#4743 - 03/09/02 03:44 AM
Re: .410 in a .45/70?
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 3824
|
NO! Some weapons are set up to handle the .410 interchangeably with .45 colt and .45-70 rounds ( ie the Thompson centerfire system.) One potential problem is piercing the primer with the heavier pin throw with associated gas blowback in a dedicated .45-70 and jamming the action/barrel with the spent hull components. The reverse idea is even more dangerous; loading a .41 magnum into a .410. goodbye shotgun, fingers and misc. facial accouterments ( eyes, nose, teeth.) There are various combination weapons, interchangeable barrel systems and inserts ( recently mentioned.) Small game calibers will harvest just that; small game that can be secured with snares and improvised weapons. If a weapon is desired, a suitable centerfire can potentially take larger game for the same weight expense. I started out with a highly modified M6 scout, moved on to a large bore bolt action and graduated to a coil of 26 guage wire.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#4744 - 03/09/02 08:36 PM
Re: .410 in a .45/70?
|
Enthusiast
Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 280
|
Snoman,<br><br>Please read and heed Chris's warnings. Even in a gun designed to fire both .410 shotshells and .45/70 cartridges the practice is of dubious value. The rifling on the barrel spins the shot causing it to spread very quickly. The EFFECTIVE range is very short (maybe a few yards max). I suspect that the TC was designed to give the owner an option in snake country, but the only time I've ever HAD to kill a snake, using a gun was not an option. Most often I'm content to walk around them, giving them a wide berth. Trying to shoot .410 slug loads through a .45/70 is... well, it's silly, but you probably knew that. Take care<br><br>Andy
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#4745 - 03/10/02 02:28 AM
Survival guns
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Bad idea, for all the reason that Ade and Chris mentioned. You won't be able to hit anything further away than your big toe with such a combo, because of the accelerated spread from the rifling.. <br><br>.410 is a BAD survival round- not enough energy on not enough payload. It's a waste of time and space. As rule, guns are not worth thier weight and bulk in a survival situation. <br><br>Repeat after me:<br>IN A REAL SURVIVAL SITUATION I PROBABLY WILL NOT BE OUT LONG ENOUGH TO NEED TO HUNT, AND THERE IS VERY LITTLE LIKELYHOOD OF BEING KILLED AND EATEN BY CRANKY CRITTERS, IN NORTH AMERICA SOUTH OF THE 75TH PARALLEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br><br>Sorry folks, but this is the simple truth. If you go down anywhere between the Rio Grande and the 75 degrees North, your aircraft will be found within a few days. You won't need to hunt, or trap. Or even fish. You have three enemies- fear/stupidity, exposure, and dehydration, in that order. And if you are on foot/road, most of us won't be in trouble more than 24 hours if you get signals out and people know we are overdue, so only stupidity and exposure will kill you. Not wolves. Not bears. Not cougars. Not terrorists, PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. infiltrators, rouge Girl Scouts, French-Canadian sepritists, or the boogie man. <br><br>If you really need a gun, it will be a defensive tool. You might be one of the three cougar attacks a year, or something stupid like that. In that case, a good sidearm of the same kind that you would carry concealed about your daily life will be as much as you need. Not a shotgun, not a rifle, not a cannon. Just a good, potent, reliable autoloader or revolver in nothing less than .38 Special/9mm Para, on up. <br><br>Talking about survival rifles is interesting, becuase it place a technical component into what is largely opinion and art. There are places where you need it, don't get me wrong. But flying over CONUS or the "habitation belt" just above teh US/Canada border, you just don't need it. That weight and bulk is better spent on a spare beacon, water and mainstay rations.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#4746 - 03/10/02 03:06 AM
Re: Survival guns
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Very nicley said cyberraven! lots of eye openers in that post
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#4747 - 03/10/02 03:35 PM
Re: Survival guns
|
Enthusiast
Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 280
|
Kevin,<br><br>Your mention of French-Candian seperatists reminded me of an obscure, horrible pun. Forgive me, but I love obscure, horrible puns.....<br><br>What do you call 5000 French seperatists all trying to leave through the main entrance of a building at once?<br><br>Too many Basques in one exit.<br><br>Andy
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#4748 - 03/10/02 06:18 PM
Re: Survival guns
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 3824
|
Engi Ettori ( hello) Andy! Basques are a seperate ethnic group! Please remember the web is a worldwide phenomenon with forum members in Turkey, Sweden, The Netherlands, Great Britian, Canada, Hong Kong, New York City ( New York City!) to name a few. We don't want to alienate anyone from contributing to our non profit foundation status now do we ;O) So, to french seperatists et al " my debri hut is your debri hut." Chris VOX CLAMMATIS IN DESERTO
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#4749 - 03/11/02 01:24 AM
Re: Survival guns
|
Member
Registered: 09/22/02
Posts: 181
|
Hey, thanks to all for your replies. Forgive me, I didn't mean to get everyone so excited. I never actually planned to do this; I just wanted to see if it was something that anyone else ever heard of, and if so, how it worked out. I just though it might add a little extra versatility to the .45/70 if you find the need to take something smaller than a deer. (To tell the truth, I've never even fired a .410).<br>To my way of thinking, the rifle's chamber will certainly contain the pressure of the little shotshell, (if the shell/chamber dimensions were close enough to keep the shotshell from rupturing and spitting gas out of the action of the rifle), though I agree that accuracy would be pretty bad. I know I'd feel somewhat "overgunned' by using a 300/400 grain bullet out of a .45/70 to take a squirrel or a bunny. (I imagine I'd walk over to where the critter was only to find a fur-lined hole in the ground). <br>Cyberraven, I agree with what you say about not needing food in a short-term 'ordeal'. Like most Americans, I carry enough extra calories around my belly to carry me for a week or two. For something a little longer, I keep an old 20 gauge H&R Trapper single-barrel handy, with a few boxes of no. 6's. I figure that will certainly help keep my cooking pot full, and do it very cheaply. I think it cost me $69 years ago, so if it gets lost or stolen, it's not that big a deal.<br>
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#4750 - 03/11/02 06:07 AM
Re: Survival guns
|
Veteran
Registered: 12/10/01
Posts: 1272
Loc: Upper Mississippi River Valley...
|
If it is really important to you... you can handload small game loads for the 45-70. One that I have READ about uses an off-the-shelf swaged lead ball and a small amount of one of several pistol powders. I have no experience with that in 45-70 and no idea how accurate it may be. <br><br>A (relatively) lightweight cast bullet of 0.457" - 0.459" diameter would be another option, but might require a custom mold to be made up. Most 45 cal pistol bullets are 0.452" diameter - they would be difficult to load and may not be very accurate (45-70 has a 0.458" bore), so unless you've got an itch to know, that's likely to be fruitless.<br><br>"Light" loads with cast bullets of any conventional weight should work fine, too, and may be the most productive - they could effectively be used on larger game as well, within the range limitations imposed by a loopier trajectory. And I don't think they will destroy any more meat than a 22 on small game - maybe even less. It's a very interesting and effective cartridge. I had a rilfe chambered for it once, and one son has one now (Guide Gun).<br><br>Pretty bulky compared to a 22 long rifle, of course. OTOH, headshooting small game is easier with a larger caliber, all things remaining equal. I took more ptarmigan with a 45 Colt than I did with a 22 - a small "error" is a miss with a 22 and a hit with a larger diameter bullet - so goes the theory, and my experiences bore that out. Anyway, I think you can make something work with your 45-70 if it's really important to you.<br><br>I also thought Chris made a good point and do not disagree with what he wrote. There are other reasons to consider packing a firearm. But, hmmm, well... a lot of "what-ifs" and most have little or nothing to do with the thrust of this forum, I guess. Campfire forum? Anyway, hope this points you in a useful direction.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Tom<br><br>
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#4751 - 03/13/02 12:37 AM
That's a QED
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Well stated cyberraven! "Survival gun" is a misnomer. Might be a great recreational item, but in a true survival situation unlikely to be worth its weight in water, tinder or a myriad of other things. <br><br>Robb
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
0 registered (),
901
Guests and
21
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|