45-70 Assault Rifle

M1888 Rod Bayonet rifle-that's what the volunteer units carried in Cuba in 1898. (I was there-71st New York.)
All kidding aside, a 45-70 is a full size round, I though part of the aasault rifle concept is a round that has more range and punch than a pistol round but is more compact and manageable than a full size rifle round.
 
Not only did we not have the media telling us what an assault rifle was, we didn't have internet experts (like me) telling us what they were either. Let's coin a new word, something like "storm rifle" or something clever like that.

But to return to the subject at hand:

There are such rounds and probably the first was developed by Barnes of cartridge fame. He was the one who wrote the book. There are a couple of cartridges of from .45 to .50 caliber developed for use in the AR-15. They even fit in the standard magazines. In fact, that's the limitation. The AR-15 might be seen as a basic platform with certain characteristics. Everything has to fit within the design limitations. If it doesn't, you have to go to a different platform and behold, there is such a thing.

Some folks think the .45-70 is the answer to every question. It may have been at one time and it still isn't a bad choice for some things but for big game hunting, it went out with single shots. But it depends what you mean by big game, too, I suppose. A .308 might be a better all-round choice but there are things you wouldn't want to hunt with a .308 either. Anyhow, the AR-10 in the modernized version has everything you want in a "big bore" configuration.

I wonder if anyone has experimented with "bigger bore" AR-10s?

You know, usually people don't look at AR-15 rifles (or AK type rifles either) as hunting weapons. But Barnes in his book seemed to always grade cartridges, all of them, as their usefulness as hunting cartridges. I wonder if he ever considered a Thompson submachine gun much of a hunting weapon?
 
The nuances of English irk me from time to time.

There is nothing technically inaccurate about calling the Trapdoor "the assault rifle of its time", but its the wrong context for the discussion.

Using the term "assault rifle" to describe any rifle used in the assault (for a particular time frame) directs the conversation in the wrong direction, and is one of the reasons there has been so much confusion about what an "assault rifle" actually is.

In the correct context, we are talking about the "assault rifle" that is the modern decendant of the German Sturmgewehr, as a class of firearm.

Sturmgewehr translates as "assault rifle" or "storm rifle", in the military context of storming/assaulting an objective. Hitler coined the phrase to describe the MP43/44, which had previously been designated MaschinenPistole (submachine gun), to get around an order forbidding developement of new rifles...

The salient features of the Sturmgewehr have become the definition for the class. There are some variations included, but the primary requirements defining an "assault rifle" are magazine fed, selective fire, and intermediate power cartridge.

It can have other features, like straight line stock, pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppresor, etc., but if it doesn't have those 3 key features, it's not an assault rifle. It is something else.

So, to answer the OP, if you chamber it in .45-70, or some other big bore round, it cannot be an assault rifle. It could look just like one, even work just like one, but it isn't an assault rifle, it's something else.

Second, not too many people I can think of would be interested in a full auto capable .45-70 (or equivalent), so there's no market driving research to make new designed ones, and only a trickle of interest in the hand cranked Gatlings.

Third, as to the .45-70, in a shoulder arm like the AR platform (even suitably scaled for the round), long rimmed rounds are tough to get to work well from a large capacity box magazine. IT can be done, there are several automatic weapon designs for rimmed rounds, with good records for functional reliability.

SO, the reason there isn't a .45-70 assault rifle being made is that, by proper definition, you can't. And the reason there isn't a select fire style rifle being made is there is no demand, because there is no precieved use. Heavy caliber "thumper" rounds in semi auto AR class rifles already do well enough for that use. The military doesn't want them, they don't see any need. And the civilian market wouldn't be allowed to buy them, by US law.

The one way you could legally do it would be to mate a "thumper" upper with an already resistered full auto M16 lower (with any and all needed approvals from the Fed). You'd need a bolt carrier that would operate with the M16 full auto parts, and it would have to be in a caliber that would work through the M16 mag well. If done right, it would give you FA capability with a thumper cartridge. Would be kind of expensive especially considering the return from full auto "thumper" fire (on both ends) and the 8-10-12? rnd capacity of AR mags in thumper calibers. Since you are looking at $15k+ or so to get that registered M16 lower I wouldn't think it would be worth the money, ot the trouble.
 
OP, I think any of the big bore AR chamberings (.458 SOCOM, .50 Beowulf, etc.) meet your definition.

I am currently resisting the urge to get a .458 SOCOM upper. .45/70 ballistics using standard AR mags and most other parts.

(But I don't know how much longer I can hold out...)
 
I don't want you to get the wrong idea of what I think about big bore cartridges. I've owned a few .45-70 rifles and I think they're great for most purposes. I say for most purposes, not just most game, meaning American game. But I'm not so sure it's ideal either. It has its shortcomings, not that people haven't been happy with it for over a hundred years and I don't believe it is as popular as some imply.

For one thing, it kicks. There are cartridges that kick more, if that's what you're looking for, though. I started out with a reproduction H&R 1873 carbine (which was longer than any rifle I think I ever had). Strictly speaking, it wasn't a trapdoor because it didn't have one. But I digress. It was a very well made rifle.

My other .45-70 rifles had proper (modern) butt pads and that was the end of the blue shoulder syndrome. But everything else stayed the same. The cartridge does all the work, remember. And that's where the rub comes in.

A "real" .45-70 isn't that powerful relative to, say, a .30-06. I know, you can get "properly loaded" .45-70 cartridges but go ahead and get a .458 and be done with it. But what about the other cartridges mentioned?

Ever wonder why no one ever chambers a Colt Government Model in .45 Colt? Might be because the Government Model already comes in .45 ACP. Likewise, you can have your AR-15 in .45 or even .50 something or other if you want and you can even use the same magazines. Tell them I said so.

I have seen complete rifles in one or the other of those newfangled cartridges and they have great appeal (but I have empty pockets). Moreover, if what you read is to be believed, they are up to nearly twice as powerful as the old .45-70.

If that doesn't turn you on, then just look for an old Model 8 Remington in .35 Remington. Clip fed, pistol grip (they came in straight grips, too), but no bayonet lug. Can't have everything. Is that big bore enough?
 
New term just came to mind, "assault rifle variant."

Anyone ever have any experience with a Dragunov variant in 9.3x64 Brenneke?
 
Last edited:
That's a new one on me but it wouldn't be an assault rifle by anyone's definition. But "sniper rifle," just as loosely defined and misused, may be even worse. It ought to satisify the original poster's request.

Without looking anything up myself, isn't there a Russian 9mm rifle round for, uh, whatever?
 
The army doesn't call the M16 an assault rifle ...
Click to expand...

The Army also doesn't call a truck a truck (except for the ones on the flagpole) and they don't call a bathroom a bathroom.

The ATF calls the M16 a machinegun, not a rifle, assault or otherwise.

Combat rifle, battle rifle, assualt rifle, sniper rifle are all somewhat nebulous terms, which, while they have generally accepted definitions in the shooting community, also have extremely broad definitions when used by anyone else.

Again, it goes back to some people defining an object by what it is (a set of physical features) and some defining it by how it is used (sniping, assault, etc.,).

Between the late 1940s and the late 1980s we had a fairly consistant defintion of assault rifle, based on the features of the weapons. And while lots of us, including gun writers often used the term loosely to include semi auto versions of true assault rifles in casual conversation, the way we use "motor" and "engine" in our cars, when it came to tech discussions, we all knew what we were talking about, and what we weren't.

Then came the mass shootings in the late 80s (with semi auto AKs, mostly) and the "assault rifle" hysteria whipped up by the anti gunners and the media.

Most shooters are somewhat technically minded, and prize accuracy. We made a PR mistake when we tried to (accurately) explain that the guns being used in these shootings were not "assault rifles". We were right, but to the press and the general public, if it looks like it, it is, so they kept calling them assault rifles.

We kept telling them they were wrong, and they adopted the term "semiautomatic assault rifle". That lasted for a little while, but it is a mouthful, and not a good sound byte. SO, they created the term "assault weapon". And they defined it. They defined it (in law) as semiautomatic arms with combinations of certain features, and gave us a list of the "bad" features.

Many people today use the terms interchangablely, and incorrectly, still.
 
Without looking anything up myself, isn't there a Russian 9mm rifle round for, uh, whatever?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but I think thats the 9.3x64 brenneke that I was asking about. Fairly certain it's German, but the Dragunovs have been chambered in it. Im sure if the Dragunov has been chambered in it, other various Russian rifles may have been too. Pretty certain it's a common rechambering for Mausers.

-Max.
 
No, there is such a thing as a 9x54R, just the Mosin cartridge necked up.
Standard chambering in the Medved Bear hunting rifle on a sporterized Dragunov action.
There are several other ---x54R rounds of wildcat and custom patterns thought up by Finnish riflemen.
 
When did the army quick calling trucks trucks? When I was in, a Jeep (which was made by Ford, I think) was a truck 1/4 ton.

I never saw a bath in the army, which is probably why there are no bathrooms.

All of those terms for firearms are, like "old," are highly elastic and can be stretched to fit whatever you want to cover. There was an old advertisement for a pistol that was described as an "automatic revolver." It was a .25 automatic.
 
Last edited:
Guess the Winchester-Hotchkiss M1882 carbine would not fit into the theory?

Magazine feed, short and handy, and intended for attacking, not so much for defensive reasons.

Oh yeah, it was a .45-70 also.

Knew of a guy in the past that had rechambered a Browning BAR into .45-70 with a shortened barrel...mag held only 12 rounds though. By the time the third round went off it was pointing in the air. Loaded his .45-70's w/350gr Barnes dangerous game spire points and 58 grains of H4198 that yielded 2400+fps w/chrono set at 15' from muzzle. That is +4550lbs of energy at the muzzle! Still over 3100 ft lbs at 200 yards! Kind of half way between a .50 cal and a .30-06.

Most people would have a hard time hanging on to something like that.
 
"When did the army quick calling trucks trucks? When I was in, a Jeep (which was made by Ford, I think) was a truck 1/4 ton."

Soldiers often call vehicles trucks. I have a motorpool full of vehicles that we often refer to as trucks. But officially, they're vehicles. A common army riddle is "How many trucks are on an Army base?" The answer is one, the one on top of the flagpole. The ball that holds the razor, the match, and the .45 ACP round to cut up and burn the flag rather than surrender it, and defend against the one attacker we hope the enemy sends alone to capture it.
 
Sad thing of it is that anti-gunners and the ignorant mainstream media constantly refer to my AR15 as an assault rifle.
 
308 win has similar ballistics (from conventional loads) and is a very successful semi auto and bolt action round.

Not to mention its already available in ar10/15 platforms and is cheaper to shoot.

So there really is no reason to build a 45-70 ar.
 
Oh, no, I think one of those big-bore AR-15s are really neat, to use an obsolete term, maybe even cool.

Vehicles? Too broad a term. I don't know who ever thought up some of those terms but no doubt it was an engineer. How about "gun motor carraige?" But there were trucks all right. They certainly weren't officially called vehicle, 2 1/2 ton. But I'll go along with what you say they call them today but some of it sounds more like marketing than anything else. The armed forces use two different heavy armored cars, which are referred to as anything but armored cars. The humvee is never referred to as a truck and is named more in the way we call a station wagon (how about "shooting brake?") built on a truck frame as a "sport utility vehicle," or SUV. The first Chevy Suburban came out before WWII but it took a few years before someone called it an SUV.

Okay, then, when was the first time someone called a rifle a "main battle rifle?" About the time someone called a tank a "main battle tank?"
 
We are not doing ourselves any favors by using terms like "Assault Rifle", or "Saturday Night Special", or "Devistator Hollow Point", thanks for that one Lyman.

Didn't I see a foolish looking tactical lever action being marketed by Mossberg or Marlin here on TFL?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top