Chuck said

TXGunNut said
I seem to recall 45 caliber was sometimes expressed as 45/100 as in 45 100ths of an inch. For me in a military rifle of that era that would mean 45-70 or 45 Guvmint. 
 
Mike
  

Mike, you're correct and that may be what was meant?  I have a 2nd Model Military carbine and a 3rd Model Military rifle and each are 45 Cal.  But the carbine should be shot with the 45-55 load.  The Military found the 70 grs to be too much.  The other thing is that the 1st and 2nd Model Military carbines are a joint effort between Winchester and the Springfield Armory.  The 3rd Model Military rifle is all Winchester parts. 
  

Chuck-

As far as the rifle or carbine is concerned the chambering is probably best described as 45-70 or as I prefer 45 Guvmint. Like you I find the variations of a few of the 45 (and 50) caliber cartridges fascinating and confusing when two or more cartridges share very similar overall dimensions or may be chambered in the same rifle. I believe a similar practice was used with the Trapdoor. The confusion continues when modern weapons in 45-70 (and 45 Colt comes to mind) will safely chamber cartridges capable of pressures and velocities likely not imagined 153 years ago. 

I was disappointed to discover during a recent safe dive a Hotchkiss has yet to follow me home. Perhaps I may need to be more proactive in this area.

Mike

I know we've touched base on this before, but in your surveys do you have any/many Winchesters (any Model) with the "X" suffix denoting a duplicate fro before WWII?  Not to say that Winchester never had accidental s/n duplications earlier, just asking about how they denoted them...

Reason I ask is that in the M70 survey, I now have (5) with a "D" prefix, ALL between s/n D8690 and D8740.  I have others in that range that lack the prefix but (so far) have not seen the same s/n +/- the "D" which would suggest that the prefix was a pre-war way of denoting "duplicate"...

Thhanks,

Lou

Are you sure about the front sight on your later (non-African) Super Grades?  This could help the survey...  Whenever possible, I usually count the number of horizontal striations on the rear surface of the sight b/c they're hard to measure w/o knocking them out.  Pic below shows (left to right) Redfield full gold sights of 0.260" (used by Winchester only on the 375 MAGNUM 24-inch heavy barrel), 0.310" (254), 0.360" (255), and 0.390" (256).  The 256 was not used by Winchester on anything I'm aware of...  I have better pics of the 254 than this photo, but this is the composite I have handy...

Hi Ted-

The problem with "data" from an "observational survey" is that I can only record what was there when I saw the gun (or on-line photos of the gun).  This is a problem with LC M70s in general, since many (most???) people back in the day removed the original sight whenever they installed a scope, and many other people put the "wrong" sight back when trying to "restore" a gun for resale...  The 22G versus "low" 22K thing is a mess...  Since the "low" 22K blueprint I've mentioned is dated from 1948, it seems reasonable that any M70 made before 1948 with that sight is carrying a replacement.  But when/if Winchester went from the 22G to "low" 22K on LC Standard and Super Grade M70s is far from definite.  I know that the M43 rear sight was the "low" 22K and they started making them in 1948.  But the "data" on M70s are still messy...

When it comes to what height front sight should be on a Super Grade, I tend to look at what was being used on Standard rifles at the time.  I can think of no reason why a Super Grade would require a different height front sight than a Standard rifle that had the same stock dimensions/barrel contour/rear sight...  Standard rifles are more common so there are more data...  

Talk about "messy data"...  Try charting M70 boxes/tags/manuals...  That survey looks like a cat barfed on an Excel spreadsheet!!!  There are way too many boxes out there that are either fakes/repros or are original boxes with altered/fake end labels.  The only (possible) saving Grace is that Olin Corporation changed corporate names several times during the period that the pre-64 M70 was being made, and the boxes/tags/manuals (like the catalogs and print ads) followed suit...  I had a nice chat with tionesta about this at the OGCA/WACA show.  He's got the right idea!!!

Best,

Lou

Bert

This is a Win. 71

TXGunNut said
I seem to recall 45 caliber was sometimes expressed as 45/100 as in 45 100ths of an inch. For me in a military rifle of that era that would mean 45-70 or 45 Guvmint. 
 
Mike
  

Mike, you're correct and that may be what was meant?  I have a 2nd Model Military carbine and a 3rd Model Military rifle and each are 45 Cal.  But the carbine should be shot with the 45-55 load.  The Military found the 70 grs to be too much.  The other thing is that the 1st and 2nd Model Military carbines are a joint effort between Winchester and the Springfield Armory.  The 3rd Model Military rifle is all Winchester parts. 

Bert H. said
Chuck,
I suspect what you discovered in those early catalogs were misprints or typo's.  I believe it should have been "45-500" versus "45-100".  Further, I believe that almost all Hotchkiss Repeaters were chambered for the 45-70 Government cartridge with the exception of a small number made for the 43 Spanish cartridge.  I highly recommend contacting Jim Curlovic.
Bert
  

Mis prints or early developments that never came to life are definitely possible.

Jim and I have been talking a lot on this subject.  Just hoping someone has a Musket and can clear up some of the issues. 

As far as I can prove and I agree with you, all American Hotchkiss were chambered for the 45-70.  This particular musket has had a chamber cast and is longer than a 45-70 case.  Except the carbines.  Some were 45-55 but maybe just the Military models?  The Chinese did get 43 and 11 mm.  I have no idea what the French got?

Louis Luttrell said

The issue I will encounter is that this information differs from what's stated in Roger Rule's book...  Many M70 experts will therefore question my "unsupported claim" or at least my basic literacy skills...
Make of it what you will...
Lou
  

Welcome to the Club!  I have been dealing with that exact same issue for the past 25+ years concerning all of the non-factual information published in the past years by G.M.

Bert

Louis Luttrell said
Hi Tony-
The issue of M70 sights is messy...  The factory rarely specified the sights they used or called out changes in their catalogs, especially when they were using "outsourced" sights from Lyman, Redfield or Marbles.  For example, Winchester product catalogs only describe the Super Grade front sight as a "Redfield full gold bead".  They do not specify height.  The notion that only the Redfield 255 (0.360" tall) was used on M70s comes from Rule's book (and possibly from a typo in one of the parts catalogs)...  Loooong story...
The reality (based on the survey) is that Super Grade front sights were the same height as the contemporary Standard rifle front sights, which makes sense because the butt stock dimensions/barrel contour/rear sight of the Super Grade was the same as a Standard rifle.  So from 1936-1952 the Super Grade front sight was 0.310" tall (Redfield 254), same height as the Lyman 31W/Winchester 103C sights used on Standard rifles.  The change to the Redfield 255 occurred with the advent of the MC stock in 1952, when the rear sight was changed to a Marbles 69 folding.  The same thing happened on Standard rifles about the same time.  MC stocked Standard rifles got the Marbles 69 paired with a 0.360" tall Winchester 103E (replacing the 0.310" tall 103C).  LC stocked Standard rifles got the "low" 22K (pictured above) paired with the 103E, although the change was a little slower (I think) b/c the only reason to change the sights on a LC stock M70 was so they could use the same front sight (103E) on everything (standard and Featherweight barrels) regardless of stock type.
The issue I will encounter is that this information differs from what's stated in Roger Rule's book...  Many M70 experts will therefore question my "unsupported claim" or at least my basic literacy skills...
Make of it what you will...
Lou
  

You have the DATA Lou

Mike

I suspect what you discovered in those early catalogs were misprints or typo's.  I believe it should have been "45-500" versus "45-100".  Further, I believe that almost all Hotchkiss Repeaters were chambered for the 45-70 Government cartridge with the exception of a small number made for the 43 Spanish cartridge.  I highly recommend contacting Jim Curlovic.

Bert

The Winchester Catalogs from 1879 to April 1884 show the barrel to be 32" and the caliber to be 45-100.  But the same catalogs list the 45-100 cartridge as a Sharp.

The September 1882 Catalog shows the same 32" barrel but now lists the caliber as 45.  It shows a cartridge that says U.S. Govt. 45. After this date all the Catalogs say 45.

The January 1884 Catalog shows the barrel length to be 28".   This coincides with the change from the 1st and 2nd Models to the 3rd Model of 1883. 

The other thing that shows up is the listing of a 40-65 cartridge. This is the only time this caliber was listed for the Hotchkiss. 

No one has ever seen a Winchester box that calls out for the Hotchkiss.  The same thing goes for a 45-100 or 40-65 cartridge.  There is 40-65 ammo for the 1886.  The Military produced their own ammo, but I have never seen a box that says for the Hotchkiss.

I have never seen an early musket to know what the barrel address may be or if the caliber is stamped on the barrel.

The bolt action Hotchkiss was ahead of it's time and didn't sell well.  The Military testing in 1878 approved the Musket but very few were bought by the Military for the Army and Navy.  The Chinese bought a bunch and the French a small amount. 

Did Winchester ever make 40-100 ammo for the Hotchkiss?  Same for the 40-65?

The issue of M70 sights is messy...  The factory rarely specified the sights they used or called out changes in their catalogs, especially when they were using "outsourced" sights from Lyman, Redfield or Marbles.  For example, Winchester product catalogs only describe the Super Grade front sight as a "Redfield full gold bead".  They do not specify height.  The notion that only the Redfield 255 (0.360" tall) was used on M70s comes from Rule's book (and possibly from a typo in one of the parts catalogs)...  Loooong story...

The reality (based on the survey) is that Super Grade front sights were the same height as the contemporary Standard rifle front sights, which makes sense because the butt stock dimensions/barrel contour/rear sight of the Super Grade was the same as a Standard rifle.  So from 1936-1952 the Super Grade front sight was 0.310" tall (Redfield 254), same height as the Lyman 31W/Winchester 103C sights used on Standard rifles.  The change to the Redfield 255 occurred with the advent of the MC stock in 1952, when the rear sight was changed to a Marbles 69 folding.  The same thing happened on Standard rifles about the same time.  MC stocked Standard rifles got the Marbles 69 paired with a 0.360" tall Winchester 103E (replacing the 0.310" tall 103C).  LC stocked Standard rifles got the "low" 22K (pictured above) paired with the 103E, although the change was a little slower (I think) b/c the only reason to change the sights on a LC stock M70 was so they could use the same front sight (103E) on everything (standard and Featherweight barrels) regardless of stock type.

The issue I will encounter is that this information differs from what's stated in Roger Rule's book...  Many M70 experts will therefore question my "unsupported claim" or at least my basic literacy skills...

Make of it what you will...

Lou