45-70 Assault Rifle

What level of 45/70 does the 458 Socom replicate. Most manuals have 3 levels and they are all very different. the 45/70 in a hot Ruger #1 load will be very close (speaking in generality's) to a normal load from a 458 Win Mag (300 grains at about 2500FPS, 400 grains at 2100FPS. I doubt that the 458 Socom can do that... may be I am wrong?

I am not knocking the 458 Socom I know it was designed to work well with a suppressor, so it is lower speed. I have looked up some loads for it and so far what I have found looks like trap door loads from a 45/70.
 
As long as we are complaining about the way the Army names things.... why are so many things named M1... The designation M1 can mean:

A rifle (Garand)
A carbine
A helmet
A bayonet
A tank
A mortar
A Thompson machine gun
A shoulder fired rocket (bazooka)
A flame thrower

And those are just the things I could find on wikipedia... for all I know there have been M1 socks, M1 canteens, M1 footlockers, M1 felt tip markers...

What is with the "M1" ?

Sorry for hijacking this thread... back on topic.
 
As long as we are complaining about the way the Army names things.... why are so many things named M1
Click to expand...

Technically, most of those aren't the actual name. Usually just abbreviations for something specific. The item will typically have a different name with the model number. Weapons with different categories typically still used the M1 because it was the 'model 1' of that category.

The typie of rifle, the caliber, and the model.
-US Rifle Caliber 30 M1 : 'M(odel)1 Garand.'
-US Carbine Caliber 30 M1 : 'M1 Carbine'.'

Naming conventions in the military can be confusing, but in typical military fashion, everything that can be breviated or made into an acronym leads to more confusion :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
As an addition to what Max said, before that, it was "Model of":

Model of 1905- a bayonet
Model of 1911- a pistol

Ever wonder why Fighter planes were "P-" everything? P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-51, P-82? It stood for "Pursuit" because it was an easier sell to Congress if the planes seemed defensive in nature during the inter-war period: "Pursuit Plane" is less aggressive sounding than "Fighter Plane". The Army changed naming conventions whenever it suited them to do it. After WWII, a P-51 became an F-51; that's why you see "F-86", "F-100", etc: we had kicked tail and aggressive sounding names were suddenly a turn-on
 
A Russian writing about the Red Army also wondered the same thing about the US Army and they way it gave things such similiar names. There were the two .30 caliber cartridges and a few different 75mm guns. In at least one case, British unfortunately, a tank gun was called "77mm" to avoid confusion, if memory serves.

But to return to the (other) subject at hand, the late Frank Barnes of Cartridges of the World could justifiably be credited with developing the .45 caliber assault rifle--or sporting rifle, if you prefer. Apparently he did a lot of experimenting in the 1960s with cutting down large bore rifle cartridges but mostly for things like silouette shooting. I couldn't find the reference to one he developed for the army, also on an experimental basis, but it was pretty much the same thing. This all started happening around 50 years ago, which makes it even more remarkable.

For either a sporting or a military application, a big-bore AR-15 or AR-10 is interesting but probably is more of a specialized sort of thing. Personally I think it's more than interesting but it isn't something I'll ever get to play with. Another interesting thing is that at a glance, a lot of these new developments as far as big-bore AR-15 cartridges go, is how much they resemble a lot of cartridges of 150 years ago, except for their rimless design. There were a few mostly carbine cartridges that were available in the second half of the 19th century that were straight walled and short with big bullets, from .45 to .50 caliber. There were many more that were twice as long but that's outside of the story.

Here's another thought.

For the last 50 years or so, a "big-bore" rifle cartridge meant something more like .375, .35 or .41. Actually anything bigger than a .32, I guess. I don't know that anyone's tried out an AR-15 wildcat in anything between a .30 caliber and a .45 caliber. I don't know if it's worth the effort but it could be something to fool around with. Likewise, I believe everything done so far has been with the AR-15 as the basis for experimenting. If the (rather scarce) AR-10 were the basis, then the limitation on case length or overall length would be longer and it would be a different ball game, so to say.

Just some random shots.
 
A 45-70 standard load will have about 2800 ft-lb of muzzle energy, with bullet weights of 300 - 500 grain. The stout loadings, either from hand loads of from specialty outfits like buffaloe bore, offer 45-70 loads with about 3600 ft-lb of muzzle energy. The original black powder loads were much more mild, around 1800 ft-lb of muzzle energy with a 400 grain bullet

450 bushmaster has about 2700 ft-lb of muzzle energy, but I have never seen any loadings above 300 grain. Perhaps handloads could use heavier bullets.

458 SOCOM has about 2200 - 2400 ft-lb of muzzle energy with bullet weights of 250 - 350 grains. There is a loading of 600 grain, but you really loose a lot of energy and velocity going that heavy.

So I would say that while the 450 bushmaster and 458 SOCOM are impressive, they do not quite stack up to the modern loadings of the 45-70. They exceed the original black powder loadings of 45-70.
 
I hear what you're saying, only that you don't get 2700 ft.lbs. of energy out of a standard .45-70, no more than you can get 600 ft.lbs. of energy out of a .45 Colt. They can be loaded that way but it wouldn't be standard. It also wouldn't be safe. But in any case, these modern big bore cartridges for the little black rifles outclass the old round. All you need to do is decide what it's good for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top