Author Topic: Buffalo Classic accuracy (Read 1420 times)

Stan in SC · « **on:** September 27, 2006, 10:09:18 AM »

I took the Buffalo Classic to the range today to try some new reloads.I've been shooting 300Gr. HP's with great success and I wanted to try some 350Gr. Round nose jacketed which I had ordered from Midway and loaded.
I was surprised when the 350Gr. shot to same point of aim and impact as the 300 without any sight changes.In fact it was more consistently accurate than the 300's.
It is really amazing to me that these rifles can be so doggone consistently accurate and fun to shoot.
My buddy has a replica Sharps which he calls his "Quigley Rifle".It seems like just when he gets it sighted in something mysteriously changes the next time he shoots it.He's constantly frustrated with it.The BC just keeps right on plugging them into the black and he gets more frustrated.
I think I have settled on a good load now with the 350Gr. round nose and upon shooting up the rest of the hollow points,I'll not order any more.
I'd appreciate any "pet" loads any of you might have developed.Thanks.

Stan

slayer · « **Reply #1 on:** September 27, 2006, 01:25:46 PM »

Good news. The 405 grain bullets are good also and that was the old military round. It is what I shoot out of mine, just to be a little more nostalgic, but the 350`s are a great all around load for deer-elk and the like. Jack.

bearfat · « **Reply #2 on:** September 28, 2006, 12:32:48 AM »

I am interested in the buffalo classic. Did the front sights come with Lyman inserts or did you go with something else? If so what other sight? I really just want a jumbo fat front post. Would be using it for deer under 125 yards.

I am looking for a load using H110 powder. I swear one of my manuals showed it for the 45-70.

jack19512 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 28, 2006, 01:12:07 AM »

What size groups are you getting and at what distance? I reload for the 45/70 BC also and use the 300 gr. FN HP bullet.

bajabill · « **Reply #4 on:** September 28, 2006, 03:38:55 AM »

Mine is sighted in for 200 yds, 300 gr rem hollow points at about 2000 fps.

We had a freindly competition and 5 or 6 guys took the gun, first time handling it for them, probably first time shooting 200 yds with open sights also. 2 shots each, and about half of the shots were on a large paper plate size pattern. A few in a couple of inches from center. I think this is a testament to the ease of shooting with the gun since only I had any practice with it prior. Most of the bad shots were flinches from the fear of the cartridge. ONce they got over the first shot jitters, everyone settled down for the second one.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #5 on:** September 28, 2006, 05:29:13 AM »

Quote from: bearfat on September 28, 2006, 12:32:48 AM

I am interested in the buffalo classic. Did the front sights come with Lyman inserts or did you go with something else? If so what other sight? I really just want a jumbo fat front post. Would be using it for deer under 125 yards.

I am looking for a load using H110 powder. I swear one of my manuals showed it for the 45-70.

The BC comes with a Lyman 17AUG .584" tall front sight with the 17A insert kit. Mine and several others here had to replace the .584" tall sight with a .404" 17AHB sight because the .584" was too tall, POI was too low with the WGRS rear sight at the top of its ramp. I replaced the insert set with a Lee Shaver set.

http://www.buffaloarms.com/browse.cfm/4,49.htm

The Lyman set does come with a short fat post.

http://www.buffaloarms.com/browse.cfm/4,1730.htm

None of my books show H110 data, including Hodgdon which would if any did, I think.

Tim

Stan in SC · « **Reply #6 on:** September 28, 2006, 03:02:09 PM »

Unlike Tim,I find that the stock sights are just fine and my rifle didn't come with a set of 17A inserts but I ordered some.The original owner lost the inserts.LOL.He said he shot it six times and could not handle the recoil.
I normally get about 3" groups on a bad day.2" on a good day.Very consistent except for the vagaries of the shooter.
My normal loading is with REL7.I find 40Gr. a good middle of the road load.
The Buffalo Classic is the ABSOLUTE best value for the money you can get in a 45/70.

Stan

muddyduk · « **Reply #7 on:** September 30, 2006, 02:35:36 AM »

Quote from: bearfat on September 28, 2006, 12:32:48 AM

I am interested in the buffalo classic. Did the front sights come with Lyman inserts or did you go with something else? If so what other sight? I really just want a jumbo fat front post. Would be using it for deer under 125 yards.

I am looking for a load using H110 powder. I swear one of my manuals showed it for the 45-70.

bearfat, I'll go ahead and say that you've made an honest mistake in thinking you saw a 45-70 load using H110. Knowing its' properties from extensive use in heavy handgun loads, all I can say is I wouldn't go within 100 yards of a reloading setup that had a can of H110 out with 45-70 dies in the press. To quote King Arthur in Monty Python & The Holy Grail..."Run Away!!!!! Run Away!!!!!

stuffit · « **Reply #8 on:** September 30, 2006, 03:30:49 AM »

bearfat,
Muddyduk is not candid enough here on the inadvisability of even considering H110 in the .45-70. H110 is tricky to use, even in calibers that give good peformance with it. Just take his word for it and don't even consider it.

On the bright side, Reloader 7, IMR4198, and even IMR3031 can give outstanding results with a variety of bullet weights and designs. Reloader 7 is my preference and the 300 gr Rem corloc HP bullet gives good accuracy over 40 grs of that powder and is very effective on our local whitetails. We've had better accuracy from it than when using the Speer of the same weight and design. Both are good though. Happy "BOOMING". [

]

stuffit

Critter · « **Reply #9 on:** September 30, 2006, 06:45:19 AM »

With the 405's I have used IMR 3031, 4198, and 4895 with 4895 getting the nod for accuracy. They all work great though. I have gotten my best accuaracy with the 405 and 500 gr bullets.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #10 on:** September 30, 2006, 11:08:50 AM »

Gentlemen, please read the GBO Terms of Use Policy, particularly on load data.

Thanks,

Tim

Quote

Load Data, GBO has several forums that may contain load data and information, the use of this data is the sole responsibility of the one using it. NO guarantee is made to the validity, accuracy, completeness or safety of use of this data. Anyone posting unsafe or incorrect data is subject to removal from the GBO site indefinitely.

http://www.graybeardoutdoors.com/smf/index.php/topic,54070.0.html

nomosendero · « **Reply #11 on:** September 30, 2006, 11:17:59 AM »

Quote from: bearfat on September 28, 2006, 12:32:48 AM

I am interested in the buffalo classic. Did the front sights come with Lyman inserts or did you go with something else? If so what other sight? I really just want a jumbo fat front post. Would be using it for deer under 125 yards.

I am looking for a load using H110 powder. I swear one of my manuals showed it for the 45-70.

I like that Avatar!!

Fred M · « **Reply #12 on:** September 30, 2006, 03:44:09 PM »

Powder Comparison.
I really can't find any adverse conditions in using H110 in the 45-70.
I think it fits rather well for the big bore H4227 and IMR 4227 are also in the same categgory for this weight of bullet.

I compared three powders to produce 1855ft with a 350gr Speer bullet.

e.i.H110 @40.0gr, Relo 7@ 42.0gr and H4895 @52gr.
Vel. 1885ft 1884ft 1855 ft
Pmax 35958psi 33716psi 35866psi
Fill ratio 74.9% 81.5% 98.8%

Amount burnt
in 32" barrel

100% 100% 87.6%

Important. Please note that the above figures are mathematical predictions and not loading recommendations. I do not have a 45-70 nor do I load for one.
In my opinion H4895 is too slow and leaves too much unburned powder be hind and would deteriorate accuracy quickly, unless a much heavier bullet is used.

?

stuffit · « **Reply #13 on:** October 01, 2006, 03:30:44 AM »

H110, as noted previously, has it's peculiarities. The recommended charges for it in all calibers for which it is appropriate cannot be reduced more than a few percent (please check out Hodgdon's site on this) before ignition failures and partial ignitions are encoiuntered. When this occurs, the bullet can and often is pushed out of the case, into the barrel but lodges there creating an obstruction that may go undetected. The extracted case will give the appearance of having been fired. And, of course, if another round is inserted into the chamber and does happen to fire, then it's very likely that the gun will explode and there also may well be injury to the shooter.

H110 demands a full case and often a compressed charge to give reliable ignition. It is appropriate only for straight walled magnum type handgun calibers and a few of the smaller case capacity .22 calibers (ie .22 Hornet and close cousins. It is most definitely unsuitable for the .45-70 and should not/never be considered as an option for this caliber. This is one instance in which the powder burn rate, entered iinto a software program or mathmatical calculation will give completely misleading data, creating a set up for disaster if followed.
Best Regards,
stuffit

Fred M · « **Reply #14 on:** October 01, 2006, 07:13:18 AM »

Suffit.

I have taken the charge down to 20gr H110 the tabluation has reduced the load a further 20% to 16 gr. at 7751psi. At this rate the Pmuz at the muzzle is still 822psi no way for a bullet to get stuck, unless you shoot greatly undersized bullets or have an oversizer barrel. Either way no loading data is accurate. As I said before this exerize is strictly hypothetical and it is not loading data.

From judging the below, I have to disagree with your statements. BTW a full case of H110 powder with the 350gr bullet would do a great deal of damage to the rifle at 95kpsi, me thinks.

That is not to say H110 is a recommended powder, but it deffinately useable. Unless you have recommended loading data the use of any powder is not a good idea, and that goes for H110.

Cartridge : .45-70 Govt. SAAMI
Bullet : .458, 350, SPR FN 2478
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.550 inch or 64.77 mm
Barrel Length : 32.0 inch or 812.8 mm
Powder : ? Hodgdon H110 ?

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-20.0 29 16.00 960 717 7751 822 75.9 3.980
-18.0 29 16.40 982 750 7952 849 76.8 3.898
-16.0 30 16.80 1004 784 8158 876 77.8 3.820
-14.0 31 17.20 1026 818 8368 903 78.7 3.746
-12.0 31 17.60 1047 852 8584 931 79.6 3.674
-10.0 32 18.00 1069 887 8804 958 80.4 3.606
-08.0 33 18.40 1090 923 9029 986 81.3 3.541
-06.0 34 18.80 1111 959 9259 1013 82.1 3.479
-04.0 34 19.20 1131 995 9493 1041 82.9 3.419
-02.0 35 19.60 1152 1032 9733 1069 83.7 3.362
+00.0 36 20.00 1173 1069 9978 1096 84.5 3.306
+02.0 36 20.40 1193 1106 10227 1124 85.3 3.253
+04.0 37 20.80 1213 1144 10481 1151 86.0 3.202
+06.0 38 21.20 1233 1182 10741 1178 86.7 3.152
+08.0 39 21.60 1253 1221 11009 1205 87.4 3.104
+10.0 39 22.00 1273 1260 11288 1232 88.1 3.058

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 36 20.00 1248 1211 10963 1160 91.5 3.125
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 36 20.00 1087 918 8892 1001 75.7 3.525

Mac11700 · « **Reply #15 on:** October 01, 2006, 07:53:29 AM »

Since it isn't a recommended powder for use in this cartridge...A phone call to their ballisticians might be in order before using it I would think...Using hypothetical calculations might be fun...but can cause serious repercutions if applied wrong as Fred M and others have said in the past...Here's their number...1-913-362-9455...or e-mail them www.Hodgdon.com

Mac

cwlongshot · « **Reply #16 on:** October 01, 2006, 08:13:01 AM »

With respect to the obvious knowledge base here...WHY SCREW WITH IT?

? Serious personal injury could possibly result in any reloading situation. That's WITH OUT trying your own recipes!!!

There is SO MANY excellent powders out there that are KNOWN to work and work well.

My own 2 cents...

CW

Mac11700 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 01, 2006, 08:32:01 AM »

Quote from: cwlongshot on October 01, 2006, 08:13:01 AM

With respect to the obvious knowledge base here...WHY SCREW WITH IT?? Serious personal injury could possibly result in any reloading situation. That's WITH OUT trying your own recipes!!!

There is SO MANY excellent powders out there that are KNOWN to work and work well.

My own 2 cents...

CW

Making a phone call...or e-mailing them can and has provided additional loading data for those seeking it...To me...it's worth the call...You might be suprised at what data they do have that is out of the norm.....and it certainly doesn't hurt to get to know the guys there...They have been most helpful to me in the past...

Mac

Fred M · « **Reply #18 on:** October 01, 2006, 09:34:32 AM »

The same can be said for Blue Dot, it has no rifle recommendations. Nevertheless hundreds of loads are made for all sorts of rifles with Blue Dot and they work extreamly well.

H110 is not all that different from blue Dot, H110 it is somewhat slower burning. Where these light loads get into trouble with the Handi's is over sized barrels and blow by, and many here have reported oversize barrels inluding my self.

So check your barrels before you give H110 a try, and a barrel that is smaller at the chamber end than at the muzzle is the worst kind.

stuffit · « **Reply #19 on:** October 01, 2006, 03:03:06 PM »

Before you start recommending trying H110 in this big case, read carefully. I'm not giving H110 a bad rap. It is outstianding in the cartridges mentioned above. It's an ignition problem with this powder when it doesn't fill the available powder space completely or overfill it a little and get compressed just a tad. H110 isn't any more expensive than any other available powder (if you can get it in Canada). Buy some and try firing off some when the powder doesn't take up all the powder space. If you don't experience partial ignition and failures to ignite/fire it'll be a change from what happens in the magnum handun loads like the 44 mag and the .454 Casull. Blue Dot's ignition charactistics are in no way similar to those of H110. They're simply not comparable. H110 doesn't lend itself to reduced charges, even for the caliibers for which it is recomended. That's why Hodgdon stipulates a strict limit on how much their published H110 charges may be safely reduced. Do you know of any other powder upon which the manufacturer puts such a restriction ?

stuffit

Fred M · « **Reply #20 on:** October 01, 2006, 03:35:35 PM »

Stuffit.
Your points are well taken, I stand corrected. I was just playing with numbers.
Yes ball powder needs to be contained, and a 45-70 holds too much of this stuff to be contained. Thanks we all agree.

Mac11700 · « **Reply #21 on:** October 01, 2006, 06:49:57 PM »

Quote

Do you know of any other powder upon which the manufacturer puts such a restriction ?

The only other one I can recall off hand was Winchesters 296...

Mac

cwlongshot · « **Reply #22 on:** October 01, 2006, 11:49:28 PM »

As well as AA#9, all VERY close in characteristics.

FYI, 296 and H110 are all but Identical, though NOT interchangeable.

CW

stuffit · « **Reply #23 on:** October 02, 2006, 03:12:25 AM »

Quote from: cwlongshot on October 01, 2006, 11:49:28 PM

As well as AA#9, all VERY close in characteristics.

FYI, 296 and H110 are all but Identical, though NOT interchangeable.

CW

When referencing Win 296 and H110 I usually designate them H110/Win296 because they are the same powder, manufactured by Hodgon and packaged differently. In this instance I didn't want to bring any complicating terminology into the discussion. They differ only in so much as different batches of any particular smokeless powder differ.

In regard to AA #9, I looked on Accurate's site and could not find a designated restriction on charge reduction though I'm not questioning that there well may be one that you've referenced. Can you help me find the location of it so I can bookmark it for reference in future discussions. Thanks. Their site is a big one and full of good information.
Best Regards,
stuffit