Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) the 45-70 inadequate? (Read 17169 times)
Stillwater
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #15 - Aug 7th, 2007 at 7:43pm
Print Post  
Quote:
QuestionableMaynard8130 wrote on May 8th, 2007 at 9:36am:
The gvmt simply and purely wanted the buffalo dead dead dead. Exterminating the buffalo was a national strategic policy. If they could have poisoned them off they'd have done it.  they wanted the economic props kicked out from under the Indians and the land freed from Indians and roaming buffalo herds for settlers.


Actually, this is pretty much internet and PC-legend.  A scholarly investigation of the issue failed to find any evidence of this as an official government policy in any way.  It was economics and technology (the developed need for belting for industrial machining and tanning techniques) that doomed the bison.  The govt. may  have been quite happy with the side effects but they were not actively engaged in causing this to happen for this end in and of itself.  

There is a heck of a lot of myth about bison hunters in general and a bit of research will show a lot of deviations from accepted gospel.  You might look into the work of Dan Flores, a well regarded historian, Chair of the Dept of History at Montana State U. and ex-gunwriter as a starting point.  There has been lots of interest in estimating the numbers of bison killed as well.  The more rational and defensible estimates are a fair bit under the accepted guesses in the 60 million range.  

Brent



This is more than Internet mythology and Political correctness. 

The Buffalo weren't exterminated by the Buffalo Hunters... If you will look into books, with verified counts on the amount of hides shipped, from the normal shipping collection points. The numbers of the hides shipped will not match the normal annual increase in a ten-million buffalo herd, not even considering a sixty-Million buffalo herd, at all.

What decimated the Buffalo herds was diseases from introduced cattle, such as Hoof and Mouth disease and Brucellosis, which the Buffalo did not have native immunities to.

There were never enough Buffalo Hunters, to make a dent in the buffalo herds population...

Don't buy the missinformation liberals and anti-hunters are putting out.

Bill
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Brent
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #16 - Aug 7th, 2007 at 7:59pm
Print Post  
Bill, 
I don't think you will find any creditable sources that will agree with that hypothesis of your's.  That bison may not have numbered in the 60 million range is something that many will agree with based on hide shipment numbers.   

That bison hunters reduced them to a few hundred is not, however, disputed.  Those few survived mostly in Yellowstone.   

Motive and numerical estimates are the issues that are contested.  The methodology of the event is not contested.   

Brent
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Black_Prince
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #17 - Aug 7th, 2007 at 9:06pm
Print Post  
Anyone interested in the topic of this thread should go to 
  (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

This is a long personal narration by an old time buff runner and he discusses various types of rifles and calibers.  He said he had a 40- 90-420 Sharps that killed buffalo just fine.  He did say he preferred 45 calibers however. He made his living hunting buff so he ought to know.  

It is a good read about buffalo hunting and all that was involved with it like indians and how many buffalo there were.  It is worth your time to read it if you are at all interested in the subject of this thread.

Many hunters have taken a 45-70 Ruger No. 1 handloaded with proper bullets to Africa and killed everything over there with it.  It's a poor man's 458 Win Mag.  John Wooters wrote several articles about it after he had done exactly the same thing.  If the 45-70 is inadequate, somebody forgot to tell all the african game, including elephant and cape buffalo , that it is.
« Last Edit: Aug 7th, 2007 at 9:16pm by »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
J.D.Steele
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #18 - Aug 7th, 2007 at 10:17pm
Print Post  
My 7.5-lb 1886/71 Win 45-70 carbine will push a 520-gr Lyman 457125 to a chronographed 1710 fps with my medium load. 458 WM factory load is a 500-gr to a chronographed 1950 fps. Anything but a one-shot kill with the '86 means poor placement, I don't care what size the animal.
JMO, Joe
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stillwater
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #19 - Aug 8th, 2007 at 12:36am
Print Post  
My Grandfather, born in 1850, lived until 1950, was a buffalo hunter, in Montana from 1866 until the early 1880's.

My grandfather told me stories of finding thousands of dead buffalo, laying on the plains, food for wolves and vultures. This was Particularly evident for the northern herd of Buffalo.

These buffalo had not been shot, they died of disease, and they were unsalvagable until the bone gathers started salvaging up their bones.

I didn't say that there were 60-million buffalo when the buffalo hunting era started. I said there COULD have been 10-million. Nobody knows how many buffalo there were.

And some of you didn't read where I said I have read the number of hides shipped from major transhippment points wouldn't equal the increase, that a ten-million buffalo herd could sustain. 

Dodge City, KS a major shipping point, never shipped more than 250,000 buffalo hides in one year. My grandfather shipped all of his hides from Dodge City, KS.

There is a book, The time of the Buffalo by Tom Mchugh, written in 1972 that goes into the dstruction of the buffalo herds quiet thoroughly.

I have many other texts by well respected authors, such as Robert Utley, that support this opinion.

Bill

Edited to add:
This book was published from the author's Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Wisconsin.

Bill
« Last Edit: Aug 8th, 2007 at 11:50am by »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Black_Prince
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #20 - Aug 8th, 2007 at 11:03am
Print Post  
JDS

A friend of mine gone now, once said that if he shot anything with his 45-70 and it didn't fall down graveyard dead, that he went around behind it to see what was holding it up because it was dang shore graveyard dead!  I also shoot the standard government bullet by Lyman #457125 in a '74 Sharps  and if you get that big bullet going anywhere above 1500 fps, it just goes to sleep until it runs into something and puts a hole all the way through it.
« Last Edit: Aug 8th, 2007 at 11:12am by »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
J.D.Steele
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #21 - Aug 8th, 2007 at 11:29am
Print Post  
One of my S/S gunsmithing mentors, died ~ 10 yrs ago, used a Deluxe '86 45-70 for all his big game shooting, said he was tired of having animals run off when hit with a .30 cal.

He finally got too old to hunt, after the old '86 had killed 62 big game animals with 63 shots. The extra shot was fired by his brother, shooting at the same deer at the same time by mistake instead of at the other buck.

I could add some more details, but what's the point? 62 straight one-shot kills kinda speaks for itself, no?
Regards, Joe
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Black_Prince
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #22 - Aug 8th, 2007 at 1:38pm
Print Post  
It does make a statement doan it?  But you know JD, I used a .243 Win. for 20 years before I could afford another rifle and had 26 one shot kills on deer during that time and never had to hunt for one after I shot it.  I then used a 30-06, a .308, a .300 mag. and a .375 H&H  all with one shot kills, even though some did go on 35 or 40 yards after being hit.  During that time I helped numerous hunting buddies look for hours for wounded deer all using the same cartridges.  It all goes back to shot placement.   I have noticed that people who shoot 45-70's are usually accomplished riflemen and hunters.  Those men could make clean kills using anything.

Years ago I settled on the .338 Win. mag. as my "all round" rifle.  I use little 200 grain CT Bullets or 210 Nosler's in it for whitetails.  It has enough of a larger diameter to be significant, but not so much to be too big.  And strangely enough, I have had one shot kills using it, and exactly NONE have moved out of their tracks after being hit.  Course, several of those have been hit right between the eyes.  The .338 has a bad habit of busting the skull all to hell and gone when I do that.  The little .243 never did.

But a good hunter shooting a rifle chambered for the 45-70 can hunt anything anywhere in north America and most of the rest of the world without having to be concerned about whether or not it will kill, and it sure is comforting right about dusk having that 45-70 in your hands when you are hunting elk in big bear country, but doan axxed me how I know that.  I had my old .243 and it weren't purdy, no it wadn't.
« Last Edit: Aug 8th, 2007 at 1:45pm by »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
J.D.Steele
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #23 - Aug 8th, 2007 at 2:14pm
Print Post  
OTOH my friend Henry Chatoney, a cool customer indeed and a very experienced expert heavy-hitter shooter, once shot a very large Kodiak bear with his 500 x 3" Nitro double. The bear was rearing to stand face-on @ a fairly short range, measured in feet, at dusk, and Henry was alarmed enough at the bear's advance so that he decided he had to kill it.

He fired the first bbl. The bear stopped. The bear looked at Henry, dropped down to all fours and then walked off the trail into the brush. Henry said he thought about going into the brush after the bear. For about one second.

He went back the next morning but lost the trail in a stream after ~ 1/4 mi. Said he figured the bullet went straight through a lung without hitting the spine even though he aimed through the bear's body directly at it. Said he thought if he'd been using one of his 45s with a soft-cast 457125, he might not have lost that bear. Well......

Back when I could afford to fly (& pass the Medical), I remember we called an occurrence like that "just one of those things" for lack of a more acceptable explanation.
Regards, Joe
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
3sixbits
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #24 - Aug 8th, 2007 at 3:12pm
Print Post  
Please folks don't get the idea that a soft cast bullet is good medicine for bear, it is NOT. Hard cast yes, soft nose hard cast yes. It's always a nervous system shot to put him in the dirt. You've got to break bone! 

Of course I'm referring to grizzly, interior and coastal.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the .45-70 in the Marlin Lever action is used here more than any other caliber for bear hunting. And for protection from bear. I don't own one, preferring a 12ga shotgun for protection. My .375 H&H for hunting bear and moose, but that does not mean I don't think the .45-70 is not good for both.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Brent
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #25 - Aug 8th, 2007 at 3:15pm
Print Post  
Joe, why would a .45-70 have been better than a .500 NE?

I seriously doubt it would have made any difference.

Brent
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartiniBelgian
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 1676
Location: Aarschot
Joined: Jun 7th, 2004
Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #26 - Aug 8th, 2007 at 4:29pm
Print Post  
Unless I am wrong, the assertion starting this thread was about the BP 45-70, which is a totally different beast than a hopped-up nitro-powered 45-70.  Still better than most people think, but probably only good for a clean kill on bigger game in the hands of expert shots, who knew where to place their bullets, and had the skill to do so...   
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
J.D.Steele
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #27 - Aug 8th, 2007 at 6:12pm
Print Post  
Henry's theory was that, in this particular instance where it was pretty obvious that no major bone was struck, it was probable that a 25:1 457125 would have expanded enough to cause much more immediate damage, whereas the jacketed .500 just zipped right through. He's killed enough bear to know that, at that close range, only a brain/spine shot will put 'em down in time. A shoulder or heart shot will just make most bear mad until they finally bleed out. Told me that it was so dark that he didn't feel confident in a head shot, so he took center-of-mass aiming to hit the spine on the way out.

I first met Henry when he tried to trade me a Borchardt more than 35 yrs ago, and at that time he owned no CF smaller than a 375 H&H. He's a cool and accomplished big-boomer shooter with much game to his credit & I believe him. At least most of the time! (VBG)

As for the 457125 cast medium-soft, I personally favor it above most other bullets but in this instance.....my '86 holds 5 rounds and I believe I'd've emptied it!

And then, of course, emptied my drawers.

But Henry is very probably the slowest-talking man in AK, and his voice never speeds up and his volume never rises when he's describing things, so I don't know how he really felt about that particular bear.
Regards, Joe
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Black_Prince
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #28 - Aug 8th, 2007 at 7:55pm
Print Post  
Teddy Roosevelt called his 1895 model .405 Winchester "Big Medicine" and he went all over the world thumping great beast with it.  It is a true .40 caliber and shoots fairly light bullets compared to most 45 caliber slugs.   It seems he wasn't a particulary good shot and the recoil of a 45-70 may have discouraged him, although no one ever said Teddy was afraid of anything.  We all have our pet rifles and his was the 1895 Winchester chambered in .405 and for sure, he seemed to do very well with it.

Since the 45-70 cartridge is superior to the .405 Winchester as far as power goes, and Roosevelt found the .405 adequate, one has to wonder at the reasoning for anyone saying the 45-70 is inadequate.  However, I didn't read the article and there is probably qualifying information that goes along with that theory.  Most buff Runners did seem to prefer more powder than 70 grains no matter what caliber they shot and a 45-90 or 45-110 or 120 may have added enough extra distance to a Buff Hunter's killing range that he would consider the 45-70 inadequate AT THAT EXTRA RANGE.  He didn't mean that it was inadequate to kill buff, but that it was inadequate to kill them as reliably as a cartridge capable of holding more powder at 600 to 700 yards.

Like I said, the meanings of words are not in the words and we don't know what the author meant by his choice of words or what they meant to him.  But suffice it to say that I feel completely comfortable toteing a 45-70 no matter how late I stay out at night or which side of the mountain I happen to be on when the sun goes down cause I ain't shooting buff at any 6 to 700 yards.  If other people only feel comfortable taking along a three inch 500 nitro express in the same places, more power to'em.  Maybe they can help me pack my elk out?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sako300m
Ex Member


Re: the 45-70 inadequate?
Reply #29 - Aug 11th, 2007 at 10:16pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Every year here in Alaska, brown bear, black bear,  moose and bison are killed using the .45-70 ctg. I don't really know if that is considered as adequate. However, beyond dead is??????
 Garrett Cartridges for the 45-70 have made a difference (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) in the site is a story about Vince Lupo from Tampa,FL who hunted really big african game with a modified Marlin 45-70 there is a lot of other data about the 45-70 penetration.I emailed Garret about TC Encore single shot barrels and his ammo he responded the Encore rifle barrels will handle his loads but the barrel chamber must be modified for the extra long 45-70 Exiter Ammo.
« Last Edit: Aug 11th, 2007 at 10:34pm by »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Send TopicPrint