Why is the 45-70 so popular?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jim in Anchorage said:
Best brush round sure deserves it's own thread, but I don't agree with your reasoning. We are talking restantice to deflection here, not sheer penetration. If that was the case a 220 gr soild out of a .300 WBY. would be ultimate thick cover gun.
For many, many years a round nose bullet was considered much better at bush busting than a spitzer, regardless of which would penetrate the most oak.
Right or wrong, I don't know, and we may never know because it's impossible to attempt a test where 2 shots hit bush exactly the same way.
Click to expand...

I suspect a large flat meplat with hard, sharp corners does better than either a round nose or spitzer. But I agree that it's a very hard thing to test.

And I'm pretty sure that a 220gr copper over steel over lead "solid" .308 out of a big magnum won't even be a contender in terms of serious penetration. Too easy to deflect, too prone to deformation and no sharp corner on the meplat.
 
In reallity, any good 7mm or .30 caliber cartridge will cover the same ground as a .30-06. Hell, I even put the 8x57 in the same league. There are great bullets available to make them all capable of the same feats. The `06 does not have a monopoly on versatility. And like you said, there is no reason to restrict yourself to one rifle or cartridge.
 
salt&battery said:
you can call nosler and tell them they have junk data. on long range hunting forum they used 62.5 grains of Rel 26 with 178 grain ELD bullet in a 30-06 and got 2900 fps. if you can squeeze 2600 out of a 308 with same bullet you are lucky which is not a bad load . do not want to argue but 10-12 grains more powder means more FPS at same pressure and weight bullet
Click to expand...
I still trust QuickLoad WAY more than I trust you. The problem with loading manual data is that it's never apples to apples. There's always some different in barrel length, or an over-pressure load, or old CUP nonsense, or whatever. QuickLoad makes all that go away, and for a fair comparison tells you what you're going to get. On the major cartridges, it's always right too. And it consistently says that for the best possible powders HOLDING ALL ELSE THE SAME, the .30-06 only buys 50-150 ft/s for heavy bullets.

Oh, and by the way the fastest SAAMI load in .308 for a 178 ELD-X loaded to 2.8" is 47.8gr of RL17 giving 2839 ft/s out of a 26" barrel. So again, the .308 is right there making you look silly :D
 
CraigC said:
They do. Not only do they penetrate like nothing else but they track straighter than roundnoses or spitzers.
Click to expand...

That's certainly my expectation, but I'll admit I've never sat around shooting shrubs to test it.
 
Llama Bob said:
I still trust QuickLoad WAY more than I trust you. The problem with loading manual data is that it's never apples to apples. There's always some different in barrel length, or an over-pressure load, or old CUP nonsense, or whatever. QuickLoad makes all that go away, and for a fair comparison tells you what you're going to get. On the major cartridges, it's always right too. And it consistently says that for the best possible powders HOLDING ALL ELSE THE SAME, the .30-06 only buys 50-150 ft/s for heavy bullets.
Click to expand...
you have rewritten the laws of physics where 2 bullets the same weight in same length barrel same pressure will go the same speed even though one burns 12 grains more powder. bravo you are a genius. I say now I throw out all my reloading manuals and request the 30-06 to be put out of production
 
salt&battery said:
you have rewritten the laws of physics where 2 bullets the same weight in same length barrel same pressure will go the same speed even though one burns 12 grains more powder. bravo you are a genius. I say now I throw out all my reloading manuals and request the 30-06 to be put out of production
Click to expand...

I haven't re-written anything. First off, the SAAMI pressure max for .30-06 is 60KPSI. For .308 it's 62KPSI. Second the .308 is a more efficient cartridge than the .30-06. The -06 has too shallow a shoulder angle and as a result expends more energy accelerating it's own powder granules down the barrel. Third the powders happen to match up a bit better with the .308 for 200 and 220gr projectiles. Combine those three effects, and the gap is effectively closed. The army knew this 60 years ago, but apparently it's news around here...
 
like I said the 243win will out perform than any of the 30-06 or 308 ya'll bragging about! load a 100gr bullet and I bet it will shoot flatter and farther than these ya'll keep thinking are so awesome! the military should consider using the 243 as a sniper round...
 
CraigC said:
In reallity, any good 7mm or .30 caliber cartridge will cover the same ground as a .30-06. Hell, I even put the 8x57 in the same league. There are great bullets available to make them all capable of the same feats. The `06 does not have a monopoly on versatility. And like you said, there is no reason to restrict yourself to one rifle or cartridge.
Click to expand...
I don't remember saying I restrict myself to 30-06. I don't know why you seem to have this thing about the 06, but this should go in it's own thread.
 
Llama Bob said:
I haven't re-written anything. First off, the SAAMI pressure max for .30-06 is 60KPSI. For .308 it's 62KPSI. Second the .308 is a more efficient cartridge than the .30-06. The -06 has too shallow a shoulder angle and as a result expends more energy accelerating it's own powder granules down the barrel. Third the powders happen to match up a bit better with the .308 for 200 and 220gr projectiles. Combine those three effects, and the gap is effectively closed. The army knew this 60 years ago, but apparently it's news around here...
Click to expand...
I have always respected your very knowagable posts, but the 06 shallow shoulder angle requires more energy to eject unburned powder? Do you have a source backing this?
 
jim in Anchorage said:
I have always respected your very knowagable posts, but the 06 shallow shoulder angle requires more energy to eject unburned powder? Do you have a source backing this?
Click to expand...

I'll try to find something in print. The design concept goes back to at least P.O. Ackley who of course made a career of taking the taper out of cases and slapping on a 40 degree shoulder. The former increases case capacity (possibly at the expense of feed reliability), but the latter is about efficiency. The .308 actually is just a stubby .30-06 AI - it has the same shoulder diameter as the AI (.454 and is shorter, so even less taper) and a 40 degree shoulder.

Of course it's worth noting that the straight wall cartridges are the least efficient cartridges out there. In fact, their powder goes flying down the barrel with such an abandon that it not only costs you energy, but effectively reduces the burn rates of the powders used as well. Simulating them is almost more art than science. The bottlenecks are easy.
 
Llama Bob said:
I'll try to find something in print. The design concept goes back to at least P.O. Ackley who of course made a career of taking the taper out of cases and slapping on a 40 degree shoulder. The former increases case capacity (possibly at the expense of feed reliability), but the latter is about efficiency. The .308 actually is just a stubby .30-06 AI - it has the same shoulder diameter as the AI (.454 and is shorter, so even less taper) and a 40 degree shoulder.

Of course it's worth noting that the straight wall cartridges are the least efficient cartridges out there. In fact, their powder goes flying down the barrel with such an abandon that it not only costs you energy, but effectively reduces the burn rates of the powders used as well. Simulating them is almost more art than science. The bottlenecks are easy.
Click to expand...
with new powders the modern 30-06 passes the 30-06 AI of ackleys day. naturally the new powders will make the AI better also but who cares? hardly anyone wants at has a 30-06 AI
 
salt&battery said:
with new powders the modern 30-06 passes the 30-06 AI of ackleys day. naturally the new powders will make the AI better also but who cares? hardly anyone wants at has a 30-06 AI
Click to expand...
The new powders and bullets help everything of course. That's the problem with the way cartridge comparisons are often done - one cartridge gets hot rodded like mad (long barrel, over SAAMI pressure, high energy density powders, compressed loads that probably need a drop tube etc.) and the other they just fill up the case with IMR whatever and call it good. And oh look, the cartridge that got hot rodded seems like a powerhouse. That's why I like using QuickLoad for this sort of thing - it's easy to set up a fair fight.

I've got nothing against hot rodding cartridges by they way. It just doesn't make sense to use that data for comparison purposes unless you do it to all the cartridges being compared.
 
Llama Bob said:
I'll try to find something in print. The design concept goes back to at least P.O. Ackley who of course made a career of taking the taper out of cases and slapping on a 40 degree shoulder. The former increases case capacity (possibly at the expense of feed reliability), but the latter is about efficiency. The .308 actually is just a stubby .30-06 AI - it has the same shoulder diameter as the AI (.454 and is shorter, so even less taper) and a 40 degree shoulder.

Of course it's worth noting that the straight wall cartridges are the least efficient cartridges out there. In fact, their powder goes flying down the barrel with such an abandon that it not only costs you energy, but effectively reduces the burn rates of the powders used as well. Simulating them is almost more art than science. The bottlenecks are easy.
Click to expand...
I own both Ackey books and don't recall a word about efficiency, just that the straight/ no taper sharp neck version has bigger case capacity. Which is obvious to any one that loads them.
I really find it hard to believe, the shoulder, aside from the case capacity issue, has any effect on the speed that one cartridge launchs. a given bullet with the same amount of powder
We can go off to some old wife's tales here, like the "super efficient" Weatherby "venturi" shoulder but I don't buy them.
As far as Ackley he liked to toot his own horn. He published some loads for his "inventions" that would blow a primer at best, wreck the gun at worst.
 
SO, did we resolve the base 45/70 issue before going off on the 308 30/06 urinating contest?

And no, the 6mm/08 will not out do either of them.

Why the 45/70? It can be target match accurate. It can be loaded from 45 Colt to near 458 WM levels. Use 410 load data and you have an acceptable (as acceptable and any shot load in a rifled barrel anyway) shot range pest control/small game tool. And it is just plain a hoot to shoot.
 
jdh said:
SO, did we resolve the base 45/70 issue before going off on the 308 30/06 urinating contest?

And no, the 6mm/08 will not out do either of them.

Why the 45/70? It can be target match accurate. It can be loaded from 45 Colt to near 458 WM levels. Use 410 load data and you have an acceptable (as acceptable and any shot load in a rifled barrel anyway) shot range pest control/small game tool. And it is just plain a hoot to shoot.
Click to expand...


HMMM, I thought tangents were mandatory...... :D
 
jim in Anchorage said:
I really find it hard to believe, the shoulder, aside from the case capacity issue, has any effect on the speed that one cartridge launchs. a given bullet with the same amount of powder.
Click to expand...

It definitely does. If you think about it, all the energy from burning powder only goes four places:
  1. Moving the projectile
  2. Moving powder and combustion gasses down the barrel
  3. Moving the rifle backwards (recoil)
  4. Heat
Those are the only four options - in a standard bolt rifle, there's nothing else that moves. As far as how shoulder geometry affects it, there's a parameter in ballistics simulations related to it. Quick Load calls it "Weighting Factor" which is a maddeningly vague name. In other places it's called "Sebert's Factor". What it describes is how good a job the cartridge does of containing it's powder during burn vs. letting it escape down the barrel. The value is the fraction of powder mass that is simulated as moving down the barrel with the projectile. Lower values represent better containment and thus better performance (more energy goes to the projectile). For the cartridges we've been discussing, the values QL has are:

  • .308: weighting factor 0.50
  • .30-06: weighting factor 0.55
  • .30-06 AI: weighting factor 0.50
  • .45-70: weighting factor 0.75
As you can see, the weighting factor does follow the shoulder geometry. The .308 and .30-06AI, which have the same geometry, are the same. The .30-06 which has a slightly worse geometry is one step higher, and the .45-70 which doesn't do anything to contain the powder burn is by far the worst.
 
Llama Bob said:
It definitely does. If you think about it, all the energy from burning powder only goes four places:
  1. Moving the projectile
  2. Moving powder and combustion gasses down the barrel
  3. Moving the rifle backwards (recoil)
  4. Heat
Those are the only four options - in a standard bolt rifle, there's nothing else that moves. As far as how shoulder geometry affects it, there's a parameter in ballistics simulations related to it. Quick Load calls it "Weighting Factor" which is a maddeningly vague name. In other places it's called "Sebert's Factor". What it describes is how good a job the cartridge does of containing it's powder during burn vs. letting it escape down the barrel. The value is the fraction of powder mass that is simulated as moving down the barrel with the projectile. Lower values represent better containment and thus better performance (more energy goes to the projectile). For the cartridges we've been discussing, the values QL has are:

  • .308: weighting factor 0.50
  • .30-06: weighting factor 0.55
  • .30-06 AI: weighting factor 0.50
  • .45-70: weighting factor 0.75
As you can see, the weighting factor does follow the shoulder geometry. The .308 and .30-06AI, which have the same geometry, are the same. The .30-06 which has a slightly worse geometry is one step higher, and the .45-70 which doesn't do anything to contain the powder burn is by far the worst.[/QUOTchanmind, but as
Click to expand...
Llama Bob said:
It definitely does. If you think about it, all the energy from burning powder only goes four places:
  1. Moving the projectile
  2. Moving powder and combustion gasses down the barrel
  3. Moving the rifle backwards (recoil)
  4. Heat
Those are the only four options - in a standard bolt rifle, there's nothing else that moves. As far as how shoulder geometry affects it, there's a parameter in ballistics simulations related to it. Quick Load calls it "Weighting Factor" which is a maddeningly vague name. In other places it's called "Sebert's Factor". What it describes is how good a job the cartridge does of containing it's powder during burn vs. letting it escape down the barrel. The value is the fraction of powder mass that is simulated as moving down the barrel with the projectile. Lower values represent better containment and thus better performance (more energy goes to the projectile). For the cartridges we've been discussing, the values QL has are:

  • .308: weighting factor 0.50
  • .30-06: weighting factor 0.55
  • .30-06 AI: weighting factor 0.50
  • .45-70: weighting factor 0.75
As you can see, the weighting factor does follow the shoulder geometry. The .308 and .30-06AI, which have the same geometry, are the same. The .30-06 which has a slightly worse geometry is one step higher, and the .45-70 which doesn't do anything to contain the powder burn is by far the worst.
Click to expand...
I still don't buy it. By that logic a badly overbore gun ( .264 Winchester for example) should be the most efficient. Large sharp shoulder, small bore compared to case capacity should provide lots of opportunity to burn powder. But we all know they are not efficient.
 
Bull Nutria said:
My limited experience with the cartridge was with a Ruger #3 that my uncle owned. Man it was brutal on recoil. I really don't get it, how a cartridge with a rainbow trajectory and recoil like a mule is so wildly popular for over a 100 years.
I realize it is very flexible for reloading but so are many other calibers?
Does the 45-70 fill a niche that other modern cartridges have missed?
I would appreciate an explanation, please don't get me wrong every cartridge has it fans and to each his own, but I really don't think the 45-70 is for me!!

What say you? I am just intrigued by the seemingly wild popularity of the 45-70.

Bull
Click to expand...

Because it is so big and so old, like me !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
America Buffalo Cartridges...onyl the 45-70 has been modernized?? Why???
2 3 4 5
Replies
102
Views
7K
saturno_v
S
R
  • Locked
  • Poll
Which 45/70 for Hunting?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Cthulhu
C
JeffDilla
  • Locked
45/70 Options Other Than Marlin?
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
JeffDilla
JeffDilla
C
  • Locked
? about .45-70 combat effectiveness
Replies
5
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
J
  • Locked
Homemade 45-50, anybody?
Replies
20
Views
1K
748
748
Back
Top