45-70 16" Barrel Performance

A 45-70 bullet just has to hit it's target to kill, the high speed is just nice to shoot out farther.

It's deceptive and not really evident on paper between trapdoor loads and 44 mag loads. The difference is the weight of bullet you can use in the 45-70 and the lower pressures it'll do it at.
If you want to shoot heavy bullets at moderate velocity even the lightest 45-70 loads will be as much or more than serious 44 mag equivalent.
From Underwood a 430 grain standard pressure bullet moves out at about 1500 fps, an Underwood 340 grain +p+ 44 mag moves out at about the same, maybe slightly faster but almost 100 grains lighter. If you start talking about 44 mag loads that are more standard the gap widens significantly .

If we get into modern 45-70 loads it's not even a comparison. The appeal is bigger cartridges that are easier to handle with gloves ect, lower pressures, heavier bullets and brass that lasts forever. When it takes the heaviest 44 mag loads to just approach the lightest 45-70 , there is a huge difference.

The other thing is how much you'll shoot top power loads, for either you want full power for hunting but most shots will be plinking around and general use . either does fine with that but a 405 grain slug on top of a case of trailboss gives about 1000 fps and feels like a pop gun, there's not much on earth that can stand up to that . that's a good general load you can shoot all day.

I do shoot a lot of magnum revolvers but if I want a carbine I usually just skip the smaller higher pressure rounds and go right for the big old 45-70.

So factory ammo designed not to disassemble rifles that could be nearly 150 years old has similar perfomance to newer high performance ammo in a smaller caliber? OK.

A 400 grain bullet at 1200 fps, a easily handled load, has 100 more ft lb energy than a 240 at 1500 which is a handgun handful for one not used to it. Every 100 fps Moe on the 45-70 will up the fpe by 250 or more.
Either, with good bullets, will shoot through the biggest deer.
Heck, my 444 with the 265 Leverolutions gets over 3000 fpe. But I hate shooting it.

45-70 has always been overrated and overhyped. The original loads were only slightly more potent than the 45 colt rounds carried in revolvers. The primary advantage was to give cavalry more accuracy at longer ranges due to the longer carbine barrels. In a rifle I'd choose a 44 mag or hot loaded 45 colt over 45-70 every time. And I had several 45-70's spanning about 40 years.

Original loads were pretty comparable to 45 caliber black powder muzzle loading rifles. Which is the bare minimum for deer in most states and not legal for game larger than deer in states where elk or moose are hunted. Despite the myth 45-70 was never used extensively for bison. #1 it wasn't considered powerful enough in the 1870's. #2 most of the bison were dead before the 45-70 was introduced in 1873; laws were enacted in 1874 banning bison hunting to preserve the handful left. No doubt a few died from it, but it was never a big thing. By the 1890's it was dead, only to be revived 80 years later in 1972.

Modern loads do take it up a notch that make it a legit elk, black bear, or moose cartridge, but with excessive recoil. And it is still far from an effective big game stopper. The best loads that are safe in a Marlin lever gun shoot a bullet 100 gr lighter, and 100 fps slower than 458 WM.

jmr40 said:

45-70 has always been overrated and overhyped. The original loads were only slightly more potent than the 45 colt rounds carried in revolvers.

Click to expand...

Uhhh...excuse me? What planet do you live on? Because on the planet I live on that is a ridiculous statement, bordering on psychotic. The larger round fires a bullet twice as heavy as the smaller, at 500 fps faster and with over three times the muzzle energy. These are black powder figures, not hot rodded high pressure numbers.

jmr40 said:

45-70 was never used extensively for bison.

Click to expand...

That may be true, but it is damn sure used on Bison today, ask Mike Venturino or Clint Smith. Your statement that it wasn't considered powerful enough is also rather puzzling. Both of the above mentioned men have stated that a 500 grain hard cast 45-70 bullet will shoot entirely through a buffalo bull, if no large bones are hit, from any angle. Again this is with a black powder load, not some heavy smokeless charge.

So how much power and penetration do you need.???

jmr40 said:

In a rifle I'd choose a 44 mag or hot loaded 45 colt over 45-70 every time.

Click to expand...

That is your choice. I'll take the 45-70. Now, let's go hunt Grizzly Bears...with cubs.

Wouldn’t a shorter barrel load in a modern action, need a proper powder that will burn in 16 inches of barrel? Then apply enough of it to produce desired velocity without exceeding the capabilities of the rifle. I have a guide gun. I worked up loads that work well for me. For factory, I use Levrolution ammo. 16 not much shorter than my 18.5 guide gun.

I don’t load much lower than 300 grain in the 45-70. For 45 Colt I don’t load much above 255. I don’t see how they compare too much. Even on the low end 45-70 and the +P for the 45 Colt, I don’t see the comparison?

A barrel that short will have the gun weight so light that I doubt it will be fun to shoot.

YMMV.

-Stan

jmr40 said:

45-70 has always been overrated and overhyped. The original loads were only slightly more potent than the 45 colt rounds carried in revolvers.

Click to expand...

.45 Revolver Service Loads:

Original .45 Colt (1873) was 250/255 gr projectile with 40 gr powder, quickly reduced to 35 gr. Replaced by .45 Schofield with 230 gr projectile and 28/30 gr of powder.

.45 Long-Gun Service Loads:

.45-55 Carbine (1873) was 405 gr projectile with 55 gr of powder (standard through service period).

.45-70 Rifle (1873) was 405 gr projectile and 70 gr of powder.

.45-70 Rifle (1881) was 500 gr projectile and 70 gr of powder.

I guess if you squint just right, the original .45 Colt load, which hardly saw any real service period, MIGHT be on the same planet at the .45 Carbine round. Comparing a M1881 Rifle loading to a .45 Schofield loading is comical.

jmr40 said:

45-70 has always been overrated and overhyped. The original loads were only slightly more potent than the 45 colt rounds carried in revolvers. The primary advantage was to give cavalry more accuracy at longer ranges due to the longer carbine barrels. In a rifle I'd choose a 44 mag or hot loaded 45 colt over 45-70 every time. And I had several 45-70's spanning about 40 years.

Original loads were pretty comparable to 45 caliber black powder muzzle loading rifles. Which is the bare minimum for deer in most states and not legal for game larger than deer in states where elk or moose are hunted.

Click to expand...

This is not true. It was over 3x as powerful as the .45 Colt revolvers. 6x if you compare the US Army loads. And black powder muzzleloading rifles shot round balls weighing about 128 grains.

stanley_white said:

A barrel that short will have the gun weight so light that I doubt it will be fun to shoot.

Click to expand...

This isn’t really a thing.

Cutting 2.5” off of an 18.5” Marlin 1895 Guide gun would remove 3.6oz of barrel. So the 7.0lb 1895GS would become 6.78lb… recoil in the Guide Guns is strong, but not sharp and not terribly difficult to manage - my 120lb wife hunts with an 1895GS…

Varminterror said:

This isn’t really a thing.

Cutting 2.5” off of an 18.5” Marlin 1895 Guide gun would remove 3.6oz of barrel. So the 7.0lb 1895GS would become 6.78lb… recoil in the Guide Guns is strong, but not sharp and not terribly difficult to manage - my 120lb wife hunts with an 1895GS…

Click to expand...

It depends on how you use your rifle.

I had a 1895 LTD V... with, I believe, a 26" barrel... so certainly heavier than a Guide Gun. With base starting 'Lever Action' loads of IMR's 3031, 4895, 4064, and a cast 405grn bullet, recoil was so severe I had to stop shooting, and I wound up pulling almost 100 cartridges. Granted, I wasn't hunting, I was shooting steel... and I wanted something to reach the 1244yd dinger with authority. While the velocities were not astounding... 1720, 1525, 1650fps with their respective powders... the recoil was... and I'm 6'2" and 200lbs. 2 or 3 rounds for hunting? Sure. 100 rounds in an afternoon...? No thank you. Again, it depends on how you use your rifle...

Regardless of if you think .45-70 is overrated or not...

...isn't it a lot easier to just buy cowboy loads rather than the hottest .45C/.44M you can find and hope it's enough power? Assuming power is the name of the game here.

I respect the historical aspect, but for my part with respect to shooting I only really care about what .45-70 is about post-1972.


I don't shoot .45-70 for funsies. Even the cowboy loads have pretty good snap. At least to me. This is all from a non-reloader; I fully understand you can achieve a lot more with all 3 flavors if you do reload.

Most of my .45-70 shooting has been through a single shot pistol. First and second shot, ok. Third shot? Pass. Way more oomph than any 45LC encountered in this area.

Watched someone else shoot a .45-70 derringer. Dude lost his grip, thing flew back into his forehead. Blood ensued.

Recoil can be stout. I just go with it. It hurts, but I don’t shoot boxes, I work with smaller numbers. Mine is ported. Helps a little. The face recoil hurts the most. Smack in the cheek.

Saying something with a little less oomph than a .458 isn't a good game stopper makes me want to get back to work on the 338-06 I'm building to make sure it's ready for deer season because all the rifles I've been hunting with are way underpowered for these incredibly hard to stop whitetails we have nowadays.I don't know how I've managed to kill 305 of them with the underpowered junk I've been shooting at them with,but I'll be putting all of those poor game stoppers on Gun Broker by the end of the week.Well made ammunition in a quality 45-70 will stop any game animal in the Lower 48 very effectively.Put it in a 16 inch barrel and it'll still get the job done,and the 44 Mag or 45 Colt won't even compare to it.

Charlie98 said:

It depends on how you use your rifle.

I had a 1895 LTD V... with, I believe, a 26" barrel... so certainly heavier than a Guide Gun. With base starting 'Lever Action' loads of IMR's 3031, 4895, 4064, and a cast 405grn bullet, recoil was so severe I had to stop shooting, and I wound up pulling almost 100 cartridges. Granted, I wasn't hunting, I was shooting steel... and I wanted something to reach the 1244yd dinger with authority. While the velocities were not astounding... 1720, 1525, 1650fps with their respective powders... the recoil was... and I'm 6'2" and 200lbs. 2 or 3 rounds for hunting? Sure. 100 rounds in an afternoon...? No thank you. Again, it depends on how you

Click to expand...

Are you intending to take up shooting 1244 yards with a 16” rifle?

Jackal1 (Love the name by the way. The Forsyth book has always been of of my favorites.)
First, what sort of rifle do you have to discuss different rounds? A sawed off trapdoor type will NOT handle strong loads. On the other hand, a .45-70 rifle properly built on a 1903 Springfield action will handle loads which loosen your fillings.
.45-70 has a rather high expansion ratio. So cutting it short will result in less velocity loss per inch than a smaller caliber. A shorter barrel will always give less velocity than a longer barrel - all other factors being the same - but loss is less per unit of length with a larger caliber.

Couple of other issues mentioned.
The normal bullet for .45-70 is about 400 grains. The original was 405 grains and all lead. Modern bullets range from 300 or so to well over 400 grains in both jacketed and lead alloy. Even at lower velocity the momentum of the projectile more than makes up for the lesser velocity of more modern designed cartridges. Probably won't shoot as far, but will certainly be effective on game.

The burning rate (speed) of powders are chosen for bullet weight, not barrel length. Yes, a longer barrel has more time (measured in milliseconds) to more completely burn the powder used. However, using a faster burning powder will not give as much velocity due to powder charge being limited (to avoid higher than desired pressure).

Depending on the weight of the rifle (and design of stock) the rifle will recoil more than if barreled and chambered for .22 Hornet. Or any of the .30 calibers. But - if a hand loader - one can tailor loads to one's limits and goals. For most hunting uses, a heavy bullet and moderate velocity will do for about anything.

I dont own a .45-70 so my experience is limited to the ones that have shown up at the range while im there and only actually crono'd one guys guns for him.
I cant remember the actual velocitys very well, but i was fairly impressed with both his factory ammo and handloads.
I also found his guidegun fairly uncomfortable to shoot, and his larger Henry quite pleasant. I also dont shoot short stocks with alot of drop very well tho as they force me to crunch up on them or bring the heal higher than I want.
My 458 and .375 both deliver significantly higher recoil energy but i found them more comfortable to shoot.

I still havent shot my buddy jacks 92r with hot loads, but i get the feeling ill find his 45 colt unpleasant as well.

Varminterror said:

Are you intending to take up shooting 1244 yards with a 16” rifle?

Click to expand...

Actually, I've gone in the opposite direction... I sold that LTD V and got a 32" Pedersoli 1885 High Wall.

I took a poke at the 1244yd with my 20" barreled Browning 71 in .348WCF. Even leaving the barrel at 2200fps, those 200grn bullets ran out of gas at about 1000yds. For that target, I had the Williams completely out of the stops, and I had the front sight bead on TOP of the peep aperture... sort of a 9mm mortar.

Not saying it couldn't be done with a 16" barrel... but you would have to be Super Shooter to reach that far with the inherent disadvantages of the short barrel.