Open Sighted 45-70 in Africa

[jeff]

I know a guy who's taken numerous plains game in Namibia with open sighted 45-70 and some with cartridges loaded with black powder for close stalking challenge.

 

[CAustin]

Edward,
That 45-70 pistol must have a hell of a punch! But you are most skilled in the use of a hand cannon to take down the greatest of beasts. I tip my hat to you sir!

 

[Art Lambart II]

As a gun guy this question always amazes me, the 45-70 was adopted by the US Army to do one thing, kill the Mustang ridden by the plains Indians. Is it a long range cartridge no, it was never designed for that purpose but at a 100 yards or less it's death to anything with hooves.

 

[ChrisG]

As a gun guy this question always amazes me, the 45-70 was adopted by the US Army to do one thing, kill the Mustang ridden by the plains Indians. Is it a long range cartridge no, it was never designed for that purpose but at a 100 yards or less it's death to anything with hooves.

I can't disagree with you that it definitely has the punch to drop the biggest animals on earth. That is true. The 7x57 and 8x57 have also been used to great effect against the largest animals in the world. The problem lies in the fact that these animals are also some of the best equipped to send you home in a series of small ziplock bags. I know a lot of people will tout the tough little scot W.D.M. Bell... It seems he has become a byword for using smaller calibers to take on the largest animals. Yet he somehow survived to reitre a wealthy man. I find that akin to saying that cars should be driven 100mph through Monte Carlo because Formula One drivers go through there at top speed with very few accidents.

I don't know if anyone here is diputing the fact that the .45-70 is lethal on big animals. (If you are, you need to educate yourself a little more.) I think what is being said is, buffalo, Elephant and Lion hunts are expensive and can be dangerous. While a .45-70 will kill those animals under most conditions, it may not be something that will always work. I mean, sometimes, the .416 doesn't always work and it has substantially more punch that any .45-70 load with the exception of the "I worked this one up myself, and even though it isn't in any load manual, I haven't blown myself up yet..." loads. It irritates me to no end when someone has no pressure testing equipment starts spouting that their load "easily duplicates the factory ballistics of a .458 Win." Despite the fact that they neglect to mention that their rifles action has stretched since they bought it... A little off topic I guess. I just have a hard time when people endanger others who are new or don't have a full grasp on things because they are so keen to tout their Atlantean knowledge of firearms that only they know and no one else has figured out yet .

Back to the .45-70 though... I have one, and it is an AWESOME firearm. Mine is a Marlin Guide Gun and it hits with real authority. However, in my opinion, it doesn't offer the safety net of some of the larger and more proven calibers. Modern bullets have helped some (like the Punch Mountain turned bronze bullets), but if the guide gun is better with modern bullets, then it stands to reason that a .375, .416, .458, etc... would be even better with modern bullets. The safety net of those cartridges is a confidence boost when tackling an animal that is bigger than a mustang (the pony not the car.) and many orders of magnitude tougher. So when you level your sights on an animal that can quickly turn you to tomato paste, with many thousands of dollars on the line, its nice knowing you have a little backup power and oomph in your gun.

And those who think that kinetic energy makes no difference (often touted by .45-70-ophiles) and it is just an arbitrary number based on velocity, look at damage when NASA fires a tiny BB at a plate of solid aluminium at 10 miles per second. The damage path is MUCH bigger than the BB. Any hunting projectile that surpasses the speed of sound in water on impact, sets up tremendous shockwaves within an animal. Obviously, you still need penetration and the bullet to stay together, not to mention putting it in the right place, but that is why slow, large calibers like the 4, 6 and 8 bores were quickly replaced by modern fast, small caliber bullets (relatively) like the .416, .458, .470, and .500. They saw no loss in effectiveness, while greatly increasing penetration with a jacketed bullet. Speed definitely has an impact on the effectiveness of a round. It assists in "taking the fight out". That is why I still would rather have something more substantial than the .45-70.

Just my opinion, however, I don't want to rile anyones feathers and thats part of the reason I love AH forum. People aren't easily offended and we can simply state our opinions without need to attack each other over some moot point.

 

[1dirthawker]

Hmmmm,
A 450-400 with a 400 gr bullet at 2150 (tropical load is 2050) is considered at least adequate. A 45-70 shoots a 400 gr Bullet at 2000 fps. No animal can tell the difference.

I have shot brown bears with 350 gr bullets at 2200 fps. Hammers em. If there is a shootout, everybody wants me and my Marlin on their team.

Is the 45-70 equal to 458 win , nope. Is it a great cartridge, yep. Shot placement and good bullets will solve any problem you will have with big game. Very quick reload and follow up shot is a nice side benefit.

 

[ChrisG]

Hmmmm,
A 450-400 with a 400 gr bullet at 2150 (tropical load is 2050) is considered at least adequate. A 45-70 shoots a 400 gr Bullet at 2000 fps. No animal can tell the difference.

I have shot brown bears with 350 gr bullets at 2200 fps. Hammers em. If there is a shootout, everybody wants me and my Marlin on their team.

Is the 45-70 equal to 458 win , nope. Is it a great cartridge, yep. Shot placement and good bullets will solve any problem you will have with big game. Very quick reload and follow up shot is a nice side benefit.

Hi 1dirthawker,

I do agree with you that a .45-70 is a fantastic cartridge! Especially for thin skinned dangerous game like brown bear and/or lion and leopard. The problem lies in the fact that brown bear skeletal and muscle structure is pretty different from heavy African game. I am sure some people who have hunted both will chime in on exactly how different they are. What I can tell you from hunting moose and big northern black bear is that the difference between herbivores and carnivores is pretty stark. Moose are much more heavily boned than a black bear pound for pound. African game, from what I have read and seen, are even more so, simply due to their size.

You point out the 400 grain 450-400 vs the 400 grain .45-70 round. I know this has been hammered to death, but simply comparing weights is not a good way of comparing bullets of different sizes, when what really matters on game for the most part is sectional density. A 200 grain .30-06 moving at 2300 fps and a 200 grain .458 bullet at 2300fps have vastly different uses. I would hate to call the latter a varmint bullet, but I wouldn't feel comfortable going after anything bigger than deer with it, Its going to blow up (in standard cup n' core config.). But a 200 grain .308 diameter bullet moving 2300fps is going to penetrate like the dickens (even with standard cup n' core construction). That is an extreme example but you get my point. A 400 grain .450-400 NE works because it's sectional density is .338. A .45-70 400 grain bullet is only .272. The typical standard for heavy, thick skinned dangerous game has been a sectional density of no less than .300. In order to get that magical .300 a .45-70 needs to throw a bullet weighing 440 grains. To match the .450-400 NE, it would need to weigh 496 grains and I think you're going to have a hard time getting a chunk of lead that big moving 2000fps out of a guide gun. In fact, I don't even think you're going to get a 400 grain bullet out of that 18" barrel at 2000fps without running the ragged edge of pressure. The 2000fps mark is quoted from a 24" barrel in most instances. A copper solid of that weight is going to take up even more case capacity and be harder to get that velocity out of.

I do however COMPLETELY agree with your last statement. I think a .45-70 will absolutely kill anything in africa. However, my point was that if I am dropping $15k-$50k on a hunt for something that can potentially kill me, you better believe I am going to be bringing my .375 H&H or even a .416 just because they have such an awesome track record and have been proven to work for more than 100 years now.

 

[IronCowboy]

As a gun guy this question always amazes me, the 45-70 was adopted by the US Army to do one thing, kill the Mustang ridden by the plains Indians. Is it a long range cartridge no, it was never designed for that purpose but at a 100 yards or less it's death to anything with hooves.

Recall, however, the .45-70 in its early life was employed by US Gov't order to erradicate bison herds with intent apply pressure to Native American populations which depended upon the herds for sustenance and force their dependence to shift to the US Government. Buffalo hunting, at that time, relied upon the instinctual response of the Buffalo, as such it involved stalking close enough to kill ONE bison, after which a group of others would surround their downed colleague to provide protection - giving the hunter multiple static targets in one location. Due to the size of the herds, their poor eyesight and wanting intelligence, Army orders described pursuing this style of bison slaughter at ranges typically recommended 200 to 400yrds from a terrain feature which provided cover or other protection. Unfortunately, many of these animals were left as whole carcass - completely wasted - to rot in the sun, or only skinned, and not harvested for meat. While much of the buffalo eradication happened prior to the development and full scale deployment of the .45-70, it's well documented to have played a leading part in this type of hunting - essentially the .45-70 came onto the scene about the time the Army was coming of age for how to efficiently slaughter Bison.

In other words, shortly after its release, using lead bullets and black powder without the advantage of smokeless powders or modern bullet design, the .45-70 was effectively employed to slaughter thousands upon thousands of American Bison (refreshing Bison tend to go about 50% heavier on the hoof than Capes), typically in excess of 200yrds, and well documented to be effective much further.

 

[Red Leg]

As a gun guy this question always amazes me, the 45-70 was adopted by the US Army to do one thing, kill the Mustang ridden by the plains Indians. Is it a long range cartridge no, it was never designed for that purpose but at a 100 yards or less it's death to anything with hooves.

Well not exactly. The 47-70 was not developed as a horse killer, though it was certainly effective in the role at close range. The 45-70 was a natural progression in cartridge development as the world's Armies began to down size bullet caliber following the introduction of cased cartridges. In our country, we went from 58 caliber Minnie balls in the Springfield, through the 50-70 trapdoors, to the 45-70. The British Army did the same thing from the Enfield, through various Snyder conversions, to the ultimate expression of small bore military black powder round in the .303. And ChrisG is right, the round, though a big hunk of lead, has poor sectional density when compared to a nitro era dangerous game load.

My issue with the 45/70 and similar marginal calibers (for instance, my own beloved Evans paradox) on game such as a cape buffalo is an ethical one. Were you able to set off across the veldt alone and decided to shoot a buffalo with a marginal caliber rifle, then I would say good luck, and just in case, goodbye. But that is not an option on a modern safari. When you pull that trigger on a buffalo, you are directly and personally taking responsibility for the lives of your tracker, PH, game scout, and who knows how many others in your crew. If that round fails to penetrate adequately, then it is your tracker and PH who will bear the brunt of any resulting catastrophe from that failure. Of course the same thing could happen with a .416 or .375. But the odds of that failure occurring go down exponentially.

So sure, go use it on plains game. Badly shoot a kudu, and it's only money. But I think we owe it to our hunting companions to insure that our first shot at thick-skinned dangerous game is as lethal as our skill and weapon can make it. That responsibility includes ensuring that weapon is enough gun.

 

[Red Leg]

Recall, however, the .45-70 in its early life was employed by US Gov't order to erradicate bison herds with intent apply pressure to Native American populations which depended upon the herds for sustenance and force their dependence to shift to the US Government. Buffalo hunting, at that time, relied upon the instinctual response of the Buffalo, as such it involved stalking close enough to kill ONE bison, after which a group of others would surround their downed colleague to provide protection - giving the hunter multiple static targets in one location. Due to the size of the herds, their poor eyesight and wanting intelligence, Army orders described pursuing this style of bison slaughter at ranges typically recommended 200 to 400yrds from a terrain feature which provided cover or other protection. Unfortunately, many of these animals were left as whole carcass - completely wasted - to rot in the sun, or only skinned, and not harvested for meat. While much of the buffalo eradication happened prior to the development and full scale deployment of the .45-70, it's well documented to have played a leading part in this type of hunting - essentially the .45-70 came onto the scene about the time the Army was coming of age for how to efficiently slaughter Bison.

In other words, shortly after its release, using lead bullets and black powder without the advantage of smokeless powders or modern bullet design, the .45-70 was effectively employed to slaughter thousands upon thousands of American Bison (refreshing Bison tend to go about 50% heavier on the hoof than Capes), typically in excess of 200yrds, and well documented to be effective much further.

The argument that caliber X was a fabulous killer of, fill in the blank, during the last century is a common argument used to promote various obsolete calibers. But to me, at least, it is a fairly irrelevant one. It is like saying that Hannibal destroyed a Roman Army at Cannae so the sword should be an adequate weapon of war today. If the 45 or 50 whatever were just as good, we hunters and military cartridge developers, would have rejected all modern smokeless powder evolution and continued to carry them. But our grandfathers didn't, because the new technology was so much more effective. By the way, the US military was not used in buffalo eradication. Sherman once advocated such slaughter, but it is one of the modern myths arising from the 1970's era revisionist histories of the American Indian. Commercial hunters, and mounted American native peoples using whatever was available did just fine.

In 1870, a commercial buffalo hunter could screw up any number of shots at a buffalo herd, and simply move on to the next herd. In Africa today, that really isn't an option. And by the way, were you able to offer Jerimiah Johnson a choice between his .50 whatever and a .375 (with ammunition) which do you think he would have chosen?

 

[Velo Dog]

Hi 1dirthawker,

I do agree with you that a .45-70 is a fantastic cartridge! Especially for thin skinned dangerous game like brown bear and/or lion and leopard. The problem lies in the fact that brown bear skeletal and muscle structure is pretty different from heavy African game. I am sure some people who have hunted both will chime in on exactly how different they are. What I can tell you from hunting moose and big northern black bear is that the difference between herbivores and carnivores is pretty stark. Moose are much more heavily boned than a black bear pound for pound. African game, from what I have read and seen, are even more so, simply due to their size.

You point out the 400 grain 450-400 vs the 400 grain .45-70 round. I know this has been hammered to death, but simply comparing weights is not a good way of comparing bullets of different sizes, when what really matters on game for the most part is sectional density. A 200 grain .30-06 moving at 2300 fps and a 200 grain .458 bullet at 2300fps have vastly different uses. I would hate to call the latter a varmint bullet, but I wouldn't feel comfortable going after anything bigger than deer with it, Its going to blow up (in standard cup n' core config.). But a 200 grain .308 diameter bullet moving 2300fps is going to penetrate like the dickens (even with standard cup n' core construction). That is an extreme example but you get my point. A 400 grain .450-400 NE works because it's sectional density is .338. A .45-70 400 grain bullet is only .272. The typical standard for heavy, thick skinned dangerous game has been a sectional density of no less than .300. In order to get that magical .300 a .45-70 needs to throw a bullet weighing 440 grains. To match the .450-400 NE, it would need to weigh 496 grains and I think you're going to have a hard time getting a chunk of lead that big moving 2000fps out of a guide gun. In fact, I don't even think you're going to get a 400 grain bullet out of that 18" barrel at 2000fps without running the ragged edge of pressure. The 2000fps mark is quoted from a 24" barrel in most instances. A copper solid of that weight is going to take up even more case capacity and be harder to get that velocity out of.

I do however COMPLETELY agree with your last statement. I think a .45-70 will absolutely kill anything in africa. However, my point was that if I am dropping $15k-$50k on a hunt for something that can potentially kill me, you better believe I am going to be bringing my .375 H&H or even a .416 just because they have such an awesome track record and have been proven to work for more than 100 years now.

+1

 

[1dirthawker]

ChrisG
I would pretty much agree with everything you said. That's why I also own a Zoli o/u double 450-400.
I also believe there are better African dg cartridges than the 45-70. I just think that with the exception of elephant, and rhino it would do a fine job as a hunting rifle. One would want more gun in a back up rifle.
Same with bears, as I am shooting back up, I want a decent sized rifle. At that point I am trying to solve a poor shot placement problem. I've been using a375 ruger or 45-70. recently got the Zoli and will be using this spring for the first time.

 

[edward]

Edward,
That 45-70 pistol must have a hell of a punch! But you are most skilled in the use of a hand cannon to take down the greatest of beasts. I tip my hat to you sir!

thanks charlie,have to admit the 45-70 in my scopesighted contender with the cor-bon 405 gr penetrator bullet is the most recoil ive ever felt in a handgun.but that was with the factory grips,ive sense put the decelerator grips on it and im sure it will tame the recoil quite a bit.havent shot it sense i made the change.

 

[CAustin]

I look forward to hearing a range report sir!

 

[Art Lambart II]

Well not exactly. The 47-70 was not developed as a horse killer, though it was certainly effective in the role at close range. The 45-70 was a natural progression in cartridge development as the world's Armies began to down size bullet caliber following the introduction of cased cartridges. In our country, we went from 58 caliber Minnie balls in the Springfield, through the 50-70 trapdoors, to the 45-70. The British Army did the same thing from the Enfield, through various Snyder conversions, to the ultimate expression of small bore military black powder round in the .303. And ChrisG is right, the round, though a big hunk of lead, has poor sectional density when compared to a nitro era dangerous game load.

My issue with the 45/70 and similar marginal calibers (for instance, my own beloved Evans paradox) on game such as a cape buffalo is an ethical one. Were you able to set off across the veldt alone and decided to shoot a buffalo with a marginal caliber rifle, then I would say good luck, and just in case, goodbye. But that is not an option on a modern safari. When you pull that trigger on a buffalo, you are directly and personally taking responsibility for the lives of your tracker, PH, game scout, and who knows how many others in your crew. If that round fails to penetrate adequately, then it is your tracker and PH who will bear the brunt of any resulting catastrophe from that failure. Of course the same thing could happen with a .416 or .375. But the odds of that failure occurring go down exponentially.

So sure, go use it on plains game. Badly shoot a kudu, and it's only money. But I think we owe it to our hunting companions to insure that our first shot at thick-skinned dangerous game is as lethal as our skill and weapon can make it. That responsibility includes ensuring that weapon is enough gun.

Great stuff Red Leg, like you I would not pick a 45-70 to hunt Cape Buffalo or Elephant because their are better calibers for the task and you are 110% correct we owe it to our prey to make and quick and ethical kill. Still under a 100 yards the 45-70 is a time tested and proven cartridge, but in its day so was Teddy's "Lion Medicine" and now very few people use it.

Their are several more reasons why the 45-70 was developed like cost to produce, recoil, length of firearm required, weight, etc.. but in the end it was adopted by the US Army to kill the horse. I wish the 375 H&H had been around back then, if the Army had adopted it their would be a lot more of them around for us to use today.

 

[CAustin]

Art I would use it on Buff and just may take mine back to Africa with that in mind but as a rifle not a hand gun.

 

[Velo Dog]

Great stuff Red Leg, like you I would not pick a 45-70 to hunt Cape Buffalo or Elephant because their are better calibers for the task and you are 110% correct we owe it to our prey to make and quick and ethical kill. Still under a 100 yards the 45-70 is a time tested and proven cartridge, but in its day so was Teddy's "Lion Medicine" and now very few people use it.

Their are several more reasons why the 45-70 was developed like cost to produce, recoil, length of firearm required, weight, etc.. but in the end it was adopted by the US Army to kill the horse. I wish the 375 H&H had been around back then, if the Army had adopted it their would be a lot more of them around for us to use today.

Hi Art Lambert II,

The following is not meant to throw down the gauntlet, and hopefully I can learn something here.

The U.S. Army developed the .45-70 to shoot horses?

If that is true, was the Army's preceding cartridge (.50-70) somehow lacking for this purpose.

Likewise, what do you suppose the British developed their ballisticly very similar .577/.450 Martini for, during pretty much that same time in history?

For that matter, why then did many countries around the world at that time adopt ballisticly similar cartridges, such as the .43 Spanish, just to name one of the many?

Cheers,
Velo Dog.

 

[Art Lambart II]

@Velo Dog, I have never said the Army developed the 45-70 to kill horses, I said they adopted it to kill horses. The Army has developed many cartridges over the years but they have adopted very few. The Army has a long history of adopting cartridges for specific reasons, a prime example of this is the change from 7.62 to 5.56.

During that time in military history most of the worlds armies still used cavalry and the infantryman needed a reliable way to stop a cavalry charge, high velocity cartridges had not been developed yet so they used a heavy slow moving slug the average solider could shoot accurately. The 45-90 was more than capable of killing a horse but the recoil made it hard for the average solider to shot accurately so the Army made a change. Look at the armies standard side arm at the same time the colt revolver in .45 long colt, during the civil war most of the pistols used where some where around 36 caliber but after the war when the primary enemy was the mounted Plains Indian the army adopted the .45 long colt. Then soon after the Indian wars ended the army adopted the .38, it then proved inadequate so they reissued the .45 long colt as a stop gap measure, then thankfully in 1911 John Browning gave us the greatest combat handgun ever designed.

Stopping a cavalry charge was a major factor in the size of military rifles until the advent of high velocity cartridges, the machine gun and the French 75.

 

[BWH]

Not really pertanant.... But I'd love to hunt bison with a 45-70.... Old west style. And that's a big animal.

 

[Red Leg]

@Velo Dog, I have never said the Army developed the 45-70 to kill horses, I said they adopted it to kill horses. The Army has developed many cartridges over the years but they have adopted very few. The Army has a long history of adopting cartridges for specific reasons, a prime example of this is the change from 7.62 to 5.56.

During that time in military history most of the worlds armies still used cavalry and the infantryman needed a reliable way to stop a cavalry charge, high velocity cartridges had not been developed yet so they used a heavy slow moving slug the average solider could shoot accurately. The 45-90 was more than capable of killing a horse but the recoil made it hard for the average solider to shot accurately so the Army made a change. Look at the armies standard side arm at the same time the colt revolver in .45 long colt, during the civil war most of the pistols used where some where around 36 caliber but after the war when the primary enemy was the mounted Plains Indian the army adopted the .45 long colt. Then soon after the Indian wars ended the army adopted the .38, it then proved inadequate so they reissued the .45 long colt as a stop gap measure, then thankfully in 1911 John Browning gave us the greatest combat handgun ever designed.

Stopping a cavalry charge was a major factor in the size of military rifles until the advent of high velocity cartridges, the machine gun and the French 75.

Art, we need to compare original sources sometime. I have made a career around Army weaponry, and I like to believe I know a bit about its development, but this is the first time that I have ever heard that large black powder muskets were developed with a principal thought of stopping cavalry. Ease of loading (particularly with multiple volleys), causing damage at musket velocity (to whatever it hit) - yes - but to primarily stop a horse? And as the weapons became rifled and then later cartridge, the developed world saw a corresponding decrease in caliber. If anything, this was driven by the desire for infantry to carry a larger basic loads and a lighter weapon. Remember too, that the primary infantry defense against cavalry was not musket fire, but the formation of a square. British tactics at the Battle of Waterloo are particularly instructive. If you read any of the original sources of the Waterloo campaign, you will find any number of instances where regimental squares actually withheld fire, depending upon the bayonet wall to break up any attempt assault of the square.

And I do not know what you mean by the army "adopting" the 45-70 to kill horses. It was developed as an improved and more manageable alternative to the 50-70 which was the first breach loading conversion of the Springfield. It's intended use was the killing of enemy combatants. There are several recorded cases of US cavalry shooting Indian pony strings, particularly Ranald Makensie's winter 1871 campaign against the Comanche, but targeting horses specifically was never the reason for the caliber or its development.

But whatever. I am sure a 45-70 will kill a horse or a zebra. And if the hunter screws up because of too long a shot, nerves, unsteadiness whatever all he loses is his trophy fee. My issue is the use of marginal calibers on dangerous game where people other than the shooter can be maimed or killed.

 

[Velo Dog]

Hi again Art Lambert II,

Sorry for my error (developed vs adopted), I meant no harm by it, simply thought the US Army developed the .45-70 prior to officially adopting it for service.
But perhaps I'm not correct on this.
However Wikipedia (and Red Leg as well) has my back on the origin of this cartridge.

Not that Wikipedia is the Burning Bush by any means but, if that info is incorrect, I am willing to learn who actually did develop the .45-70 cartridge.
(Wikipedia as well might want to update their file on this cartridge's origin.)

At any rate, I had been under the impression that large caliber black powder cartridge military rifles were chosen at that time, simply because of how fast black powder fouled smaller bores, in the potentially sustained fire of combat.
Likewise, I had thought the US Army developed/adopted the .45-70 to replace the .50-70, because it possibly shot a little flatter plus ammunition was a little less bulky for the foot soldier to carry than the .50-70 and yet was still a marginally large enough diameter bore to remain acceptably accurate, in sustained firing with black powder.
I don't suspect it was because of any failing in the .50-70 if or when it possibly was used to shoot horses.
(I expect either of these two cartridges would have worked very well for that unpleasant task but have not read much if anything about this tactic until now.)

Likewise, I reckoned the rest of the armies around the world who decided on black powder cartridges, ballistically quite similar to the .45-70, was also due to nothing more than the bore fouling issue as already mentioned.
Side Note: Can you imagine trying to keep your Gattling Guns functioning in prolonged combat, with all that black powder fouling crusting up the smaller moving parts ?

Incidentally, the .303 British was briefly a black powder cartridge.
I suspect the Brits jumped for joy when nitro smokeless replaced black powder in the little .303.

Until now, I did not realize the U.S. Army (or any other Army) had experienced a disproportionately large number of Cavalry Charges, at least not to the point of wanting a rifle cartridge to specifically address this situation.

Well anyway, thanks for posting, you are an interesting writer.

Kind regards,
Velo Dog.