45/70 Data in 45/60

[Dingelfutz]

I am a "newbie" when it comes to the 1876 Winchester. As a general rule, would it be a safe practice to use "Trapdoor" 45/70 loads in the 45/60? As I understand it, both Uberti and Cimmaron .45 caliber 1876 rifles have 1x20" rifling twists. Is it practical to use 405 grain and heavier bullets in the 45/60 using smokeless powder loads?

[Terry Murbach]

THERE IS A VERY GOOD REASON WHY ONE CARTRIDGE IS CALLED "45-60" AND THE OTHER IS CALLED "45-70". NOW, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS ??
THERE IS TESTED LOADING DATA AVAILABLE FOR THE 45-60 CARTRIDGE AND IT IS ALWAYS BEST IF YOU PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO IT UNLESS, UNLESS, YOU HAVE ACCESS TO A PRESSURE GUN.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN "IS IT PRACTICAL" TO USE 405gr BULLETS WITH SMOKELESS PROPELLENT IN THE 45-60 ??
WHAT WERE THE THE BULLET WEIGHTS OF THE FACTORY LOADS WAY BACK WHEN ??

[Dingelfutz]

THERE IS A VERY GOOD REASON WHY ONE CARTRIDGE IS CALLED "45-60" AND THE OTHER IS CALLED "45-70". NOW, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS ??
THERE IS TESTED LOADING DATA AVAILABLE FOR THE 45-60 CARTRIDGE AND IT IS ALWAYS BEST IF YOU PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO IT UNLESS, UNLESS, YOU HAVE ACCESS TO A PRESSURE GUN.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN "IS IT PRACTICAL" TO USE 405gr BULLETS WITH SMOKELESS PROPELLENT IN THE 45-60 ??
WHAT WERE THE THE BULLET WEIGHTS OF THE FACTORY LOADS WAY BACK WHEN ??

Terry,

I'll give you credit. You sure can shout loud enough!

The "60" and "70" have to do with case capacities with BP. What I was asking was whether the reduction of approximately 1/4 inch in case length had any significance with smokeless powder charges.

I agree that one should adhere to tested loading data, when possible. However, I am aware of no data for bullet weights that exceed 325 grains, or so.

I am aware that the 45/60 was usually loaded with 300 grain bullets. The 45/75 was most often loaded with 350 grain bullets but I am also aware that Winchester developed a 45/74/550 load, at least as an experimental round. As I recall, the latter load was featured on a cartridge board that was displayed at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition.

[KirkD]

Welcome to the forum! Terry uses upper caps almost all the time, and he's older than me (I was going to say he was an old Codger, but didn't want to git him riled, so I'll just say he's older than me, and I'm an old geezer of 55 years of age), and he doesn't beat around the bush, and he knows more stuff than most of us will ever know, so he tends to give solid advice, even if it isn't all decked out with flowers.

I reload for both the .45-70 and the .45-60. I took a look at my data as well as some published .45-60 data and published .45-70 trapdoor data. Bottom line: you cannot use .45-70 trapdoor loads in a .45-60. They would be too hot for the .45-60. Also, I would not use a 400 grain bullet in a .45-60. The overall cartridge length in a Winchester '76 is non-negotiable, else it will not feed. So for a longer 400 grain bullet, you will have to seat it deeper in order to get it to feed. But! Not only will the heavier bullet increase pressures, but seating it deeper will reduce case capacity which will also increase pressures. So there is a double whammy if one uses a 400 grain bullet. That increases to a triple whammy if you add to that a .45-70 load. A good way to blow yer '76 to Kingdom Come.

So, you should stick with a cast 300 grain bullet (or 320 grain max) and published .45-60 loads.

[1886]

Lyman's newest manual has a section dedicated to reloading and shooting the 76 repros. BE SAFE, 1886.

[.45colt]

Dingelfutz,welcome to the fire.pull up a chair. Terry always Hollers and some of the others here have strong opinions but it's usually for a reason. these Guys know their stuff and if not will point You in the right direction. .

[Hobie]

Dinglefutz,

An appropriate question for one so named... As Terry says cartridges are named differently for a reason which is in this "case" because of capacity as you noted. Reason would indicate that smaller capacity cartridges cannot use the data of larger capacity cartridges. I would suggest that you also read about the rationale behind the 1876 rifle and the cartridges for which it is chambered. The reasoning behind the answers previously provided will become clear.

If I may suggest your attention to one particular thing. Reasoning, i.e. logic, and attention to detail are requirements for safe participation in the reloading game.

[Ysabel Kid]

Welcome to the fire! Kirk is, hands down, our resident expert on the .45-60 WCF load. Heed his advice!!!

[Dingelfutz]

Thanks, guys.

I get the impression that I kind of stuck a stick into a beehive. Sorry about that! I appreciate the welcome, though.

I also appreciate the information. I have not seen the new Lyman manual and I did not make the connection for Venturino's book? (What's the deal with Mike and submachine guns?)

Please note that I asked a dumb question BEFORE I made a dumb mistake!

FWIW, I am a "geezer in training"...65 in May.

While it is off the topic, does anyone know whether Winchester actually produced 45/75/550 cartridges? On the same cartridge board there was a .72 caliber cartridge that may not have been produced, either. I suspect that the "long 45/75" must have been a single-load proposition. (Would the rifles' throats have had to be lengthened in order to accomodate such a load?)

[Dingelfutz]

Oh. About the "handle": Dingelfutz was my orange tabby buddy for 17 years. "Ding" and I went through a lot, including two divorces (OK! I'm a slow learner!) and two life-threatening illnesses. The handle was taken in his memory.

[O.S.O.K.]

Welcome to the camp. Now post some pictures of your rifle

[KirkD]

Despite the kind words, I would not say I was the resident expert on the .45-60; there are a few other fellows on this board that load for it as well. Having said that, I will confess that I really like the cartridge and have experimented with different loads quite a bit. As far as a 45-75-550 is concerned, I have a hard time believing it would be fired in a standard Model 1876. The Model 76 cartridges have to fit just about perfect into the brass cartridge lifter. If they are too long, the cartridge cannot all fit in there, and the lifter won't work because the nose of the bullet is still in the mag tube.

Sticking a 550 grain bullet in 45-75 brass and wanting it to feed through a Model 1876 would require that the bullet be seated at about a 1/4" deeper because of the much longer bullet. That would reduce the powder capacity by a significant amount such that there is no way you could fit 75 grains in there. So if you wanted to use 45-75 brass and still get 75 grains of BP in there, the bullet would be sticking so far out that there is no way it would feed through the lifter. It would have to be fed single shot, but only after the throat was lengthened, and the pressure would definitely be higher with the heavier inertia of the 550 grain bullet. If Winchester did experiment with a 45-75-550 cartridge, it would not be for the Model 1876 as we know it today.

[Dingelfutz]

First, O.S.O.K,

I don't have "my rifle", yet. I am still deciding what I want it to be. I suspect that there will be a "my rifle", though. Not long ago, I had a chance to handle a few original 1876 rifles at Turnbull's, including a NWMP piece. Big mistake! More recently, I got to handle a Cimarron (?) 22-inch barreled "short rifle". Worse mistake! Now, I have to figure out which rifle, by which maker, in which caliber, might suit me best. Oh! The agony! (Suggestions will be welcomed!)

KirkD, since I wrote last, I had a chance to read your piece, "In Praise of the 45/60". It is an impressive piece and one which addresses some of the questions that I asked. Your direct responses to my questions have helped even more.

I would appreciate information (war stories?) about how 1876 rifles, in their various calibers have performed in the field. About all I know, now, is some pretty basic stuff, e.g. that TR really liked his 45/75, that the Mooars used 1876s in their buffalo hunting operation, that some pretty famous characters in the Old West owned and used 1876s, and that the .50/95 was popular with "big cat hunters". (Incidentally, a few years ago, I got to see TR's 1876 rifle and his famous buckskin hunting shirt. I was impressed by how pretty the rifle was and how short...and, small in his ND years...TR was.)

[Hobie]

Oh. About the "handle": Dingelfutz was my orange tabby buddy for 17 years. "Ding" and I went through a lot, including two divorces (OK! I'm a slow learner!) and two life-threatening illnesses. The handle was taken in his memory.

So, was the cat well named?

[Hobie]

First, O.S.O.K,

I don't have "my rifle", yet. I am still deciding what I want it to be. I suspect that there will be a "my rifle", though. Not long ago, I had a chance to handle a few original 1876 rifles at Turnbull's, including a NWMP piece. Big mistake! More recently, I got to handle a Cimarron (?) 22-inch barreled "short rifle". Worse mistake! Now, I have to figure out which rifle, by which maker, in which caliber, might suit me best. Oh! The agony! (Suggestions will be welcomed!)

KirkD, since I wrote last, I had a chance to read your piece, "In Praise of the 45/60". It is an impressive piece and one which addresses some of the questions that I asked. Your direct responses to my questions have helped even more.

I would appreciate information (war stories?) about how 1876 rifles, in their various calibers have performed in the field. About all I know, now, is some pretty basic stuff, e.g. that TR really liked his 45/75, that the Mooars used 1876s in their buffalo hunting operation, that some pretty famous characters in the Old West owned and used 1876s, and that the .50/95 was popular with "big cat hunters". (Incidentally, a few years ago, I got to see TR's 1876 rifle and his famous buckskin hunting shirt. I was impressed by how pretty the rifle was and how short...and, small in his ND years...TR was.)

There are cases of certain shapes that might have been referred to by different names such as .45-85 or .45-90 because that manufacturer loaded it with a heavier bullet and lighter charge or the other way 'round. The 1876 should, I think, be loaded with appropriate bullet and powder weights. One is pretty much stuck with the cartridge length overall.

Mooars?

[KirkD]

KirkD, since I wrote last, I had a chance to read your piece, "In Praise of the 45/60". It is an impressive piece and one which addresses some of the questions that I asked. Your direct responses to my questions have helped even more.

You might enjoy a article on the 1876 that I wrote. You can download it here http://www.leverguns.com/articles/1876.pdf

[Dingelfutz]

KirkD, since I wrote last, I had a chance to read your piece, "In Praise of the 45/60". It is an impressive piece and one which addresses some of the questions that I asked. Your direct responses to my questions have helped even more.

You might enjoy a article on the 1876 that I wrote. You can download it here http://www.leverguns.com/articles/1876.pdf

I read the article. It's a "good un"! I enjoyed it a lot. Thanks!

[Dingelfutz]

Hobie,

My little buddy was well named. I had another name picked for him but he was such a funny little guy, and I called him "a Dingelfutz" so often, that he started to answer to it.

The Mooars had one of the most successful buffalo hunting operations. See James Winfield Hunt, Buffalo Days: Stories from J. Wright Mooar , Charles G. Anderson, In Search of the Buffalo: The Story of J. Wright Mooar, and Miles Gilbert, Getting a Stand.