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

JPK,
Good,thoughtful post.Perhaps your most cogent on this thread yet.We do have Brian Pearce having shot a buff with a 45/70 and we have Mule Deer's report of another I believe.There is also the post of the elephant having been taken by the 50/110,albeit with a different type of bullet than we have generally been considering.
I've been PM'd by three of these guys,only one has posted on this thread so far.For what they feel are good reasons,they have declined to post in the open.I hope they change their minds as they are far better suited ti answer you than I.Remember,I really can't speak from experience either way,and have never said otherwise,or taken a real position.I have tried to be "Mr. Interlocutor" if you please,digging for information.
One of these gentlemen has sent me a DVD,but I have not received it yet.It promisses to be interesting.

jpk,
note that his bullet was neither very heavy, has poor sectional density relative to my prefered bullets, and is not as fast as you insist that it must be. Yet, it worked on elephant. Not just deep to vitals, but "through" the elphant. It it too much for you to see that what we are suggesting for buffalo is not so unreasonable? And then there is the Biran Pearce experience that MD details.

Ah well...

Brent

You don't have to have any experience, or be much of a rocket scientist, to understand the following:

1. A .30 caliber 220 grain SOLID bullet at 2400 fps outpenetrates a 500 grain
SOLID .458 bullet 1500 fps. The rest is simply a matter of bullet construction.

2. The reason I picked 1500 fps is because another poster was crowing about that velocity with a 550 grain bullet from a 45-70.

So no need to insult me, and I won't insult you.

And, yes, I would be interested in more details about someone getting within 250 fps of a 458 Lott with a 450 Marlin. Was this with a lever action rifle? My loading manuals (yes, another thing I never did was shoot a 450 Marlin) all seem to indicate a much wider velocity difference.

I do wish I would have tried the 9.3x74 before I fell in love with the 375. I have purchased a Ruger #1 in this caliber and I kick myswlf on passing a a double 9.3x74 a couple of years back.
The problem is that we have more choices available than time. If cape buffalo were as available as whitetail we probably would have all tried a few more caliber combos.

Brent- Have you thought of hunting for buffal0 late in the season to fill out left over quota? This would help keep the cost down. Might be a little warmer. Would it be possible to set up the Sharps with two sets of barrels?

I agree with you.

But at least two posts on this thread have claimed that the 45-70 is an excellent long range cartridge. In point of fact, it's one of the worst, despite its other virtues.

Blaser guy,
what sort of money would that be? I cannot see a buffalo hunt for less than $8k and that would be hunting nothing else, and getting a hell of a deal on both airline ticket and trophy fees etc. I think $10k is more likely. But I don't really know about what you suggest.

Yes, I can switch barrels but it takes a good vice. Nothing more though. I have two barrels fitted for it now. Why do you ask?

Brent

I have shot cape buffalo for $5K on a 5 day hunt. Now I was in Africa so my airfare was not factored into this. This was a strictly buffalo hunt.
The only reason I asked about the barrel is you were saying you were worried about the barrel length of your rifle being too long and would want another rifle with a 28" barrel.

It sounds like a beautiful Classic German double rifle. I wish I owned it, and you had a better one. I'm a German gun lover and shoot drillings...always wanted a pre-war 9,3X74R double rifle.

Mule Deer has outlined Brian Pearce's article on hunting with the 45-70 in Africa. If anyone wants to read the whole thing, it was published in two parts in Rifle magazine. First part was in January, second part in March, 2004.
I'm going to throw in my 2 cents here because I've been a fan of the 45-70 for more than 45 years and currently own six starting with an original Springfield carbine, Sharps replicas, Ruger Single Shots, a Browning Highwall and a Marlin lever action.
First of all the original black powder load was used by American buffalo hunters to kill millions of our American bison. There were other cartridges available including a couple of 50 calibers but the 45-70 was a favorite. Remember that the goal of market hunters was to drop the animal where it stood so it wouldn't spook the rest of the herd. That way numerous animals were harvested at one stand. American bison are as big or bigger than cape buffalo. I'm sure this is going to start a discussion on which animal is the hardest too kill but let me assure you that an American Buffalo is no Pusey cat.
Now we can look at smokeless powder loads for this cartridge specifically for Marlin lever actions for that is the gun in question in this debate.
In the August 2007 edition of Handloader Magazine, Brian Pearce's (name sound familiar?) article on reloading the 45-70 has data going up to 43,500 CUP. Can the Marlin operate at such pressure? Sure it can. This is what the 444 is loaded at not to mention the even higher pressure for the Winchester 307 and 356 that were chambered in the rifle abet with a slightly smaller rim diameter. Also, if you look at Hodgdon's online loading data you will see that they went to 43,700 CUP in a Marlin WWG457. Brian's top loads were over 2000 FPS with 400 gr. bullets and over 1500 fps with 500 grain bullets. I see already some discussion on other treads about Brian's article and wither the Marlin will handle that pressure. This reminds me of the Sixties when Elmer Keith said he loaded his 1886 Winchesters with 53 grains of 3031 with 405 grain bullets but Lyman's handbook only went to 48 grains.
Speaking of Lyman's 45-70 loading data, I have before me Lyman's 47th Edition and if you turn to page 359 you will find that they got 2157 FPS with 60 grains of RX7, and a 405 grain bullet at only 37,500 CUP. This was with a 28 inch barrel and Ruger long throat so a rifle with a 18 or 22 inch barrel will be slightly slower. They also got 1879 FPS with a 500 grain bullet with 57 grains of H4895 at 39,000 CUP .Some are going to cry foul because at the top of the page Lyman wrote "For Ruger No. 1 and No.3 only". At these pressures a Marlin shouldn't have a problem but with any handload development START LOW AND WORK UP.
I've stated my case and all I have to say to you 45-70 detractors is give this fine cartridge a try but a word of warning. Be careful that another buffalo is not on the other side of the one your shooting at because you will probably kill it too.

Doc

This has been an interesting topic even to a non-Safari hunter when the information makes sense and/or has some basis in experience and reason.

One of the details, though, that has been repeated several times which sticks sideways is the idea that a faster bullet penetrates as well or better than the same bullet impacting a a lower speed. While that does seem obvious at the outset, there does seem to be some evidence that it isn't necessarily so. And while 1300 or 1400 may be a "magic" impact speed where the goods are best delivered - take your pick, starting at only 1500 is surely no guarantee that you will still have the ideal minimums anymore at impact. (I say this because I know many 45-70 users who parrot the idea - when shooting hard cast loads- that they don't want or need 1800 fps loads since that is above the ideal penetration speed. Well, fine, but that bullet will surely have lost quite a few fps by the time it reaches the target - unless you're within spitting distance.)

But my initial thought on speed and penetration: To simply say a faster bullet will slow to the speed of the same bullet from an inferior bullet, and the penetration thereafter will be equal is to assume that the bullet which impacts faster will still be stabile when it has slowed - which is very doubtful given the theory of physics and everything we know based on experience. It is quite logical, as stated earlier, that a faster bullet should penetrate better, but logic doesn't always follow the rules, especially when it isn't based on enough pieces of information. Some people say that, "Of course the faster one penetrates more, it's simple physics!" Well, we can say "physics" but unless we account for all the ways that energy is being converted to other forms, we can't be so sure that faster means more penetration. Experience counts here even though it doesn't provide the explanation. Of course those who might have the experience to back that up can't rely on a simplistic understanding of physics or their "proofs" are empty.

While test media proofs don't meet muster with those who demand real flesh and bone testing, no one here has yet provide any real flesh proofs. Consequently it seems clear, to me anyway, that the whole idea that more velocity equals more penetration is yet an unsupported conclusion.

Klikitarik,
You have just summed up the whole debate.I think many of us already are convinced that the 45/70 for sure,and probably the longer versions as well,can propel those 400 and 500 gr.bullets much faster than many would have given them credit for in the past,I know I have.I briefly considered taking my converted Siamese mauser to Africa,but was talked out of it,by Jorge among others.I had little trouble pushing 405 gr, jacketed flat points out of it at over 1900 ft. per second twenty five years ago.No signs of excess pressure I could see.
I am more concerned about the construction of the particular bullets I used than whether or not I could drive bullets of that weight fast enough and do it safely.Of course,this being twenty five years later,we have better bullet choices as well as better powder choices than I had then.
The question now is,can certain bullets of enough weight (apparently around 540 gr)and the right shape and construction,be driven fast enough to be effective against cape buffalo,and under what circumstances.What velocity is truly optimal,and could it stop a charge if necessary ?

Steve,

I have never been interested enough in what a 500 plus grain hardcast could do out of a 45-70 to fool with them. I have, however, played with the 500 softs but, even in the strong Ruger #1, I haven't gotten enough speed to get the test media expansion I'd like to see for use on game.

I can in no way speak for what might stop a charge on a Cape bull. I do know that people tend to be much more impressed by the absolute power of their weapons based on the noise and recoil, as well as the size of the cartridge, bore size, etc. What I do know about animals that don't give up easily is that none of those things seem to matter a whit. Then, only where the hole(s) are counts - and, of course, long holes give you better odds of getting some proper "where."

We're pretty much on the same page,which is why I referenced the 6.5s in general and my experience in particular.Those were long,heavy for caliber bullets moving along at what most might consider rather sedate velocities.Yet they were (and are) very effective.
It always surprises me how many 6.5 proponents today dote on those 120-129-140 gr. bullets.It's the same hotrod mentality that everyone else is caught up in with all the modern hotrod cartridges.Those old Carcanos and Mannlicher Schoenhuare (sp) cartridges were amazingly effective with 160 gr.rn bullets.

While this would certainly prove me to be a fool, it would prove nothing about the 45-70 since that stunt has already been performed a few times.

The 45-70 pre-dated the 450 NE, 450 No 2, 500/465, 500 NE, 577 NE and 600 NE. I makes a guy wonder why the British went to so much trouble to produce double rifles in powerful cartridges when the 45-70 was already available.

Klikitarik,
I don't know if 1300, 1400, 1500, or 29,051 fps will penetrate further. Frankly, I don't really care. What I do know is that the slow bullets will penetrate sufficiently. I'll leave all the other arguments to the cognoscenti.

JPK, your fragmented "hard cast" bullets are probably just built wrong. That is, the alloy is wrong, the treatment is wrong, the velocity is wrong. Just a guess on my part, but there is a WHOLE lot more to bullets than just hardness. Hardness w/o brittleness. Very doable - if you care to learn. the term "hard cast" is pretty useless in my opinion. HOW it is "hard" is important. BTW, I swage most of mine anyway

And then of course, there are soft bullets, not necessarily expandible to a great degree but malleable. I've shot a lot of critters with pure lead for instance, and it never fragments. I might consider it for cape buffalo, but probably not. In any event, there are lots of things to learn about lead - again, if you care to learn. I don't know all of it, or even a lot of it, but I do know enough to have a pretty good idea of what I don't know.

Brent

Klikitarik,

I have real, in the flesh, experience that faster solid bullets produce deeper penetration in animals. I have repeated it in my posts several times. But here you go: A 500gr solid at 2050fps penetrates less than the same 500gr solid at 2135fps in every animal medium that I have tried, and that includes elephant brian shots and the different mediums needed to penetrate to the brain, elephant body shots in the chest, buffalo body shots. Somewhere I have a log of penetration and could give you penetration measurements for both, but it is packed in preparation for a move.

The often quoted, but irrelevant, newsprint test that that indicate that a slower flat nose solid penetrates more than a faster round nose solid are the results of the way the newsprint tears when wet. Read Reflex264's post here on this topic. I think it points out, correctly, that the results are the opposite if the newsprint is dry. Some believe that it is the wet media's ability to tranfer greater energy because of the presence of the water. Some believe that its the flat front of the slower bullet.

I believe that it is both. But one thing is sure, the faster bullet tears an ever increasing in diameter and length wad of wet newsprint as it penetrates while the slower flat nose does not. So the faster ever increasing paper and bullet projectile of the faster projectile eats penetration.

Dry newsprint does not tear like this so the ever increasing wad does not exist to hinder the faster bullet.

Flesh has water and tears, but not in plugs like wet newsprint. This is why the newsprint test are irrelevant and why, in the real world, faster similar bullets penetrate nore in flesh. Sectional density and energy per unit of bullet frontal area largely determine solid bullet penetration, and flat point bullets penetrate further. There is no magic in a slow bullet.

JPK

Muledeer,

Why don't you knock off the backhand personal attack. Try asking instead of accusing; I read your post. I also read Pearce's article.

I asked if any one of the 45/70 advocates had shot any cape buffalo. You answer indicates that you have; that makes a total of one, one of (?). Did you do it with a 45/70? You remain silent on this portion of the question. Have you witnessed others do it?

The posts I have made, both before and after, fully adress both your post and Pearce's article.

I don't think any individual who posts here believes that a 45/70 won't kill a cape buffalo, or even, with some bullets and loadings, fully penetrate on broadside shots, and surely I don't.
That does not come close to making it an adequate cape buffalo cartridge.

But then you should know this.

JPK

Klikitarik,
I don't know if 1300, 1400, 1500, or 29,051 fps will penetrate further. Frankly, I don't really care. What I do know is that the slow bullets will penetrate sufficiently (I like two holes, one in, one out). I'll leave all the other arguments to the cognoscenti.

JPK, your fragmented "hard cast" bullets are probably just built wrong. That is, the alloy is wrong, the treatment is wrong, the velocity is wrong. Just a guess on my part, but there is a WHOLE lot more to bullets than just hardness. Hardness w/o brittleness. Very doable - if you care to learn. the term "hard cast" is pretty useless in my opinion, and invented by handgunners who (generally) know nothing about hunting bullets. HOW it is "hard" is important. BTW, I swage most of mine anyway

And then of course, there are soft bullets, not necessarily expandible to a great degree but malleable. I've shot a lot of critters with pure lead for instance, and it never fragments. I might consider it for cape buffalo, but probably not. In any event, there are lots of things to learn about lead - again, if you care to learn. I don't know all of it, or even a lot of it, but I do know enough to have a pretty good idea of what I don't know.

And jpk, not that MD needs defending, but you've been mighty handy with the backhands yourself. Quit with calling the kettle black.

Brent

Then why is it still so onerous to you? How much data does it take? Me thinks infinite, 'cuz you ain't gonna change your mind. It ain't about data, it's about attitude.




Then one could say this about nearly every single cartridge out thre. Why the .458 lott when there was the Watts (or the modern .458 WMag for that matter. In fact, why 95% of the cartridges that exist today? Almost everyone of them has something that is the near equivalent that preceeds it and nearly everyone of them has another cartridge that is just a little more better than it is.

That is sort of a "fool's" question, if you think about it (for a nanosecond)....

Brent

BrentD,

Here is the relevant portion of YD's post on AR:

"We discovered that the first shot was just forward of her brain by a millimeter according to the PH and also narrowly missed her spine on the quartering shot but exited the elephant after penetrating over 4 feet through the skull and neck. Apparently, it had shocked her badly and she was unable to regain her footing. In fact, upon showing the video to Myles McCallum (partner of Buzz and Charles Helm�s PH on his trip), Myles immediately assumed it was a fatal brain shot. One of the shoulder shots also exited and the other shots were difficult to track but had over 4 feet of penetration as well. The finishing shot was the only bullet that we recovered and it fell out of her neck while removing the head. As you can see the solid has no damage and could be reloaded. Hats off to Kelye for a very fine bullet. Mushi."

A couple of comments:

You can't miss just in front of the brain and be anywhere near the spine. The spine and spinal column originate at the lower rear of the skull. The brain is about a foot in length and shaped halfway between a loaf of bread and a football.

I wasn't there to see the position of the elephant and it head and neck relationship, but there isn't anywhere on a tuskless cow where a quartering side brain shot leaves four feet of elephant behind the impact point, which is visible on the side of the head. I don't think you could get four feet if you measure around the curve, but maybe. Using phythagorean math that would lead to maybe 2.8' of penetration if the four feet figure came from an actual tape measure around the curve. No penetration of the sinewy trunk or the hard bones in the front. But maybe low enough to have had to penetrate hard bone of the zygomatic arch.

The shot to the back of the head should be able to exit through the bottom of the head, at least on a cow. It is only a couple of feet to penetrate. Likely the bullet struck the spine; it should still have penetrated the depth of the neck. My flat points will penetrate through the shoulders and spine and exit on a broadside shot, for example. I use soft points for back of the head insurance shots.

The bullet whole on the shoulder, through the ear, leaves me wondering where the other is. I would question how far that bullet penetrated the shoulder bones, if at all, if the entry hole is right below the hole in the ear, but then I wasn't there.

The other head shot entry wound is visible well down the trunk. Without an ax, a willing tracker and time or a chainsaw, there is no way to track that bullet in the skull.

I have seen the crocodile farm recover three of my elephants and they do not allow for much bullet digging time. I wonder if they could have come up with the other two if they had more time. Seems like they had the interest.

The bullet stood the test very well. I wonder if the recovered bullet struck the spine. I also wonder if the recovered bullet isn't the one from the shot well down the trunk. Only good bullet digging could have told us that answer.

It seems that copper or brass or bronze mono metal, flat point, solid bullets ought to weigh 10% or so less than traditional bullet weight for the NE and more modern 458 cartridges. Looking at the 50 Alaskan as shot, as opposed to a 500NE, you are looking at 570gr bullets vs. 10% less for a copper, etc, mono or about 510grs at 2150 or so. Your observation that the bullet is light is correct, even for mono metal solids. Velocity isn't too bad at 1900fps.

So the rifle, bullet, load combo killed a tuskless elephant. 460gr 50 cal at 1900fps with a reasonably wide flat point. But there are some signs that the round is lacking adequacy and some that point to its being adequate for that job. I think it is inadequate for a bull elephant since it shows signs of inadequacy on a tuskless cow elephant and everything is bigger and thicker and deeper and longer and stronger on a bull. Plus an adequate elephant rifle has to be able to reach the vitals on rear quartering shots and break the hip joint or pelvis.

My thought for what they're worth.

JPK