45-70 Ammo?

[Swampman]

What would be the best all round bullet for everything?  405 gr? 

Yes it does it all.

[Coyote Hunter]

What would be the best all round bullet for everything?  405 gr? 

Yes it does it all.

The 300 and 350g bullets fly flatter and kill stuff just as dead with less recoil.  I'll take them for most of my loads.  When going after backyard rhino I use my "Rhino Blaster" 460g wide-meplat hardcast loads.

I have a lot of Remington 405g bullets.  Drill a hole through them and polish them up in the tumbler and they make nice, shiny sinkers.

[Swampman]

Send them to me their all I'll use.

[Coyote Hunter]

Send them to me their all I'll use.

Pay the shipping and bullet cost - up front - and they are yours.

[Keith L]

Even as a joke this is to close to a classified.  Stop or take it off line.

[Varmint Hunter]

To answer the original question posted:

I shot this 250lb class boar with the 325gr Hornady Flex tip loaded at 1,800 ft/sec. Expansion was good and bullet exited his chest on the opposite side. Boar piled up pretty quickly. I like the performance and accuracy of the Flex Tips for the 45-70. They just don't look right because a 45-70 should have a short, fat, flat tip bullet. 


Regarding the recoil issue: Numbers and physics aside; the heavier bullets impart more recoil and muzzle rise in my Encore ProHunter, even at a little lower velocity. I like the big 405's but they do generate more felt recoil to me and the scope comes closer to my eye than I like. Call it whatever you want but the recoil while using the heavier bullets is worse and I can feel it every time I use them.

[Wyo. Coyote Hunter]

  Coyotehunter, What style of 45-70 do you have?? Received some CHRISTmas $ this year and decided to purchase a rifle, IMAGINE THAT, have looked over some Marlins. That will be my choice if I go that route... The guide gun is out for me too short...So I am looking at the SS model or the Cowboy.. Checked one of these out this fall, it handled nicely with open sights, but at some point I will use a scope for hunting game... The cowboy is great looking, but I bet once you had that sucker loaded to the max. it would be pretty heavy.....Still I like that style rifle, but the SS modle would be great for wet country...

[Coyote Hunter]

Wyo. Coyote Hunter -

Mine is a blue/walnut 1895 made in 2000.  Picked it up used in 2002 for $249.95, a deal I couldn't pass up.

The
Cowboys are nice but the longer barrel doesn't suit my elk hunting needs.  I really like the stainless.  For my needs the 22” barrel is perfect.  For a scope I highly recommend a Leupold 2-7x due to their long eye relief.  I have a Vari-X II on my 336 and a VX-II on my 1895, both in Warne Quick Detach Maxima rings and bases. 

It took me a couple years to shoot my “Rhino Blaster” 460g harcast/1812fps/48foot-pound recoil loads with the scope on but when I did the scope’s eye relief was more than adequate.

Good luck and have fun choosing!

[Swampman]

The Nikon has as much or more eye relief.  I'd buy a cowboy if they still made it with 20" barrel.

[Wyo. Coyote Hunter]

  Thanks, I looked at the cowboy in Pa. when I was there, but just visited with one of the local dealers and they said they are having a tough time getting a cowboy model. Am heading to Montana to deal on a truck so I will look on the way up there..Maybe will check out the stainless models also.  Thanks again...

[Coyote Hunter]

The Nikon has as much or more eye relief.  I'd buy a cowboy if they still made it with 20" barrel.

The only Nikon I can find with more eye relief is the SlugHunter 1.65-5x shotgun scope with 5" eye reliefe.  Unfortunately, because it is intended for shotguns, the parallax is set for a mere 75 yards.

The Nikon SlugHunter 2-7x has only 3.8" eye relief and still has the 75 yard paallax setting.

The Nikon ProStaff Riflescope in 2-7x has only 4.1" eye relief.Niko doesn't seem to make any riflescopes in 2-7x and the 3-9x and greater ahve less than 's and

By contrast the Leupold Vari-X II and VXII 2-7x scopes I have are rifle scopes with parallax settings at 150 yards (much more appropriate) and they eye relief is 4.9".



The nice thing about the Leupold VXII and older Vari-X II 2-7x scopes is that they are relatively compact and offer 4.9” eye relief.  In addition they are intended for rifles ad have a 150 yard parallax setting.

The only three Nikon scopes that have more eye relief are as follows:

SlugHunter 1.65-5x and 3-9x shotgun scopes with a 75 yard parallax setting and a 5” eye relief. 
The 75 yard parallax setting isn’t really appropriate for a rifle that can shoot accurately to 300 yards and beyond, as I do with my .45-70 Marlin (out to 500), but I guess one could make do.

Omega Series 3-9x with a 5” eye relief.  These are real rifle scopes but have a 40mm objective.  I much prefer a more compact scope like the Leupold VX II 2-7 on my Marlins.  “Ungainly” and “cumbersome” come to mind to describe over-sized scopes on otherwise fairly trim leverguns.

The only comparable Nikon is their Prostaff 2.7x riflescope, but it has only 3.9” eye relief, a full 1” LESS than the Leupold.

All the other Nikon scopes I can find have less eye relief than the Leupold VXII 2-7x and are less suited for use on Marlins.   I guess if you want to use a Nikon shotgun scope or an oversize Omega Series you could gain .1” with a Nikon.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Swampman]

It turns out that the manuf. published figures are incorrect.  75 yard parallax is perfect for a .45-70 IMO.  I need to be able to see in poor light.  That's why I prefer the Nikon.

[Coyote Hunter]

It turns out that the manuf. published figures are incorrect.  75 yard parallax is perfect for a .45-70 IMO.  I need to be able to see in poor light.  That's why I prefer the Nikon.

Pray tell, exactly which "manuf. published figures are incorrect"?

75 yards may be perfect for you, it is not for me or anyone else that iscomfortable taking shots well past 200 yards with thier .45-70.  The 6x6 bull I took with mine was at 213 lasered yards, the mulie buck at 197 lasered yards.  And I regularly practice out to 300 yards and often shoot further.

[Wyo. Coyote Hunter]

  Coyote Hunter,  I am not sure if swampie has ever figured out there are more kinds of country that the brush of Fla. and more kinds of game than the little deer he hunts there..

[Swampman]

I hunt in several states.  I take responsible shots.

[efremtags]

My 22LR shoots a 36gr bullet at 1200fps, and its a bear on my shoulder.


Recoil is recoil. A heavy fast bullet will kick harder than a light fast bullet of the sam velocity out of the same gun, period.

You can't fairly compare 2 different guns/calibers becasue felt recoil is not apples to apples. Stock design and recoil speed to no correlate to simple math. I would agree that it is possible to have a gun on paper that should kick harder feel better to shoot vs another. But take away the variables (IE 1 gun, 2 bullet weights, same velocity) and the simple math correlates.

Swamp gas seldom has a grasp on reality. Not sure how a 200yd shot is irresponsible since the New Hornady load is touted as a 250yard round for the lever action. Last time I checked, that seems a reasonable range for the caliber for the game that was mentioned.

Back to the original post, the 325 is developed specificaly for bug game, so performance on boar is a non-issue. I am dissapointed that hornady chose to download it compared to the 450 with the same bullet. I think that laods pushes another 500ftlbs at the muzzle.

I am also dissapointed that marlin does not make the gun eject longer than SAMMI spec shells so Hornady could utilize full length brass on this ammo. I reload and have no use for brass that is not the same as the other brass I use.

[Swampman]

I won't use the new Hornady load.  Too many problems with the ammo.

[Keith L]

Lay off the personal attacks.

Not allowed here on GBO.

[Coyote Hunter]

People I know that have tried it really like the Hornady ammo.

I don't use it either, however.  Instead I run a 350g North Fork at 2183fps.   Zeroed for a max rise of 3" it is only down a measured and very manageable 22" at 300 yards.

Interestingly, at 300 yards my load  is still running over 1336fps with 1386fpe.  That beats the velocity of the Remington 405g load at the muzzle and the Remington’s energy at 50 yards.  At 300 yards the Remington 405g load is only doing 974fps with only 853fpe. 

I did recover one of the 350g North Fork bullets, so they don’t always give pass-thru performance (not that I care).  The recovered bullet hit a 6x6 bull elk in the left front leg, obliterating a section of leg bone before passing out the far side.  It then entered the chest cavity, obliterating a section of rib bone.  From there it left a wake of destruction and shattered a far rib before coming to rest under the hide on the off side.  That was three layers of hide, three good-sized bones and a lot of other stuff.  Needless to say, the bull never moved.  The range was a very responsible 213 lasered yards.

The next day I took a mulie buck.  It was in a drainage with electric or phone wires running through it.  When I first lined up my shot the wires were too close to the LOS for comfort so I waited until the buck was well clear and halfway up the far side.  A 350g North Fork caught him behind the ribs on a quartering away shot, passing completely through.  The Buck made a tight circle, about 5 feet in diameter, then tried to walk up hill.  He made it about 10 feet before collapsing.  About 6” of fresh snow was on the ground and it looked like someone had emptied a 5 gallon bucket of blood onto the snow.  The shot was a very responsible 197 lasered yards.

Of course both shots were pretty much chip shots.  Not only do I practice with the .45-70 out to 300 yards on a regular basis, the last time I had it at the NRA Whittington Center shooting steel silhouettes it went 4 of 5 on the 500 meter rams in a strong crosswind.  My Marlin in .375 Winchester also went 4 of 5 on the 500 meter rams.  I am always amused by those that think the .45-70 is limited to an effective range of 150 yards or so and just chalk it up to their lack of experience and a poor choice of loads.  The fact it that it can do quite well at 300 yards and beyond if the shooter is up to it and uses proper loads.

[Swampman]

It's quite possible to hit things at long distance.  What happens to those things is another matter.

[Coyote Hunter]

It's quite possible to hit things at long distance.  What happens to those things is another matter.

For some of us, 200 and 300 yards doesn't begin to qualify as "long distance".  Unless working up loads or zeroing/checking scopes, I rarely shoot at ranges under 400 yards.  Last time I was at the range I went 2 of 5 on clay pigeons at 600 yards, and the 3 misses didn’t miss by much.

My use of my loads on elk and deer at 200 yards resulted in quick, clean kills with plenty of authority left over.  I know of others who have used their .45-70s at ranges past 300 yards with similar results.  As pointed out above, my 350g loads have more velocity and energy at 300 yards than the Remington 405g load has at the muzzle and 50 yards respectively.  If one believes my 350g loads are insufficient at 300 yards I guess they would also have to come to the conclusion that the Remington 405g load’s velocity is insufficient at the muzzle and its energy is insufficient at 50 yards.

The two loads compare as follows:

Rem 405g (BC .265) @ 1330fps (data per Remington)
1330fps @ Muzzle
1590fpe @ Muzzle

My 350g North Fork (BC .232) handload @ 2183fps (chronographed velocity)
2183fps @ Muzzle
3703fpe @ Muzzle

1336fps @ 300 yards
1606fpe @ 255 yards

You are right, hitting something is one thing, what happens after is another.  Hitting well at 200-300 yards is child’s play and a good load, like my 350g North Fork handload, ensures good things happen afterwards.

[Coyote Hunter]

It turns out that the manuf. published figures are incorrect.  ...

We're still waiting for you to enlighten us as to which specific "manuf. published figures are incorrect".

Nikon's?

Leupold's?

[deernhog]

Never had to shoot one that far. Can't you sneek up on them better than that , 15 to 50 yards is the norm for me.  Just kidding the .45-70 has been shot long range for longer than we have been around and they used black powder/ soft lead bullet for everything then.

[Swampman]

It turns out that the manuf. published figures are incorrect.  ...

We're still waiting for you to enlighten us as to which specific "manuf. published figures are incorrect".

Nikon's?

Leupold's?

Both are incorrect and they aren't measured the same way.  The Nikon has at least 5".  The Leupold might have 5".  Leupold are ok on bright sunny days.  Not so good in the swamp.

[Coyote Hunter]

Both are incorrect and they aren't measured the same way.  The Nikon has at least 5".  The Leupold might have 5".  Leupold are ok on bright sunny days.  Not so good in the swamp.

So what are the right numbers, since you know more than the manufacturers?

[Swampman]

Apps. 5" the manuf make little effort to be correct.  They don't even have a standard way to take the measurment.

[Coyote Hunter]

Apps. 5" the manuf make little effort to be correct.  They don't even have a standard way to take the measurment.

In other words, you don't have the right number. 

Thanks, but I'll take the manufactures specs.  I know the Leupold spec of 4.9" is very close as I've measured it myself, crude as my measurements were.

[Swampman]

That's correct there's no standard way to measure it.  Both scopes are the same but one cost 1/3 of what the other does.

[Coyote Hunter]

That's correct there's no standard way to measure it.  Both scopes are the same but one cost 1/3 of what the other does.

Once again your claims are ludicrous.

First you claim you know better than the manufacturers what the eye relief is on their scopes, but you refuse to mention the specific models you are talking about or ***your*** claimed eye relief for those models.  It is a pattern familiar for you – make a claim but provide absolutely no data to back it up.

As to one of the scopes costing “1/3 of what the other does”, you are wrong again.  Although you intentionally neglect to mention which specific scopes you are comparing, let’s just take a look at reality and compare the models from both Leupold and Nikon that offer about 5” of eye relief.  All prices are from www.swfa.com:

Leupold
Rifleman Shotgun/Muzzleloader 2-7x, 4.9” relief, $189.95 (75 yard parallax)
Rifleman Shotgun/Muzzleloader 3-9x40mm, 4.9” relief, $199.95 (75 yard parallax)
VX-1 Shotgun/Muzzleloader 2-7x33mm, 4.9” relief, $209.95 (75 yard parallax)
VX-II 2-7x33mm, 4.9” relief, $299.95 (150 yard parallax)

Nikon
SlugHunter 1.65-5x36mm, 5” relief, $229.95 (75 yard parallax)
Omega Muzzleloader 1.65-5x36mm, 5” relief, $229.95 (100 yard parallax)
Omega Muzzleloader 3-9x40mm, 5” relief, $259.95 (100 yard parallax)

The short and long of it is that if you want a real rifle scope with ~5” eye relief and a parallax setting matched to the capabilities of a Marlin .45-80, the only real option is the Leupold VX-II 2-7x.

In any case, none of the scopes above are anywhere near 1/3 the cost of the others and the very serviceable Leupold Rifleman shotgun scopes are the least expensive of the bunch.

Do you EVER fact check anything you claim?

[Swampman]

The Nikon Prostaff 2-7X32 is $109.00 shipped to your door.  It has 5"+ of eye relief.

The Bushnell Banner 1.5-4.5X32 is $65.00 shipped to your door.

Both are as good as anything Leupold has produced to date.