extreme long range shooting (1000+ yards), revisited (.45-70 ahead!)

[General Geoff]

So I posted in a thread awhile back that concerned one of the newest purpose-designed long range anti-personnel cartridges, the .338 Lapua Magnum.


Now I'm going to do a bit of a time-warp and ask: What about .45-70 Government?


After doing a bit of research on it, conventional wisdom dictates that the much higher-velocity .338 lapua magnum would have a much better hit chance at extended ranges, due to its flatter trajectory. However, many sources claim that a 500gr bullet out of a full power .45-70 cartridge is lethal out to at least 3500 yards, and is accurate enough to be placed on an animal-sized target out to well past 1000. The upshot of that, however, is that at ranges past a few hundred yards, the gun becomes more of a hand-held artillery piece as far as trajectory is concerned.


So my question is: At a given range (say, 1500 yards), if you know the wind conditions, and humidity, etc.. would it be easier to dial in and hit a man sized target with a .338 Lapua rifle, or a .45-70 rifle? We'll say that the Lapua rifle has a reliable telescopic sight, whereas the .45-70 has tang/vernier sliding sights.


Yeah yeah, you're probably thinking I'm crazy for comparing these two vastly different cartridges. But it sure is a topic of interest, nonetheless.

 

[trueblue1776]

You would have to use the .45-70 like a mortar lube.

 

[Avenger29]

The .338, of course. For the two simple reasons of Flatter shooting and Telescopic sights. The telescopic sight will win over the irons. But Irons are a lot more fun to use.

You aren't just comparing two vastly different cartridges here. You are comparing two vastly different rifles. How about taking two identical rifles, one chambered in .45-70 and the other in .338, and using the same sighting system?

 

[crowsnest2002]

Problem with that is where are you going to find a scope with that much travel lol

 

[slzy]

you would need a quadrant sight like an m203 has,but bigger.

 

[Gifted]

Problem with using irons on the .45-70 is that you have to SEE what you're shooting at to begin with. The Lapua has a scope, so seeing well enough isn't a problem. But the Sharps or whatever has to have the sights lined up on something only a handful of people will be able to make out.

If you had someone like Quigley on the Sharps, you could probably do it. Otherwise you'll have to redo your scenario.

 

[Chuck R.]

The 45-70 with BP will do a 1000 yards, but it's going to suffer some from vertical stringing.

Also some of the 1000 yards ranges with pits and target pullers won't allow it because of the trajectory angle and increased chance of a bullet landing in the pit.

When I pulled targets in Alliance NE, I could tell what caliber gun was firing both from the report to bullet hit time and how far out the bullet struck dirt after hitting the target.

I use a 45-100 loaded with a 540 grain Paul Jones Creedmoore bullet at 1330 FPS. A lot of guys use 45-90s, and some are now using the bigger .40s IE 40-82 and .38-72s with long bullets and fast twist rates.

The iron sights aren't that hard because the black bull is pretty big. They're scaled to look about the same in the sights regardless of distance.

The biggest problem with these rifles is accurate range estimation and figuring out the conditions. A missed wind change at 1000 yards and you'll miss the 6' x 6' target stand.

Chuck