I'm waiting for Ron to show up for his comments, but I'll make a couple of my own in the meantime: With all due respect, there's nothing new there. It has all been discussed, corrected and debunked on AR, and now here on this thread.
I read an article not long ago in one of the magazines in which the author did his best to put the .458 Win Mag in a more modern light, but it fell far short of the whole truth, similar to this video. In factory ammo the Lott will exceed the Winchester by 100 to 150 fps depending on a number of factors: It's loaded "hotter" than the .458 WIN and it needs a longer barrel.
The speaker made a number of critical errors in his statements: The original .458 Win was not in a 26" barrel, but a 25". In handloads, a dozen years ago I was able to exceed 3.6" COL with 500gr Barnes X-Bullets in my CZ550. In fact, due to the action length (same as the CZ550 Lott) I reached 3.78", leaving more room for powder than the Lott, plus still have more "freebore". That was a dozen years ago, and it was published in my manual at the time with photos showing the COL of each side by side, with the .458 Win exceeding the COL of the Lott - 3.6" vs 3.78". In my Ruger No.1, with its 24", I can easily duplicate and slightly exceed the results I got from my former CZ550.
Then, thanks to Sir Ron. he has shown that all that is possible at LOWER PSI than the Lott! He has also revealed the truth that the SAAMI PSI for the .458 WIN is 60,000 vs 62,500 for the Lott! There's no honest reason for increasing PSI over the .458 WIN other than for promotional purposes. And... the fact is that original Winchester ammo did make the claimed ballistics, as well as handloads back-in-the day, according to several sources.
And I'm sure Ron will chime in here - I hope he does.
Nonetheless, Russ, I appreciate your motive and you personally.
