at it.

It may even be more accurate, though, to say that just as today the gun/ammo companies back then were always looking for ways to increase their market share by building the better (perceptial) mousetrap.

I've said it many times before that 3 rifle cartridges, 3 handgun cartridges, and 1 shotshell would adequately serve the needs of nearly 100% of all Americans.