coosbaycreep
Member
I already know that a .45-70 will shoot long ways through a buffalo, but I don't think I've ever heard anything about how well this caliber did against human targets.
I've seen gatling guns chambered in .45-70 on gunbroker before, and I can't even imagine the wall of lead that would be like considering how massive these bullets are. I'm an idiot on American history, so other than fighting with the Indians, I don't know if we we're involved in any major wars during the years that .45-70 was being used, or how it performed.
I know that infection from wounds and bad living conditions used to kill more people during war than the actual fighting did, but does anyone know a percentage figure or how effective 45-70 was with one shot kills? It seems like a bullet that big should usually be fatal in most places of the body with the exception of arms/legs, but I don't know since it was all black powder then and had little velocity.
Other than the size/weight of the cartridges, and bad trajectory of the 45-70, is there any other reasons why they switched to a smaller caliber? If ballistics had anything to do with it, how would modern 45-70 loads (like buffalo bore) do against humans?
Did soldiers/officers ever complain about the effectiveness of 45-70 way back when, the way our military complains about the effectiveness of 5.56 now?
What grain of bullet was used in trapdoor springfields, and what was the velocity on them?
I know this is probably an odd question to ask, but I was looking at my 45-70 ammo today, and couldn't help but wonder why they went from something as massive as that, to something as small as .223 (other than the fact that you can carry more .223 obviously).
I've seen gatling guns chambered in .45-70 on gunbroker before, and I can't even imagine the wall of lead that would be like considering how massive these bullets are. I'm an idiot on American history, so other than fighting with the Indians, I don't know if we we're involved in any major wars during the years that .45-70 was being used, or how it performed.
I know that infection from wounds and bad living conditions used to kill more people during war than the actual fighting did, but does anyone know a percentage figure or how effective 45-70 was with one shot kills? It seems like a bullet that big should usually be fatal in most places of the body with the exception of arms/legs, but I don't know since it was all black powder then and had little velocity.
Other than the size/weight of the cartridges, and bad trajectory of the 45-70, is there any other reasons why they switched to a smaller caliber? If ballistics had anything to do with it, how would modern 45-70 loads (like buffalo bore) do against humans?
Did soldiers/officers ever complain about the effectiveness of 45-70 way back when, the way our military complains about the effectiveness of 5.56 now?
What grain of bullet was used in trapdoor springfields, and what was the velocity on them?
I know this is probably an odd question to ask, but I was looking at my 45-70 ammo today, and couldn't help but wonder why they went from something as massive as that, to something as small as .223 (other than the fact that you can carry more .223 obviously).