The weight of sling and swivel is ignored.
Should be off gun when hunting.
There is only one swivel needed, since Bubba Gunwerkes has perfected a new "Barrel-Band Sling" (BBS) that requires only one swivel on the buttstock stud,
none on barrel:



Stud on forearm can be removed and replaced with a flush mounted filler screw,
or the stud may be retained for use with a tall bipod for shooting at 1000 yards from sitting position.
You may be outstanding in your field with use of this rig,
and you may be outsitting in your field too.

Rip ...

A 23" barreled 338 Lapua would be just Dandy
Nice and quiet too I'm sure 8#)

CTF,

Maybe I should have said accelerations and decelerations: High G impacts in recoil.

I think that a 750-G impact is supposed to be about like a .458 Lott.
Don't know where I got this, but IIRC, the .458 Lott might be in the 600 to 800 G range depending on load and rifle weight.
Will look for a reference.
Of course, if the Lott can do that, the .458 WIN can do more, for same COL.

The 23"-barreled .338 Lapua is OK, a fun gun.
Muzzle blast is surely no worse than your .458 WIN.

RIP ...

A comment about inverted reticles reminds me of a question that I have regarding scopes. When I look through the scope from the ocular end (normal way of looking) the post reticle appears to start at the bottom and go vertically to the horizontal crosswire. But if I look backwards from the objective, the post appears to be suspended from the top going down to the horizontal, basically upsidedown. the confusing part is it seems that looking either way should result in the same image, but clearly, it is not.

Hearsay from a Barrett-related forum:

With a clamshell brake, the Barrett bolt actions subject a scope to:

Rearward Acceleration = 540g's in .6 milliseconds; and
Forward Acceleration = -500g's in 2.3 milliseconds (total).

The muzzle-braked M99 single-shot 50 BMG that weighs about 25 pounds is gentler than a 10-pound, un-braked .458 WIN with 500-grainers at 2150 fps.
Still looking for some kind of table of G-forces on scopes in recoil ...

Rip ...

Ray B,
Yep, if the reticle is in front of the erector lenses, between objective and erector,
then it has to be upside-down so as to look correct after its image gets flipped by the erector.
If the reticle is behind the erector system, between erector and ocular, then it has to be right-way-up , like you see it when you look through the ocular.

That is what sambarman338 was talking about in the caption from that picture in his book.
Since that replaceable Pecar reticle is "right-way-up" as it goes into the scope, it must be going into the ocular side of the system, between the erector and the ocular.

Astronomical telescopes have no erector systems.
Everything looks upside-down through them.

Rip ...

Follow-up to previous posting, B&L Adjustable mounts presently not in use. 2.5 are for Win M70; 1 is for Mauser. It doesn't say which model but presume it's for a large ring '98.

Also follow-up to previous postings; these are Weaver K scopes. bottom to top, K2.5 60 A; K3 60 B, & K2.5 60 C. They don't have serial numbers or markings that indicate year, so other than general 50s to 60s I don't have a good idea of their ages.

"The shooting industry is labeling the maximum recoil for a scope. What does "Maximum recoil = 1000 G's" mean in layman terms?"

https://answers.yahoo.com/ques...AANQz1I&guccounter=1

Whatever. Peak G, average G, milliseconds, microseconds, etc.
I gotta go take a nap ...

Rip ...

Ray B,

Thanks for the hardware pics. You have quite a collection.
It will take me a while to study up on those, B&L mounts especially. The Weaver scopes are more familiar.
Of course sambarman338 will weep for joy when he spots those B&L mounts.

Page 79!

Rip ...

Recoil levels:

1. did the rifle fire?
2. The rifle jiggled
3. I felt a slight push
4. Noticeable push
5. No doubt that the rifle fired
6. When it fired I had to keep a firm grip
7. Ouch, that may leave a mark
8. OUUCCHH, that's really going to leave a mark
9. Schedule an appt with the chiropractor
10.set appt with ophthalmologist to spot weld my retinas back from being detached.

RIP, you have already warmed the cockles of my heart, at least, just with the pictures. It might take me days to analyse your recent posts, but I will comment on a couple of things that occur to me now.

My mention of ocular housing diameters was prompted by comparing that old Nickel 1-4x21 with my Nikon 4-16x42. The Nickel has a diameter of 27mm while the Nikon's is 44mm but the Supra has a FoV of 27.3 feet at 4x, while the Monarch's is only 25.2 feet.

While neither reaches the standard 30 feet, I blame the Nikon's miserable showing on its good, long eye relief and a heavy field stop (you may have noticed in the top-left picture over from page 19). The little Nickel's larger FoV was only possible because (being reticle-movement) it has minimal field stop and because the eye relief came down from more than 112mm at 1x to about 65mm at 4x. (The closer you get to a window, the more you can see out of it.)

That shortening eye relief was the worst failing of those old variables and, as I touch on in the book, something Shadbolt and Stroebel were either innocent of or in no hurry to explain.

The outsized oculars of modern scopes are exemplified by the Swarovski Z6 1-6x, which, according to the table I deleted, has an ocular housing 46mm across (and about 54mm north-south if you add the illumination housing). Its fields of view are, however, very good; ranging from 127 feet at 1x to 20.4 at 6x, combined with a reportedly consistent eye relief of 90mm. Good as those figures are, I can't forget the acres of dangerous real estate the rubber eye piece and battery housing may be hiding or the need to mount the scopes high to clear bolt handles.

Perhaps in a future book update I might include that third table of modern scopes, warning that most of the figures come from makers' pamphlets, some of which have obvious errors, and others I have extrapolated but can't be certain of.

In regard to your showing my Pecar pictures, RIP, there is an ironic epilogue at the end of your update (#4, still called 'Epilogue') but I don't want to spoil it for you

'Sam'

Pictured is the Lyman All-American 4x (I've heard that it was actually a 5x but marketing at the time was directed to 4x, so that's what it was called. the ocular housing is 1.44" with a 1' tube. this model followed the Alaskan and preceded the Perma-Center reticle. the reticle in this scope moves visually.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

In regard to your showing my Pecar pictures, RIP, there is an ironic epilogue at the end of your update (#4, still called 'Epilogue') but I don't want to spoil it for you

'Sam'

Hi Sam,

The excerpt "for book review purposes" was OK then.
You haven't spoiled anything for me, as I have read the book completely
(and re-read many passages to make sure I was getting it),
including the epilogue.
My only gripe is that I am mentioned in the epilogue only once, though Ray Atkinson is mentioned more than once.
He and other internet handles are mentioned even in the foregoing body of the text.
Oh well, I guess I am just late to the shindig:

"At AR, RIP is perhaps doyen of the .458 WM brigade, "just a try-to-break-the-scope kind of guy
... 34 Leupold, 16 Nikon, 14 Sightron have suffered [his] attempts", only two needing warranty repair.
(you forgot to mention both were Leupolds)
He says expensive optics are a waste -- scopes a tenth the price will do.
What can I say RIP? So many scopes, so little time to wreck them?"

Make that 17 Nikons now.
And I need to add that a third Leupold had to be sent back, I see, after looking through my records.
It was a little different, I did not wreck it with recoil, it came out of the box, new, unused, with a defect.
The power-changer ring was frozen, stuck, would not turn.
It was a special collectors' edition "1907-2007 Century Limited Edition GOLDEN RING Hunting Scope"
proclaiming on the box:
"Argon Krypton Guaranteed Fog-Proof"
"Engineered Precision"
"Lifetime Service Guarantee"
It was a 3-9x40mm with Boone & Crockett reticle and gloss black finish.
It came in a fancy, embossed and painted, tin box.
I sent it back, they fixed it, no dramas, working flawlessly now, on a .395 Tatanka Ruger No.1.

The spoiler alert is for other readers.
It took me a while to read the book, savoring it as I went, for humor and techniciana,
with cross referencing to Stroebel, whenever you mentioned his book in yours,
or whenever I could find something there to look at regarding any of the scopes you described.
A package deal of your book along with Stroebel's "catalog" would be fair dinkum.

Thanks again!

Rip

@ Ray B and all Old Scope collectors, from Stroebel:

LYMAN
ALL-AMERICAN 4X (1954 - 1961)
AND W/PERMA-CENTER RETICLE (1962 - 1985)
Magnification .................... 4X
Field of view .................... 30.0 feet at 100 yards
Luminosity ....................... not given
Eye relief ....................... 3.25 to 5.0 inches
Length ....................... 12.0 inches
Weight ....................... 9.0 ounces
Tube diameter .................... 1.0 inches
(Value: $175 - $275' add $25 for alloy tube version; add $50 for Perma-Center reticle)

That is a great scope by any standards, especially the older one with reticle movement, if used on a .458 WIN.
9 ounces must have been the weight with alloy "dural" tube.

Rip ...

I think those Weavers may have snuck in while I was writing my last reply, RIP. As I may have told you, I love my 1947 K2.5 for its reticle-movement, field-blending and, most of all, the enormous eyebox, which is as good as the best Nickels and Zeiss/Hensoldts.

Did your update include the Pecar stuff? If not, I'll email you the text.

I'll add that your broken scopes were Leupolds when next I update - have already altered the text.

The reason Ray Atkinson's scopes got mentioned more was because they broke. As I've observed elsewhere, when things and people give no trouble, you don't have much to dine out on.

I think Nick Stroebel's valuations on American scopes may have survived the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-8 reasonably well but have found European scopes on the Internet much cheaper, esp. those with rails.

I wish Leupold would redo the Lyman Alaskan again but, this time do it properly, with a solid erector tube.

The thing I like most about those old mounts is the distance between them. One of Elmer Keith's shown recently on the medium-bore forum had the front mount out on the Nock's form, perhaps a reaction to the leverage susceptibility of the old Noske and G&H side mounts.

I have looked through one of those Eastern Zeiss ZF4s you show and like their style and mounts. If they were in fact image-movement, maybe the Jena crowd thumbed their noses at our Western patents. Zeiss Oberkochen, on the other hand, stuck with reticle movement until 1975, as far as I know.

When I was seriously buying scopes for my book and collection, I noticed that those scopes used to sell for at least as much as the Western Zeiss equivalents, despite the likelihood the technology was more primitive.

Looking at Ray B's Bausch & Lomb mounts, I notice they are the old plunger type. Stroebel seemed to think they were the later style but my research of the patents suggests the daisy-wheel type came about 10 years later. The cotton-reel cone cradle of the early ones looked cool but I suspect they had some problems with it, after which they did away with the cones at the back. Were I to resurrect the cradle concept, I would replace the front ones, too, with bearers less likely to gouge the scope tube.

sambarman338, Doyen of the Old Scope Brigade,

I can say that because I am 3 years younger than you and I am Doyen of the .458 WIN Brigade.

The EPILOGUE has the Pecar Champion 2.75X stuff on pages vii-viii, explained very well. No questions from me but we may be puzzling anyone who has not read the book.

Regarding my joking comments about Ray Atkinson:
I understand.
Ray has broken a lot of scopes. He started using them on his rifles as soon as Isaac Newton had his first practical model ready to go.

And the main reason I had problems with 2 or 3 Leupold scopes is because I have used more of them, and used them more, than any other brand.
Only then did I branch out into Sightron scopes.
Subsequent to that, after Michael McCourry's reporting from his "B&M Institute" in South Carolina, Nikon became the darling.
I like all three of those brands.

I have only 6 of those little Leupold 2.5x20mm scopes on hand.
That scope may be the best way to go on a .458 WIN. Ray Atkinson might agree.
They are always ready as a primary or as a backup to a bigger, heavier, higher-magnification Nikon, Sightron, or brother Leupold scope.

Rip ...

Do you ever sleep, RIP? You might notice I added more stuff to that last post.

Your mention of Sightron reminds me I must send a copy of the book to their Australian agent, Mark Herron, who helped me with information on Kahles before the agency went to Winchester.

Maybe, if I say some good stuff about Sightron in another update, he will forgive me for pissing in the modern trade's soup

Am I right in thinking Michael McCourry is Michael458? I may have got off-side with him, innocently questioning whether mono bullets held some risk in double rifles (considering H&H had warned customers not even to use solids). Sorry Michael, I realise now the technology has moved on from that possibility.

Sam,

Yep, that is Michael458, whom I dubbed Doc M and awarded an honorary Munitions Doctor degree in the field of gunnacology.

I sleep all hours. Retired.
Play all hours too.
Studying for my second MD degree, this time in gunnacology.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I wish Leupold would redo the Lyman Alaskan again but, this time do it properly, with a solid erector tube.
Amen. May the choir sing that hymn.
I have looked through one of those Eastern Zeiss ZF4s you show and like their style and mounts. If they were in fact image-movement, maybe the Jena crowd thumbed their noses at our Western patents. Zeiss Oberkochen, on the other hand, stuck with reticle movement until 1975, as far as I know.
I have now cranked the one reticle dial up and down.
The European No.1 picket-pointed center post and the two side bars definitely are moving up and down,
going off center.
It does not seem to be an image-movement type.
Looking into the objective lens, the reticle can be seen to be inverted, compared to the way it is seen through the ocular.
The erector focus moves independently of the reticle.
Seems it is a reticle-movement scope. That is good in my mind, now that I have read your book.

When I was seriously buying scopes for my book and collection, I noticed that those scopes used to sell for at least as much as the Western Zeiss equivalents, despite the likelihood the technology was more primitive.

The one crude thing I note about it is the bottom of the base that fits to the rail on the bottom of the scope.
The entire base is steel, or magnetic cast iron with a drip of casting that was not finished off.
It is the part that has the Czech stamping on it.
The scope tube is alloy and hopefully not from the same blacksmith shop that made the QD mount.
The whole affair, sans the Butler Creek scope caps, weighs 18 ounces or 1 lb 2 oz.
Not light, but hopefully the internals are rugged.
Eye-relief is about 4.0" and FOV I guess is about 30 feet at 100 yards for the fixed 4X, subject to verification on the last spec.
It will get tried for function on a CZ .458 WIN, before THE MISSION is complete.
When I got it, it was mated to a well worn BRNO .375 H&H in Alaska.
Its subjection to .458 WIN will occur, hopefully before I am as old as Atkinson.

Rip ...

Thanks RIP, much appreciated.

The roughness of the DDR Zeiss mounts makes the prices the scopes get even more remarkable.

I would explain that Pecar revelation but, thinking it may be little known in the shooting world, feel inclined to save it for those who buy or earn the book.

I'm heading to bed now but have a thought to put to you. If I send you a pic or two by email in the next day or so, would you be able to post them here for me? I haven't taken one of the photos yet but feel it could be an eye-opener for some. Nothing rude, I promise.

sambarman338,

I'll send you a new PM with my email address.
As long as the imgur account is working, I'd be happy to post any photos, for THE MISSION.
And maybe you could tell us what sort of camera setup works best for making images of the light at the end of the tunnel?

Rip ...

To be tried on the .458 WIN CZ 550 Magnum:

Looks like the former owner of the scope was right handed,
and he bumped the ocular bell of the scope against a bandoleer of cartridges draped across his chest, repeatedly.
Pancho Villa?
Just 20 more replies needed to finish off page 79, for THE MISSION.

Rip ...

It seems to me that a great way to build a scope for a hard kicker would be this:

1. Reticle-movement in first focal plane: Elevation Adjustment ONLY, like on the Zeiss-Jena Z4F/S,
but with only one dial on the "uni-turret" on top of scope.
Scope is clean-sided, no protruding turrets.

2. Erector lenses fixed in tube, parallax for 100 yards.

3. Focus by screwing the ocular lens in and out like on most scopes nowadays. Use a locking screw on the focusing ring.

4. Windage adjustment can be as simple as a set of "Redfield Junior" style bases. Many folks still use these, including Saeed on his indestructible .375/404 J.
Make a beefed up set of mounts patterned after the JR, call it the "458 Senior" mount.
Rings to mate to the bases will have 4 to 6 screws in each ring top, 8x40 screws with T15 or larger Torx heads, or simple slotted heads.

5. Fixed power of 2.5X and 24mm objective lens, in a 30mm tube, titanium-aluminum alloy, aircraft aluminum,
or could a carbon fiber tube be stronger and lighter?

6. FOV at 100 yards, 50 to 60 feet? The Leupold 2.5x20mm Ultralight gets 39.5 feet.

7. Eye relief: 5.0". The Leupold 2.5x20mm Ultralight gets 4.9".

Until there is anything better, looks like the Leupold 2.5x20mm Ultralight is pretty good.
I do not know of anyone who ever broke one.
Not even Atkinson!
Ditto the little Nikon 1-4x20mm Monarch African:
1X FOV at 100 yards = 92.9 feet, ER 4.1"
2.5X FOV @ 100 yds = 58 feet, ER 4.05" (interpolated)
4X FOV at 100 yards = 23.1 feet, ER 4.0"

6.5 ounces for the Leupold Ultralight.
12.16 ounces for the Nikon "Little African."
Both are as good as we have for now.
The Bubba Gunwerkes R&D is just beginning to consider a "458 Senior" scope for the ultimate compromise.
The reticle or reticles (optionals) have yet to be considered, but a Pecar-replaceable is unlikely.
The 458 Senior scope should be noble gas filled and sealed.
Etched glass reticle plus other possibles:
No electronics or battery for illumination, but maybe a tritium blob on a post?
Trijicon patents to be considered.

Rip ...

Have any of you checked out Nikon's P-Tactical .223 scope that is a fixed 3x32? Fixed parallax at 100 yards, approx. 3.5 inches of eye relief, FOV 36 at 100 yards and weights just 1 pound. Can also be dialed in using Spot On for holdovers. Might be a scope that would work for someo of you. 1 inch tube and sub $150. It is also backed by Nikon's No-Fault Warranty that I know anyone shooting a .458 Win Mag wants. Mine have seen a lot of use in all conditions on a .223 AR. Know that just because this scope has .223 on it doesn't mean it's made any less stout than any other Nikon optic.

Barton Hege,

I agree that the Nikon P-223 is a nice little scope for an AR. I have used the M-223 1-4x20mm and the M-223 3-12x42mm scopes from Nikon.
But here at Bubba Gunwerkes 458 WIN Division, we are having a bit of a reaction to all the tactical turrets found on scopes nowadays.
We yearn for a more streamlined scope.
But, we might consider a fixed 3X in search of the Ultimate Compromise for the 458 Senior scope.
Indeed maybe 3 different fixed-power options along with the reticle options being studied:
1X, 2X, 3X ... that ought to cover it for a 458 Senior scope.

Rip ...

I wanted to make a Watergate joke about "Deep Throat" and the 458WM but I'm too good for that
RIP...Since you are the undisputed throat expert of AR, what throat is ideal for the 45-70 bullets? I have thought for a while that a 2.35" 458WM case with 45-70 bullets would be the bees knees for a short action thumper. Was also musing a short action with a 458WM chamber for the 2.35" case and 45-70 lead or jacketed bullets with the option of single loading a factory 458WM round.

There is a strong resemblance between the DDR scope above and this Weatherby Imperial scope made in Germany. It was from late 1950s, so presume they really should have said West Germany. But I don't know the supplier to Weatherby was, so it may have been DDR. But the dial arrangement certainly appears to be of similar design.

boom stick,

Thanks for supporting THE MISSION.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
I wanted to make a Watergate joke about "Deep Throat" and the 458WM but I'm too good for that
Disclaimer: The .458 WIN's deep throat was not involved with spilling the beans on Tricky Dick Nixon. No way, no how.

RIP...Since you are the undisputed throat expert of AR, what throat is ideal for the 45-70 bullets?

Flattery will get you somewhere, like it or not.
First you must decide if you want to concentrate on cast-lead bullets, including paper-patched or not.
I have concluded that the SAAMI .458 WIN throat is best of all for any jacketed bullets (including monometal copper and brass)
in any .458-caliber cartridge conceivable.
It is not best for the soft lead bullets which may skid on the rifling in such a long and gradual throat,
if the bullets are pushed faster than about 1400 fps.

The SAAMI throat for the 45-70 Government is a leade-only throat, but is Short, Obtuse-angled, yet Wide-based: SOW throat
0.4812" wide at start of leade coinciding with end of chamber-case-mouth diameter at 2.1099" from breech face of chamber.
12*45'00" leade semi-angle
Leade tapers down to bore diameter of 0.450" over a run of only 0.0069"!
No chamfer on the end of the chamber before starting into the leade, which even the .458 WIN has a little bit of.
The 45-70 Gov. is more like the forcing cone of a shotgun chamber,
but instead of the usual 5*00'00" semi-angle of the shotgun,
it is the more obtuse 12*45'00".
That works admirably with cast-lead bullets, paper-patching, and jacketed bullets with an ogive that fits.

Compare the SOW throat of the 45-70 Government (Short-Obtuse-Wide)
to the LAW throat of the .458 WIN: Long-Acute-Wide.
Both are Leade-Only-Throats: LOT
45-70 Gov.: SOW-LOT with no case-mouth-chamber-chamfer before start of leade.
.458 WIN: LAW-LOT with case-mouth-chamber-chamfer stepping down from 0.4830" diameter to 0.4690" before start of leade.
Those .458 WIN throat specifics have been repeated many times previously.
I will do it again in a separate reply, for THE MISSION.

I have thought for a while that a 2.35" 458WM case with 45-70 bullets would be the bees knees for a short action thumper. Was also musing a short action with a 458WM chamber for the 2.35" case and 45-70 lead or jacketed bullets with the option of single loading a factory 458WM round.

Very simple really.
If you want to use any jacketed or monometal brass or copper bullet, use the SAAMI .458 WIN throat.
Then you can use about any cast lead bullet only if you keep the velocity under 1400 fps,
and bumping the soft lead bullet diameter up to .460" or even 0.461" helps too.
Powder-coating or paper-patching can add diameterto help with cast-lead bullets.
Or design a short-throated cartridge like Gil Sengel did for his ".458 Winchester Special" posted previously here.
Those specs could be posted here again too, for THE MISSION.
Gil Sengel used it for 45-70 bullets and such, but standard .458 WIN loads could not be used in it, even if they could be chambered.
Not safe, pressures too high.

Rip ...

Thanks RIP
I like the idea of a tiny thumper that could do 400@2100 or up to 2150 FPS depending on OAL.

In researching the 450/400 NE 3-Inch versus 450/400 "Magnum" NE 3-1/4-Inch,
I discovered that Holland and Holland would sometimes take an older 450/400 3-1/4-Inch rifle
originally built for BP Express or NFBP loads,
and "cone-up" the chamber, hoping that this would make it able to handle full Cordite and heavy bullet loads.
This would allow the old rifle to handle the new .400 S. Jeffery load, the first true, shootin'and tootin'
rifle of true Nitro Express loading, later known as the 450/400 NE 3-Inch.
This probably worked with the single shots like Farquharson rifles with heavier barrels
more often than with the old, thinner-barreled double rifles.

Later, after the newer 450/400 NE Magnum 3-1/4-Inch double rifles (that were purpose-built for full Nitro Express loads)
developed ratty chambers, they could often be salvaged by re-chambering them with the shorter and fatter
450/400 NE 3-Inch reamer.
This also produced a long-throated chamber, albeit one with a quarter-inch-long section of very wide parallel-sided free-bore.
It often produced a serviceable rifle that did not even need to be re-regulated.
A cheap and easy fix.

I propose that a knowledgeable Winchester engineer used the coned-up throat concept of H&H to design the .458 WIN:
Purpose-built as coned-up.
The better mouse trap.



Rip ...

boom stick, the .450 Marlin is almost like a .458 Win short (taller belt) and seems like what you are looking for. It will send a 400 grain @ nearly 2100 fps at lever gun pressures. I've been pondering getting a Win 94 takedown in this cartridge. Light and handy thumper (less than 7 pounds) that maxes out that platform.

From what I've read, it's also fairly easy to rechamber a bolt gun in either the .450M or .458 American for higher pressure/longer COL loads.

I hate the special Marlin case and at 2.1" it leaves too much on the table in a short action bolt rifle. A 2.35" case would be potent and compact.

That 450 Marlin is an odd bird, basically a belted 45-70 Gov.
If the 45-70 Gov is trimmed to 2.100", same max brass length as the 450 Marlin,
then the old soldier is about 1 grain of water bigger than the belted upstart.

To gain any advantage over the 45-70 Gov they half-heartedly "coned-up" the throat of a 45-70 Gov and then added a belt.
Voila! The 450 Marlin.
It has an odd, compound-leade, leade-only throat.
It starts off with same leade of 12*45'00" then that blends into a longer leade of 2*30'00".
It comes down to bore diameter of .450" at a distance of 2.3288" from breech face of the chamber.
The 45-70 Gov leade is an abrupt 12*45'00" all the way to bore diameter of .450" at only 2.1789" from breech face of the chamber.

They "coned-up" the belted one and allowed its MAP to go to 43,500 psi.
The 45-70 Gov is only limited to 28,000 psi because of all the antique rifles so chambered.

Put a .458 WIN throat on the 45-70 Gov. and it will leave the 450 Marlin behind by a large margin, in the Ruger No.1.

Loading a SAAMI-throated 45-70 Gov to 43,500 psi is easy enough in the right rifle, any rifle that will handle the 450 Marlin.
What small advantage the SAAMI-throated 450 Marlin might have is purely due to a slightly longer throat, applied to the slightly smaller 450 Marlin case.

Rip ...

With regard to the 450 Marlin, the feature that causes me to say No Sale is the extended belt- designed as a safety measure to prevent it from being chambered inappropriately. the problem is with the ammunition companies. they have shown a decided preference for economies of scale and the ability to make various cartridges with as few changes in dies and settings as possible. So the preponderance of rifle cartridges have a base diameter in one of three sizes: .532" belted, .473" rimless; & .378" rimless. there are a few holdovers such as .506" and .608" rimmed, but these are due to the millions of lever action rifles in use. With those three basic head sizes the makers can adjust the dies to make specific lengths, then neck down to various calibers. the result is that the makers can spend the machining time in direct output rather than downtime changing specifications to make non-standard cartridges. this is the reason ammunition companies don't make 6.5x54MS and .404 Jeffery cartridges as standard runs. But to this list of "seasonal runs" or when-they-get-around-to-it runs are those cartridges that have special sizing. Remingtons Ultra series with the exception of the popular 300 are virtually impossible to find on shelves or on-line. and I suspect the same fate is ahead for the 450 Marlin with its oversized belt. It would be very difficult for a handloader to form a 450 Marlin from available cases such as the 458 Win Mag due to the need to push out the case wall so as to make a deeper belt.


If I were to buy a rifle for a cartridge that wasn't readily available or could be easily formed from cases that are readily available I would purchase with the rifle, a supply of at least 100 and probably closer to 400 cases for it. No sense getting a rifle that you won't be able to get ammunition for when the fashion passes.