I had a long correspondence with John Buhmiller before building my .505 SRE, using a barrel John furnished. He agreed that a 570 grain .505 bullet at 2150 fps was perfectly adequate for thick skinned dangerous game, and that proved to be the case.

In the spring of 1971 I spent a week with John and Mrs. Buhmiller at the Game Coin International convention in San Antonio, where I booked my first hunt with Ker, Downey and Selby.

He was a fine man, and always happy to give advice when asked.

Contrary to Tony Dyer's advice, I have never used anything but brain shots on elephants, two from the side, two from behind the ear. The first two were near misses and knocked the animal down, but required follow up shots. The last two were dead when they hit the ground, with only one shot apiece required.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
What were Buhmiller throats like?

That would be interesting to know.
With all the bullet making and experimentation that Buhmiller did, along with coming up with a different wildcat about weekly for decades,
I'll bet he would not tolerate a tight throat.

Practical as he was, Buhmiller probably had a set of throat reamers for each caliber, and would "cone-up" as needed,
or a set of neck&throat reamers with standard long throats for each caliber.

Just as H&H did with single-shots they had built, when the customer wanted to make an old NFBPE Farquharson into a "Nitro Express."

As much as Buhmiller loved the .458 WIN, it was like a child of his.
He probably advised the Winchester Company on how to throat it, like H&H used to do in making a NE out of a NFBPE rifle originally built by them, stout enough to handle it.

The idea of Buhmiller/H&H influences on the throating of the .458 WIN are pure conjecture.

Rip ...

The Bechuanaland Boys sound like a bagpipe full of feral cats.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
More great reading! I really miss the old African geographical names like Tanganyika and Bechuanaland ... and the cultural offshoots:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiTHv_gl3wo

xausa does it again:

quote:

Originally posted by xausa:
I had a long correspondence with John Buhmiller before building my .505 SRE, using a barrel John furnished.

Made from Ford axle steel? Buhmiller started his barrel making in the depression era using Model A axles and I think he might have had a contract with Ford for that steel in later years.

He agreed that a 570 grain .505 bullet at 2150 fps was perfectly adequate for thick skinned dangerous game, and that proved to be the case.

He also said he never new of a steel-jacketed .505 "solid" from the "proprietary" bullet makers in England.
Maybe they learned to do that by the 1970's?
Of course, we recall that you sized down the .510-caliber bullets of stout make to .505-caliber.

In the spring of 1971 I spent a week with John and Mrs. Buhmiller at the Game Coin International convention in San Antonio, where I booked my first hunt with Ker, Downey and Selby.

I used to have to go to San Antonio for six weeks every summer, 1978-1982, for USAF AD training while in medical school at UK.
I always drove from KY to TX and found that "Safari Convention" from signage along the highway.
Missed y'all by about 10 years.

He was a fine man, and always happy to give advice when asked.

And he was still dreaming of one more safari until the day he died.

Contrary to Tony Dyer's advice, I have never used anything but brain shots on elephants, two from the side, two from behind the ear. The first two were near misses and knocked the animal down, but required follow up shots. The last two were dead when they hit the ground, with only one shot apiece required.

Rip ...

Winchester factory ammo with 500 grain FMJs in about 1970 …. I melted the lead out of one of them and the jacket weighed 222 grains. Of course some lead would have remained inside but the jacket was real thick and especially at the nose.

From the 22" barrel Super Grade they did 1960 f/s across the old Ohler Model 10. As a side note back in those days the Ohler Model 10 cost slightly more than a new Sako 270 in Australia.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
To the .458 Win. deniers, this guy would be no saint.
They would probably say he was a prostitute for Winchester:





The early Post-'63 pushfeed M70 .458 Win. still had the "African" rear sight, on a 22" barrel.

GUNS magazine way-back "Classic Issues" (1955-1968) can be found online at:

https://gunsmagazine.com/class...s-magazine-editions/


Rip ...

[/QUOTE]

Growing up I could hardly wait for each Safari Edition ! I wrote dozens of PH's, White Hunters as they were usually referred to then, as the the possibility of obtains work and the majority were pretty negative about the future of hunting in Africa.
A few told me that if I showed up they would see what they could do. Which after now being in the hunting business in Alaska for 40 years I realize was a fair and honest answer.

Fortunately I found another place with appropriate game for a 458 ! I don't care what saint Ross claims.

https://www.adn.com/alaska-new...uring-fat-bear-week/

Above are pages scanned from the Woodleigh bullets Loading Manual. there are two groupings of loads, those that are for bolt action rifles which are at higher pressures and those that are for breakaction rifles that are for lower (though still high) pressures. With all the talk of how the 458 Win Mag is insufficient for serious use on Dangerous Game, and my review of cartridge performance of those that are considered quite adequate, I am remined of an old Miss Clairol hair commercial. the byline of the commercial was Only her hairdresser knows for sure. Reviewing the various performance loadings I wonder: Does the bullet or the animal know for sure which cartridge held the charge that propelled it to the animal? I'm not sure what the internal dimensions of the various barrels were but since the data is from one source, hopefully they haven't skewed it in favor of one cartridge over another- they would have no motivation to do so.

the listings show only marginal advantages to some highly praised cartridges, for example the 500 NE sends a 570 grain bullet to approximately the same velocity that the 458 Win Mag sends a 550 grain bullet. an advantage of about 3%. the highly acclaimed Lot shows virtually no advantage when both are shooting either 500 or 550 grain bullets. the ever popular 470 shows virtually the same performance, it has a larger diameter but shorter bullet.

So the question is unanswered: Does the bullet or the animal know what cartridge propelled it, the same weight and velocity as differing cartridges? I think not, and I thin the previous articles noting the use and effects of the 458 Win Mag confirm that belief that the claimed poor results of the cartridge were the result of loading problems or shooter error.

Don't look for me to rechamber my 458 Win Mag to a Lott any time soon, or even later for that matter- though I am in the process of looking for the longer magazine box and ejector to convert the magazine for slightly longer OAL cartridges- a small compromise.

I asked the ballisticians at Hornady why their 458 Lott ballistics were only 90fps higher than their 458 Win loads and was told that with equal pressures that was the only difference between them !

Maybe, if I hunted Africa, 90 fps might be an advantage but in the close pucker brush I hunt I prefer the equally slight advantage of a shorter, quicker, bolt throw.

A bear named Beadnose: His nose is tiny and bead-like compared to the rest of him.




Thanks for that Phil.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Growing up I could hardly wait for each Safari Edition ! I wrote dozens of PH's, White Hunters as they were usually referred to then, as the the possibility of obtains work and the majority were pretty negative about the future of hunting in Africa.
A few told me that if I showed up they would see what they could do. Which after now being in the hunting business in Alaska for 40 years I realize was a fair and honest answer.

Fortunately I found another place with appropriate game for a 458 ! I don't care what saint Ross claims.

https://www.adn.com/alaska-new...uring-fat-bear-week/

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
I asked the ballisticians at Hornady why their 458 Lott ballistics were only 90fps higher than their 458 Win loads and was told that with equal pressures that was the only difference between them !

Minor correction:

When they are both loaded to their respective SAAMI MAP's and COL's, there is little difference between them: 50 fps
That is the only difference the Hornady manual shows for their 10th edition (2016), same as it was in the original data from 2002.
See RIFLE #204 Nov-Dec 2002 article ".458 Lott, Jack's Legacy" by Ross Seyfried. Ross was honest with the numbers staring him in the face.
But that shock to his system was like the bite of a cobra to a honey badger.
Ross digested that cobra, slept it off then awoke and went looking for a fight, crapping cobra as he went.
Though he had always been rather demeaning toward the .458 WIN, throughout his writing career,
he did not begin his full-blown anti-458WIN schtick until RIFLE #211 Jan-Feb 2004, "In Defiance of the .458 Winchester."

.458 Winchester Magnum SAAMI MAP: 60,000 psi and 3.340" max COL
.458 Lott SAAMI MAP: 62,500 psi and 3.600" COL

Hornady is only allowed to load them to maximal SAAMI specs or less.

If you load the .458 WIN to same pressure as the Lott (62,500 psi) which is very reasonable,
then there is truly miniscule, near zero, difference between them.
This is even though the .458 Lott gets to have 3.600" COL, and the .458 WIN stays limited to 3.340".

If you load them both to same pressure AND same 3.6" COL in the same rifle action,
then the .458 WIN opens a can of whoop-ass all over the .458 Lott.

So the .458 Winchester Magnum LongClaw (3.6"-COL) may be considered a wildcat, a very easy and excellent wildcat
that easily beats the .458 Lott 3.6"-COL.

Thanks be to ye olde H&H-style "coned-up" throat on the .458 WIN.

Rip ...

Member JFE goaded me into looking up another .458 Winchester Special reamer.
This one is said to be from Keith Francis.
It is called the "458 WIN MAG JGS T" on the reamer drawing, #5100, original date 11/24/87, and approved again by "JD" on 01/26/16:



JFE said he heard it was safe for factory .458 WIN ammo.
But I doubt that.

The throat has 0.2500" length of parallel-sided free-bore and then a 2-degree leade semi-angle.
But that PSFB has a diameter of only 0.4584"
and that is smaller than the SAAMI maximum bullet diameter of 0.459".
SAAMI minimum groove diameter is 0.458".

The JGS throat is too tight for cast bullet use unless only a sub-diameter nose is sticking out ahead of the case mouth.
I want cast-bullet diameter to be .460" diameter in the SAAMI .458 WIN.

Compare that JGS chamber to the Gill Sengel ".458 Winchester Special" throating,
and the standard SAAMI .458 WIN throating (review):



Sengel considered his short throat to be unsafe with standard SAAMI .458 WIN maximum loads.
The JGS throat is much narrower in diameter (.4584"-JGS compared to 0.4600"-Sengel) and only 0.030" longer in length for the PSFB.
Overall, the JGS throat is tighter than Sengel's throat.

Compare the short throat of Sengel's .458 WM Special to the SAAMI .458 Lott throat, which is even shorter, and tighter in diameter than Sengel's "Special":



This is why the SAAMI .458 WinMag can be loaded long and beat the ballistics of the .458 Lott.
At the same COL, to avoid excessive pressure in the .458 Lott,
you need to reduce the powder charge of the .458 Lott by a significant amount,
compared to the .458 WIN LongClaw 3.6"-COL.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:
... Above are pages scanned from the Woodleigh bullets Loading Manual. there are two groupings of loads, those that are for bolt action rifles which are at higher pressures and those that are for breakaction rifles that are for lower (though still high) pressures. With all the talk of how the 458 Win Mag is insufficient for serious use on Dangerous Game, and my review of cartridge performance of those that are considered quite adequate, I am remined of an old Miss Clairol hair commercial. the byline of the commercial was Only her hairdresser knows for sure. Reviewing the various performance loadings I wonder: Does the bullet or the animal know for sure which cartridge held the charge that propelled it to the animal? I'm not sure what the internal dimensions of the various barrels were but since the data is from one source, hopefully they haven't skewed it in favor of one cartridge over another- they would have no motivation to do so.

the listings show only marginal advantages to some highly praised cartridges, for example the 500 NE sends a 570 grain bullet to approximately the same velocity that the 458 Win Mag sends a 550 grain bullet. an advantage of about 3%. the highly acclaimed Lot shows virtually no advantage when both are shooting either 500 or 550 grain bullets. the ever popular 470 shows virtually the same performance, it has a larger diameter but shorter bullet.

So the question is unanswered: Does the bullet or the animal know what cartridge propelled it, the same weight and velocity as differing cartridges? I think not, and I thin the previous articles noting the use and effects of the 458 Win Mag confirm that belief that the claimed poor results of the cartridge were the result of loading problems or shooter error.

Don't look for me to rechamber my 458 Win Mag to a Lott any time soon, or even later for that matter- though I am in the process of looking for the longer magazine box and ejector to convert the magazine for slightly longer OAL cartridges- a small compromise.

I guess it might depend on the critter and the angle. Sometimes the bigger frontal area of the .500 might give more immediate results (or a period of grace for the hunter) while at other times the .458's better SD could give extra, needed penetration.

I sometimes wonder if sectional density may have been why Pondoro like the .450/.400 so much. Not only was it a holiday from recoil but a 400-grain .408" bullet probably digs deeper than a .423 or a 410gr .435.

Looking at the magazine cover, I wonder what Our Man in Africa thought of the chequering.

Ray B,

So the blurred-out bullet weight on the .458 WIN was 550 grains?

I agree with your take on this if Woodleighs are the bullet chosen.
However, I think all of those cartridges will be better with faster-flying monometals of lighter-than-maximum-Woodleigh weights.

Fine tune for accuracy within these velocity windows for the .458 WIN:
400-grain copper HV (2450 -2500 fps MV)
and 450-grain FN copper and brass solids (2350-2400 fps MV).
Same velocities work well in either the .458 WIN or .458 Lott,
whether for varmints with the soft or elephant brain shooting with the solids.
If you want to use Woodleighs, yes keep them heavy and slow, about 2100 - 2200 fps MV.

You got the important point here:

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:
Don't look for me to rechamber my 458 Win Mag to a Lott any time soon, or even later for that matter- though I am in the process of looking for the longer magazine box and ejector to convert the magazine for slightly longer OAL cartridges- a small compromise.

And there are no flies on the .458 WIN's accuracy, despite the magic throat that lowers pressure AND increases velocity.
The only issue is that you need to keep cast-lead bullets down to about 1400 fps, like Matthew Quigley, for sub-MOA with the softies.
That is where they work best in about any rifle.

Rip ...

sambarman338,

I am sure Dave Ommanney had a good laugh about that checkering.
He laughed all the way to the bank.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
sambarman338,

I am sure Dave Ommanney had a good laugh about that checkering.
He laughed all the way to the bank.

Rip ...

Good thing he wasn't doing this in today's climate of Internet experts. He'd be ripped to shreds by those who would say he sold out to some gun manufacturer.

Sure he had to say nice things about the rifles he tested but to a lot of people back then if it was good enough for David Ommanney it is good enough for me the potential customer. Besides there are still a few of those "inferior" pushfeed model 70's still in use and there owners are still alive to tell about it.

RIP- I'm confused by the chamber drawings. they show full diameter for the case then a throat that narrows down to 450. 450 would normally be the diameter of the bore, so does the diameter of the groove portion of the barrel maintain it's depth up to the case?

Cougarz,

Yes, Dave Ommanney was the tele-evangelist of the pushfeed .458 WIN of 1964.
But his work had redeeming social value, benefiting Winchester and professional small boys worldwide.
Whatever pittance he was paid for his work, it was not enough.
May he R.I.P. even as his past work continues to further THE MISSION.
Just like your comment here, thank you.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:
RIP- I'm confused by the chamber drawings. they show full diameter for the case then a throat that narrows down to 450. 450 would normally be the diameter of the bore, so does the diameter of the groove portion of the barrel maintain it's depth up to the case?

No. The groove depth is maintained, constant everywhere, except where the rifling vanishes entirely in the base of the throat,
near the cartridge case in the chamber.

All the chambers shown immediately above have a 45-degree semi-angle at the case-mouth end of the chamber, a most universal sort of "chamfer."
That chamfer goes down into the base of the throat, the start of the throat.
If that throat diameter is greater than .458" then there is no trace of rifling in it, if the groove diameter is at SAAMI minimum of 0.458".
The rifling grooves first start to appear in the throat when the leade diameter has reduced to .458" diameter.
The visible rifling grooves continue to deepen as the position in the leade goes forward toward muzzle.
The rifling is fully present, grooves at their deepest, only when the leade has narrowed down to .450", the bore diameter.
Rifling is uniform from there to the muzzle end of the barrel.

Any parallel-sided free-bore will have no rifling in it, is smooth-sided.
Rifling is present in the leade only where it has narrowed down to groove diameter.
That is where the bullet starts to engage the rifling, if bullet diameter and groove diameter are the same.
The bullet is fully engaged when the leade has narrowed to bore diameter.
These distances of bullet travel assume .458" groove diameter, .450" bore diameter, and 0.458" bullet diameter.

In the .458 WIN, from a maximum brass length of 2.500", the bullet travels freely from case mouth for a distance of 0.6725".
There it starts squeezing into the rifling at groove diameter.
The bullet continues to a distance of 1.142" from the case mouth, where at bore diameter of 0.450" in the leade, the bullet is fully engaged in the rifling.

That very gradual leade semi-angle in the .458 WIN of 0*29'30" works wonders.

The only good reason to change the .458 WIN throat is to make something better for cast bullets.
Gil Sengel did this but also widened the chamber at its N-2 end from 0.483" to 0.486".
This allows more room to seat .459" to .460" diameter cast-lead bullets, and allow plenty of expansion of brass to release the bullet on firing.
That is good.

I'd say the .458 Win.Mag.-JGS is a real mess.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Cougarz,

Yes, Dave Ommanney was the tele-evangelist of the pushfeed .458 WIN of 1964.
But his work had redeeming social value, benefiting Winchester and professional small boys worldwide.
Whatever pittance he was paid for his work, it was not enough.
May he R.I.P. even as his past work continues to further THE MISSION.
Just like your comment here, thank you.

Rip ...

I think this is a little rough.

Brian Herne quotes Ommannay that he was never paid to shill for Winchester - he in fact saying the Pre-64 action was the best. That conversation happened in 1984. It could very well have been that Ommannay's payoff was having his face slathered all over catalogs (to generate potential clients) worldwide with Winchester - which is of course good business - not any direct payment. A fine line - but a line nonetheless. None of us really know.

I've never heard a disparaging word about Ommannay - quite the contrary. Any reference I have seen was positive in the extreme - much like Mike Prettejohn and most of the old timers.

Pittance pay, whether in PR/celebrity value to the PH, a rifle and ammo, the follow-on celebrity endorsements?
Do I remember Timex watch commercials featuring Ommanney on "The Wide World of Sports"?
"Takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin' ..."
"The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat ..." (insert visuals of ski jumper crash landing here).

From page 58 of this thread another review for those with no sense of humor:



https://www.africahunting.com/...ssional-hunter.3619/



"My name (is) Katharine (Katie) and David Ommanney is my grandfather.
It is wonderful to see that he is still revered as one of the great white hunters of East Africa.

Monish,
Your initial post stating "He was one of the finest of PHs in Africa."
was very heart warming. He passed quietly in September of 2001
and he is mourned by those who survive him, friends and family, still to this day.
KOmmanney, Jul 6, 2012"



R.I.P. David Ommanney, in The Happy Hunting Ground now.

The other thread ("Poor Old .458 Win Mag ...") continues to produce.
Here is the latest strike, another hit by the cliche-fish:

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
Michael, JPK: That old Zim Parks ammo would have been disappointing indeed, if truly pushing a 465-grain bullet at 1800. That would be about 3400 foot pounds of ME -- ballistics achievable in a .45-70 and we all know what that means on the AR forums!
It would seem that most criticisms of the .458 Win Mag are no longer justifiable given current factory ammo performance, and of course, handloads and the newer bullets make the cartridge even more formidable.

Very true, in bold above.

I'll say right here that my only experience in Africa is on plains game with a 9,3X62. Closest I have come to dangerous game is trying to sneak a new rifle past my bride.

Bill, the 458win mag ammo of today is much better than it was when the cartridge was first on the market in the 1950s. Still it requires some knowledgeable hand loading to get the best even with todays much improved powders, as JPK states. He has a double rifle chambered for the 458 win mag cartridge, so has a lot of real experience with that cartridge.

That is today, however, but back in the early days of this cartridge it caused a lot of misfires, and hang fires because of the bullet compacting the powder ignition was questionable.

At that time, Winchester should have used the 375 H&H action in the mod 70 and made the 458 Winchester mag the same dimensions and powder charge as the Lott. If they had done that in the first place the 458 win mag would have worked fine. The storage of the ammo in the un-airconditioned shed was not the only reason for firing failures which happened even with new ammo straight from the factory. The 458 Win Mag should have been the LOTT to begin with.

Today the cartridge is OK

What? Just OK?

but hand loading is still needed to get the best from it.

That can be said about almost ALL cartridges. The rimfire 22 LR is one exception.

The above is the reason so many people are wary of this cartridge even today. That is simply human nature!

……………………………………………………………...

In support of THE MISSION.

Rip ...

RIP - thanks for posting the JGS reamer diagram.

That comment about it being safe to use 458WM factory ammo came from JGS. Given that Sengel’s throating showed that he used of order 10gr less powder to achieve the same velocity in a SAAMI spec 458, I too doubt the claim.

I think Sengel’s throating would be a better option but i’d probably opt for an even shorter throat if it’s to be used mainly for cast work.

Words from sambarman338 follow, to explain his photographs of scope internals:




Originally posted by sambarman338:

Now, to explain what they're all about. In the end, I promise, it has much to do with what is needed to make a scope worthy of heavy-recoil rifles like the 458 Winchester Magnum.

The top two pics show a section of an old scope I got at a parts price because the reticle would focus - but not the field behind it.

My purpose was to show the intrinsic superiority of the old reticle-movement scope concept compared with the whimpy arrangement that is required to provide constantly centered reticles.

First, I wanted to weigh the bits - but the only way I could get the reticle assembly out was to remove the turret, cut the scope in three and force the sleeve that holds it up the main tube about a centimeter.

The brassy reticle assembly is quite heavy at 142 grains but nothing compared with the Nickel's erector set, which is about 1235 grains. This one is quite fat, of course, as it fits tightly in the outer tube (so tight, I can't get it out again after putting it back wrong the second time I did it ).

Though modern erector tubes are narrower, I believe that by the time you add the extra length needed for them to reach the turret screws, and often beyond, the mass would be similar to that of the old set plus the reticle assembly (c. 1377 grains - more than three ounces) if brass.

The third photo shows an alloy erector tube from an old Tasco scope. That one only weighs about two ounces, an important weight saving when recoil inertia has to be considered. The problem was that non-greasy metals are more likely to gall than brass and this seems to be indicated by the burr that can be seen on the scroll above 2.6 inches on the tape. This at least corresponds with the power where the owner said the zero went haywire.

So, proper brass-alloy erector tubes are likely to weigh about three ounces, roughly 10 times more than that formidable German reticle assembly, and I assert that when a rifle comes back and up under 50 foot-pounds of recoil, the front of a modern erector tube 'wants' to stay where it is, and hence bangs on the bottom of the scope. This movement and the tendency for the erector tube to also move lengthways over time, are illustrated in the fourth-frame drawing.

Worse still, under the second impulse of recoil, when the shooter's shoulder arrests the rifle's rearward travel, the erector tube will return to battery assisted by the spring. And battery is the key word. If the scope was carelessly mounted and the windage screw is far in, the erector tube may be scraped against or past it, esp. if the elevation screw is well out, say for an extreme-range shot. Then, when the tube finally reaches 'battery' against the elevation screw, damage may result from the sudden impact.

Returning to the top two photos, look at the arrangement Nickel used to hold its reticle assembly. Brass, to give non-liquid lubrication, the assembly sits in a female dovetail on the back of a long (outwardly white) sleeve. The sleeve was so tight in the outer barrel, I wonder if the outer was heated to expand it for insertion. The sleeve was then further located by screws from the turret housing, bearing against the front of holes in the barrel.

Therefore, the reticle could not move forward under recoil. The sleeve held a very strong spring against the bottom of the reticle assembly, and this spring included a perpendicular extension, which limited any lateral slop in the dovetail. With no hingeing gimbal four inches behind it such as modern erector tubes have, there was no significant downward pressure on the reticle under recoil. So, we may assume it stayed pretty much where the shooter left it. If the second recoil impulse pulled it into the slope of the female dovetail, it certainly couldn't go far.

There is only one turret, of course, but I assert that this is also important because it lets the spring function as it should, in and out, not be twisted laterally by competing movements. I will explain that more, later.

This is probably the same photo shown at the bottom of the picture page following p19 in the book. Though the Tasco erector tube is made of alloy, probably to save the recoil inertia, it still weighs about two ounces (roughly six times that of the Nickel reticle assy). This alloy I believe allowed the galling above 7.6 cm on the rule, which apparently ruined its functioning and zero holding.

... Also, it occurred to me that including the attached drawing from the book might help explain to some why a great, long, articulated erector tube in scopes for heavy-recoil rifles is not a great idea ...

sambarman338,

Let me know if I screwed anything up in the 4 replies above,
and please elaborate, for THE MISSION.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by JFE:
I think Sengel’s throating would be a better option but i’d probably opt for an even shorter throat if it’s to be used mainly for cast work.

JFE,

Good idea, just put a .45-70 Gov. throat on it, and you would have a belted .45-90, better with cast bullets.
Might as well slow down the twist to 1:18" or 1:20" if shooting cast bullets only.
You could even use black powder.

Rip ...

sambarman338,

That is a bang-up job of making a case for reticle movement instead of image movement.
I wish somebody would make a "300-hundred-dollar" scope with reticle movement.
Fixed 2.5X would be fine.
Variable 1-4X would be nice too, if it could be done.
For now, I am hoping the various Nikons will last,
and there is always the Leupold 2.5X20mm Ultralight, the best I know of for recoil resistance.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by JFE:
I think Sengel’s throating would be a better option but i’d probably opt for an even shorter throat if it’s to be used mainly for cast work.

JFE,

Good idea, just put a .45-70 Gov. throat on it, and you would have a belted .45-90, better with cast bullets.
Might as well slow down the twist to 1:18" or 1:20" if shooting cast bullets only.
You could even use black powder.

Rip ...

That is exactly what has been in my mind for a number of years now. The project is now at the stocking stage and hope to have it ready for testing in a few months.

Years ago before the US firearm parts export laws went totally off the rails I imported a Pacnor prefit barrel with their 458 'no throat' chamber. I specified a 1 in 20" twist, if my memory serves me correctly. It is more or less a 458 with a 45/70 throat and twist rate.

The objective was essentially to build a 458 rifle better suited to local use that would be cast bullet friendly.

I measured a number of 458 jacketed pills and a surprising number are a two diameter design, meaning by carefully selecting jacketed pills you could work up loads with lighter jacketed pills which fit the throat, making it quite versatile for local use.

The barrel is fairly light and it will be stocked fairly light too. The end result will hopefully be a kind of belted 45/90 bolt gun with a number of scope and open sight options.

sambarman338,

Check that and see if it is OK now.

JFE,
I like that idea, and am planning to do something like that on a Ruger No.1 in .458 WIN.
Yours is a light and handy bolt action?
Mine will be a long and ponderous single shot,
Quigley-fying the .458 WIN.

Rip ...

The January 1967 GUNS magazine "Special Safari Issue" has one article of great interest for THE MISSION.
Author Louis Weyers, Eric Rundgren, and John Buhmiller teamed up in 1965 to knock off 3000 Botswana buffal0.

Weyers, Rundgren, and Buhmiller all agreed that the .458 WIN knocked them flat with factory ammo.
Buhmiller's wildcat (500-grainers at 2700 fps from the .450 Magnum) was not as effective.
A 460 Weatherby equivalent merely stings like a bumble bee.

Hey, the author forgot to mention that Buhmiller had a .458 WIN as his "second rifle" with which he had killed 40% of all his game.

Buhmiller was making Cup-Point solids before North Fork, and monometal copper FN solids before GSC.

Rip ...

Looks to me that the best scope for a heavy recoiling rifle might be a low power externally adjusted scope in a mount such as the Buehler or Leupold Adjustable. that way the shooter has a centered reticle in a scope that can be virtually impervious to recoil. But that represents a giant step backward for the optics marketing departments.

Thank you RIP, you have done a magnificent job with the pics and the text!

As you may have observed, near 40 years in newspapers has turned me into something akin to a dog returning to its vomit - I'm always going back and finding some mistake.

Though all that stuff was written in a tremendous hurry because I had to go out for four hours, somehow I can only find one real glitch, so far:

In the second last paragraph, I have put the word so in twice, one after the other. Thanks if you can be bothered deleting one of them and fixing any other errors you notice.

Then, I might spread the 458 Winchester Magnum word by referring possible book buyers to this page, hoping they don't get hung up on the great African stuff on the way, of course.

Cheers
SBM