45-70 dangerous game?

[HWL]

Brilliantly stated, just like it was a Fact —- now, even rabbits shot with a .45-70 become “More dangerous”

The world would become much easier, if all the wounded buffalos get their chance on a .45-70 enthusiast.....

HWL

 

[Tundra Tiger]

There shouldn't be wounded buffalo, irrespective of caliber. Furthermore I would wager there are more buffalo wounded, proportionally, by people using calibers they can't really handle well enough than by people using more niche calibers, for lack of a better term, like a .45-70.

 

[CZDiesel]

This thread has officially “Jumped the Shark”, Fonzie would be proud lol

Can it die now?

 

[HankBuck]

The world would become much easier, if all the wounded buffalos get their chance on a .45-70 enthusiast.....

HWL

@HWL: gotta love your post ! I wonder how many hunters were injured by a buffalo that was “wounded by a .45-70” compared to Hunters injured by Buffalo wounded by All the other calibers? That would be interesting. Now some, that think they are witty, would write > THAT”S because most hunters are Smart enough NOT to use a .45-70<…. Maybe.
Now, I really have Zero credibility and have Never killed or shot a Buff with a .45-70. So, I’m gonna defer to the opinion of PHs as they have something most do Not - real experience and lots of it.

 

[Joker12]

This lengthy discussion makes me wonder where all of the 45/70 critics were when hunting buffalo with a handgun was being discussed. As I recall most comments on that one were positive.

 

[SETH RINGER]

I CAN'T BELIEVE A FELLOW HUNTER WOULD WISH THE BUFF TO DO HARM TO SOMEONE BECAUSE OF THE CALIBUR HE'S USING.

 

[cwpayton]

I am not planning on hunting a cape buff with one ( I am a idiot that thought of buying a 458w to use on deer and hogs)
But reading I have as under the impression that the 9.3 were ok for a cool head on dg
Then seeing here that maybe it’s not.

No , you are not an idiot, only uninformed, and thats why you are on this forum, too learn. some here would like to peg you as such , but just ignore them and keep learning, only dumb question is one left unasked.
to be precise and please the experts, you need a 20,000 $ plus double ,preferably English made, once used by a great hunter with walnut grain unbelievable beautiful and engraved with gold by a famous engraver, and in the 400 range caliber say 416 ,as a 375 is not a "stopper" rifle. Type of bullet ,well that is another thread. thats what Ive learned so far!! I ask the famous 45/70 question of a famous PH and his answer was NO.

 

[akrifleman]

No mercy with the idiots,.....and those, who have recommended, negligently or intentionally...may Darvin sort them out!!!

HWL

Do you mean Darwin?

 

[Safari Dave]

 

[CZDiesel]

Sums it up pretty well lol

 

[Safari Dave]

You called it, I just added video.

 

[Brian]

More stuff that doesn't really matter.

I went back over this excellent and important thread and confirmed to my satisfaction that nearly half of the posters participating in the discussion offer statements that are not supported by modern credited tests and trials, personal of otherwise.

There are basically two criteria or styles for evaluating terminal ballistics or anything else obviously.

1. Outdated/irrelevant concepts/theories and hearsay with the associated sentimental/emotional baggage. ( I have to admit that I have used this criteria from time to time in my life.)

2. Current scientific and practical field testing of relevant factors viewed objectively.

We can recognize the differences between the two.

Three fictional examples:

Outdated concept.
"The 45-70 is too old. It was never intended to be a DG cartridge."
Fact.
The 45-70 was originally a black powder cartridge shooting cast bullets. Things have changed since then.

Outdated Hearsay.
"My PH told me that the 45-70 is not good for cape buffalo."
Fact.
What bullet? Cup and core bullets do not have the same terminal performance as new generation monolithic bullets like CEB and similar bullets. What velocity?

Outdated information.
"The 45-70 doesn't have the power/velocity for camp buffalo."
Fact.
Velocity is a function of powder type, volume/grains of powder and pressure. Most lever actions and break open single shots can handle 45,000 psi. which, with at least two modern powders, will push a modern 400 grain monolithic bullet at 2,000 fps. or a 300 grain mono bullet at 2,500 fps. This is better/superior than some of our beloved DG cartridges. ( Guess which ones.)

What is a bullet supposed to do?
Vital tissue damage is the objective in terminal ballistics on cape buffalo and is a result of bullet placement and bullet characteristics.
I don't know or care where shock, and energy dump fit in.

Bullet placement is obvious, Get the bullet to the heart or at least both lungs, or else break significant structural bones, ( Sometime with a perfect shot with a premium big bore bullet you can do all three. I have done it. I have also made a couple of bad shot on cape buffalo as well.)

With bullet characteristics, we want to achieve, a long, straight, large diameter and non collapsing wound channel through all variations in tissue. Generally cup and core bullets and round nosed solids are poorer at this than some select premium mono bullets.

Above, I sighted two basic criteria or styles above, for evaluating the complex phenomenon of a bullet's terminal performance on cape buffalo. ( The only DG that I have hunted.)

One could not hold down an entry level job for a week in a research facility by using criteria #1. What makes it ok for evaluating terminal performance on cape buffalo which is a matter of life and death for both the buffalo and the hunter?

 

[CZDiesel]

More stuff that doesn't really matter.

I went back over this excellent and important thread and confirmed to my satisfaction that nearly half of the posters participating in the discussion offer statements that are not supported by modern credited tests and trials, personal of otherwise.

There are basically two criteria or styles for evaluating terminal ballistics or anything else obviously.

1. Outdated/irrelevant concepts/theories and hearsay with the associated sentimental/emotional baggage. ( I have to admit that I have used this criteria from time to time in my life.)

2. Current scientific and practical field testing of relevant factors viewed objectively.

We can recognize the differences between the two.

Three fictional examples:

Outdated concept.
"The 45-70 is too old. It was never intended to be a DG cartridge."
Fact.
The 45-70 was originally a black powder cartridge shooting cast bullets. Things have changed since then.

Outdated Hearsay.
"My PH told me that the 45-70 is not good for cape buffalo."
Fact.
What bullet? Cup and core bullets do not have the same terminal performance as new generation monolithic bullets like CEB and similar bullets. What velocity?

Outdated information.
"The 45-70 doesn't have the power/velocity for camp buffalo."
Fact.
Velocity is a function of powder type, volume/grains of powder and pressure. Most lever actions and break open single shots can handle 45,000 psi. which, with at least two modern powders, will push a modern 400 grain monolithic bullet at 2,000 fps. or a 300 grain mono bullet at 2,500 fps. This is better/superior than some of our beloved DG cartridges. ( Guess which ones.)

What is a bullet supposed to do?
Vital tissue damage is the objective in terminal ballistics on cape buffalo and is a result of bullet placement and bullet characteristics.
I don't know or care where shock, and energy dump fit in.

Bullet placement is obvious, Get the bullet to the heart or at least both lungs, or else break significant structural bones, ( Sometime with a perfect shot with a premium big bore bullet you can do all three. I have done it. I have also made a couple of bad shot on cape buffalo as well.)

With bullet characteristics, we want to achieve, a long, straight, large diameter and non collapsing wound channel through all variations in tissue. Generally cup and core bullets and round nosed solids are poorer at this than some select premium mono bullets.

Above, I sighted two basic criteria or styles above, for evaluating the complex phenomenon of a bullet's terminal performance on cape buffalo. ( The only DG that I have hunted.)

One could not hold down an entry level job for a week in a research facility by using criteria #1. What makes it ok for evaluating terminal performance on cape buffalo which is a matter of life and death for both the buffalo and the hunter?

Still peddling the same incorrect nonsense to push an agenda I see. Good luck with it, post you Buff hunt pics!

 

[Brian]

PS, The CEB Raptor bullet, one of my favourites, works different than conventional bullets.
6 blades break off of the nose of the bullet and slice and dice through the buffalo's lungs and hearts, making a hell of a lethal mess. the base of the bullet with it's full diameter flat meplat which has retains ragged edges, continues straight ahead as a solid. This is the bullet that I got 3 DRT buffalo kills in a row with using 50-110 Winchester. 41o grain bullet at 1,920fps. Brian