SOUTH AFRICA: A Great Day At NB Safaris

[fourfive8]

OH my, such drama- I've got the correct 38" (wounded) bull in my sights at 40 yards, I move forward and take a rest in a tree.... stay tuned!! What happened to the 38 inch wounded bull you were fixing to shoot again?? Stay tuned... never mind different bull HUH?... Next episode... will the massive, angry, snorting beasts charge?? Would we withstand the charge?? Stay tuned!! Never mind... tracked him down by smell- shot a three days dead bull (already gnawed on by hyenas et al) in the heart just to make sure. Have mercy!

 

[One Day...]

Welcome to the forum SSGBIV, and I am genuinely happy that you had an awesome hunt. This is great!

Just to share a thought, we each have our own perspectives, and as far as a hunt is legal I certainly refrain from expecting that everyone around, or anyone for that matter, will share my own perspective on hunting strategy, rifle choice, bullet choice, etc. but IvW 's comment should not be ill-interpreted, nor should it be lightly dismissed. There is a lot of truth in it, therefore a learning opportunity for the many reading this forum precisely to learn...

Not my idea of a buffalo hunt, neither is it an appropriate caliber, rifle or bullet for the task at hand.....

Case in point, I quote you, SSGBIV: "One of my solids disintegrated on the right shoulder knob."

... One of my solids disintegrated on the right shoulder knob...

What I suspect IvW means, is that this is not what is expected of a solid. It should destroy the first shoulder bone structure, stay together, and generally punch through on a sideways shot at a buff after destroying the second shoulder. IvW and I are well known to not always share the same perspective, but what I think that he was conveying is that:
- a solid that disintegrates, well..., is not really a proper solid;
- 4 "solids" from a .45 cal rifle that do not punch through a buff sideways at close range, well..., are likely not propelled by the proper cartridge in term of power level;
- a rifle that cannot handle a cartridge with the proper power level, well..., is likely not the proper rifle for the job;
- it is indeed highly, repeat: highly, unusual for other animals to be taken during the pursuit of a wounded DG animal. I will leave to each their own appreciation of the ethical side, but from a purely practical side only, many would consider it quite a dangerous distraction ... great opportunities or not.

So, like Hank2211, I too am "a little surprised "...

I'm a little surprised that you're chasing other animals while there's a wounded buffalo out there somewhere . . .

Congratulations on your hunt, and welcome to the AH world where egos are rarely massaged , but robust and candid opinions are shared, often based upon decades or lives of experience (but not always, and it is of course the curse of the internet: everyone is an "expert" including folks who have never touched a DG rifle, been to Africa, or shot more than 3 deer in their life, and we have a few of these too ).

In this case, I believe that IvW and Hank2211 are not necessarily criticizing, but providing quite valuable feedback. I happen to agree with this feedback, and I believe that it can be interesting to those thinking about buff hunting with a set up similar to yours. In the end it worked - the buff is on your wall - but a rifle/caliber/bullet that would have anchored to buff on that first shot would be more proper to the task it seems

Welcome to AH, SSGBIV, hoping to see you around for a long time

 

[LivingTheDream]

Honestly it sounds like you had a good hunt and you got your buff. I know tracking that buff for 4 days had to be nerve wracking. Did you consider grabbing a different caliber for the follow ups? Also not sure if I read it correctly or maybe I missed it but did your PH shoot as well?

But I am a little taken back on why you shot the dead buff again. I understand insurance shot but seems like overkill.

I do appreciate you given a report with all the details.

 

[One Day...]

To substantiate the point, many African countries have minimum caliber requirements - and in any case a .45 cal meets these requirements, but the two countries that also and wisely have an energy requirement for dangerous game: Zimbabwe and Namibia, require a minimum of 5,400 Joule (3,982 foot-pound).

Based on their website, a Garrett Cartridge 540-gr SuperHardCast gas-checked Hammerhead develops 2,349 ft/lbs at the muzzle of a 22" barrel.

2,349 ft/lbs at the muzzle is 3,184 Joule

Now, we all know that energy alone does not kill (which is why many African countries require a minimum caliber of 9.2 mm or .375 for DG), and this is not the point I am making here, but older cartridges (and the rifles designed to fire them), even though of larger caliber, and even though loaded to modern standards, simply cannot produce the required power level.

While completely legal in South Africa (no Province requires a minimum energy level, and few require a minimum caliber), a 45-70 would be illegal for buff in Zimbabwe or Namibia as it only develops 59% of the required minimum level of energy...

Based on SSGBIV's experience, there appear to be good reasons why the combination of a minimum of .375 caliber and a minimum of 3,982 foot-pound (5,400 Joule) makes sense for buffalo...

I hope this was of interest

PS: for comparison:
.375 H&H 300 gr @ 2,550 fps: 4,300 ft/lbs
.416 Rigby 400 gr @ 2,400 fps: 5,100 ft/lbs
.458 Win 500 gr @ 2,100 fps: 5,000 ft/lbs
.470 NE 500 gr @ 2,150 fps: 5,100 ft/lbs

 

[Hank2211]

I have to agree with Pascal about the "solid." Any solid that fragments or disintegrates on contact with any bone in a buffalo has malfunctioned, in my opinion. The whole point of solids is to hold together under the most extreme conditions and penetrate. Of course, not all do, but when they don't, they have not performed properly.

Apart from that, and notwithstanding some other comments, I do enjoy this particular writing style!

 

[Chago]

Now just to play devil's advocate here. And I already know the answer. But it would be good for some of the DG vets to chime in and answer.

A common argument I hear when people select a caliber for moose. " Well if europeans shoot moose with 6.5x55 why can't I use a 260. Why do I need to use a 338."

That's one example, but essentially people using one animal type and comparing it's size and structure to another elsewhere in the world. So in this case. 45-70 has been used for a century to kill bison which can be much larger then any cape buffalo. So I can see someone say, "oh please bison have been dying to the 45-70 for a century. Why wouldn't it kill a cape?"

I think it's important you guys explain this too.

 

[One Day...]

This is in essence the same question as asked about the African elephant: "If Walter Dalrymple Maitland Bell ("Karamojo" Bell) killed over 1,000 elephants with his .256 (i.e. both 6.5x54 Mannlicher and 6.5×53 R Mannlicher) and his .275 Rigby (i.e. 7x57 Mauser), why cannot I do it today?"

The answer is twofold and really simple:

• The most common part of the answer, but only half of it, is that Bell hunted elephant for ivory mostly before WW I (i.e. before 1914). He hunted undisturbed herds in heretofore unexplored areas, especially the remote Karamoja wilderness area in North Eastern Uganda (hence his nickname). These animals had never experienced "modern" rifle hunting and were generally undisturbed until then. Bell was able to generally approach them relatively easily and he shot at very close range. He used exclusively military full metal jacket (FMJ) ammo at elephant, which in those days were round-nosed, very long, and very heavy for caliber, the desired characteristics that carried into modern hunting "solids." The 6.5 loads had a 159 gr bullet, and the 1893 military 7x57 load had a 173 gr bullet. These provided excellent penetration that allowed reaching the brain from about any possible angle. Bell's favorite shot was actually a very personal oblique shot from the rear which was angled through the neck into the brain. These loads were incredibly lethal for brain shots and killed like lightning bolt without much noise and without smoke, which allowed Bell to wipe out entire herds in minutes. Small calibers with very high sectional density bullets that do not expand (i.e. very long FMJ bullet very heavy for caliber) will penetrate very deeply and kill anything that walks, Moose or Elephant. This explains with the 6.5x55 with long, heavy, limited expansion bullets is still to this day a much liked moose load in Scandinavia because it will reach the vitals from any angle, a much desired characteristic for short range shots at fleeting moose on the flight in very dense cover. Similarly, to this day the 6.5x54 159 gr FMJ bullet, and the 7x57 173 gr FMJ bullet, would be just as lethal on brain shots at elephant. Besides, they are light to carry and a delight to shoot, because essentially recoil-less, another reason why Bell, who reckoned having walked in average over 100 kilometers for every elephant he shot, liked them. The alternative of his days were 20 to 30 lbs. black powder monsters with frightful recoil, cloud of smoke, and very poor penetration. No wonders he liked the 6.5 lbs. Mannlicher–Schönauer!

So why not use them today?

• This is the second part of the answer. Bell was "surgically" killing undisturbed elephants and achieved shooting of "an automatic precision" I think he characterized it, if memory serves. So, to begin with, he did not miss much, and second, as often evidenced in the books of the early European hunters in Africa, they were not overwhelmingly concerned with misses or escaping wounded animals. Licenses were plentiful. As to ivory hunters, most of them were poaching, so licenses were not a concern to begin with. Their purpose was to kill vast numbers of unsuspecting elephants. By the time elephants got educated to the white man's ways, things changed. Proof is that even Bell upped his caliber (modestly) to a .318 Westley Richards, and John Taylor ("Pondoro" Taylor), who also killed over 1,000 elephants, most of then poached mostly before WWII (generally after Bell's heydays), was already using a pair of "modern" double rifles in .45+ calibers. Constantly harassed elephant herds were not easy to approach anymore for surgical placement of a small bullet in the brain, and body shots (heart & lungs) were becoming more common. A 6.5 or 7 mm bullet, of whatever construction, is hopelessly too small for body shots on elephant. Additionally, anchoring the beast, which small calibers rarely did, became an important concern, as rarer ivory could not be lost to escaping wounded animals. Finally, as charges became more common, stopping the beast became a concern, which again the small calibers do not have a prayer at doing, save for the brain shot. This all gets us to today, when an elephant costs tens of thousands of dollars, good ivory is rarer than hen's teeth, and constant human pressure (including endless poaching) have conditioned elephants to charge first, stomp pesky human into unsightly red smears into the ground (a few traditionalists still practice various techniques of tusking and dismemberment), and ask questions later... So, killing is still the end purpose, but anchoring and stopping are even higher on the list. Bigger guns ensue, especially now that bigger guns using 20th century cartridges & bullets also provide penetration, which bigger guns of the days gone by (19th century) did not provide...

 

[WAB]

Curious, why did you shoot a buffalo twice that had been dead for three days?

It worked out for you on this one but I think you’re playing with fire using your .45-70 on Cape buffalo. The .45-70 is a great caliber but imo that is not really the right application for it. I’m glad it all worked out ok.

 

[Chago]

This is in essence the same question as asked about the African elephant: "If Walter Dalrymple Maitland Bell ("Karamojo" Bell) killed over 1,000 elephants with his .256 (i.e. both 6.5x54 Mannlicher and 6.5×53 R Mannlicher) and his .275 Rigby (i.e. 7x57 Mauser), why cannot I do it today?"

The answer is twofold and really simple:

• The most common part of the answer, but only half of it, is that Bell hunted elephant for ivory mostly before WW I (i.e. before 1914). He hunted undisturbed herds in heretofore unexplored areas, especially the remote Karamoja wilderness area in North Eastern Uganda (hence his nickname). These animals had never experienced "modern" rifle hunting and were generally undisturbed until then. Bell was able to generally approach them relatively easily and he shot at very close range. He used exclusively military full metal jacket (FMJ) ammo at elephant, which in those days were round-nosed, very long, and very heavy for caliber, the desired characteristics that carried into modern hunting "solids." The 6.5 loads had a 159 gr bullet, and the 1893 military 7x57 load had a 173 gr bullet. These provided excellent penetration that allowed reaching the brain from about any possible angle. Bell's favorite shot was actually a very personal oblique shot from the rear which was angled through the neck into the brain. These loads were incredibly lethal for brain shots and killed like lightning bolt without much noise and without smoke, which allowed Bell to wipe out entire herds in minutes. Small calibers with very high sectional density bullets that do not expand (i.e. very long FMJ bullet very heavy for caliber) will penetrate very deeply and kill anything that walks, Moose or Elephant. This explains with the 6.5x55 with long, heavy, limited expansion bullets is still to this day a much liked moose load in Scandinavia because it will reach the vitals from any angle, a much desired characteristic for short range shots at fleeting moose on the flight in very dense cover. Similarly, to this day the 6.5x54 159 gr FMJ bullet, and the 7x57 173 gr FMJ bullet, would be just as lethal on brain shots at elephant. Besides, they are light to carry and a delight to shoot, because essentially recoil-less, another reason why Bell, who reckoned having walked in average over 100 kilometers for every elephant he shot, liked them. The alternative of his days were 20 to 30 lbs. black powder monsters with frightful recoil, cloud of smoke, and very poor penetration. No wonders he liked the 6.5 lbs. Mannlicher–Schönauer!

So why not use them today?

• This is the second part of the answer. Bell was "surgically" killing undisturbed elephants and achieved shooting of "an automatic precision" I think he characterized it, if memory serves. So, to begin with, he did not miss much, and second, as often evidenced in the books of the early European hunters in Africa, they were not overwhelmingly concerned with misses or escaping wounded animals. Licenses were plentiful. As to ivory hunters, most of them were poaching, so licenses were not a concern to begin with. Their purpose was to kill vast numbers of unsuspecting elephants. By the time elephants got educated to the white man's ways, things changed. Proof is that even Bell upped his caliber (modestly) to a .318 Westley Richards, and John Taylor ("Pondoro" Taylor), who also killed over 1,000 elephants, most of then poached mostly before WWII (generally after Bell's heydays), was already using a pair of "modern" double rifles in .45+ calibers. Constantly harassed elephant herds were not easy to approach anymore for surgical placement of a small bullet in the brain, and body shots (heart & lungs) were becoming more common. A 6.5 or 7 mm bullet, of whatever construction, is hopelessly too small for body shots on elephant. Additionally, anchoring the beast, which small calibers rarely did, became an important concern, as rarer ivory could not be lost to escaping wounded animals. Finally, as charges became more common, stopping the beast became a concern, which again the small calibers do not have a prayer at doing, save for the brain shot. This all gets us to today, when an elephant costs tens of thousands of dollars, good ivory is rarer than hen's teeth, and constant human pressure (including endless poaching) have conditioned elephants to charge first, stomp pesky human into unsightly red smears into the ground (a few traditionalists still practice various techniques of tusking and dismemberment), and ask questions later... So, killing is still the end purpose, but anchoring and stopping are even higher on the list. Bigger guns ensue, especially now that bigger guns using 20th century cartridges & bullets also provide penetration, which bigger guns of the days gone by (19th century) did not provide...

Well done, well said.

 

[SSGBIV]

Welcome to the forum SSGBIV, and I am genuinely happy that you had an awesome hunt. This is great!

Just to share a thought, we each have our own perspectives, and as far as a hunt is legal I certainly refrain from expecting that everyone around, or anyone for that matter, will share my own perspective on hunting strategy, rifle choice, bullet choice, etc. but IvW 's comment should not be ill-interpreted, nor should it be lightly dismissed. There is a lot of truth in it, therefore a learning opportunity for the many reading this forum precisely to learn...


Case in point, I quote you, SSGBIV: "One of my solids disintegrated on the right shoulder knob."


What I suspect IvW means, is that this is not what is expected of a solid. It should destroy the first shoulder bone structure, stay together, and generally punch through on a sideways shot at a buff after destroying the second shoulder. IvW and I are well known to not always share the same perspective, but what I think that he was conveying is that:
- a solid that disintegrates, well..., is not really a proper solid;
- 4 "solids" from a .45 cal rifle that do not punch through a buff sideways at close range, well..., are likely not propelled by the proper cartridge in term of power level;
- a rifle that cannot handle a cartridge with the proper power level, well..., is likely not the proper rifle for the job;
- it is indeed highly, repeat: highly, unusual for other animals to be taken during the pursuit of a wounded DG animal. I will leave to each their own appreciation of the ethical side, but from a purely practical side only, many would consider it quite a dangerous distraction ... great opportunities or not.

So, like Hank2211, I too am "a little surprised "...


Congratulations on your hunt, and welcome to the AH world where egos are rarely massaged but robust and candid opinions are shared, often based upon decades or lives of experience (but not always, and it is of course the curse of the internet: everyone is an "expert" including folks who have never touched a DG rifle, been to Africa, or shot more than 3 deer in their life, and we have a few of these too ).

In this case, I believe that IvW and Hank2211 are not necessarily criticizing, but providing quite valuable feedback. I happen to agree with this feedback, and I believe that it can be interesting to those thinking about buff hunting with a set up similar to yours. In the end it worked - the buff is on your wall - but a rifle/caliber/bullet that would have anchored to buff on that first shot would be more proper to the task it seems

Welcome to AH, SSGBIV, hoping to see you around for a long time

Thank you, One Day, for the considerate and thoughtful reply.

Yes, I did enjoy my hunt immensely, and we did much more hunting past this story during that safari.

As you correctly point out, the 45-70, even with the vaunted Garrett Hammerhead in 540 grain, was not enough rifle to properly do the job.
My goal on this safari was to hunt Cape Buffalo with this iconic American rifle, which I have owned for close to 2 decades. My dream was not to shoot a Buffalo from 100+ yards distant with a scoped rifle, but to stalk close, look him in the eye, and take the quarry with my rifle fitted with iron sights. In my research, I realized that this was not a popular caliber to hunt with in Africa, but I was looking forward to a unique hunt. I will confess to a bit of trepidation on the plane ride over to RSA, but the die had already been cast.

As I mentioned, I was a little unnerved by the deformation of the big slug that I pulled out of the Common Reedbuck after hitting hip bone. One of the reasons I shot the Reedbuck in the first place was because by that time I was beginning to question myself in regard to shot placement and bullet effectiveness on the Buffalo. Taking a well aimed shot at the small Reedbuck, it hit precisely where I wanted it, and of the three quick followup shots at the spinning animal, one connected. This reassured me as to my shot placement, as the Reedbuck was a much smaller target, further away, lower light, and offhand instead of kneeling. But the condition of the round after striking bone was another story...

The complete disintegration of the hardcast bullet on the shoulder knob, though it completely decimated the shoulder, was a huge disappointment. The round that found its way to the boiler-room, however, was a different story, and was what ultimately killed the animal.

In this regard, you and IvW and Hank have a very valid point, and I don't think you will find me hunting big boned dangerous game with this rifle ever again. It has been a lesson learned, and driven home by your informative posts here. As a relatively new hunter to Africa, I have a lot to learn, and truly appreciate folks like you who will take the time to share a reasonable viewpoint as well as back it up with valid research.

Thanks again, and may you spend many pleasant days on the trail and blessed nights around the campfire with good friends.

Since that hunt, I have acquired a nice Ruger M77 in .458 Win Mag. It is a pleasure to shoot using 500 grain Woodleigh solids, as well as 500 grain Norma solids. I am looking forward to bringing it back to NB Safaris for another Cape Buffalo hunt.... and no, I won't be putting a scope on this one, either.

 

[SSGBIV]

I have to agree with Pascal about the "solid." Any solid that fragments or disintegrates on contact with any bone in a buffalo has malfunctioned, in my opinion. The whole point of solids is to hold together under the most extreme conditions and penetrate. Of course, not all do, but when they don't, they have not performed properly.

Apart from that, and notwithstanding some other comments, I do enjoy this particular writing style!

Agreed, and thank you!

 

[SSGBIV]

Honestly it sounds like you had a good hunt and you got your buff. I know tracking that buff for 4 days had to be nerve wracking. Did you consider grabbing a different caliber for the follow ups? Also not sure if I read it correctly or maybe I missed it but did your PH shoot as well?

But I am a little taken back on why you shot the dead buff again. I understand insurance shot but seems like overkill.

I do appreciate you given a report with all the details.

Yes, it was nerve-wracking, not least because I knew that if that Buffalo truly was out there wounded, and not dead as I was beginning to suspect, it was putting a lot of people at risk - my PH, my tracker, other clients that were hunting a nearby unit... and I was the one responsible. It was gut wrenching, day and night.

Why I shot the dead buff again? Maybe I was blowing off a little steam; I also wanted to have a look at the bullets having gone through a set of ribs. I was also carrying 420 grain Hammerheads which I had not employed against the Buffalo, and I wanted to have a look at it as well. As long as we were blowing off steam, I invited my friend Andre to send one of his 500 grain Hornady's into the animals body so I could have a look at that bullet's performance as well. This was the only instance during our time together that he fired his rifle.

A little unorthodox, I know, but I did what I did...

 

[SSGBIV]

Curious, why did you shoot a buffalo twice that had been dead for three days?

It worked out for you on this one but I think you’re playing with fire using your .45-70 on Cape buffalo. The .45-70 is a great caliber but imo that is not really the right application for it. I’m glad it all worked out ok.

Thanks for the solid advice, WAB. I definitely do not know all there is to know about this African hunting business, and am always willing to admit I was wrong and correct it the next time out.

As for why I shot that three day dead, rigor mortised corpse, I explained in another reply to the same question that I wanted to have a look at the bullets after having gone through those big ribs, which neither of my two previous shots had. It also had the added benefit of opening up two .45 inch holes in the bloated beast, which immediately became two strong and long flowing fountains of smelly blood, as it was revealed that the buffalo had bled out almost completely inside of the chest cavity.

 

[SSGBIV]

This is in essence the same question as asked about the African elephant: "If Walter Dalrymple Maitland Bell ("Karamojo" Bell) killed over 1,000 elephants with his .256 (i.e. both 6.5x54 Mannlicher and 6.5×53 R Mannlicher) and his .275 Rigby (i.e. 7x57 Mauser), why cannot I do it today?"

The answer is twofold and really simple:

• The most common part of the answer, but only half of it, is that Bell hunted elephant for ivory mostly before WW I (i.e. before 1914). He hunted undisturbed herds in heretofore unexplored areas, especially the remote Karamoja wilderness area in North Eastern Uganda (hence his nickname). These animals had never experienced "modern" rifle hunting and were generally undisturbed until then. Bell was able to generally approach them relatively easily and he shot at very close range. He used exclusively military full metal jacket (FMJ) ammo at elephant, which in those days were round-nosed, very long, and very heavy for caliber, the desired characteristics that carried into modern hunting "solids." The 6.5 loads had a 159 gr bullet, and the 1893 military 7x57 load had a 173 gr bullet. These provided excellent penetration that allowed reaching the brain from about any possible angle. Bell's favorite shot was actually a very personal oblique shot from the rear which was angled through the neck into the brain. These loads were incredibly lethal for brain shots and killed like lightning bolt without much noise and without smoke, which allowed Bell to wipe out entire herds in minutes. Small calibers with very high sectional density bullets that do not expand (i.e. very long FMJ bullet very heavy for caliber) will penetrate very deeply and kill anything that walks, Moose or Elephant. This explains with the 6.5x55 with long, heavy, limited expansion bullets is still to this day a much liked moose load in Scandinavia because it will reach the vitals from any angle, a much desired characteristic for short range shots at fleeting moose on the flight in very dense cover. Similarly, to this day the 6.5x54 159 gr FMJ bullet, and the 7x57 173 gr FMJ bullet, would be just as lethal on brain shots at elephant. Besides, they are light to carry and a delight to shoot, because essentially recoil-less, another reason why Bell, who reckoned having walked in average over 100 kilometers for every elephant he shot, liked them. The alternative of his days were 20 to 30 lbs. black powder monsters with frightful recoil, cloud of smoke, and very poor penetration. No wonders he liked the 6.5 lbs. Mannlicher–Schönauer!

So why not use them today?

• This is the second part of the answer. Bell was "surgically" killing undisturbed elephants and achieved shooting of "an automatic precision" I think he characterized it, if memory serves. So, to begin with, he did not miss much, and second, as often evidenced in the books of the early European hunters in Africa, they were not overwhelmingly concerned with misses or escaping wounded animals. Licenses were plentiful. As to ivory hunters, most of them were poaching, so licenses were not a concern to begin with. Their purpose was to kill vast numbers of unsuspecting elephants. By the time elephants got educated to the white man's ways, things changed. Proof is that even Bell upped his caliber (modestly) to a .318 Westley Richards, and John Taylor ("Pondoro" Taylor), who also killed over 1,000 elephants, most of then poached mostly before WWII (generally after Bell's heydays), was already using a pair of "modern" double rifles in .45+ calibers. Constantly harassed elephant herds were not easy to approach anymore for surgical placement of a small bullet in the brain, and body shots (heart & lungs) were becoming more common. A 6.5 or 7 mm bullet, of whatever construction, is hopelessly too small for body shots on elephant. Additionally, anchoring the beast, which small calibers rarely did, became an important concern, as rarer ivory could not be lost to escaping wounded animals. Finally, as charges became more common, stopping the beast became a concern, which again the small calibers do not have a prayer at doing, save for the brain shot. This all gets us to today, when an elephant costs tens of thousands of dollars, good ivory is rarer than hen's teeth, and constant human pressure (including endless poaching) have conditioned elephants to charge first, stomp pesky human into unsightly red smears into the ground (a few traditionalists still practice various techniques of tusking and dismemberment), and ask questions later... So, killing is still the end purpose, but anchoring and stopping are even higher on the list. Bigger guns ensue, especially now that bigger guns using 20th century cartridges & bullets also provide penetration, which bigger guns of the days gone by (19th century) did not provide...

I enjoyed the way you wove together incredible history with an important ballistics lesson.

 

[SSGBIV]

For those curious to see the rounds collected during the hunt:

 

[sestoppelman]

Not defending the use of the .45-70 on buffalo, though it has been done more than once successfully, the load chosen here is certainly not up to snuff. The .45-70 in a strong rifle can be loaded to a fair amount more than that load. It easy to add another 1000 ft/lbs of energy to the old Govt round and even a bit more. Might still not make a minimum legal or even sensible amount of energy but it gets pretty close.
I remember carrying my model 95 Winchester in .405 Win with 300 gr Barnes Triple Shocks in RSA a few years ago, though not for buffalo, but felt that the combination would be quite capable of getting it done if needed. My load produced IIRC about 3200 ft/lbs of energy, not adequate by most standards, but with that bullet and within a hundred yards or so I think it would have been adequate and with proper backup would have tackled a buffalo with it.

 

[SSGBIV]

Not defending the use of the .45-70 on buffalo, though it has been done more than once successfully, the load chosen here is certainly not up to snuff. The .45-70 in a strong rifle can be loaded to a fair amount more than that load. It easy to add another 1000 ft/lbs of energy to the old Govt round and even a bit more. Might still not make a minimum legal or even sensible amount of energy but it gets pretty close.
I remember carrying my model 95 Winchester in .405 Win with 300 gr Barnes Triple Shocks in RSA a few years ago, though not for buffalo, but felt that the combination would be quite capable of getting it done if needed. My load produced IIRC about 3200 ft/lbs of energy, not adequate by most standards, but with that bullet and within a hundred yards or so I think it would have been adequate and with proper backup would have tackled a buffalo with it.

Thanks for the tip! I think I may still have an old Lee hand loader set in 45-70 around here somewhere

 

[sestoppelman]

Do your due diligence and proceed with caution. It can be done safely but study up on it first.

 

[SSGBIV]

Do your due diligence and proceed with caution. It can be done safely but study up on it first.

Will do. Thanks and GNGB.

 

[Ridgewalker]

It is a pleasure to shoot using 500 grain Woodleigh solids, as well as 500 grain Norma solids

Ouch! That should do well! But for my old shoulder, it would hurt from both ends!

Being a retired engineer and loving testing things, I too would have fired several shots in different locations in the carcass to see the results. Knowledge is precious!

JMO, but if it’s legal and OK with your PH, not much different than bow hunting or black powder hunting a buffalo. It’s yours and your PHs risk. Not my cup of tea. I don’t have much time left to recoup from any mistakes I make. Glad all came out well, but I am a bit sorry if the buffalo had to suffer.