I just received an ASSRA Journal dated Sept-Oct 2006 Vol 60 Number 6.

There is an article by Russ Friend on the Springfield sporting rifle in which Russ asserts that the 45-70 developed for the 1873 was one of the most popular cartridges of the time and was used to kill American bison...but was quite inadequate for the job.

I have seen several 45-70 soft lead, round nose bullets shoot completely through buffalo when they didn't hit bone, did anyone else read this and have the same incredulous reaction that I did?

Gary

There may be better calibers for bison, but I wouldn't call the .45-70 inadequate for the job.

Gentlemen,
I'm not a buffalo hunter, but the ones I've shot with a .45-70 folded up pretty well. However, they weren't shot in the guts from 500 yards.

420-gr. Lyman 457193, cast 1-40, 70 grains 3FG Swiss. This seems to work pretty good on elk, moose and bear also.

The .45-70 was popular on the frontier because it was an efficient round for hunting and was stocked by the military.

Many frontier hunters shot meat for the mining camps, forts, and hotels as well as hunting bufflao for hides. If I had been knocking around in those days, a .45-70 would have been right at the top of the list of preferred calibers...just like it is with me today.

Gute Ziele,

Steve

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??????

It's just barely within the realm of possibility that the lighter carbine load of 55 gr powder and a soft-cast 405-gr bullet wouldn't give satisfaction on a bison - maybe.

However, a 30-1 or 40-1 Lyman 457125 (the 500-gr Government bullet) will handily kill anything on this continent with one shot. Every time. I've seen it.
FWIW, Joe

QuestionableMaynard8130 wrote on May 8^th, 2007 at 9:36am:


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

I no longer keep databases of titles so I don't have them handy.  But, punch 
Dan Flores buffalo 
into google or scholar.google.com and you will get a lot of hits.

Brent

Sadly I traded off (years ago) a trap door Springfield in .45-70, that was an issue item to the settlers of the Arizona Territory. There is a long history of firearms issues to the public for different government programs. The last I know of was to the Territorial scouts here in Alaska. 1917 Enfields along with ammo, was a great way to get the native people to join.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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...   

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?

I use the Garret loads in .44 mag, for my fishing gear. It's hard to carry my 12ga. and handle a fly rod. I carry my old 5" Smith in a chest holster, works great with chest waders on.

It is vary hard to get the Garrett ammo here and vary expensive to ship. Vary few people get this ammo for the .45-70. The only store in Alaska that carries it is in Juneau.