The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores 458 winchester magnumGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
One of Us |
Interesting the effect of velocity produced by the various calibers used in the article. While not a solid, even Saeed has stated here that he reached a point of diminishing returns when driving his Walterhog bullets out of his 375/404 at higher velocities. It would seem that each cartridge/bullet combination has a sweet spot velocity wise in order to best do its work. Roger ___________________________ I'm a trophy hunter - until something better comes along. *we band of 45-70ers* | |||
|
One of Us |
Yes, Ray, that last sentence speaks of one of the biggest problems. Like admitting the emperor has no clothes, any existing maker that dares to make a model without a constantly centred reticle casts a doubt on all its previous models from the past 30 to 60 years. Even Bausch & Lomb during the '60s, for all their ads showing divers with scope in hand and mention of scope interchangeablity, failed to successfully call out the real issue against their competitors. I have their 1954 booklet Facts about Hunting sights, in which they criticised any kind of internal adjustments but must check Cornell Publications to see if they have one of the editions released after image-movement raised its pretty/ugly head. | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
| one of us |
sambarman338, I fixed a few minor typos. Thanks for spreading the word, for THE MISSION. The wife has some chores for me, but I'll be back.  Rip ... | |||
|
| One of Us |
RE: scope cuts, the only time a scope hit me in the head was 50 some years ago I had a Bushnell Banner 4x (parts made in USA, shipped to Japan for assembly, back to USA for sale). The ocular ring was metal but the edge was rounded. On a hunt I jumped a deer and had to run to the clear-cut. I arrived at the clear-cut as the deer was about to exit the other side. I had time for a quick offhand shot before the deer would disappear into the trees. I recall feeling a slight touch to my forehead but as my focus was on the deer I didn't give it any thought. Later in camp either I happened to feel my forehead or someone mentioned it to me, but there was a noticeable bump on my forehead, just above my nose. I hadn't been cut and I don't recall it even bruising, just a swelling that went down by the next day. It seems to me that several scopes of that era had rather sharp ocular edges, in particular the Weatherby series, hence the Weatherby cut. Possibly if the scopes had rounded edges they would be more inclined for bumping the forehead rather than cutting it and the whole rubber ring thing would have been a non-issue. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Preliminary findings regarding FoV and obscured field. To measure I used a marked piece of wood laid perpendicular to the scope. the distance from scope to wood was 9'. due to the shortness the focus was poor so that and doing this handheld results in some error, but maybe we can get an idea of the level of obscuration involved. the results were: FoV Obscurred Weaver K 2.5 60A 11" 21" Weaver K2.5 60C 12" 20" Weaver K3 60B 10" 16" B&L Balvar 2.5x 12" 22" Lyman AA 4x 8" 28" Weatherby Imp 6x 5" 29" the obscured portion is the total width of obscured portion minus the amount seen through the scope. Due to the closeness (9') errors in perception and measuring are magnified. when I get a chance to remeasure outside (without alarming the neighbors) I anticipate more exacting results. In the meantime, I'll see if I can run the measurements through some math tables and determine the various angles. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Calculating the degrees for each scope, listed as total angle of the donut of obscuration, the center portion (the hole I the donut seen through the scope) and the degrees of one side of the obscuration. Lyman AA 4x...……. 18.43 …..4.24.... 7.095 Weaver K2.5A …..16.5 ….5.82 …. 5.34 Weaver K3B ….13.54 …. 5.29 …. 4.125 Weaver K2.5C ….16.5 …..6.34 …. 5.08 B&L Balvar 2.3 ….7.47 …. 6.34 ….. 5.565 Weathby Imp 6x....17.47 …. 2.65 ….7.41 Clearly, the degree of accuracy shown in the degrees is a result of the computation and has no bearing on the actual level of accuracy, but are noted as a result of the computation. I anticipate being able to use a friends rifle range within the next few days where I will be able to have greater accuracy due to significantly increased distances as well as being able to measure the results of the Nikon 1x and the Zeiss 1.5x from which I expect to have a greatly reduced amount of obscuration. | |||
|
| one of us |
A true 1X sure makes it easy to keep both eyes open to aim with with the dominant eye and see around the doughnut with the other eye. Almost makes the doughnut transparent. Rip ... | |||
|
| One of Us |
Have you received your book yet, Ray? Sorry if you've said so - I just can't see any confirmation in the PMs. I'm interested in your stuff on obscuration by degrees. You might notice I looked at it from the point of view of feet at 100 yards and eventually area obscured. I discovered early on that magnification is the biggest thief of vision on a (horizontal?) line but that field-stops and rubber eyepieces could be extra-important once the matter goes two-dimensional. You'll notice, too, that I flicked the calculations and discussion to the addenda once I noticed that reduced FoVs and increased 'excess hidden field' were not necessarily a consequence of image-movement - by reference to our modern Leupold and Kahles scopes. Though some makers have overdone their field-stops (a distinct danger with any made on the Pecar Champion image-movement concept, though that firm seemed to handle it), having disproved my initial hypothesis I ceased to check the figures further. Obscuration/excess hidden field really becomes important at the lowest powers like 1x, where lack of it can really give full vision. When I master that Imgur thing, using RIP's instructions, I'll try to post that Nickel 1x pic from the back cover, where the obscuration is so thin you can see branches of my lime tree extend straight through the scope edge to the outside without visible loss or dog-legging. This is the stuff RIP refers to in his last contribution, and is really a pleasure to contemplate when you hold up one of those old German scopes. By today's standards the coatings etc might be faulted - but not by me or anyone who has ever picked them up here.  Thanks RIP, I'm kind of getting the idea  | |||
|
| one of us |
sambarman338, I see you are getting the hang of it. Just keep playing with it, for THE MISSION. I have been following on my iphone, last few days, on a road trip to a North Carolina hilltop cabin. The locals call those "mountains."  I am back in Kentucky now, where there are plenty of hillbilly things to do. First priority is deer season and shooting some venison with the .458 WIN, to show what an excellent all-purpose rifle it is. On the way back home I found an 8-pound jug of AA-2230 at Reloaders' Bench in Mt. Juliette, Tennessee, plus a sample one-pounder of AA-2460. I have yet to try the AA-2460, but it was also reformulated in 2016 for ThermoBallisticIndependence, like the AA-2230. It might be great too, just like the AA-2230. I doubt I can improve on the AA-2230 with 400-grainer, but the AA-2460 hopefully will work wonders with something in the 400-500-grain range of bullets. Never fear, we will make it to 458 pages with this thread. That is THE MISSION. Lord willin' and the creeks don't rise. The naysayers have fallen away. The .458 WIN, unchanged since 1956, beats the SAAMI .458 Lott when both are given a 3.6" magazine box limitation. No contest. But really the SAAMI .458 WIN is more than enough: 2200 fps with 500-grainer, 3.340" COL, from a 24" barrel. And the .458 WIN does it with less recoil than a SAAMI .458 Lott doing the same thing with more powder. Give the .458 WIN the same higher pressure limit and the same longer COL as the .458 Lott, and the .458 WIN grabs the Lott by the throat and shakes it like a dead cat. The .458 WIN wins by the throat. Where are the naysayers now? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Thanks RIP. If anyone looking at that photo through the Nickel fixates on the actual optical clarity, I should mention that it was probably taken with grainy, ASA400 film in a Pentax SLR I bought in 1975 and also has a bit of light reflecting from the lenses (see top left). Many of the other pics in the book were shot digitally but I found the only way I could show a view representative of what the human eye sees through one of those old reticle-movement scopes with the great blending was to use film. However, the only film readily available was ASA400 and it has not become less grainy over the decades. | |||
|
| one of us |
 +1  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Looking back at this, it occurs to me to say that the 'Weatherby eyebrow' was a cliche referring to the heavy recoil of his rifles. I don't know about earlier or later Weatherby scopes but those 'Imperial' models made by Hertel & Reuss in the '60s were the first I can remember with rubber eyepieces. They might not have been fat enough to stop cuts altogether but they did spoil the field blending to some extent. I believe Swarovski got a patent for rubber eyepieces in the 1970s; they may have given superior protection but I doubt the maker invented the concept. | |||
|
| One of Us |
RIP, I have been trying to follow this. But, may have missed this. Did you chronograph the 400 grain GSC bullets in the factory chamber ? I would be interested in the velocity and COAL. Still on the fence here about knocking the dust off my 458 Win and Lott. The 400 grainers have my interest particularly GSC. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The GSC may be an outstanding bullet, but reviewing GSC advertising it appears they are claiming to have invented banded bullets in 1992. I realize that advertisement writers generally know very little about their clients business, but examples of banded bullets can be found several years prior to 1992. I would put greater validity to GSC's performance claims if they appeared to be honest in their historical claims. | |||
|
| one of us |
ldmay, Since those bullets are not cheap I use them sparingly. Here is a standard SAAMI-chambered .458 WIN (CZ barrel on a Pre-'64 M70 action), with 24-7/8" barrel length, 3-shot, 50-yard group, shot early on in the thread, COL is 3.372", which works through the magazine box of most "standard" .458 WIN rifles:  ("Bitchin' COL" refers to trying to appease those who bitch about LongCOL .458 WIN loads that exceed the 3.340" SAAMI maximum COL. So what if the COL is a little long if it functions through the magzaine box of the .458 WIN? It also offers a convenient crimping location between the drive bands.) I like to load them to a little longer COL and add a little more powder, but the above load should be an "average" load for anyone with a .458 WIN, fine tune COL, and start with a lower powder charge, like a "standard" handloader knows how to do. Rip ... | |||
|
| one of us |
I am having a CZ 550 Magnum .458 Lott re-barreled to .458 WIN to improve the performance of the rifle with 500-grain Barnes TSX bullets. The 3.8"-mag-boxed CZ rifle just jumped in front of the 3.6"-mag-boxed Winchester M70 Classic. More .458 WIN rifles to come. I will preserve one token .458 Lott for use with light, short bullets, the only place where the .458 Lott has any advantage over the .458 WIN. Rip ... | |||
|
One of Us |
Actually, in early 60's slang bitchin' is: cool, really good, hot. Then groovey came along in the middle 60's, Followed by far out in the later 60's. But you all've probably got to be closer to 70 than 60 to appreciate this. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ "A well-rounded hunting battery might include: 500 AccRel Nyati, 416 Rigby or 416 Ruger, 375Ruger or 338WM, 308 or 270, 243, 223" -- Conserving creation, hunting the harvest. | |||
|
| One of Us |
In the example above, "far out" would correspond to LongCOL. Could "groovy" refer to the .458 throat? Is there a message for us about the versatility of the .458 Win hidden in '60s slang? (Having re-read what I just wrote above, I'm afraid I'm beginning to sound a bit like RIP!) | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yes, indirectly that was the idea several pages ago. Groovey could refer to seating out to an extra groove, still short of maximally far out. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ "A well-rounded hunting battery might include: 500 AccRel Nyati, 416 Rigby or 416 Ruger, 375Ruger or 338WM, 308 or 270, 243, 223" -- Conserving creation, hunting the harvest. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well, missed the subtlety, then.  Nicely done! | |||
|
| one of us |
416Tanzan, Thanks for explaining the original meaning (on this thread) of "bitchin'," "groovy," and "far out" as it pertains to the COL of the .458 WIN. Now we have a double-entendre for the terms. Bitchin' COL is either way cool or or just a way to appease the naysayers of the .458 WIN Longclaw: 3.341" to 3.400" COL Groovy COL is either the intermediate COL or simply refers to the long, acute-angled appearance of the terminal throat where, by bore scope, the rifling grooves show visibly for almost half an inch length in the terminal throat: 3.401" to 3.600" COL Far Out COL is either the fully extended Longclaw COL, or it is what the naysayers consider to be the level of insanity in favoring the .458 WIN over the .458 Lott: 3.601" to 3.800" COL Rip ... | |||
|
| one of us |
Ray B, I was amazed recently to discover that the first bullet used in the first smokeless military cartridge adopted by any country was a copper monometal bullet: The 8x50mmR Lebel of 1886, France. CIP now calls it the 8x51mmR Lebel, IIRC. That cartridge became the first military cartridge to feature a spitzer-boat-tail bullet in 1898. John Buhmiller was making monometal copper FN solid bullets, and cup-point solid bullets, in the 1960's or earlier. And they had multiple grooves along their sides, like the grease grooves on cast lead bullets.  The GSC claim is limited to the specific relationship of the skinny, true drive band nature of the bullets. Roughly groove-diameter bands with roughly bore-diameter inter-band bullet shank. The exact specifics are "proprietary." I was using monometal copper, smooth-sided bullets from Barnes in the mid to late 1980's, best I can recall. The basic concept of that bullet (maybe without the hollow point) had been designed by Lebel 100 years earlier, but it was hailed as a great new advance in bullet technology by Barnes. GSC certainly did it better, with "true driving band technology" on monometal copper bullets, by 1992, as you say. That was the year that Barnes published their first reloading manual, featuring the smooth-sided, original X-Bullets, 100-year-old technology: BARNES BULLETS Reloading Manual NUMBER ONE (1992) BARNES RELOADING MANUAL Number 2 - Rifle Data (1997) continued to show the smooth-sided X-Bullets, but more boat tails were being offered. BARNES RELOADING MANUAL NUMBER 3 (2001) featured the previous flat-base and boat-tail bullets with a sprinkling of XLC (blue-coated "Smurf Bullets") and some single cannelures started showing up on the hollow-point copper softs. Brass, round-nose solids emerged, with single cannelures. Before the latest manual Barnes finally started multi-canneluring the bullets (grooving), and adding plastic ballistic tips to the hollow-point-boat-tails, and the ogived-flat-nose "Barnes Banded" brass solids arrived. They are all "grooved" not "true-driving-banded." UNLEADED UNFAILING UNBEATABLE BARNES RELOADING MANUAL NUMBER 4 (2008) It is about time for Barnes to produce a "Number 5" manual. Lots more variations on the bullets have appeared since Number 4. IMHO, overall/on average, the GSC bullets with true driving bands are often capable of shooting groups of one-half the size of the grooved Barnes bullets, of similar weight and diameter. The GSC bullets are precision turned. The Barnes bullets are precision swaged and "hammer-formed" from copper or brass wire, then the grooves are cut with a precision bank of multiple dremel tools. Both are pretty good. Then there is the North Fork and the CEB, with various grooves and bands. And did not Nosler make a "Zipedo" with bands/grooves, about 50 years ago.  Rip ... | |||
|
| one of us |
A review of how the .458 WIN beats the .458 Lott with 500-grain TSX bullets:  Yep. Rip ... | |||
|
| one of us |
 | |||
|
| one of us |
 | |||
|
| one of us |
 | |||
|
| one of us |
 | |||
|
| one of us |
 | |||
|
| one of us |
 | |||
|
| one of us |
The CZ 550 Magnum .458 WIN 7-shooter is a slick feeder. If I can find another Lapour safety and a Timney trigger they will go onto the .458 WIN, if it is accurate enough to remain interesting. Rip ... | |||
|
| One of Us |
        50 years ago when my occupation was MOS 2531 Field Radio Operator I spent some time in a 155mm firing battery. Their bullets were basically a mono-metal hollowpoint- if you don't consider the several pounds of Comp B explosive contained in the mono-metal casing and the fuse screwed into the hollowpoint. these bullets were sized to the bore and had a ring around the middle of the bullet, an inch or so wide that was groove diameter, so these would have qualified as bore diameter banded bullets. I don't have any photographs of these bullets. I did post some photographs of some bullets that I presently have. the first two are of the aforementioned Nosler Zipedo. Measurements are: Portion of bullet immediately ahead of banding .242"; hi band .243", lo band .239", base .238". So the bullet was designed to center into the barrel, then seal it with the hi bands while the lo bands just touched the barrel lands, the base slightly undersized to allow for expansion from the pressure to swage it to barrel dimensions. Skipping the next bullet we have two Barnes X bullets prior to the banding. These are the bullets that caused the uproar over copper fowling the bore and led to their development of banding to reduce the problem. the skipped bullet and the two that follow the Barnes are HT bullets. they were made in Massachusetts and as near as I can tell, the company is no longer in business. I don't know if they sold their patents to other makers or what. But they were in production when I was doing work for Handloader's Digest and obtained the bullets from HT in about 1991. they were monometal, banded with a deep but protected hollow point. the fired bullet was recovered from water filled jugs, which was the source of all these fired bullets. the last bullet was added since it was an example of another cottage industry that preceded a large producer. It was a Jensen bullet, which seems to me were made in Utah. It had a bonded core, polymer tip over a hollow point and a boattail. I'm not sure what happened to the company or their patents, but the similarities with the Swift Scirroco are very interesting. | |||
|
| one of us |
Hey Ray B, That is some interesting stuff. Do you have any articles or credits in any of the HANDLOADER'S DIGEST books? I have editions 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19. I always bought it if I saw it on a shelf or display in a store. Wish I had them all. I will dip back into the GUN DIGEST of 1967 to find something on the Zipedo from Nosler, which must not have been such a great success. How it failed, succeeded, or led to other designs is interesting history. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Proper understanding of scopes and bullets is important, for THE MISSION. Rip ... | |||
|
| One of Us |
RIP, I had articles in Handloader's digest during the mid 90s, so about editions 12 or 13 to 16. One was on the terminal performance of 30 cal bullets, another was on the 375H&H (in the pre-458 days), another was on the 338/06AI built on a M54 Winchester. I also had an article in Rifle/Handloader about that time on the 22/30-39 AI built on a win High Wall. Doing the articles paid for the stuff I used in research but I already had a day job and when it started becoming work and dealing with bullet makers who wanted the article to show better results turned into more stress than I wanted. So now I continue the research but don't bother with publicizing the results. | |||
|
| one of us |
Ray B, So we have the same initials. I have read your work. Good Work. Four pieces with your name on it have been found. Back to the Zipedo .243/75-gr dimensions you gave, to be compared to the .224/55-gr of pre-1967 in the next reply.  Rip ... | |||
|
| one of us |
  | |||
|
| one of us |
On the flip side of the above page:  Rip ... | |||
|
| one of us |
There never was a .458-cal Nosler Zipedo. But there is the even better GSC HV, either 400-gr or 450-gr. Barnes TSX and/or TTSX in 300, 350, 450, and 500-grain soft points. These all do very well in the .458 WIN. Then there are North Fork and CEB, softs and solids galore. If I had to pick one bullet weight in the .458 WIN to use for anything and everything, it would have to be a 450-grain soft and solid at 2350 to 2400 fps. The North Fork 450-grain trio of SSP, CPS, and FPS would do nicely. If I am allowed TWO bullets: 1. 400-grain HV at 2500 fps MV, shooting 2 inches high at 100 yards. 2. 450-grain FN solid of either GSC, North Fork, or CEB make, at 2350-2400 fps MV, as close to dead-on at 100 yards as possible, when the scope is zeroed as for HV. Above velocities are for 24" to 25" barrels and .458 WIN LongCOL loading in a 3.6" magazine box. In the 3.8" magazine box, the .458 WIN can do 2300 fps MV with 500-grain TSX, and do it at lower pressure than the .458 Lott  with same 3.8" magazine box. Rip ... | |||
|
| One of Us |
One thing that is counter-intuitive is that the smaller cartridge (458 Win) would out-perform the larger cartridge (458 Lott). So what are the results if both cartridges are compared on "level playing fields": same pressures, optimum OAL and leade specs. | |||
|
| One of Us |
And so it is. When everything is equal the 458Win and 458Lott are like the 308 and 30-06. The main difference in the analogy is that the long heavy bullets do not usually fit in the 308 magazines when seated forward but long heavy bullets in the 458Win can usually be seated out long. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ "A well-rounded hunting battery might include: 500 AccRel Nyati, 416 Rigby or 416 Ruger, 375Ruger or 338WM, 308 or 270, 243, 223" -- Conserving creation, hunting the harvest. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 ... 235 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores 458 winchester magnum
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia