Posted on 01/13/2013 5:54:45 AM PST by TexasM1A
Morning folks, I was wondering if any of you have had any experience with .45-70 chambered rifles. I am in the market for one but I truly know next to nothing about them. Most of the people I would normally go to for information regarding a firearm are in a the same boat as me, they have no knowledge of these firearms.
I have been searching the internet but have found few places/people that break down the pros and cons of the various models/manufacturers. I would like some thing that is competition legal, but competitive shooting is not the reason why I am going to purchase it.
Thanks much.
But it kicks like a Missouri mule. I am thinking of extending the tube in order to install mercury load balancing in the end of the tube and in the stock... A buddy of mine has done this, and his gun is a pleasure to shoot (comparatively).
Has anyone chambered a lever action for the .50 S%W?
If they haven’t I bet someone will.
You only shoot one round and act like it didn’t hurt, then hand it to your good buddy to shoot off the rest of ‘em.
Nice one...thanks for the laugh!
Look up “Alaskan Co-Pilot”. The one .45-70 I’d want, and want bad.
wow... just wow..
davis was a politican...
our current crop of politicans are not better, and I do not listen to what they say, I look at what they do...
you should consider trying that
if you bought, owned and operated a piece of property, and was asked just to leave because someone else felt they owned it, would you???
perfect example, guantanimo bay..
cuba asked us to leave, we did not..
we are still there...
are you saying we should give up our base there because cuba is an independent nation?????
I eagerly await your reply..
How is it that 45-70 is centerfire and not rimfire? Seems to me it would be dangerous to have a centerfire lever action...
Assuming Country B began preparations to use that base as a jump off point for an invasion of Country A, all other matters being neutral, Country B would clearly have the right to consider the buildup a hostile act and respond with force, even preemptively.
Particular to Fort Sumter, why would you assume that it belonged to the Northern States? Common property is generally dissolved between the partners when a partnership is dissolved. Clearly there is a strong argument that, at a minimum, all federal property within a seceding state would automatically revert to that state. I don't recall the CSA claiming ownership of any territory outside of their borders, although they would have had the same claim to federal lands in the North, as the North had on federal lands in the South. The peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia is a good example. Did all of the governmental lands in Slovakia continue to be held by the Czech Republic? No, they did not.
South Carolina spent several months requesting that Fort Sumter be placed back into their possession. But alas, not all divorces are amiable.
First of all sir, I applaud you..
You are having a reasonable discussion without emotions...
You are not accusing me of things that are just not true, and are not accusing me of being a “Yankee” supporter, there are things that I agree with and disagree with regarding the politics of the war between the states....
Having said that, sumpter was an island, not a property sitting in the middle of a state, and if I am correct (please correct me if I am wrong) federal installations within the confederates states were abandoned, except for the one that sat in the water... a territorial dispute, yes, but a reason to start a shooting war, no....
to state that sumpter was going to be used as a staging point for an invasion is speculation at this point..
one could say the technology did not exist at that time for a full fledged amphibious assault, and considering the enormous firepower the confederacy had surrounding the island, it would be safe to say that even with sumpter resupplied, any landing or attack would have been doomed to failure...
No, my contention is that a politician (davis) wanted a shooting war, was looking for a reason for it, and found one...
But this one was doomed to failure, not because of right or wrong, not because of fighting spirit or personal beliefs of the men involved, but, to put it quite simply, logistics..
they did not have enough stuff, and very few ways to get what they needed..
their only chance of success was to strike quickly and decisively... It almost worked
A .45 405gr slug on a dog makes a mess.
I had called them in to within about 25 yards. They thought there was a calf for an easy meal.
They had killed a cow a few weeks before while she was having a calf. Didn't kill the cow to eat it, Killed her just for the fun.
The three biggest were closest to me so I got them with the first three shots. The two little ratty dogs couldn't keep up with the big dogs and were probably 30 to 40 yards behind. I missed them. Damn glad I ran out of ammo. Those little ratty dogs probably ended up coyote crap.
The issue with Sumter was its command of the harbor. Amphibious attacks were carried out with the technology of the day, but as you point out, they were not likely to originate from Sumter. Generally armies were landed miles up the coast from fortified positions and then marched into place.
I don’t really think that the South wanted a shooting war. They just wanted peaceful secession. However, I think many if not most influential Southern leaders presumed that the North’s postering over the first two months and rejection of the right to secede meant that a shooting war was inevitable.
Federal installations were abandoned, but not out of good will. Many were seized. The Charleston, SC garrison moved to Sumter because it was more defensible. No one (North nor South) really knew what to expect.
IMHO firing on Sumter was a huge mistake. It was a small victory for the South, but provided an enormous rallying cry for the North. It also lit the match to a hot war. No matter what provocation occurs prior to a fight, most people fixate on who threw the first punch. Its questionable whether the Northern states had the political will to attack the South, before Fort Sumter was fired on.
The issue of Sumter being an island is a nonissue in my opinion with regard to sovereignty, as it is clearly an “inland island” within the territorial boundaries of SC. The surrounding water is clearly territorial to SC.
I hunt central Minnesota and eastern North Dakota. The guide gun with the Trijicon scope is great in the trees, when there is a mix of sun and shade. The green dot really stands out. When I’m on ND farm fields, a shot may run out to 300 yards, so I’ll usually take a Savage in .308.
I think the 45-70 would be great for hogs, I know I like it for deer. Might be a bit much for javelina, I haven’t seen a javelina since the early ‘80s when I was in Tucson, I don’t remember them getting very big.
Just parenthetically- I’ve been to Fort Sumter. Two things struck me when I was there. Nope, not quite old enough for them to have been projectiles- I just feel that old. :-)
1. It was a lot smaller than I had imagined- even having seen contemporary photos of the place.
2. It was a LONG WAY from any land that you could emplace front-stuffer arty on. It was a clear day and the nearest land was a loooong way off.
I guess artillery gunners had to really know their stuff to beat that place up as they did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.