The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 23, 2000, 03:59 PM   #1
Randy Garrett
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 1999
Location: Chehalis, WA
Posts: 142
Shooters:

We are chagrinned to report that new production Ruger #1 rifles in 45-70 are no longer recommended for use with our 530-grain HAMMERHEAD ammo. This is due to short-throating, which apparently improves accuracy with 300-grain bullets, but at the cost of the gun's ability to chamber long, heavy bullets. Previously, the Ruger #1 was well known for its ability to handle super long cartridges, such as those that result from use of the Hornady 500-grainer seated to the crimp groove. No longer. However, our 415-grain HAMMERHEAD ammo functions without difficulty in the new Ruger #1.

Best regards, Randy Garrett www.garrettcartridges.com
Randy Garrett is offline  
Old July 23, 2000, 04:16 PM   #2
Schmit
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: March 11, 1999
Location: Masquito infested flatlands of Mid-FL
Posts: 1,857
How shall I say this???

"Well that sucks!"

------------------
Schmit
GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"

[This message has been edited by Schmit (edited July 23, 2000).]
Schmit is offline  
Old July 23, 2000, 08:02 PM   #3
Good Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 1999
Posts: 638
When it comes to 45 caliber Ruger #1's, why not just buy one in 458 Magnum? That would be my choice. I like the 45/70 in my Marlin 1895 just fine, but in bolt guns or single shots, make it the 458WinMag.

------------------
Just one of the Good Guys
Good Guy is offline  
Old July 23, 2000, 08:21 PM   #4
Hueco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 1999
Posts: 561
I think the reason for a #1 in 45-70 is that it is about 2 pounds lighter than the 458 chambered #1. And the ballistics of the 45-70 can come very close to 458. #1 45-70 is a nice little gun. What did I buy though? the 458 Winchester Magnum of course!!


Hueco
Hueco is offline  
Old July 24, 2000, 08:26 AM   #5
416Rigby
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 1999
Location: Virginia
Posts: 450
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Good Guy:
When it comes to 45 caliber Ruger #1's, why not just buy one in 458 Magnum? That would be my choice. I like the 45/70 in my Marlin 1895 just fine, but in bolt guns or single shots, make it the 458WinMag.

[/quote]

Amen.

416Rigby is offline  
Old July 24, 2000, 11:52 AM   #6
TBeck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 1999
Posts: 248
Randy, this seems like a good time to ask you a question. How do your .45-70 loads compare to the .450 Marlin?
TBeck is offline  
Old July 24, 2000, 12:45 PM   #7
Hueco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 1999
Posts: 561
416, I am shocked! The #1 comes in a 416 Rigby!! I thought you'd certainly take this opportunity to proclaim the merits of the 416. And hey...what are you doing promoting my calibre now?


Hueco

[This message has been edited by Hueco (edited July 24, 2000).]
Hueco is offline  
Old July 24, 2000, 04:44 PM   #8
Randy Garrett
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 1999
Location: Chehalis, WA
Posts: 142
TBeck,

The 450 Marlin offers no performance advantage over the modern 45-70. The limiting factor is the strength of the gun, and the 450 is chambered in the same Marlin as the 45-70. The new case holds a little less gunpowder than the 45-70 case, and as such will produce a little less power at the same pressure, all other things being equal. The advantage is only to the builder of commercial ammo, as he doesn't have to worry about the ammo being fired in an ancient firearm. We have no plans of loading for the 450 Marlin, as we would simply be duplicating our efforts in 45-70.

Best regards, Randy Garrett www.garrettcartridges.com
Randy Garrett is offline  
Old July 24, 2000, 04:52 PM   #9
Unkel Gilbey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 1999
Location: Danby, Vermont
Posts: 349
I'm sitting here and thinking... "Why not just throat your weapon to accept the new loads...?" But then again, in this day and age of the lawsuit, I could see all sorts of hate and discontent from Ruger if they found out that you long throated one of their new rifles. Also, there is probably a warrentee that would be voided by such a modification...

But look at it this way. Most of the folks here like to tinker with their weapons. I don't mean that they actually grab a hammer and chisel and start wailing away, but they tinker with their loads, get new sights, adjust the triggers, etc. to get the optimum performance from their weapons. Seems to me that getting a good smith to lengthen the throat of the rifle would be a worth while deal - especially if it turned out that these loads of Garrett's are the cat's A$$!

Besides, isn't there a slight drop in pressure when the throat is lengthened a tad? That would seem to be another worth while reason for the mod...

Just thinking...!
Unkel Gilbey is offline  
Old July 24, 2000, 05:19 PM   #10
Spectre
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: October 23, 1998
Location: DC
Posts: 3,274
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Unkel Gilbey:

Besides, isn't there a slight drop in pressure when the throat is lengthened a tad?
[/quote]

I believe this very reason is why the best known name in accurate production rifles cuts their chambers too long.

Spectre is offline  
Old July 25, 2000, 04:14 AM   #11
oberkommando
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 1999
Posts: 1,155
have that very problem with mine, just pound the cartridge in, it will work

I dont like belted cartridges in a single shot or anyother gun, there in no use for them in this day. That is why i choose the 45-70. As to 458 forget that just send out your no 1 to ssk and convert to 577 Nitro.

Good Idea randy I very much enjoy shooting heavy bullets.

[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited July 25, 2000).]
oberkommando is offline  
Old July 25, 2000, 02:27 PM   #12
Paul B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,589
Unkel. You're right. Throating the #1 would definitely wipe out the warranty. But I won't tell them if you don't
However, I feel that 300 gr. bullets in a 45-70 are about as useless as mammary glands on a boar hog. I much prefer bullets in the 400 gr. range, although the 330 gr. Gould hollow point is a good bullet for plinking and targets. Both my Marlin 1895 New Model and Ruger #1 love them all to pieces. Makes a fair deer load as well. For elk and larger, I use 400 and 500 gr. bullets. They are impressive in timber.
Paul B.
Paul B. is offline  
Old May 5, 2002, 02:49 AM   #13
TABING
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 1999
Location: White Mountains, AZ & Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 658
On an impulse about 20 years ago, I bought a Ruger #3, (no longer made) in 45-70, $179.00 I think it's got a 20 in. barrel, very lightweight, and extremely handy, casting my own 405 gr. Lyman bullets from pure wheelwights, and chugging along at about 1100-1200 fps it's deadly on javalina, and the occasional wild turkey if I can get a sure neck shot, (it's got 3X9 scope, mostly for a little extra weight) little meat damage, and not too hard on the shoulder.
Those #3's were great guns, I don't know why they stoped making them. I'm sure they'd sell now a days with all the interest in classic style guns. I also got one in 223Rem. it's got a barrel the same diameter as the 45-70, which makes it a heavy barrel, and it's super accurate, it's done many a jackrabbit and quite a few coyotes.

Last edited by TABING; May 5, 2002 at 05:05 AM.
TABING is offline  
Old May 5, 2002, 08:08 AM   #14
Gewehr98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2000
Location: Token Creek, WI
Posts: 4,068
I noticed that about my Ruger #1, too.

When I load cast bullets heavier than 405 grains, I have to seat them deeper in the case, and they still engage the rifling a bit. I was so looking forward to using the heaviest Garrett Hammerheads in my #1, but I'll just keep my eyes open for an older version of the rifle. Does anybody know at what serial number range they went to the short throats in the Ruger #1?

On the same topic, Randy, do you recommend the 530gr Hammerhead for Siamese Mauser-based rifles, assuming they're properly throated? Pressures vs. action strength wouldn't be a problem...
__________________
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Neural Misfires
Gewehr98 is offline  
Old May 5, 2002, 08:41 AM   #15
Mal H
Staff
 
Join Date: March 20, 1999
Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia
Posts: 14,481
Gewehr98 - Be aware that this thread is about 2 years old and Randy is probably not following it, but he does check in every other month or so. If you want a quicker reply, it's best to email him.
Mal H is offline  
Old May 6, 2002, 06:00 PM   #16
Gewehr98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2000
Location: Token Creek, WI
Posts: 4,068
Crapola!

I didn't even pay attention to the posting date. My bad!
__________________
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Neural Misfires
Gewehr98 is offline  
Old May 8, 2002, 09:04 AM   #17
Mike Weber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 24, 2002
Location: Northern California
Posts: 217
45-70 Garrett Loads And The Kodiak

Any data and info on the Garrett ammo and the Kodiak double rifles?
Mike Weber is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10829 seconds with 10 queries