Forrest how much does a variation in case length with the 45/70 type calibers make in groups? Have you noted any larger spreads in the ES's also?

Finally. Finally ready to get serious about prepping my 45/70 brass-- the gun might be able to tell now. Only thing I've done is drill the flash holes looking for the odd tight and large one. For sure I'll need to weigh them now.

As always all are welcomed to chime in too..

Aladin,

A: How much does a variation in case length with the 45/70 type calibers make in groups? Have you noted any larger spreads in the ES's also?

F: Here you've got me. I have no choice but to admit that I'm not that scientific about my shooting. I seldom shoot groups with the 45/70 these days except for those rare times (like for Sky and his Applegate bullets) when something new comes along.

I do have a chronograph but don't use it much: Once I've established a given load's performance I do not bother re-checking it over any instrumentation except for once in a great while when I check speeds while shooting general practice on the Hilltop Range and even that has not happened in along time.

Sorry I can't help you in this.

Good evening,
Forrest

Sky,

You have a new PM.

Good evening,
Forrest

I have checked the Rem brass I'm using for load testing per wt and length. Was surprised-- for the 17 test cases in my box the max variation for wt was only two grains and this in two cases. The rest made within 1 gr easily. I checked five or so at random and found the lengths too close to bother with. I do know varying lengths in some calibers does open groups. Mik-ing the necks also surprised- unloaded these showed remarkable uniformity with runout mostly well under a thou at the mouth area, usually welll under 1/2 a thou.

I have a 100 WW cases which required alot of sorting... They've the added capacity for BLK but uniformity isn't there. That's ok-- I've lost alot of enthusiasm for BLK in the 45/70. It's a game of never ending fouling management, which I had no trouble with-- just you work a load for a powder lot, which means nothing for the next can. You essentially have to find a new loading for each brand/lot number. Only advantage to BLK IMO is the low ES's, but my shooten has shown good numbers are doable with smokeless-- 4759 in particular. I've run a ten shot string going 17 for the max variation in FPS, with one rd adding 4 fps to that total. The core group of eight made a 9 ES [extreme spread].

Sky you mentioned floral foam-- have you shot loads comparing the effects on accuracy and ES?

Aladin,

A: I have checked the Rem brass I'm using for load testing per wt and length..

F: I use R-P brass in the 45/70 for the reasons you have found appealing: Good consistent weights and OALs.

Roger the additional capsity of WW brass and use in shooting blackpowder. I never got into shooting black because I went to school on burning the stuff in revolvers: WAY too much work cleaning up afterwords!

I have a bunch of WW 45/70 I sized to 40/65 for the M1895 Marlin I rebarreled to 40. This stuff is marginal, showing cracks lengthwise in cases at about 1% or 2% per loading.

A: Sky mentioned floral foam-- have you shot loads comparing the effects on accuracy and ES?

F: Nope. I think I know exactly the stuff he is using and it should provide good service in filling cases.

My technique of T/P filler has been consistently successful and easily repeated for years of shooting. The old deal of "whats good is what works". And I'm just exactly the man to keep shooting a known good load instead of returning to the work of experimental shooting and "proving" tests all over again.

When I go out to the rifle range to shoot a new rifle or try a new load (Like I did for Sky's Applegate bullet) and I hear the other fellows up on the Hilltop Range hitting the steel I get very restless! It seems that I much prefer the long range practice and companionship over working up loads.

Good evening,
Forrest

PS By the way, that Applegate bullet in my 45/70 did very well. Now, I didn't shoot it very much at short range for "proof" but stopped when I got a group of 5 X 1.230. Then I went up on the Hilltop and did the real shooting at 834 yards.

FA

Forrest your putting T/P in 4759 loads??

Hello Aladin-

Re: checking the variation between with and without use of the foam...

Yes - I have verified this although I don't always run side by side.

Here is an example of a side by side - with and without the foam & why I use it in no filling loads for straight walled cased.

Test vehicle - Marlin 1895 / .45-70
Bullet - Applegate 425gr WLN-GC, WW+Sn aircooled, sized .459" / Soft lube
Powder - AA 2200 / 44.0grs.
Primer - CCI-250
Full length sized, firm crimp, OAL 2.54" - OK to cycle thru action, bullet short of lands

without foam:
Velocity - 1562fps / ES 183 / SD 69
50yds: 1.75"

With foam:
Velocity - 1591fps / ES 34 / SD 14
50yds: 1.5"

This was not an "optimized" load - just load development trial and side by comparison. Accuracy was tested at 50yds - open sights. My observations on loads using the foam are, in general, that they produce good velocity uniformity & accuracy.

Best regards-

Sky

Sky I've run tests with a filler I developed-- Bf which is just ground bran fiber. It does uniform combustion using low loading densities and does increase combusiton using the slower numbers if some mild degree of compression of the chg is used. I've seen it increase accuracy also but that's not a given with each loading. Using 4759 filler vs non filler loads I've seen about the same in ES's and the accuracy was better with non filler loadings. Then the other variable using 4759 in the 45/70 is how much of the bullet fills the case-- again combustion efficentcy. That test run I detailed to you yesterday shows increasing that space does lower the psi and to some degree affect accuracy negatively-- if the loading was optimum originally.

What I did note as interesting in yesterday's testing was the comparison between the Lee 500 'M' as I call it [nose sized to fit the bore dia and extending OAL around .2"+] and the unmodified Lee at a regular OAL. The Lee in it's regular configuration shot a foot flatter at 300 which figured on the balllistic calculator as around 100 fps faster. Now the Applegate and Lee 'M' shot around the same speeds with the standard loading of 21 grs of 4759-- and to the same impact pts at 300. Yet the Applegate and the regular Lee fill almost the same amount of case space resulting of course in the same amount of combustion area. [Now I just went and checked this and was incorrect-- the 525 does put alot of bullet forward and is well above the Lee base in the case-- around .2"] So-- I think I'll give the 525 a gr or so more fuel and maybe seat it somewhat harder into the lands-- which the regular Lee was.

I did run 4227 yesterday also with the 500 gov taper sized it's full length. Not good-- too slow albeit the Lyman manual saying 22 grs should make 1160's. But the longer OAL reduced the speed too much. I'll try it with the regular Lee.

Aladin,

A: You're putting T/P in 4759 loads??

F: Yes I do. I wouldn't shoot without it.

Good morning,
Forrest

Sky,

S: Test vehicle - Marlin 1895 / .45-70..

F: I see you shooting the Marlin 1895!

Interesting stuff. I have an 1895 as well, which I bought in order to rebarrel it to 40/65.

When this job was done the rifle looked better than it did when I received it by a good deal.

The barrel was a take-off from the Red Willow Ballard. The gunsmith turned it down just enough to fit the lever gun's requirements for magazine hangers and reduced the barrel to 24 1/2 inches long. The finished rifle weighs 9 pounds and is delight to carry for hunting and now, to shoot at long range, loaded with SAECO #640.

This bullet is too long to work through the action but slingle-loaded to 2.920 inches overall it shoots very well over the distance.

I have had the extended staff made for the Williams receiver sight base that lets me move on out to 834 yards just fine, but 1000 it just won't make.

The original M1895 has the old, slow 22 inch twist, doesn't it?

Good morning,
Forrest

Good morning gentlemen- (least wise it's morning here in Japan)

Biz has me out of town for a couple days. Have been meaning to thank you Forrest & Aladin for the test reports on the Applegate bullets. I've shared these with Rob who was also quite pleased to hear his design is turning in good performance.

Forrest: re: the M-1895, I believe you're correct regarding the twist for the original microgroove bbl. I actually hadn't even gotten around to shooting it before Marlin had introduced their new cut rifled bbls. in .45-70. I contacted Marlin and after a brief discussion, sent it off to have them install one of the new tubes. Very reasonable... $130 range, they replaced bbl including front sight, all fitted up and ready to roll. Believe this bbl is 1:18 twist and is handling the 425 Applegate WLN bullet with aplomb!

What is that you mention about an extended staff on the Williams sight? I've not heard of this and would be interested in what, where, etc. Also how do you likt that vs. tang mount? I've one of the new mfgr. USRAC M-1886's as well which is currently only wearing the factory open sights - much in need of better sighting equip. I think I've seen that Marble's is offering a tang sight to fit these though not having seen one - am trying to imagine how they get around the tang mount safety.

Very best regards-

Sky

I shot the Applegate again today using the same loading as previously-- 21 grs of 4759 with 210's, handlubing hence no sizing. Yet I moved this bullet out 50 thou for more engagement. Group ran 6+" and more vertical due to the very trying wind conditons [quiet, then from the north from the berm, then NW... then calm again] and I was pleased for these conditions. The Lee was loaded same with one new variable-- I sized it 4575 for whatever reason... Now the impact area's/drop were almost the same, yet the Lee last outing compared to the Applegate seated in that 50 thou shot 12" flatter/higher... Methinks it underlines initial combustion conditions... firm land contact and the unsized version providing more initial resistance than the sized version-- coupled with the fact the Applegate was seated out that added 50 thou, again burning the charge more efficently.

The Lee again shot with very little vertical-- under 3" albeit one flyer left. Either wind or bullet Q as they weren't scaled or hand picked.

Sky,

S: Biz has me out of town for a couple days..

F: There you are! It is good to see your post.

S: re: the M-1895.. the bbl is 1:18 twist and is handling the 425 Applegate WLN bullet with aplomb!

F: That is a good story. The 45/70 sure enough needs to be wound a bit tighter than 22 for any versatility.

S: What is that you mention about an extended staff on the Williams sight?

F: This is a one-off custom sight staff, made special for me by a machinest friend.

It is easily done by anyone who knows his way around a milling machine: Simply copy the issue staff but make it about 3 inches tall.

The issue aperature holder may be used easily.

My sight is graduated in degrees and minutes, just like the original Williams staff. This makes for slight differences in thinking about the units used for staff graduations.. I had a big exchange over in MSN's BPCR site about this subject.

It was necessary to use the Williams receiver sight base for the Marlin because the bolt-throw of the action prevents any suitable tang sight from being mounted.

I like tang sights very much. They are the best for several reasons, like increased sight radius, but the receiver mount was the best I could do on the Marlin.

S: I've one of the new mfgr. USRAC M-1886's as well which is currently only wearing the factory open sights - much in need of better sighting equip. I think I've seen that Marble's is offering a tang sight to fit these though not having seen one - am trying to imagine how they get around the tang mount safety.

F: I don't have good working knowledge of the M1886 but it seems to me I've seen them on the firing line with tall tang sights mounted on them.

Did they really put a tang safety on the reproduction rifle? Unfortunate! but a fellow could always disable it I guess..

None of your skinny non-repeatable Marble sights need apply. Get a real sight from MVA. Even Pedersoli makes better sights than Marble. I have a Pedersoli on my Stevens 44 1/2. It looks rather clunky but it is very solid and repeats dead-nuts.

Good afternoon,
Forrest

Forrest I'll send over a Jpeg of the sights.

How much windage do you think is needed for 1000 yd shooten with a 45/70?

I also have a row of 4227 loaded under cotton wads for a trial run-- just for the heck of it...

Aladin,

you ask:

How much windage do you think is needed for 1000 yd shooten with a 45/70?

F: I wouldn't go out for the 1000 with anything less than +/- 45 MOA available on my sights.

This much is easily had on any of the MVA, or their competitor's front sights. In practical terms a fellow VERY seldom uses much more than say 30 MOA off-set for shooting at extended ranges. Beyond that, you will find the wind to begin blowing YOU around badly enough when shooting off the cross-stick rest that maintaining anything like a good sight picture or getting good trigger control becomes impossible.

On the other hand, a man needs the flexability of having actually more than is really necessary available to him. This is for "cushion" if nothing else: You know you won't be caught short when the wind comes up to blow!

I might add in pasing that the spirit-level on the front sight is pretty much maniditory in my view as well. As in an ad I once saw: You have to hit the exact same high point in the trajectory in order to hit the target, furhter downrange. Thus, a fellow can't afford to have his rifle canted one way or the other at all.

Good morning,
Forrest