Hi all,
Just wondering if anyone knows if there is a such thing as a 458 Win. lever gun.
Read some stuff on Garrett's site that has caused a need for me to find such a weapon.
The closest I have gotten so far is Wild West's 50 Alaskan.
Too uncommon.
Any help much appreciated.

You could probably have one built on a Browning BLR. .450 Marlin would be close enough for me in a 7-8lb rifle.

I would take a Wild West .50 Alaskan in a heartbeat...it's on the list.

Hey kciH,
You know, the more I think about it the more it makes sense to go with that .50.
Lee would make the dies.
Any idea what that case is based on or who'd have load info on it?

Off topic: How are you and that 375 getting along?

The 50 Alaska (and 450 Alaskan) is based on the 348 Winchester case. They are the brainchildren of Harold Johnson of Cooper Landing, Alaska. He was looking for a good close range bear stopper. His rifle was a converted Winchester M71.

I was shooting the .375 yesterday, we are getting on quite well. I'm shooting the rifle unscoped at present. At 8lb 3oz it is very manageable from field positions. Off the bench I limit myself to about 10 shots as it does start to get to me a bit. The last two, and foreseeable, range sessions amount to about 30 rounds fired. I am enjoying the offhand practice with this rifle. The PAST shoulder pad is your friend with this, based on the first session with the rifle when I protected my shoulder with a t-shirt. Using the PAST there is no sore shoulder to contend with at all. I use the standard PAST, not the Magnum model. If you intend to have a .50 AK built it might not be such a bad idea to pick one up..if the stories are true about the fierce recoil of the round. Shooting is supposed to be fun.

The .50 Alaskan, if memory serves, is derived from the .348 Winchester casing. There is no need to go that route as www.starlinebrass.com sells brass for it. At a buck a piece it isn't terribly economical, that is a small part of the equation, but I would bet you will experience very good case life. www.midwayusa.com also has the brass in smaller quantities. It is my notion that the rifle will have enough recoil to satisfy most anyone, especially taking into account the stock design of the rifle in question. If you do a little poking around on the web you will find data for the cartridge. There is some data at www.wildwestguns.com but I would look at this rifle as a cast bullet shooter and seek out that data. Nothing wrong with a good jacketed bullet, but they don't move so fast that a true quality cast, such as a Beartooth would probably give you the most power you can get from the cartridge....and the .50 AK is about one thing...and that is power and penetration.

Yeah,
After looking into it a little further the original idea seems like the way to go.
Those things (the 50s) have got to be some real flame throwers. And even reloading it's spendy and complicated to feed.
A 71 in 458 with a 24" barrel is the direction.
The case dimensions on the 50 are fatter but shorter. The 458 ends up with a little more capacity. It's hard to tell they're related at all.
When they say a faster twist barrel will be needed I wonder what they have in mind? Model 70 is like 1-14".
And who casts 6-700 grn bullets in 45? Heh heh.

Holy Smokes,
Someone is supposed to tell me Model 71s are $3500.
Found out the 348 is based on 50-110. Cimarrons in 50-110 can be had reasonably. Anyone know if the rifle will take the pressure.

Try David R Clay in Texas. A year or so ago he talked to me about a .458 Win Mag conversion on a lever rifle./ Don't know how that went.
spurgon

I appreciate the info. It definately helps. I am surprised at the amount of this stuff that is still made for black powder.

The .50 Alaskan is a proven and readily available item on the 1895 Marlin as far as I know...can't see a .458 levergun being any kind of cost savings.

www.wildwestguns.com

Looks like about $1600 for blue or $1700 for stainless. If you want a takedown model add about $500, synthetic stocks another $600.

Those base price rifles have lots of goodies, not just a rebarrel, and include the donor rifle. Pretty fair deal if you break down all the work and know you are getting a rifle from a reputable gunsmith.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything in your post. This is as much experiment as anything else. I'm just surfing and e-mailing to see what can be done at this point.
I expect the thing to be a little more expensive up front. But in the end it will be more economical. It can be fed for half or less than the 50. It will go out and play.
Something that still has me stumped and I haven't gotten answers back from anyone yet is the barrel twist.
From what I've seen, the heavier bullets were liking a slower twist. Garrett is saying faster. Guess I'll find out why when they reply. I read some things about the wet paper test method that has raised even more questions.
Of the answers I have gotten so far, getting it done on a Marlin action doesn't seem as likely as an 1886 Winchester does. Just a more commonly copied rifle. And closer relation I suppose.
It takes 47000 cup to move a 500 grn fmj 2000 fps in 458. I suppose the action that tolerates somewhere in the neighborhood of 52000 or so is the one to go with. Finding out that's asking a lot.

Dave,

Heavier bullets require faster twist.....think blackpowder... a 140 grain 45 cal round ball needs about 1:66 twist while a 450 grain 45 cal minie bullet needs something around 1:25.

Similarly, my 25-06 has a 1:10 for a 120 grain bullet, while the wildcat .257 Condor has a 1:7 twist for a 160 grain bullet.

Lobo in West Virginia

Okay, my misunderstanding. I assumed 1 turn in 10" would be 6 times faster than 1 in 60".

Dave,

There's a formula that will give you a "good about" for twist in a particular caliber with a certain weight range of bullets .....The Greener Formula......I think.

Lobo in West Virginia

Here is a good post on twist rate I saved from the old Marlin Talk.

Twist Rates
On another thread, I was tipped off to an article on barrel twist in a gun magazine by Gunjunkie. Since then I have done some further research. The original article was in the January issue of American Rifleman on page 30. It credits a Sir George Greenhill with developing the formula T x L = 150 for estimating the proper relationship of bullet length to barrel twist. This looks really simple until you find out that the L is the length of the slug in bullet diameters, not in inches & T is the twist of the barrel in bullet diameters, not inches. Since they didn’t take the time to convert the formula into inches, I will do it here so that we can all have numbers to look at that actually mean something to us. I’ll leave the algebra derivations out unless someone wants me to post them, but this is what it comes down to:
The proper Twist in inches = 150 x caliber diameter x caliber diameter / Length of bullet in inches
Or for a .224 diameter bullet that is 3/4 (.75) of an inch long
Twist in inches = (150) x (.224) x (.224) / (.75)
Twist = a shade over 10 (or 1:10)
Also
The proper bullet length in inches = 150 x caliber diameter x caliber diameter / Twist in inches
Or in the case of a .223 Remington with a 1:12 twist like a NEF Handi-rifle:
Best bullet length in inches = (150) x (.224) x (.224) / 12
Best length = .627 (5/8 inch)
Assuming that Sir George’s formula speaks the truth, in the case of a .224 diameter bullet, the following twists would prefer the following bullet lengths:
Twist Bullet Length
1:7 – 1.075 inch
1:9 - .836 inch
1:10 - .753 inch
1:12 - .627 inch
1:14 - .538 inch
I pulled some .223 ammo apart & measured the following bullet lengths:
SS-109 green tip penetrater core M855 ball - .900 inch long
55gr FMJ M193 Ball - .730 inch long
56gr soft point pulled from Ultramax reload - .690 inch
50 gr Hornady soft point - .655 inch
I did some scrounging around after this & came up with the following info from various sources:
* The Greenhill Formula is a simplified method for determining mathematically the amount of spin necessary to stabilize a bullet. It was worked out in 1879 by Sir Alfred George Greenhill who was a Professor of Mathematics at Woolwich and teaching the Advanced British Artillery Officers Class. It was considered satisfactory for bullets having a density of .392 lbs/cubic inch or greater. (Lead has a density of .409 lbs/ cubic inch, and copper has a density of from .318-.325 lbs/cubic inch, depending on the alloy)
* The actual formula is much more complicated It is Gyroscopic Stability (GS) = the spin rate (in radians per second, squared) times the polar moment of inertia, squared, divided by the pitching moment coefficient derivative per sine of the angle of attack times the transverse moment of inertia times the air density times the velocity squared. (My keyboard does not have all the correct symbols and that is why I wrote it out). For the bullet to be stable, GS > 1.0. This is actually a short version as the pitching moment coefficient component is a complicated calculation that derives the center of gravity and the center of reverse air pressure. The equation is basically calculating the linear difference between the center of gravity and the center of reverse air pressure on the nose of the bullet. The greater the difference, the greater the spin required to keep the bullet pointed nose forward. It used to take me about three days to calculate one new design by hand. My computer does it in about 20 seconds, now.
Warren Jensen
* The number 150 is a constant used by Greenhill and works well at velocities in the vicinity of 1500 fps or greater. At 2800 fps the constant can be changed to 180 with good results.
Note that it is bullet LENGTH, not weight that is important. Greenhill works well with all lead/lead-alloys commonly used for bullets.
* Except for the extremely exacting requirements of bench rest shooters, and very long range shooters, an "over-stabilized" bullet (rifling twist faster than the minimum required for good stabilization) will shoot as well as a theoretically critically stabilized one.
Barrel twist is usually chosen for the longest bullet that will be fired in that gun. Accordingly, the military has fairly recently changed their .223 barrels to a 7 1/2" twist from a slower one for the newer, longer and heavier bullet that has become standard issue (68 grains, I believe).
* the faster the twist, the quicker it will wear out.
* As temperature or velocity decreases a faster twist is needed to maintain the same level of stability. Colder and thus denser air has a more destabilizing affect than warmer air. A lower muzzle velocity results in a slower rotational speed of the bullet and thus less stability.
*Another catch is that Greenhill assumes that the bullet's specific gravity is 10.9 (a lead cored jacketed bullet). For other bullet construction such as a steel core you need to apply a fudge factor by determining the bullets specific gravity. The formula would be:
Twist = [Square Root (10.9 / specific gravity of the new bullet)] * twist derived for a lead core bullet
*****After all this is said & done, I have found that my .223 Handi-rifle with a 1:12 twist shoots best with 50gr & below slugs.
Also, If a twist rate is too quick, it can put excessive centripetal force on a slug & cause it to vaporize as it leaves the barrel. Very light cased .22 varmint slugs are known for vaporizing when they leave 1:7 twist military barrels at over a quarter million RPM.

Wow, Sure Shot, that is brilliant. Took a while to absorb all that. Head kinda hurts now. But thank you.
Barnes has a 600 grn round nose soft point. I've e-mailed to see what they recommend.
It seems that every manufacturer of 45 cal rifles is using something different. Some of them even among their own different models. And I don't think they're twisting for 600 grn projectiles. I would like to find something that will work for 300 to 600, but I understand that's a pretty good spread. Then again I don't see why a 1 in 20 wouldn't cover it.

Don't know if someone told you yet, but Buffalo Bore makes a pretty mean .50 Alaskan in 450gr. It puts out a crazy M/E of somethong like 4400 lbs.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything in your post. This is as much experiment as anything else. I'm just surfing and e-mailing to see what can be done at this point.
I expect the thing to be a little more expensive up front. But in the end it will be more economical. It can be fed for half or less than the 50. It will go out and play.
Something that still has me stumped and I haven't gotten answers back from anyone yet is the barrel twist.
From what I've seen, the heavier bullets were liking a slower twist. Garrett is saying faster. Guess I'll find out why when they reply. I read some things about the wet paper test method that has raised even more questions.
Of the answers I have gotten so far, getting it done on a Marlin action doesn't seem as likely as an 1886 Winchester does. Just a more commonly copied rifle. And closer relation I suppose.
It takes 47000 cup to move a 500 grn fmj 2000 fps in 458. I suppose the action that tolerates somewhere in the neighborhood of 52000 or so is the one to go with. Finding out that's asking a lot.

Totally in agreement. 458s offer a lot more energy too.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything in your post. This is as much experiment as anything else. I'm just surfing and e-mailing to see what can be done at this point.
I expect the thing to be a little more expensive up front. But in the end it will be more economical. It can be fed for half or less than the 50. It will go out and play.
Something that still has me stumped and I haven't gotten answers back from anyone yet is the barrel twist.
From what I've seen, the heavier bullets were liking a slower twist. Garrett is saying faster. Guess I'll find out why when they reply. I read some things about the wet paper test method that has raised even more questions.
Of the answers I have gotten so far, getting it done on a Marlin action doesn't seem as likely as an 1886 Winchester does. Just a more commonly copied rifle. And closer relation I suppose.
It takes 47000 cup to move a 500 grn fmj 2000 fps in 458. I suppose the action that tolerates somewhere in the neighborhood of 52000 or so is the one to go with. Finding out that's asking a lot.