Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Africa What about the 45/70 in Africa

Mule Deer,

BTW, I think we're mainly still concentrating on the subject of adequate penetration to reach the vitals. As has been mentioned before in this thread, the .45-70 has plenty of penetration to do that but so does a .30-06 with a 220 gr solid.

We know from his article that Brian did not face a charge or have to stop a charge. As I stated, I have no experience with Buff (or any other dangerous game) but my readings on the subject seem to indicate that there seems to be a difference in being able to kill a Buff (or Elephant or Rhino) as opposed to having an adequate "stopping rifle" for when things go sour. Do you think there is some combination of bullet weight, caliber, energy, momentum, etc. that comes into play that enables the traditional African dangerous game cartridges to have an advantage when trying to stop a Buff in a charge?

-Bob F.

The only way I have seen to surely stop a charge from a buffalo is to hit him somewhere in the brain or spine--or break enough legs that he can't run anymore. You can hit them with as many foot-pounds as you like (or bullet diameter or weight, or whatever) and the reaction will zero unless you break the charging machinery.

JB

I was really trying to stay out of this debate[its been beat to death over at accurate reloading for years now]. However, I went back and reread Steve1s opening post. He started out asking if it was "adequate", and before we get 2 pages into the thread, it turns into "it has to be a stopping rifle". What I found amusing is the constant "stopping the charge if things go wrong". What made this amusing was that I happened to do a search on Mark Sullivan over at AR[he brings up as much rant as the .45-70]. Here, naysayers to the .45-70 make it sound like there COULD be a charge behind every bush. However, when you read the MS threads, there is no way you can get that many charges. Even Saeed said he has shot over 100 buffs and has had no charges. One ph posted that he had hunted buff for 20+ years and was only charged once, by an unwounded cow! My only point here is that both sides get sooo passionate about their "side" that we tend to get away from the question asked.

Adequate yes, game stopper? maybe si maybe no. My take is if you are using adeqate bullets for the job, it comes down to "operator error" more than the machinery you are operating with. FWIW, I totally agree with everything Mule Deer has posted on the subject, so far.

I guess when this thread finally runs out of gas, we should start one on "Mark Sullivan using the .45-70 guide gun as a stopping rifle".

Mad Dog

What is your 9,3X74R DR? I was set on using one this Sept in Selous R2 and R4, but had some bad stuff that needed cutting out of me and had to bow out. I wanted to load up some North Forks, but they told me their bullets are not recommended for my small, light Chapuis UGEX. I have used a DT Tikka 512S 9,3 O/U in the past and two different combination guns in 12ga/9,3X74R. The 9,3X74R gets it done, but always has me walking on eggs a bit.

You keep bringing in more and more STUFF.The idea is to distill it down to less and less.I never even hinted that the 45/70 was better than modern cartridges at 1000 yards.The point is that it is a much more capable cartridge than many will give it credit for.I have no idea how it would do as a target round if fired by an equally set up rifle to those used at Camp Perry for target shooting.Frankly,I don't even care.That kind of shooting holds very little interest for me.
I never even hinted that I thought it was BETTER than the modern .458 cartridges for taking big game either.I just noted that so many just totally dismiss it out of hand as an African cartridge,having NO real experience with it,yet there is a body of evidence,noted by John Barseness and Brian Pearce among others,that would seem to indicate that 500+ grain loads in a
proper bullet in these older .45 cartridges can indeed be quite effective on animals at least up to and incuding cape buffalo.
The point is that many with no real experience are bashing this cartridge.I'm saying we need more information,not that it is better than anything.Maybe it is,maybe it isn't.
I find it puzzling when people have to go looking for reasons to bash something if they have nothing else to say.Stay on the course of the opening statement of this thread.THAT is what this debate is about.

Man, I spent the day cutting brush, sawing wood, and wrangling bees, meanwhile all of this has been going on - and on - and on.

Some pretty interesting posts here too. The antis seem to have the same old arguments, but the pro's seem to have some data - critters getting shot and killed. For those that don't like the idea, it sounds like you probably should not try it. For those that like to experiment, trying something different, or just plain dislike walking in lock-step to the march of allen and jorge's drum, the .45-70 does not seem outrageous by a long long shot.

We all have what we like and it does not all have to be the same. When I went to Africa, I had no interest in taking a bolt rifle in ANY caliber. I had no interest in shooting smokeless powder or copper bullets. It just does not interest me. I'd rather stay home. But instead, I took a single shot - in this case a Sharps because that's what I had ready to run. It happens to be a .45-100 and it downloaded it to shoot 1186 fps second with paper patched lead bullets because that's what I felt like doing. By many people's definition, this would not be the BEST choice, even for plains game. Yet, it WAS the best choice for me and I have no regrets about taking it. I shoot it well and an more than just a little familiar with it. In fact, it's the same rifle that is in avatar photo as well.

Now, as much as I would like to hunt cape buff, they are just a little bit out of my reach financially. If I COULD hunt them, however, I would not even think about taking a smokeless cartridge bolt rifle. It just does not interest me. At the same time, I am not sure I'd settle on my Sharps. Not because of the cartridge, but because it is a single shot. It can be fairly fast, but not quite THAT fast.

So, I would consider a lever rifle. An 86 or 71 Winchester set up for a .45-90 case and an 18" twist for 500+ gr bullets would interest me. Possibly a Marlin but NOT a guide gun (god those are ugly stubby things!). Loaded with 3fg Swiss or Goex Express, it should shoot in the 1350 fps range with 535 gr TEMPERED bullets. I'd be happy enough, the bullet would certainly penetrate just fine on any sort of quartering or broadside shot from ranges in the sub 50 yd category. And, if the ultra rare charge issue popped up, I would simply have to bear down and bust him in the brain - but then that's what anyone would have to do, so I see no disadvantage there.

As I am not an expert in lever rifles, I would be interested in discussing what can be do to improve feeding and ejection - as one apparently has to do with ANY off the shelf bolt rifle for it to be considered worthy of the DGR lable.

While many of you will undoubtedly insist that there are better choices for actions and cartridges, I just don't happen to agree where I happen to be the customer. Given that, what are the options, the possibilities etc?

Brent

PS. Someone on AR posted last week of shooting THROUGH an elephant with a .50-110 lever rifle.

luv2safari,

My 9.3x74R double is a Thieme-Schlegelmilch SxS, made around 1933, the best I can figure. They were a top firm before WWII, but like many they went out of business during the war. It has some engraving (no game scenes) and double Kirsten top fastener, with extractors. It has both a flip-up rear sight on the rib, and a flip-up tang sight, and with them regulates perfectly at 65 yards (about 60 meters) with 270 Speers, 286 Nosler Partitions and 286 Woodleigh solids and 65.0 grains of H4350, for about 2400 fps. (It also has bases for some weird detachable scope mounts. I modified a pair of Talleys for these, but of course with a scope in place--2.5x Leupold--the barrels shoot about 3" apart.) It weighs just over 8 pounds without the scope. I do not have any doubts that it will do the job on buffalo.

JB

Brent,

Why not take the Sharps? I know several PH's who are quite willing to take hunters with single-shots after buffalo, perhaps because hunters with single-shots tend to make good first shots--which is by far the most important shot in buffalo hunting.

JB

JB,
because I would like to hunt close and that makes my Sharps not quite optimal - in my book. I should add that my Sharps has a 32" barrel and tang sights. Both of which tend to slow down the loading process.

If I built a Sharps with a short 28" barrel, and if I could shoot with barrel sights like Sharpsguy does, I might consider it. The loading trough of a Sharps does facilitate loading w/o looking and a new one will shuck spent cases, and save you from picking them out.

I would be a bit more inclined to use a highwall in a single shot for something like this - it cocks on closing. But I think a lever would be interesting, and I just don't have one. I once had a Belgium-made BLR but that was an abomination of a rifle. A good (old) 86 Winnie is attractive to me. I have nearly bought one a couple of times.

Brent

Gotta love the cries of "NO EXPERIENCE." The fellows with the relevant experience are the fellows who have hunted cape buffalo; not the fellows who have, with a 45/70, shot eland or moose or bison or whatever other animal that is not a cape bufalo.

Any 45/70 advocate posting here shot a cape buffalo with a 45/70, or shot a cape buffalo with anything else?

If you 45/70 advocates would go shoot a cape buffalo with a 458wm, as I have done a number of times, you would think that advocating hunting them with a 45/70 was nuts - as I do. After killing my first three with 500gr solid bullets at 2050fps, I spent a hell of a lot of time working up loads in an effort to find a faster, better load with more penteration that would shoot to regulation of my filed in sights for my subsequent hunts. The difference between 2050fps and 2135fps with the 500 grain bullets is obvious as hell. And a flat nose mono metal at 2190fps is better yet. Slowing any bullet down five or six hundred fps isn't going to make it a better penetrator in animal flesh. And the hardened cast bullets seem brittle as hell too.

Remeber, two similar solid bullets leve two rifles at different velocities. They impact in "exactly" the same shot. The faster bullet will penetrate until it has slowed to the impact speed of the slower bullet, and then it will penetrate the same as the slower bullet.

BTW, a zebra is not a cape buffalo. What makes a cape buffalo difficult to penetrate to the vitals from the rear quarters or dead astern is the three part stomach that has been FULL of grass in every cape buffalo I've seen butchered. The grass eats energy and penetration. Plus his bone structure if you hit that, the zebra's bone structure is nothing to speak of while the cape buffalos is very substantial.

If a rifle can't fire a bullet at a velocity that will produce reliable penetration to the vitals, it isn't a suitable, or adequate, rifle for cape buffalo. (This is why, if you read the buffalo bullet posts, you will see that I am an ardent fan of solid bullets for buffalo, at least for the second and subsequent shots.)

JPK

1) Have you actually read Mule Deer's post ?
2) Do you actually know anything about cast bullets ?
3) Do you actually know anything about the specific cast bullets these guys are using ?
Every post you have made on this thread is a rehash of what you've posted before.I'm not discounting what you've said....but you're not contributing anything new.
These blackpowder shooters are mostly shooting round nosed 540 gr. bullets specially formulated for TOUGHNESS , their alloys are designed to avoid brittle bullets.To a man they report penetration that the paper ballistics would not seem to support.
Apparently you chose to ignore what Mule Deer reported,and what too many others have reported, to just ignore.Why do you insist that your experience is all that's valid ? No one has dismissed you as casually as you have dismissed them.Until you see evidence that they actually can not accomplish what they have claimed,no matter what seems to make sense to you ain't necessarilly so.It won't be the first time this has happened to smarter more experienced men than either you or I.Sometimes what would seem obvious just ain't necessarilly so.

Why settle for a big bullet at low velocity when you can have a big premium bullet at high velocity? Seems a little like seat belts, not having it on makes no difference for months or years but the one day you need it you really need it.

I dunno Bob, but I do know that breaking 2000 fps with a *300* grain bullet was more of a reloading adventure than I care to undertake, in my 45/70 Guide Gun. That stretchy action makes it hard for this yokel to read pressure, and I was at max loads for any written data I could find for levers.

I simply can't believe my Guide Gun would do 2000 fps with a 500-gn bullet. Maybe one of the full-length versions would.

I've also found the Guide Gun, at least, to handle recoil poorly. That straight stock is pretty brutal. It's a lot better with irons. If you scope 'em and have your head waving around up above that lack of a comb on the stock, that sucker will whack you on the side of the cheek hard enough to hear cartilage creaking and popping all through your skull!

That's how it worked for me anyway.

My opinion on the cartridge for buff is useless. Biggest thing I've killed is a spike elk. I'd choose a "proper" African rifle just for the fun of it, if I were ever to go on such an adventure, myself. Just to get the tone of the thing right, you know.

-jeff

This has been interesting to wade through. Sort of related - does anyone remember the Gonic ads that had Cape Buffalo in them and touted the Gonic as the equal of the .45-70? Does Gonic still exist? Did anyone in fact use one on buffalo? Best, John

Here is an interesting thread - sort of related. A lever action, a .50-110 and some strange bullets. I'm not sure if these are bronze or lead.

I don't know why he used such a short barreled rifle, but in any event, it is an interesting rifle and some interesting hunting.

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6321043/m/560100986?r=908100007#908100007

Brent

I must admit that I am no expert on bison having never shot one. But my friend Tommy Carpenter is an expert if one exists today. Tommy is a member of the Crow Nation of Montana. Tommy's job includes guiding for the free ranging animals on the huge resevation as well as culling and dealing with problem animals.

Tommy also helps run the annual round up where mounted tribal members push the herds to low country for a census and for tradition's sake.

Tommy's favorite stopping rifle is a 264 magnum which he uses for antelope,deer ,elk,and bison. Tommy says the big bulls are quite dangerous but the 264 is plenty of gun if a fellow places his bullets carefully.

My feeling is that one should be cautious about viewing what is enough gun for bison as enough for cape buff because in many ways hunting for them is apples and opera , they are both big potentially dangerous bovines but when have you heard of anyone riding herd on cape buff with a cow pony and shooting the mean ones with a deer rifle.

Britt

Steve1,

You entirely miss the point of my repetition of the facts. Me or Allen or Jorge or.... post an answer to you or BrentD's or Muledear's or... post and then you all respond so that they all read the same, "But a 45/70 shooting a (fill in the blank) penetrated a (fill in the blank with any animal other than a cape buffalo) this many (fill in ther blank) feet and so there is just not doubt that the 45/70 is (choose: adequate, more than adequate) for cape buffalo and those fellows who have killed cape buffalo with a modern DG cartridge (fill in the blank - but really most obtuse when the fellow you are responding to has shot buff with the much more powerful .458" cartridges) and have had the opportunity to obseve bullet penetration, cape buffalo bone structure, the huge belly full of grass, the tencity of life, bad attitude that cape buffalo possess just don't know squat about killing cape buffalo.

Add in your repeated deflection of the century of experience of prior hunters in the 19th and earlier 20th century sorting out for real what bore, bullet and velocities were required to reliably kill DG in Africa prior to the advent of the nitro express cartridges.. The point that bullets have improved is a reasonable point, but the fellows back then were hardening their bullets too. Remember, a 450 Express wasn't up to the job. A 500 Express wasn't up to the job. A 577 Express was just adequate. An 8 bore rifle was considered reliable cape buffalo medicine. The rifles that worked are three or four leagues beyond the 45/70. If you think I'm blowing smoke, do a lttile reading of the first hand accounts of those hunters. Often a good read, always informative. Try Samuel Baker, he was into rifles and into effective results and did a lot of experimenting.

For you and other that keep trying to equate cape buffalo and bison, real history shows that it just isn't a comparable game. Take the open plains and "distance" shooting for multiple kills from the same herd, a "hunt" where the shooter gets to choose his shot presentation, very different from the typical short range, thick bush hunt for cape buffalo in much, but not all, of its range. Gotta wonder if the bison hunters would have abandoned the 45's, even 50's, under the same brush conditions and/or the bison had the always pissed attitude of the cape buffalo. Different physical charectristics too of course.

I am not a hardened cast lead bullet expert, by any means. But I do know that when I see a photo of a spent hardened cast lead bullet, it is almost always missing chunks of bullet and showing signs of being brittle. Take a look at Reflex264's post on this thread showing photos of recovered hardened cast lead bullets for a good example.

While I have a collection of inperfect steel jacketed solids recovered from cape buffalo and elephants, I have determined that the flattened tails or split jackets are almost certainly the result of the round nose bullet tumbling toward the end of its journey through the game and striking heavy bone while sideways. Most recovered steel jacketed bullets are perfect but for the land engraving.

Copper flat nose solids do not chip like the hardened lead bullets and even substantial dents at the edge of the meplats do not seem to alter the bullets' penetration much, though a good size dent might make a bullet curve during penetration. The dents don't seem to make them deviate substantially until the bullet has lost substantial velocity.

Again I'll repeat: if a .458:, 500gr bullet at 2050fps is adequate and not a whole lot more, there is no indication that a similar bullet five or six hundred feet per second slower is going to be adequate as I define adequate: "capable of putting a solid bullet into the vitals from (nearly?) any angle."

And: Two similar solid bullets leave two rifles at different velocities. Both bullets impact the same for identical shots. The faster solid bullet will penetrate until it has slowed to the impact velocity of the slower bullet and then it has EXACTLY the same energy and potential to penetrate EXACTLY the same as the slower bullet which is now going EXACTLY the same speed.

Finally: Solid bullet penetration is determined largely by sectional density and energy per unit of bullet frontal area. You need a proper ratio between the two. Flat point bullets (that stay whole) penetrate better than round nose bullets. But not enough to make up for five or six hundred feet per second lower velocity.

No one has answered my question of whether any 45/70 advocates have shot cape buffalo with a 45/70, or even just shot a cape buffalo with any cartridge.

I'm especially interested in answers from those decrying the lack of experience of those of us who have shot cape buffalo, though with more powerful, proven DG rifles than a 45/70 and who, to a man (far as I can tell), think planning a cape buffalo hunt with a 45/70 is foolhardy.

JPK

BrentD,

They were brass or bronze or a copper alloy. YD mentions it elsewhere on AR. BTW, a 45/70 will penetrate, apparently reliably, a cow elephant's skull for a side brain shot. Penetration distance required = ~1 1/2'. If this is so, and it seems to be, then it would also penetrate adequately when the elephant has its head down and or is much lower than the shooter. Required penetration ~=<1'. The problem comes when the elephant is close and or higher than the shooter, where upwards of four or five feet of penetration through muscles, sinew, hard and soft bone and honeycombed bone can be required to reach the brain.

And bull elephant are a whole hell of a lot bigger than cow elephant. Their heads are proportionally even larger than their bodies since they use them for fighting and butting, unlike cows.

Similar to my take on a adequate rifle for buffalo, an adequate rifle for elephant need to be able to drive a sufficient solid bullet into the breain from (nearly?) any frontal angle, to keep yourself alive, drive a bullet into the vitals on a quartering away shot and break a hip or pelvis on a going away shot, along with enough energy to reasonably reliably knock an elephant down if you miss the brain close or at least to likely stop a charge.

JPK

Britt,

I know a similar guy on the Ft. Belknap Resservation. He prefers the .25-06, but uses head shots, as do a great many of the bison guides I know.

My example was about body penetration of bison by bullets, which is very similar to that of Cape buffalo.

JB

JPK,

I have hunted Cape buffalo and bison, and have seen many more killed than I have killed myself. Through all that I have experience on both animals with the effects of both "modern" rounds and others.

The reason I finally brought up the FACTS of Brian Pearce's experience is so that everybody who was emphatitically stating that the .45-70 cannot provide the sort of penetration required for Cape buffalo could learn something.

Evidently you chose not to read my post--or Brian's article. If you did maybe you'd learn something. But like many who post on the Campfire you prefer to go on and on about the original point of a thread without ever referencing the actual reason for it.

Before privileging us with all your wisdom, I wouild advise at least reading my synopsis of Brian's piece.

JB