Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I have .458″ and .459″ bullets because the old bores are not always the same. Seems that the .460″ should work. I have no experience with the type of bullet you are using. When using the OAL, base of case to bullet tip, of the loaded round to seat bullets doesn’t mean anything to me. You need to find out how far off the lands you are and use the dimension that shoots best. The OAL listed in the manuals is the max length to use so the cartridge will cycle through the receiver. I do use 5744 but not for my 76.
Darrin,
It sounds like your rifle has a worn bore. According to the late Mike Venturino in his book Shooting Lever Guns of the Old West, of the many original Model 1876 rifles in .45-75 that he personally slugged, the bore was .457 inches. He suggests the proper bullet diameter is .457-.459 inches. I would think you are on the right track with a slightly larger bullet.
I mold my own bullets from an original Winchester .45-75 mold, and they are about 1 part tin to 16 parts lead, as called for in the old Winchester catalogs. I’m only using black powder, so I’m not much help to you with powder types.
I call myself a collector as it sounds better than hoarder
I believe you are on the right track, but instead of using Accurate 5744, I would load it with 28 grains on IMR 4198 and work up slowly from there until you get the velocity in 1,350 fps range.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert I use the same powder with 25 grains and a 300 grain bullet for about 1,300 fps.
Chuck said
Bert I use the same powder with 25 grains and a 300 grain bullet for about 1,300 fps.
Chuck,
The load I mentioned almost perfectly mimics the original factory black power velocity, which is what the sights were regulated for. Your load is most likely very pleasant to shoot, with little to no appreciable recoil. As Mike has recently learned, bore clean-up is significantly easier when using 4198 versus 5744, and accurate loads are relatively easy to develop.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I enjoy my 1876 in .45-75, but it also has a worn bore. Jacketed 300 grain bullets work rather well. I think the .460 diameter lead should do nicely IF they are allowed to chamber! If the chamber is a bit snug, a .460 bullet plus the brass just may be too large a diameter to readily chamber. You won’t know if you don’t try, though. I use .459 lead and I am able to chamber it in my rifle, but that says nothing about yours. Tim
Bert H. said
Chuck said
Bert I use the same powder with 25 grains and a 300 grain bullet for about 1,300 fps.
Chuck,
The load I mentioned almost perfectly mimics the original factory black power velocity, which is what the sights were regulated for. Your load is most likely very pleasant to shoot, with little to no appreciable recoil. As Mike has recently learned, bore clean-up is significantly easier when using 4198 versus 5744, and accurate loads are relatively easy to develop.
Bert
I use the 4198 but just a little slower than you. I just wanted to be on the safe side. The 76 was the last rifle I developed smokeless loads for.
Thanks for all the feedback, I have one rd loaded that chambers with no issues, unfortunately I won’t be targeting until fully recovered from rotator cuff surgery but I will be sure to update after a range trip.
Darrin
Darrin, Great to hear the bullet plus brass chambers. And yes, please let us know once your shoulder is healed up! Tim
Bert H. said
Chuck said
Bert I use the same powder with 25 grains and a 300 grain bullet for about 1,300 fps.
Chuck,
The load I mentioned almost perfectly mimics the original factory black power velocity, which is what the sights were regulated for. Your load is most likely very pleasant to shoot, with little to no appreciable recoil. As Mike has recently learned, bore clean-up is significantly easier when using 4198 versus 5744, and accurate loads are relatively easy to develop.
Bert
I use 4831 a lot in my old rifles. I like staying just under what a Factory black powder load shoots in the toggle link rifles. Smokeless can create more pressure at a lower fps. Not always, but it can and I don’t have any way of figuring the actual pressure.
November 7, 2015
Offline
I use 4831 (oops, 4198!) a lot in my old rifles. I like staying just under what a Factory black powder load shoots in the toggle link rifles. Smokeless can create more pressure at a lower fps. Not always, but it can and I don’t have any way of figuring the actual pressure. -Chuck
That makes me nervous, too. We may be able to measure velocity and often have a pretty good idea what the peak pressure may be but the curve and duration of the pressure is important as well. As Bert mentioned he has encouraged me to use 4831 in many of the cartridges I enjoy. I had a few pounds on hand and have found it to be a much cleaner version of the 5744 powder MLV taught me to appreciate. Many times the charge weight and velocity are nearly the same with both powders. My only problem with 5744 is that the guns I love often have worn and somewhat eroded or corroded bores and I think 5744 combined with the bullet lubes I use form a tar that literally takes days (including soak intervals) to remove. MLV often shot old guns like mine but he must have enjoyed his gun cleaning chores more than I do as 5744 was apparently one of his favorite smokeless powders.
Mike
ETA it is indeed 4198 that I was thinking of, Bert. I’ve been studying both powders recently and I’m not very good with numbers. 
That’s why I will very seldom post my exact loads.
MH
TXGunNut said
I use 4831 a lot in my old rifles. I like staying just under what a Factory black powder load shoots in the toggle link rifles. Smokeless can create more pressure at a lower fps. Not always, but it can and I don’t have any way of figuring the actual pressure. -ChuckThat makes me nervous, too. We may be able to measure velocity and often have a pretty good idea what the peak pressure may be but the curve and duration of the pressure is important as well. As Bert mentioned he has encouraged me to use 4831 in many of the cartridges I enjoy. I had a few pounds on hand and have found it to be a much cleaner version of the 5744 powder MLV taught me to appreciate. Many times the charge weight and velocity are nearly the same with both powders. My only problem with 5744 is that the guns I love often have worn and somewhat eroded or corroded bores and I think 5744 combined with the bullet lubes I use form a tar that literally takes days (including soak intervals) to remove. MLV often shot old guns like mine but he must have enjoyed his gun cleaning chores more than I do as 5744 was apparently one of his favorite smokeless powders.
Mike
Just to be clear, it is IMR 4198 that I advocate (not 4831).
My understanding of the pressure curves created by the IMR 4198 is that it is slightly slower in achieving peak pressure than black powder, but it maintains the pressure for a slightly longer period of time, and it does achieve nearly identical pressures to BP (with a proper powder charge).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
Good eye, Bert. Thanks for the pressure curve info.
Mike
Bert H. said
TXGunNut said
I use 4831 a lot in my old rifles. I like staying just under what a Factory black powder load shoots in the toggle link rifles. Smokeless can create more pressure at a lower fps. Not always, but it can and I don’t have any way of figuring the actual pressure. -Chuck
That makes me nervous, too. We may be able to measure velocity and often have a pretty good idea what the peak pressure may be but the curve and duration of the pressure is important as well. As Bert mentioned he has encouraged me to use 4831 in many of the cartridges I enjoy. I had a few pounds on hand and have found it to be a much cleaner version of the 5744 powder MLV taught me to appreciate. Many times the charge weight and velocity are nearly the same with both powders. My only problem with 5744 is that the guns I love often have worn and somewhat eroded or corroded bores and I think 5744 combined with the bullet lubes I use form a tar that literally takes days (including soak intervals) to remove. MLV often shot old guns like mine but he must have enjoyed his gun cleaning chores more than I do as 5744 was apparently one of his favorite smokeless powders.
Mike
Just to be clear, it is IMR 4198 that I advocate (not 4831).
My understanding of the pressure curves created by the IMR 4198 is that it is slightly slower in achieving peak pressure than black powder, but it maintains the pressure for a slightly longer period of time, and it does achieve nearly identical pressures to BP (with a proper powder charge).
Bert
You are right Bert. I meant 4198. What you say about the pressure curve is correct too. I just got my copy of Mattern’s book Handloading Ammunition today. I will look it up tomorrow but he actually gives an example of loading a firearm with black powder and then smokeless. He gives the speeds and actual pressures in PSI.
Chuck said
Bert H. said
TXGunNut said
I use 4831 a lot in my old rifles. I like staying just under what a Factory black powder load shoots in the toggle link rifles. Smokeless can create more pressure at a lower fps. Not always, but it can and I don’t have any way of figuring the actual pressure. -Chuck
That makes me nervous, too. We may be able to measure velocity and often have a pretty good idea what the peak pressure may be but the curve and duration of the pressure is important as well. As Bert mentioned he has encouraged me to use 4831 in many of the cartridges I enjoy. I had a few pounds on hand and have found it to be a much cleaner version of the 5744 powder MLV taught me to appreciate. Many times the charge weight and velocity are nearly the same with both powders. My only problem with 5744 is that the guns I love often have worn and somewhat eroded or corroded bores and I think 5744 combined with the bullet lubes I use form a tar that literally takes days (including soak intervals) to remove. MLV often shot old guns like mine but he must have enjoyed his gun cleaning chores more than I do as 5744 was apparently one of his favorite smokeless powders.
Mike
Just to be clear, it is IMR 4198 that I advocate (not 4831).
My understanding of the pressure curves created by the IMR 4198 is that it is slightly slower in achieving peak pressure than black powder, but it maintains the pressure for a slightly longer period of time, and it does achieve nearly identical pressures to BP (with a proper powder charge).
Bert
You are right Bert. I meant 4198. What you say about the pressure curve is correct too. I just got my copy of Mattern’s book Handloading Ammunition today. I will look it up tomorrow but he actually gives an example of loading a firearm with black powder and then smokeless. He gives the speeds and actual pressures in PSI.
Please post a scanned copy of it.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Many, including myself, have been using FPS as an indicator of possible pressure. No one that I know of produces information on the actual pressures. There are programs for the modern cartridges that will calculate the pressure of a given load for you before you shoot it. These programs might work for something like the 45-70 or the 30 WCF. I don’t have one of these programs so I am just guesstimating what cartridges are available.
If you read the early loading manuals like Complete Guide to Handloading by Philip Sharpe or the new one I just got by Mattern they talk a lot about the pressure problems but this is the first time I saw something that actually calculated the pressure. Be safe.
For those of you that shoot more modern calibers Quickload is a program many use. It has over 1000 calibers. But I don’t know which? I am not a ballistician nor a physicist so I can’t do the math.
Have any of you loaded for your old 1876’s with oversized bullets. My early 45-75 not only spreads the group but has occasional keyholing with .458″ standard bullets. I recently slugged the bore and came up with .4595″. I now have some Montana Bullet Works .460″, 340 gr bullets I will be loading soon. I will start with 22gr of Accurate 5744 under these bullets seated to 2.245 oal.
Am I on the right track?
suggestions warranted.
I have found that soft-cast bullets (air-cooled wheel weights) work much better in these big bores at 1,300 fps than hard cast. The soft-cast bullets bump up to fill the throat and bore, whereas hard cast do not, allowing high pressure gases to blow by, lead the bore, and the partially eroded bullets are more prone to inaccuracy or even tumbling. I have shot a lot of soft cast bullets in a lot of old Winchesters, some with significantly pitted bores, or oversize bores. Soft cast will give excellent accuracy even if undersized by .002 vs the groove diameter. It might be a good idea to check with Montana Bullet Works to see what the BHN of their bullets are. If they are 15 or over, I would not be very enthusiastic about them working well unless you have an excellent bore, and they are sized to .460. Another factor to find out is if you can chamber a cartridge with a .460 bullet in the case. If not, you may have to thin the neck walls by .001.
Kirk I am able to chamber the single .460″ round I loaded to test. According to Montana Bullet webpage, most gas check bullets are cast with Lyman no. 2 alloy, BHN15, good per their testing to 1500 fps. I don’t anticipate shooting a large number of these but hopefully when I get the chance I will be able to hit what I’m aiming at.
Thank you for your suggestions, MBW has paper patch bullets available at BHN6 if needed.
Will update at a later date.
Darrin
1 Guest(s)
