I know no one has the answer to this question, but it is something that has been on my mind.

Why, back in the early 1950s, when Winchester was thinking about creating a big bore to fit its Model 70, .375-length action, did they come up with the under-powered .458 Win Mag instead of something longer? I mean, it's obvious from the Lott cartridge that a more powerful (and effective) round would fit the action and magazine, and could still be made simply by altering the parent .375 case.

From what I have read, Winchester spent scads of money trying to convince the African market that it's new round was the be-all, end-all in stopping power, when they knew it was not (that's why they inflated the achievable ballistics in their advertising). Seems to me that it would have been cheaper to actually have created a caliber that really was a capable stopper.

In the 1950's, resources were a bit scarse. Mausers an Springfields were plentiful, and most custom guns were made on theese. While longer cartridges can be made to fit theese actions, it is a lot more expensive. So, people all over were making cheep guns, and I think that was the reason, even if their own mod 70 could take longer cartridges.

Why they opted for a 500 grs bullet instead of a 480 grs, is IMO a more interesting question.

GAHUNTER - I am likely older than you and I can recollect that the thrust or theme of Winchesters advertisments at the time were three great "new" cartridges, all based on the standard action. The Plainsman - in .264 Winchester Magnum, the Alaskan - in .338 Winchester Magnum and the African - in .458 Winchester Magnum.

I thought the .458 was designed to fit on a standard action (not a long action like for the .375). Wasn't that one of its "selling points"? Magnum power in standard length action?

Isn't that why, if you want to build a .458 Lott, it is usually better to start with an action like a .375 than with an action for the .458 Winchester (which will require that the action be opened up to accept the longer cartridge)?

Regards,

Terry

They were trying to promote the short magnums as the new wave in cartridge development.

Things don't change much, do they?

George

All pre-64 Winchester Model 70 actions were the same "long" length, and could and did accommodate .375 H&H Mag. length cartridges. At that time, Winchester didn't make a shorter action length.

Shorter cartriges, like the .458 Win. Mag., were housed in the long action by installing a bolt stop and a shorter magazine box, among other things.

I think GAHUNTER's question is that, since Winchester's only bolt action at the time was a so-called "long action," why on earth did Winchester handicap their new "stopper" cartridge by going with the stubby, 2.5" case, instead of a 2.8-2.85" case?

I have often wondered the same thing. There seems to be no rational reason, other than, as George says, the promotional value of touting the .458 as another of Winchester's then new "short magnums."

Pretty slim logic, if you ask me. That's what happens when accountants and marketing types take over decision-making for a gunmaking firm.

Things got a lot worse for Winchester, at least in the eyes of true firearms aficionados, a few years later, in 1964.

Bingo!

quote:

GAHUNTER - I am likely older than you and I can recollect that the thrust or theme of Winchesters advertisments at the time were three great "new" cartridges, all based on the standard action. The Plainsman - in .264 Winchester Magnum, the Alaskan - in .338 Winchester Magnum and the African - in .458 Winchester Magnum.

If I recollect, all three magnums were to be based on a belted case (shortened .375 H&H case) that was .30-'06 in length. Or darned close (2.500" vs. 2.494"). Winchester was supposed to have created a .30-'06 length, .45 caliber big bore that met the bullet weight and velocity of (I may be wrong here-I don't fully remember) the venerated .450 2.5" Express.

The whole reasoning was to build cartridges based on cases of .30-'06 length. Of course Winchester could have made a longer-cased .45 bore, but that was not their intention.

However, their intention was also to creat a short-cased .45 that would propel a 510-grain bullet at 2100 fps, and as we now know, that was not to be.

Of all three cartridges released with such fanfare, only the .338 seemed to be relatively immune from backlash, although it did take decades to become truly popular.

quote:

Originally posted by bdhuntr:
However, their intention was also to creat a short-cased .45 that would propel a 510-grain bullet at 2100 fps, and as we now know, that was not to be.

No offense, but why does this tired old story get recycled so often?

When the .458 win mag first came out, powder technology was lacking, and velocity claims fell short of actual results. I believe this to be true.

That was then, this is now - go and chrony a box of modern Winchester 510 gr. 458 win mag through a 24 inch tube. I did that a few months ago at the range, and every round read > 2100 fps.

Well, this time it was due to the question of why Winchester would have created this cartridge for a standard length action vs a magnum action length. And while powder technology was lacking, that did not prevent Winchester from overstating the velocities at that time, even though some cartridges were extremely compressed in order to pack in as much powder as possible to try and acheive those pie-in-the-sky speeds.

So (also no offense), it doesn't matter if your modern factory rounds chrono @ 2100 fps. What matters is that 2100 fps was a fools errand in the late '50's.

.

quote:

Originally posted by bdhuntr:

quote:

GAHUNTER - I am likely older than you and I can recollect that the thrust or theme of Winchesters advertisments at the time were three great "new" cartridges, all based on the standard action. The Plainsman - in .264 Winchester Magnum, the Alaskan - in .338 Winchester Magnum and the African - in .458 Winchester Magnum.

If I recollect, all three magnums were to be based on a belted case (shortened .375 H&H case) that was .30-'06 in length. Or darned close (2.500" vs. 2.494"). Winchester was supposed to have created a .30-'06 length, .45 caliber big bore that met the bullet weight and velocity of (I may be wrong here-I don't fully remember) the venerated .450 2.5" Express.

The whole reasoning was to build cartridges based on cases of .30-'06 length. Of course Winchester could have made a longer-cased .45 bore, but that was not their intention.

However, their intention was also to creat a short-cased .45 that would propel a 510-grain bullet at 2100 fps, and as we now know, that was not to be.

Yes, it was expressed in countless articles that Winchester simply wanted to duplicate the 500 grain/5000 ft.lbs of the .470 N.E., as the standard for DG. As said above, it was all part and parcell to the overall theme .. a magnum triumverate, covering a wide spectrum of hunting needs with a standard length action configuration.

One also has to remember that at the time Winchester made a lot more money selling ammo than rifles. Why the hell would they make cartidges that only fit their rifle and a handful others? That would be stupid.

All in all they were quite successful as virtually all mass-produced rifle companies and every custom house in the world have made 458s at some point. Something the Lott will never be able to duplicate, even though it can claim some ephemeral superiority.

And they sold boat loads of cartidges; even after the initial difficulties with the 458 in Africa.

quote:

under-powered .458 Win Mag

Phil Shoemaker wrote an article comparing the Lott and Win. He concluded that the Lott is superfluous due to the fact that is only barely beats the 458 Win. 488 Win loads fired in the Lott chamber even come reasonably close to the Lott. Based on what I have READ (I've never fired a 458Lott), most criticism of the 458win lacks merit. Especially regarding modern factory loads.

quote:

Originally posted by akalinin:

quote:

Originally posted by bdhuntr:
However, their intention was also to creat a short-cased .45 that would propel a 510-grain bullet at 2100 fps, and as we now know, that was not to be.

No offense, but why does this tired old story get recycled so often?

When the .458 win mag first came out, powder technology was lacking, and velocity claims fell short of actual results. I believe this to be true.

That was then, this is now - go and chrony a box of modern Winchester 510 gr. 458 win mag through a 24 inch tube. I did that a few months ago at the range, and every round read > 2100 fps.

None of the above changes the fact that Winchester should have used the full length 375 H&H care to match their 375 H&H length action, in the first place! The fact is, the mistake was made "THEN" not now! If the LOTT design were use origenally, the name of it would be the .458 Winchester Magnum, not 458 LOTT!

The reason it gets recycled every year is new people who weren't there, IN THE DAY so to speak, want to know why it was done the way it was done, and not the way it should have been done! The fact remains, today, that the 458 LOTT is a far better designed cartridge,than the 458 WIN MAG, new powders or not!

True Mac but they wouldn't have made near as much money off of it. That's why I have a hard time calling it a mistake. Maybe not what a savy hunter would have done but very few gun companies that mass produce care what a small group like that thinks.

At the time, it was a perfect compromise between power and available platforms. If we want to second guess, then Jeffe topped both the Lott and Win Mag in 70 days of effort and it's still in a standard length magazine. The 458 AR does to the Lott what the Lott does to the Win Mag. That doesn't make either of the latter a "mistake".

Sometimes just enough works fine, especially if you know what you are doing and can shoot. That, and the excellent 510 gr bullets Win used, is why the original 458 is still used over 50 years after it's debut. Why does Mike LaGrange, who has culled over six thousand elephants, actually prefer the original Win round? Why did Harry Selby trade in his 416 Rigby just a few years ago for a standard 458 Win rather than the Lott? Obviously because the original Win round works. There is no argument that the 458 Lott gives a bit more velocity than the 458 Win. The 460 Wby beats the Lott by an even greater margin. If the extra velocity of the Lott is so much better than the Wby should be best of all, Right?
The fact is velocity is not always an asset. If it were the 45 ACP would have died fifty years ago.

.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Sometimes just enough works fine, especially if you know what you are doing and can shoot.

Why does Mike LaGrange, who has culled over six thousand elephants, actually prefer the original Win round? Why did Harry Selby trade in his 416 Rigby just a few years ago for a standard 458 Win rather than the Lott? Obviously because the original Win round works.


There is no argument that the 458 Lott gives a bit more velocity than the 458 Win.

The fact is velocity is not always an asset. If it were the 45 ACP would have died fifty years ago.

458Win, Just enough is almost always just right. The problem with the 458Win when it came out was it wasn't always even half enough, at times. There were lots of problems with that cartridge! All it's faults stemmed from too small a powder capacity! If the cartridge didn't go off, or turned out to be a squib load, because of compaction, it made little difference whether you could shoot of not!

LeGrange, could perefer any round he wanted, that doesn't change anything, and doesn't make the 458 Win a better cartridge! Harry Selby traded his 416 Rigby for a 458 because ammo was not to be had for his rigby, and the 458Win which was brought out because of lack of ammo for the old Britt chamberings. When he traded for the Win Mag, the Lott was a wildcat, and wildcats have never been popular in Africa. Today it is a factory round,in factory rifles, and is probably the most bought new, or built rifle there today by PHs.

The fact is, the LOTT does give more velocity, but that is not it's value! Where it shines is, it gives you 458 Win Mag velocities easier, and more reliably than the Win Mag! As I said, in my first post, even the LOTT factory ammo is loaded to fast, and should duplicate the old 450NE 3 1/4" with a 2150 fps with it's 500 gr bullet. That is what the 458 Win Mag promised, but failed to deliver. It is true the 458 Win Mag can be loaded to get these specs today, but it still strains to get it, and the lott just slides along without problem. If the lott had been chambered by winchester in the first place we wouldn't have this contest of will today. It was a mistake, because it could have been as advertized then! The round was aimed at Africa, not the USA, and all that needed to be done is advertised the LOTT as a duplication of the 450NE 3 1/4", a round that was dear to the hearts of all PHs who simply couldn't get the ammo for there rifles, and had to take what they could get! I say Winchester would have made far more money from the full length round, because they wouldn't have gone through that period of shame that the 458 Win Mag delt them, and the ammo would have been just as available as the 458 Win Mag was!

High velocity is not the reason the LOTT is better, it is that it gets 458 Win Mag velocities easier than the 458 Win Mag does. I loaded mine down, and used 480 gr bullets @ 2150, and I can guarintee you, a cape Buffalo is in trouble when the bead settles in the wide V of my rifle. The up side of this I could depend on it getting it EVERY TIME!

The LOTT is not that much longer than the 458 WM, it is just enough to give it a little room for the powder charge without compacting it!

There are other aspects of the Lott that make it more desireable than the 458 WIN. Take the difference between the 416 Rigby and the 416 Weatherby. Yes, the Weatherby will be faster than the the Rigby but, at what price? Early experiences with the 458 WIN having problems with high pressure due to bullets being driven back to compact the powder charge or "squib" loads barely pushing the bullet out of the barrel. The biggest advantage I can see of the Lott over the Winchester is slightly higher velocity at lower pressure. The same thing with the Rigby in reverse to the Weatherby, lower pressure at reasonable velocities in the Rigby. Would anyone tell us that the Rigby is an inadequate DG stopper? The Brits had it right from the beginning, keep the pressures under 45,000 PSI, sling a long-for-caliber bullet at moderate velocity and it kills like the hammer of Thor. I don't know if anyone places any creadance in the opinions of the guy who writes under the nom-de-plume of "Doktari" in the Accurate Rifle but, he says that he gets better penetration using the 9.3 X 64 on buff than he does with the .375 H&H and wonders why the factories don't reduce the FMJ loads in the .375 for better pentration. Certainly the .458 WIN will do the job under most conditions and I wouldn't feel under-gunned using one on DG but, there are better choices to be had in .458 caliber with only slight increases in velocity. Works better on the shoulder too.

Finn Aargaard favoured the 458 too, he wrote;
"Given good handloads or the appropriate A-Square load, there is still nothing I would rather have in my sweaty paws, in a hairy situation with dangerous game, than my Winchester M-70 or my old Westley Richards in .458 Winchester Magnum".

One might quibble with his choice of A-Square ammunition but generaly I don't argue with men who have had the experience Finn had.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that anyone else should throw away a perfectly good .458 Win. Mag. rifle. At least not these days.

But, if anyone is considering a new rifle and is choosing between the .458 Win. Mag. and the .458 Lott, or has a long action rifle in the Win. Mag. and is considering rechambering to the Lott, then in my view those are no-brainers.

The only advantage to the Win. Mag. is that you can shave some weight off of a rifle if you want to, by using a shorter action. But, IMHO, that's not enough of an advantage to choose it over the clearly superior Lott.

quote:

I don't know if anyone places any creadance in the opinions of the guy who writes under the nom-de-plume of "Doktari" in the Accurate Rifle but, he says that he gets better penetration using the 9.3 X 64 on buff than he does with the .375 H&H and wonders why the factories don't reduce the FMJ loads in the .375 for better pentration.

He was referring to the 9.3x62 and not the 9.3x64 (which is the equal or better of the .375 H&H). He suggested that loading the 300 grain .375 bullet to 2,400 fps vs. 2,500 fps provided better killing power since the bullet (a solid) usually did not exit and therefore expended all its engergy in the target (buffalo).

I have shot 3 Barnes solids (300 grain, .375") bullets through a buffalo at 2,525 fps and they all exited, even after going through both shoulders.

Tim

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
All pre-64 Winchester Model 70 actions were the same "long" length, and could and did accommodate .375 H&H Mag. length cartridges. At that time, Winchester didn't make a shorter action length.

Shorter cartriges, like the .458 Win. Mag., were housed in the long action by installing a bolt stop and a shorter magazine box, among other things.

I think GAHUNTER's question is that, since Winchester's only bolt action at the time was a so-called "long action," why on earth did Winchester handicap their new "stopper" cartridge by going with the stubby, 2.5" case, instead of a 2.8-2.85" case?

I have often wondered the same thing. There seems to be no rational reason, other than, as George says, the promotional value of touting the .458 as another of Winchester's then new "short magnums."

Pretty slim logic, if you ask me. That's what happens when accountants and marketing types take over decision-making for a gunmaking firm.

Things got a lot worse for Winchester, at least in the eyes of true firearms aficionados, a few years later, in 1964.

Actually all the Pre-64 M70 actions are the same length, but they are standard length and not "long" actions. The actions for the 300H&H and 375H&H have been opened up both in the front and the back to accommodate the larger round. They also used a larger magazine box for these two rounds as well. The 30-06, 270, etc. were the same action and mag box as the 338, 264, 458. The bolt face and followers were modified for the short mag rounds. Bolt and magazine blocks were used for the smaller (.308 Win) type rounds.

Tim

Shumba,

You are correct, of course.

I did not mean to imply that the pre-64 Winchester Model 70 action is "magnum" length, in the same sense as the long, "magnum-length" Mauser Model 98 action is.

The pre-64 Winchester Model 70 action is, for all practical purposes, the same length as a "standard" length Mauser Model 98 action (8.77" for the Winchester vs. 8.75" for the Mauser, according to my sources).

From the beginning, however, the Model 70 was chambered in .300 H&H Mag. and .375 H&H Mag. Some machine work was needed to make the action fit these cartridges. But far less, and far less radical, cutting and machining was needed for the Model 70 than was needed to open up a standard length Mauser or Springfield to fit the Holland length cartridges. The receiver ring and bridge were relieved a bit. The same bolt stop was used, but a longer magazine box was fitted to the action, to accommodate the 3.6" length of the H&H cartridges.

In any event, the point is that Winchester made the Model 70 to accommodate the Holland length cartridges and had been doing so for twenty years before they introduced the short-magnum .458 Win. Mag. They had no "short" action at that time, as they do now. So, it wasn't a technical, engineering decision, but a dubious marketing decision, that drove Winchester to adopt the stubby .458.

New Years wish.
I wish everyone would stop knocking the 458WM
Sure the Lott is more powerful. So what.

Would you all like a list of the calibers that are also more powerful?
Im starting to feel the pain of the 45/70 owners.

JAL, in this case "everyone" is a distinct minority. I wish I had made a few "mistakes" of "dubious judgement" that were as successful as the 458 Winchester.

If I had, I'd be in Africa hunting with my 458 Lott right now!

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
New Years wish.
I wish everyone would stop knocking the 458WM
Sure the Lott is more powerful. So what.

Would you all like a list of the calibers that are also more powerful?
Im starting to feel the pain of the 45/70 owners.

Damn right, mate. If it's 1960something and I've got a club (which is what a Holland & Holland Royal Grade double in .500/.465 is when you can't get ammo for it), and someone offers me a bolt gun in the Winnie .458, even with questionable ammo, I'll sure as hell take it.

Beats hunting with a dull stick!

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
JAL, in this case "everyone" is a distinct minority. I wish I had made a few "mistakes" of "dubious judgement" that were as successful as the 458 Winchester.

If I had, I'd be in Africa hunting with my 458 Lott right now!

Safari,
Goodonya mate!
A great article, thanks for posting it.

If I understand what 458Win said in his article about the ".458 LOTT, much ado about nothing", the gist was if you have a .458 Win.Mag., you've got a good cartridge for a DGR.

BUT, if you wish to shoot the 'monolithic solid' projectiles, which I gather are LONGER than usual, THEN the .458 LOTT is a better choice.

Between the two cartridges, there wasn't a whole 'lott' of difference, except for the use of the longer bullets.
Did I get that right?

quote:

Originally posted by oldun:
Safari,
Goodonya mate!
A great article, thanks for posting it.

I second that.

BusMaster007.

Probably. I still haven't been able to read that article, even after approaching the Author, the publishers, and AR members.

Old Ray could add in a few more benifits were he still posting, but most cartridges can be "improved" one way or another. Doesn't make the original cartridge useless though.

Funny thing about people, they boast about saving a few bucks on the purchace price of a rifle and spend the same amount to marginly improve it. Beats me, but I never was the brightest light in the street.