Is it true that a 450 can be built a bit slimmer than a 470 because of the straight case?

thanks

AR

No.

The pressure is higher in the smaller case. The .450 no2 is far larger than the .450 but with much lower pressure and rifles built on the same action size will weigh less in the no2 as the chamber is much larger (even though the bore is the same diameter), i.e. less wall thickness in the chamber area.

Disagree, fellas, but be gentle as I'm quite sensitive.
Cal

Disagree with Cal? Not me, I've seen his video! Lol

More pressure in the 450 even though the 470 has a bottle neck case?

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:
More pressure in the 450 even though the 470 has a bottle neck case?

Yes. The larger cases in the .450-.476 range use more powder to get the same ballistics. 70 grains in the .450, 75 and 80 grains as the case size (read internal dimensions) increases.

Years ago in Australia gents were experimenting with increasing pressure and increasing velocity by regulating bullet depth in seating. Deeper seating equalled more pressure and higher velocity (and less depth and less velocity). The thought was to adjust the load for regulation by bullet depth rather than adjusting the load via powder. The idea seemed to die off and not much was heard after the initial experiments.
Cal

PS. MAC, your thoughts?

If Jeopardy ever had a DR line of questioning, I'd like to see Cal and Mac go at it.

Mark me down for "disagree".

I have seen a number of high-grade .450 NE's, mainly boxlock screw-grips and rising-bite Rigby's. They were all slightly less bulky and therefore slighty lighter than similar rifles made in .470 and the like. As a matter of fact, one .450, a Watson Bros boxlock ejector, was made on a smaller action, of the type used for .450/400's. It weighed 10 pounds spot-on.

A good friend of mine has a number of rising-bite Rigby's. One is a .470 (1912-one of the last ones), another is a .450 made for a gent in Kenya in 1911. The .450's barrels are definitely slightly thinner and it weighs fractionally less as well.

I had a quick look in Graeme Wright's book and the real-world difference in pressure between the .450 and .470 is very little.

A look at some of the modern doubles (Heym springs to mind) will show that the .450's are indeed fractionally trimmer around the chambers. At least the one that belongs to a game ranger mate of mine is less bulky than a similar .470.

When I was reading up and doing some research prior to purchasing my Verney, I distinctly remember reading one of the reasons for choosing the 450 over the 470 was that it could be indeed be built on a smaller, trimmer action and I believe both Ken and Jerome agreed. Specifically, I asked Craig C, Ivan Carter personally whilst at DSC and this is what they said. Also, the 450 had superior penetration over the 470 or at least that is what I read, and of course a much larger selection of bullets.

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
When I was reading up and doing some research prior to purchasing my Verney, I distinctly remember reading one of the reasons for choosing the 450 over the 470 was that it could be indeed be built on a smaller, trimmer action and I believe both Ken and Jerome agreed. Specifically, I asked Craig C, Ivan Carter personally whilst at DSC and this is what they said. Also, the 450 had superior penetration over the 470 or at least that is what I read, and of course a much larger selection of bullets.

Spot-on.

I went for the 450 Heym because after testing recoil seemed a bit lighter, Penetration is fine and you can get more bullets. With factory ammo you are however more or less limited to Hornady.

My Heym 450 is now my largest double
(having sold my larger caliber guns).

The 450 is truly a reloader's rifle - the array of projectiles weight and type- are exceptional,
for my rifle I have 4 weights regulating satisfactorily at 50.

The average 10 to 11 pound weight is comfortable for most hunters to manage - both in carrying weight and recoil.

While 450's have been built on at times, significantly smaller frames and much lighter weights than 470's, like a lot of other things that have been done in the gun industry, it does not necessarily make it a grand idea-
at least from my perspective having owned and shot them.

As mentioned above, full power 450 loads are generally quite manageable in a 10 to 11 for most shooters, allowing for good recoil control in order to expedite the second shot's placement with accuracy-
not so much so in the 8 to 9 pound rifles.

The same goes for a couple of sub-10 pound 500's I had the "pleasure" of owning-
then again each to his own-

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PS- as noted in another's post above- the Heym 450 is typically built on the "standard" frame
, the middle weight in Heym's five frame line up.

This is same frame the older production 470's and 500's shared,
the new larger box lock frame is now produced in the 470 ,500 and 577.

I have a William Evans 470 and a Holland 500/450. Both are fantastic rifles. The Evans is built on a Webley A.&W.C. and the Holland is their Royal.

In the case of the 500/450, it was Holland's answer to the 450 3 1/4 straight case brought out by Rigby.

Per the material published at the time, the bottlenecked 500/450 had a couple K less pressure than the straight cased 450.
I have had a 450 3 1/4 straight and find the bottlenecked cases a little easier to load for.

If I had two identical rifles available and one was a 450 and one a 470 I would choose the 450 based on available bullet selection.

Can't go wrong with either one.

quote:

Originally posted by DCS Member:
If Jeopardy ever had a DR line of questioning, I'd like to see Cal and Mac go at it.

There would be no contest! Cal would win that one every time!

....................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by 470Evans:
I have a William Evans 470 and a Holland 500/450. Both are fantastic rifles. The Evans is built on a Webley A.&W.C. and the Holland is their Royal.

In the case of the 500/450, it was Holland's answer to the 450 3 1/4 straight case brought out by Rigby.

Per the material published at the time, the bottlenecked 500/450 had a couple K less pressure than the straight cased 450.
I have had a 450 3 1/4 straight and find the bottlenecked cases a little easier to load for.

If I had two identical rifles available and one was a 450 and one a 470 I would choose the 450 based on available bullet selection.

Can't go wrong with either one.

.............................................................

The 450NE can be fitted in a smaller action simply because it is smaller, and the needed chamber wall thickness still be accomplished in a smaller action.
It is true that the 500-450NE develops less chamber pressure than the 450NE to get the same velocity.
Cal and 470Evens are right that a bottle necked case reduces chamber pressure and is the reason many choose the 450NE No2 in older rifles because they are less likely to going off face, because of the lower pressure than the straight case 450NE.

The 470NE is normally built on a larger action than the various 450s simply because it develops more felt recoil not because it generates more chamber pressure.
..................................................................

I have taken cape buffalo, lion, hippo, and elephant with a .450. No problems at all.. As with any rifle, shot placement is important

Eagle One
Sterkrivier, Limpopo Province, South Africa

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
When I was reading up and doing some research prior to purchasing my Verney, I distinctly remember reading one of the reasons for choosing the 450 over the 470 was that it could be indeed be built on a smaller, trimmer action and I believe both Ken and Jerome agreed. Specifically, I asked Craig C, Ivan Carter personally whilst at DSC and this is what they said. Also, the 450 had superior penetration over the 470 or at least that is what I read, and of course a much larger selection of bullets.

Jorge, you are correct the 450NE can indeed be built in a smaller action size which does make for a lighter trimmer double in that chambering over the 470NE double. The 450NE also does have the perk of having a very large supply of bullets that can be bought in any gun store in the USA. I have my doubts, though, that the 450NE will penetrate any better than a 470NE. In any case the penetration would all depend of what the bullet hit in the buffalo or elephant.

I love the 450NE doubles for the reason above being much cheaper to shoot a lot because of the bullet availability. I used to have an old Army& Navy 450NE that I took a ton of game with, and carried for many miles. Unfortunately I no longer have that rifle, but do have a Westley Richards 500-450#1 express that can use those .458 bullets.
....................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

The 470NE is normally built on a larger action than the various 450s simply because it develops more felt recoil not because it generates more chamber pressure.

I enjoy shooting a .450. I don't like shooting a .470 because I find the recoil unpleasant. I've had people tell me the recoil between those two cartridges is about the same. I strongly disagree. It is nice to see that I am not alone in my thinking.

quote:

I have my doubts, though, that the 450NE will penetrate any better than a 470NE.

This is all I have to go on really"

450 NE 480gr: Sectional Density .327
470 NE 500gr: ectional Density .316

Having handle more than my share of doubles and owning a British 450NE I'll chime in and be as vague as possible. It's not so much the size of the action but the thickness of the barrels that can set the 450 apart from the others. The 450's long tapered case lends itself to a long tapered chamber, if built properly the barrels are noticeably thinner at the chambers than others. Carrying a 465 or 470 vs a 450 is like a 12b SXS vs a 20b SXS

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:

quote:

I have my doubts, though, that the 450NE will penetrate any better than a 470NE.

This is all I have to go on really"

450 NE 480gr: Sectional Density .327
470 NE 500gr: ectional Density .316

That could very well be the difference, but I think that extra weight of twenty grains of bullet weight of the 470NE makes it a little harder to stop.

Actually I doubt there is any difference between the two felt by the buffalo. IMO, what the 450NE has over the 470NE rifle is a little less recoil so the 450NE shooter might get off the aimed second barrel a little faster.

The real difference is between the 470NE and the 500NE with the 500NE pushing 70 grains more bullet weight, 500 grs vs. 570 grs.

In any event they are all great!
....................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by Zephyr:
Having handle more than my share of doubles and owning a British 450NE I'll chime in and be as vague as possible. It's not so much the size of the action but the thickness of the barrels that can set the 450 apart from the others. The 450's long tapered case lends itself to a long tapered chamber, if built properly the barrels are noticeably thinner at the chambers than others. Carrying a 465 or 470 vs a 450 is like a 12b SXS vs a 20b SXS

Where did you find a 470NE double that weighs 20 lbs? My 470NE weighs in at 13 lbs. and my Army & Navy 450NE weighed in at 12 pounds. The average 577NE double weighs at only 14 or 15 lbs average well below 20 lbs.

...................................................................

Believe he means 12ga vs 20ga. Not lbs

Thanks Crazy_Farmer

quote:

Originally posted by Crazy_farmer:
Believe he means 12ga vs 20ga. Not lbs

Sorry, my mistake!

I guess the Alzheimer's disease is taking effect! I am in my 80th year of life you know!
....................................................................