Win '86 with 520 gr bullets

[PJ Hardtack]

Just got back from the range shooting my Browning '86 45-70 with both smokeless and BP.

The smokeless load consisted of the Lyman 520 gr 457125 RN/36 grs Varget. The BP load was a duplex of Lyman 420 gr 457193/52 grs FFg/6 grs SR4759.

All shooting was done sitting, no x-sticks.

At 50 m the smokeless load put 3 rds into a group right on point of aim that you could cover with a quarter! Hitting the 100 m and 150m gongs was duck soup. I went through 30 rds of that one.

At 50 m the BP load put three rds into a 1" V x 1-1/2" H group slightly above POA. At 100 m it put 4 rds into 4-1/2"V  x 3" H lower and to the right of POA. First time I ever fired BP in the '86. More load development required on that one.

WARNING !!! That smokeless load with Varget is far under the max with that powder, but it's no pussy cat. I had to put a jacket on over my fleece vest after the first 10 rds.

It is NOT a load you'd want to shoot out of a Trapdoor carbine!

[PJ Hardtack]

I'm surprised that no one asked me how I was able to work those 520 gr loads through the action of my '86 ...... well, I didn't.

The OAL length precluded that, necessitating single loading every round.

The ammo was done for my Shiloh Business Rifle and many of the rds had a slight bulge that prevented chambering in that rifle.
Poor quality control and die alignment on my part.

The big Browning eats anything! Love that rifle!

[Blair]

PJ,

The only question I would ask you is what is the rate of twist?

It sounds as if the 1-20 ROT should be fine for the heavy/longer bullets.
However, some extra free bore may be needed to help allow for the longer/heavier bullets.
I always preferred a ROT at 1-16 in my, BP only, single shot rifles, with a lot of free bore (about 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch depending on the caliber) in a long barrel, for the heavy bullets.
Just some thoughts on my part.
My best,
Blair

[PJ Hardtack]

I've no idea what the ROT is in the Browning '86, but it obviously is sufficient to stabilize a Lyman 457125 bullet.

It also handles the 350's and 405's I feed it - these from the mag tube.

[Gabriel Law]

PJ:  from where did you acquire your '86"?

[PJ Hardtack]

I got my '86 from a Kamloops CAS pal who has since tried to buy it off twice for more than I paid for it.

There is currently a NIB Browning '86 carbine on the GunNutz EE asking $1750. That's over the top, IMHO.

I know that the '86 carbine is a brute to shoot. After a few shots with hunting loads, a .243 sounds like a good idea.

[DTS]

PJ Hardtack - I am loading a RN gas check Lyman bullet weighing 506gr. in my slightly shorter 1.9" cases, but to 2.6" oal. with 42gr. Benchmark, standard LR primer in my Italian Sharps, 35" GM bl. This load has not been chronographed but has given me repeated hits on a 5" plate (orange) at 210meters, and witnessed 1 1/2" groups at 100 meters, using original sharps carbine sight for the rear and a silver blade for the front. Hell of a load, maybe in the 1,600fps range and totally usable in an 86.  I figure maybe 24,000psi from Hodgdson .45/70 data. My Sharps with the huge BP firing pin does not mind at all.

[PJ Hardtack]

Most BPCR's shoot beyond expectations - even with the REAL powder they were designed for. It's almost heresy not to.

I've got loads in both smokeless and BP for all my BPCR's. While smokeless loads are a lot less bother to put together, I find it much more gratifying to shoot past 200m with BP.

Especially when guys with scoped modern rifles think it's an accomplishment to do it with a rifle locked in a 'lead sled' where all they do is trip the trigger.

[DTS]

LOL- you are absolutely right, P.J. Hardtack. However.

The best load in that Sharps pictured above, one that would easily work in the 86 for a smokeless hunting load, is the Remington dual cannelured 405gr. FN with 48gr. Benchmark. YOu could increase easily to 50gr. of more in the 86.  It made a 7/8", 10 shot witnessed group from my Sharps at 100 meters, buddy Brad on the spotting scope. From the 35" bl. they crono'd 1,845fps, about maximum for that bullet on big game like moose or elk. It is an incredible moose or elk killer.  Huge holes through and through the ribs and good penetration as well.  do not shoot heavy bone with it. Those Rem FN's are like bubble gum - expanding way out of proportion to their diameter, but sticking together.  At that time I was testing them, I had a Sharps front Sight with dual cross-hair insert and a Snover tang sight with 5" staff. The bull was 4" in diameter and PERFECT for that sight system. 3 concentric rings. They strike the target 12" higher than the afore mentioned 506gr. at 100 meters.  since I didn't want to change the open, hunting sights, I stuck with the heavier bullet, but alas, my hunting buddy passed away and we didn't get to go moose hunting with our Sharps. His, was a .50 3 1/4 with 450 cast FN's making just over 2,100fps.

[PJ Hardtack]

The ballistics of your buddy's .50 3-1/4" rifle is in the realm of the British double rifle. Thanks, but no thanks! I weigh 145 lbs and just had new lenses installed in both eyes after cataract surgery. Risking detached retinas so that I can play "Mine's bigger than yours" has no appeal whatsoever.

When I got into 45-70's, I bought Paul Matthews book and tried a few of his loads. Didn't take long for that to wear off. I don't feel the need for ballistics over historic BP loads. The two moose, two large black bears and a 6 point Mule Deer fell to that potential with my 45-70 '86 and 50-70 Sharps Military Rifle.

A friend of mine has a Ruger carbine in 45-70. Nice gun to carry, a real bugger to shoot! He is one of those who thinks it necessary to turn a 45-70 into a sub-.458 Win mag.
Another guy has the Marlin Guide Gun with muzzle break, thinking that would tame it. He bought it an then proceeded to load it as if he was after Alaskan Brown Bears. Way too much load for him!

I really enjoy watching the big boys shoot their big toys, pretending that they're actually having fun after the first three rds. One of my CAS pals bought a nice repro High wall in 45-110. I annealed the brass for him and he invited me to shoot it. I declined and proceeded to ring the gongs with BP loads with my H&R Cavalry Carbine. He laughed at my puny little 45-70, but I was the one making the hits. He was making smoke and noise.

I enjoy reading the articles in BPCN about British double rifles. I think I could enjoy shooting an "Express Rifle" cartridge, but not the ones intended for tigers, lions, elephants and water buffaloes. An H&H or Purdey "Stalking Rifle" in .300 would suit me just fine.

When I go to the range with a BPCR, I expect to burn up at least 40 rds. Otherwise, it's just not worth packing up rifle, ammo, cleaning cradle, spotting scope, shooting mat, x-stix, etc., etc. However, if I get to the point where I'm just burning powder and not accomplishing anything, I quit.

It would take a masochist to shoot that many .50/140 or 45-110 or 45-120 rds. Someday I might consider a 50-90, but it would have to be 12 lb rifle with a shotgun butt.

I just got back from a morning walk on a logging road with the dogs, packing my 50-70 carbine. We walked in the tracks of wolves, coyotes, foxes and a cow moose with a calf. I can carry that carbine all day, and have several times. I never get fatiqued to the point where holding it up would prevent me from a steady off hand shot. I periodically go to the aim just to prove it. If I can't, I know I'm moving too fast and slow down.

[DTS]

That's interesting PJHardtack. We had difficulty getting our first serious BP Ctg, guns shooting well with the 3 1/4" case. It was just too long. Currently, my bro is shooting a .50/90 with 600gr. bullets from a buffalo arms mould and it's doing exceptionally well- with 90gr. Swiss 1 1/2F, but it does kick.  Further testing will be done, come spring.  My Sharps is doing really well with 61gr. 1 1/2F Swiss and the aforementioned 506 Schmitzer and525gr. .457125 moulds. Come sprijng we'll find out which one is better way out there.  Our 1,000 (almost 1,100 meters) meter range will get a workout.

[DTS]

Here's that 12 pound Sharps chambered for a .50/90, shooting 600gr. bullets cast from a Buffalo Arms mould. It's very accurate and in the winner's circle 2 years in a row for the long range Quigley match at BC rendezvous. That is the reason for it's being.


Your comment:

"The ballistics of your buddy's .50 3-1/4" rifle is in the realm of the British double rifle. Thanks, but no thanks! I weigh 145 lbs and just had new lenses installed in both eyes after cataract surgery. Risking detached retinas so that I can play "Mine's bigger than yours" has no appeal whatsoever."

Years ago, when Brad was shooting that rifle, he weighed perhaps 225/250 and that rifle, nor the .416 Rigby in his new at that time RugerM77, fazed him at all, even shooting from the bench.

Like you, I wouldn't shoot either of those rifles as both hurt my shoulder due to torn cartilage, fore and aft.  However, it never entered my mind, not even once, to attempt belittle him for shooting those rifles. He loved shooting those guns & loved shooting them just because they worked so well for him when hunting moose and elk.

Brad passed away 6 years ago now, due to a massive heart attack. He was my hunting buddy. He is gravely missed. I cannot accept anyone attempting to belittle him because they may wrongly feel weak or being attacked themselves due to a physical condition.   Do not apologize to me - rather you need to apologize to Brad.

[Professor Marvel]

Brad passed away 6 years ago now, due to a massive heart attack. He was my hunting buddy. He is gravely missed. I cannot accept anyone attempting to belittle him because they may wrongly feel weak or being attacked themselves due to a physical condition.   Do not apologize to me - rather you need to apologize to Brad.

Mod Hat On:

let's keep this civil.
I do not see anyway in this thread where anyone offered offense or belittlement to you or your brother.
maybe you need to switch to decaff

yhs prof marvel

[DTS]

This was uncalled for. It was a Smart-Ass comment beneath this site's standards - I had hoped - perhaps not. 


"Risking detached retinas so that I can play "Mine's bigger than yours" has no appeal whatsoever."

[Coal Creek Griff]

No mod hat here, but I very much doubt that comment was intended the way you took it.

CC Griff

[Professor Marvel]

No mod hat here, but I very much doubt that comment was intended the way you took it.

CC Griff

my point exactly

yhs
pm

[PJ Hardtack]

Thanks for the vote of confidence gentlemen. When I first got into BPCR's, I signed up on the Shiloh forum to learn from the best.
I was astounded to learn that several people had suffered detached retinas over the years  as a result of too much recoil.

You can bet your boots this was not from shooting calibres like the 45-70! A BPCR Silhouette match consists of 40 rds to score, plus sighters. That's a lot of punishment to absorb from a heavy recoiling rifle.

Earlier this year I underwent cataract surgery in both eyes and had new lenses installed. I can now see hits on steel at 200m with the naked eye - well almost naked, as I still require glasses for long range vision. I'd like not to undue that good work by doing something stupid.

Anyone who enjoys getting pounded by his rifle - go for it! I'm content with my little 45-70 in at least a 10 lb rifle. With my lighter rifles, a lighter load works for me.

One of the wags on the Shiloh forum once remarked that the 50-70 would make a fine pistol round. Perhaps, but not in my hands.
The same amount of lead and powder that would rock you in a 45-70 is a pussy cat in a 50-70.  My 50-70 Military Rifle and carbine are proof of that.

[DTS]

The comment was what it was - and what it was is obvious! It was an attempt to ridicule anyone, or perhaps only someone in particular, who shoots a large bore rifle.

With some people, this is an automatic defense mechanism, to shift attention, or to make fun of someone. It was not necessary - at all.

Merely to say you cannot shoot such guns due to eye surgery, or merely noting, as you say, a lot of people had eye trouble due to  shooting the big thumpers would have been more than sufficient - if indeed you needed to make any comment about it at all.  Using this old response of ridicule was out of line. Defending it's use is also out of line.

[Professor Marvel]

And some people go out of their way to look for a fight.
this thread is locked

pm