.45-70 VS .300 win

[jjohnwm]

Using logic or appealing to his rational side will do nothing to change BUM's mind on this issue. This is a completely emotional, non-rational, unthinking "feeling" that he has, as we all do about some things...guns, motorcycles, cars, women, you name it.

His tastes in guns and opinions about them and about hunting are usually pretty much in line with mine; a Fudd after my own heart. It's quite a shock to hear him say something so completely, utterly and undeniably wrong!

BUM, did you not make a comment in another thread that a Winchester 1885 chambered in .375H&H made no sense to you? I seem to recall reading that, and being somewhat shaken...considering that gun/cartridge combo is a favourite of mine. And now this???

What's the world coming to?

 

[torontogungal]

I think a 555 gr cast lead launched at 1350-1400 fps from a 45-70 would still have enough power to take down a deer or black bear even at 1000 yds. The bullet basically goes into cruise mode once it goes subsonic. But as you say, getting on target would be another challenge altogether. Shooting steel targets 4 feet square with a vernier ladder sight at 600 yds, and hitting a deer or black bear in the vitals at 100 yds are two different things altogether. I do both.
Since this thread is really about hunting, if it were me, I'd grab either the 45-70, or as has been suggested even better, the 308 or 270. They all work fine for hunting. It is great to have choices. The only reason I'd pass on the 300 wm is I don't have one.

Paw likes to use that ruger 77 mkII zytel all-weather in 300 win mag in his favourite tree stand at the edge of a huge timber cut in the watabeg lake area.
He has dropped moose past 400 yards.
He decided the magnum gave him a little more snot than the family '06 at those ranges.
His top of the line leupold 3-9x40 and the magnum rifle let him get out really far to love tap those big horny critters.

 

[brybenn]

I've used both on Bears. The 300 is much harder on meat than the 45/70 up close
I carry a 45/70 when baiting or hunting thick cover. I hunt with my 300 if I plan for shots over 200 yards.
The 75-200 yard range is perfect for my 458 win mag
The 45/70 is very capable but my rifle is set up for close range

Both will work

 

[BigUglyMan]

How to change that view? The 45-70 and No.1 rifle go together well because the round is from the colorful and charismatic Victorian era in a Farquharson-style rifle of the same era. The No.1 45-70 rifle has a certain charm and using one is like taking a step back in time, much like using a Springfield rifle...

I think it's the meeting of British and American that I can't get right with. It shouldn't make a damned bit of difference, but there's just something. I've got a #1H in 458 WM and I'm just not a fan of that either.

 

[BigUglyMan]

Using logic or appealing to his rational side will do nothing to change BUM's mind on this issue. This is a completely emotional, non-rational, unthinking "feeling" that he has, as we all do about some things...guns, motorcycles, cars, women, you name it.

His tastes in guns and opinions about them and about hunting are usually pretty much in line with mine; a Fudd after my own heart. It's quite a shock to hear him say something so completely, utterly and undeniably wrong!

BUM, did you not make a comment in another thread that a Winchester 1885 chambered in .375H&H made no sense to you? I seem to recall reading that, and being somewhat shaken...considering that gun/cartridge combo is a favourite of mine. And now this???

What's the world coming to?

I don't want to be too perfect John. The 1885 and 375 H&H was indeed me and it's just the photonegative to this scenario. I have the 1885 in 45-70 and that's just perfectly logical...American as fried chicken and apple pie. The #1 in 450-400, 375 Flanged or 450 NE is just right...British like fish and chips and mushy peas (in spite of the Ruger being American, the design is British so that's good enough). But I don't eat fried chicken and mushy peas (maybe I could do fish and chips and apple pie...should try that some time).

I know...utter lunacy.

 

[jjohnwm]

I don't want to be too perfect John.

Okay, now I get it. Great minds do indeed think alike. If I go too many months without an error, I too like to make a small one just so as not to become offensive to God.

It's tough enough to remain humble...living up to perfection is just too much work...

 

[Slamfire]

Consider the scenario where a big angry Bull Moose has been called in and approaches through the timber. Would I rather have my 45-70 Ruger or my 300 WM Grey Wolf? The Ruger gets the nod. It has way more energy, bullet weight and diameter to produce enough bone-smashing penetration and shock to drop it right now. So I don't get my azz stomped.

 

[torontogungal]

We're looking around for a milsurp 20mm anti aircraft cannon for moose hunting.
Just think my grampa shot a maine moose back in the 80s with a m94/30-30.
They must be evolving thicker skins.

 

[medvedqc]

who cares about paw or grand pa used ... this is what the op wants to use ... luckily you are not the one making the rules nor justin on what i can own or shoot ...

 

[Kelly Timoffee]

Still comparing apples to oranges?

One question to the OP, do you want flexibility and versatility or just to add another rifle to the collection?

 

[Superbrad]

Still comparing apples to oranges?

One question to the OP, do you want flexibility and versatility or just to add another rifle to the collection?

Completely agree...... I see no valid argument for the 45-70 in this situation...... stating that, in one rifle (a single shot to boot), under certain conditions, with a fancy reticle and mathematical calculations etc the 45-70 will do the job, may not be false....

That being said, why?...... certainly not for any reason encompassed in the OP.....

 

[heronfish]

Consider the scenario where a big angry Bull Moose has been called in and approaches through the timber. Would I rather have my 45-70 Ruger or my 300 WM Grey Wolf? The Ruger gets the nod. It has way more energy, bullet weight and diameter to produce enough bone-smashing penetration and shock to drop it right now. So I don't get my azz stomped.

You would honestly rather have a big bore single shot with that reticle full of lines and dots over a 300 win mag in a bolt repeater with a simple scope. I can't agree.

 

[jjohnwm]

We're looking around for a milsurp 20mm anti aircraft cannon for moose hunting.
Just think my grampa shot a maine moose back in the 80s with a m94/30-30.
They must be evolving thicker skins.

What does this prove? I shot several moose in the 80's...and one in the 70's...and a few more in the years since then. I never used a .30-30, because I always had something better for the task. I think that most of these cases of so-and-so shot a big whatchamacallit using a peashooter are the result of so-and-so not having anything better to use, so he made do with what he had. That doesn't mean it was the perfect choice, or even a good choice...it just means that in that particular case, it was adequate. In fact, we don't know if ol' gramps had to shoot the thing a dozen times before he put it down decisively, so we can't even be sure it was adequate.

You would honestly rather have a big bore single shot with that reticle full of lines and dots over a 300 win mag in a bolt repeater with a simple scope. I can't agree.

In fairness, that reticle full of lines and dots can still be used quickly as a simple scope. So, fine...a big "angry" bull moose is heading my way. He does have some potential to mess me up, but he just isn't "dangerous game" in the same manner that a cape buffalo or a lion or a brown bear is. I'd be satisfied with either of those guns to do the job, and frankly I'd far rather shoot a close-range moose with a .45-70 than a .300mag so that's what I'd choose...not because it's "better", but...just because!

For the OP? The fact that he needs to ask the question is the answer to that question: the .300mag is the correct choice between those two.

 

[Kelly Timoffee]

I'll add to our info session...

Please don't take this the wrong way everyone but it will add to the "now it makes sense" debacle.

1- Which is chambered in more rifles?
B- Which has more versatility in store available ammo?
Thirdly- Which can be loaded with more varying applications and ammo , practically( varmint , target , precision, medium game, big game)?
FORE- Which is still used as a sharpshooter/sniper chambering?
cinco - Which will be easier to learn to shoot?(point blank, flat shooting)

If I wanted to go hunting in Canada and be able to hunt everything Canada/my area has to offer ? 300 WM

If I wanted something cool to add to the collection? .45-70

The .45-70 is very capable for specific uses. For everything else there is Master Card - 300WM

Sorry but there is no practical comparison here. Next will be 30-30 vs . 30-378 Weatherby.

Completely agree...... I see no valid argument for the 45-70 in this situation...... stating that, in one rifle (a single shot to boot), under certain conditions, with a fancy reticle and mathematical calculations etc the 45-70 will do the job, may not be false....

That being said, why?...... certainly not for any reason encompassed in the OP.....

 

[MackForce]

Well... looks like the OP started a great troll thread ...
The guy is active with a 13 trader rating.. wouldn't call him new to shooting per se... as some of you assumed by his question. I think others got it right with his wanting to add another rifle to the stable...
I think the answer is clear. Anyone speaking in practical terms has given the best choice. We all love fun guns too. So I guess it has been answered multiple times. And lots of grampy did it... as part for the course.

 

[BigUglyMan]

Well... looks like the OP started a great troll thread ...
The guy is active with a 13 trader rating.. wouldn't call him new to shooting per se... as some of you assumed by his question. I think others got it right with his wanting to add another rifle to the stable...
I think the answer is clear. Anyone speaking in practical terms has given the best choice. We all love fun guns too. So I guess it has been answered multiple times. And lots of grampy did it... as part for the course.

It's what you do in the off-season. When I moved to Nunavut in 2014 I started a thread of which of my rifles to take which ran the gamut from 223 to 470 NE (IIRC the choices were 223, 25-06, 257 Wby, 308, 30-06, 300 H&H, 300 WM, 9.3x62, 416 Rigby, 45-70, 458WM and 470NE). I started it, not because I couldn't decide on my own or that I generally needed anyone else's input, but because it's fun to yak back and forth about rifles and hunting among the like-minded. When I try to talk rifles with the locals it gets boring because mostly they own one or two, they call it the "odd-six" or "three-oh-six" and most have never taken a shot past 35 yards. You lunatics are my outlet, my sanity in a world of apple-piles and one-rifle hunters.

You complete me.

 

[grit]

All comes down to range and what you enjoy shooting, if you normally hunt ranges of 150 yds and under and you enjoy the 45/70 then no reason not to use it.if your after versatility then take the 300. Not sure why most discussion have to include my grandpa killed moose or grizzly bears in the old days with a 30/30... I can't imagine how many wounded animals the 30/30 accounted for. Mostly caliber comes down to preference within reason ... Things have changed a bit in the last 10 years with outdoor life TV and you tube .., as many shoot a hundred rounds a year and think they can knock of game at 800yds

 

[pastway]

I started it, not because I couldn't decide on my own or that I generally needed anyone else's input, but because it's fun to yak back and forth about rifles and hunting among the like-minded. When I try to talk rifles with the locals it gets boring because mostly they own one or two, they call it the "odd-six" or "three-oh-six" and most have never taken a shot past 35 yards. You lunatics are my outlet, my sanity in a world of apple-piles and one-rifle hunters.

That was my thinking as well, but I couldn't word it as well as you have. I don't see the OP as a troll, but someone who wants to talk about rifles.

 

[torontogungal]

What does this prove? I shot several moose in the 80's...and one in the 70's...and a few more in the years since then. I never used a .30-30, because I always had something better for the task. I think that most of these cases of so-and-so shot a big whatchamacallit using a peashooter are the result of so-and-so not having anything better to use, so he made do with what he had. That doesn't mean it was the perfect choice, or even a good choice...it just means that in that particular case, it was adequate. In fact, we don't know if ol' gramps had to shoot the thing a dozen times before he put it down decisively, so we can't even be sure it was adequate.



In fairness, that reticle full of lines and dots can still be used quickly as a simple scope. So, fine...a big "angry" bull moose is heading my way. He does have some potential to mess me up, but he just isn't "dangerous game" in the same manner that a cape buffalo or a lion or a brown bear is. I'd be satisfied with either of those guns to do the job, and frankly I'd far rather shoot a close-range moose with a .45-70 than a .300mag so that's what I'd choose...not because it's "better", but...just because!

For the OP? The fact that he needs to ask the question is the answer to that question: the .300mag is the correct choice between those two.

Agreed on the 300 win mag being 'the correct choice'.
The 20mm cannon would be a bit heavy for the pre 64 mod 70 platform we were thinking
of using.

 

[Slamfire]

Just for grins and giggles I thought I would see if the BDC 250 reticle in my Nikon Omega 3-9x40mm actually works. For a Hornady 300gr HP bullet I backed off the speed by 1000 fps to 1600 fps at the muzzle in order to get the rainbow trajectory that the 45-70 is generally known for which would be a more challenging test for the BDC reticle.

Zeroed at 100 yards impact will be minus 18.6" at 200 yards!

Using the Nikon Spot-On app for this load the BDC 250 reticle is calibrated as shown -

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/nikon-products/hunting-spoton/index.page

The shooting range only has 100 and 200 yard target boards so I thought for a 100 yard zero I would try the different reticle calibrations at 9x, 7x and 4x in order to utilize 3 of the 4 BDC circles to give the reticle a work-out at 200 yards.

I zeroed my rifle as shown at 100 yards. Not the most accurate load but group size is about 1-1/2" which should do for demonstration purposes. Results as shown -

Conclusion: For the load I used (41.2 grs of IMR4198) the Hornady Handbook 3rd edition lists muzzle speed as 1600 fps. I didn't chronograph the load so I suspect it might be a bit faster seeing that it shoots a bit higher than expected at 200 yards. The 100 and 200 yard distances to the target boards should be verified which could be off a bit. And windage needs to be tweaked a bit to the left.

Other possible error sources could be power ring selector setting accuracy and parallax (it's a $200 scope ) but this rifle, scope and load combo is accurate enough to hit the kill zone on a Moose at 200 yards using the BDC 250 reticle with a 100 yard zero.

I'm confident the BDC 250 reticle works as claimed with the Spot-On app. So at lever rifle power levels with a ballistic reticle the 45-70 can be a 300+ yard hunting rifle.