The answer is 'yes'. The .45-70, for being as old as it is, can be loaded from mild to wild. If you load that thing up with a stout load and hard cast lead bullets, the penetration you get with it is absolutely unbelievable. Randy Garrett's Hammerheads are noted for this. Or, you can buy off the shelf cowboy loads that are pretty tame. And then there is everything in between. One reason people think it's weak is that the factories have traditionally loaded it very light in case somebody buys their ammunition to shoot in an old trapdoor Springfield, which has a weak action and might disassemble itself with a heavy load.
Is .45-70 That Powerful?
- Thread starter lizziedog1
- Start date
- Status
Jeff,
Are you even sure that flesh (or wet newspaper) under high-velocity impact situations is a Newtonian fluid? Could be non-Newtonian. I think you're talking external physics for situations in which they aren't the sole actors. I think fluid dynamics is a big actor here; acoustics is another big one (if you've ever seen a slow motion shot of a ballistic gelatin block, you'll see what I mean).
Corn starch mixed with water is a good example of a non-Newtonian fluid. Strike the surface of a bucket full with your fist and be prepared for it to not feel so good. Slide your hand in gently, and you'll have no problem. Try to jerk it back out, and you'll likely pick up the whole bucket with your hand still stuck in it. Left to the gentle force of gravity, and the bucket will fall off your hand.
I don't really know what it is to be honest, but there are scientific justifications that explain why sometimes a more powerful strike or force can be less effective. It isn't something that can be over-simplified and just examined through the lens of external physics.
Are you even sure that flesh (or wet newspaper) under high-velocity impact situations is a Newtonian fluid? Could be non-Newtonian. I think you're talking external physics for situations in which they aren't the sole actors. I think fluid dynamics is a big actor here; acoustics is another big one (if you've ever seen a slow motion shot of a ballistic gelatin block, you'll see what I mean).
Corn starch mixed with water is a good example of a non-Newtonian fluid. Strike the surface of a bucket full with your fist and be prepared for it to not feel so good. Slide your hand in gently, and you'll have no problem. Try to jerk it back out, and you'll likely pick up the whole bucket with your hand still stuck in it. Left to the gentle force of gravity, and the bucket will fall off your hand.
I don't really know what it is to be honest, but there are scientific justifications that explain why sometimes a more powerful strike or force can be less effective. It isn't something that can be over-simplified and just examined through the lens of external physics.
DC Plumber
Member
OK, just for kicks and grins, here are three cartridges.
The one on the left is a .458winmag with a Hornady 500g RN that was chrono'd at 2020fps, not quite a max load.
The middle one is a .458winmag with a 525g Beartooth Hammerhead Bullet over a compressed load of H4895, I'm guessing around 1900fps.
The one of the right is a 454 Casull loaded with a plinker round, a Hornady 250g XTP over 11g of Universal doing 1050fps.
No arguements to be made, just showing some cool ammo pertaining to 45 caliber cartridges.
The one on the left is a .458winmag with a Hornady 500g RN that was chrono'd at 2020fps, not quite a max load.
The middle one is a .458winmag with a 525g Beartooth Hammerhead Bullet over a compressed load of H4895, I'm guessing around 1900fps.
The one of the right is a 454 Casull loaded with a plinker round, a Hornady 250g XTP over 11g of Universal doing 1050fps.
No arguements to be made, just showing some cool ammo pertaining to 45 caliber cartridges.
Attachments
Jeff,
I don't really have a side in this discussion, just bringing up a possible explanation. I also don't believe Garrett just because Garrett says so. As you mentioned, he's got an obvious conflict of interest. And if there really is something to a .45-70 velocity, it's always something you can load a .458 to duplicate.
That being said, a shear thinning liquid favors the faster velocity. It is shear thickening that resists faster movement (again like corn starch and water, it's incredibly easy to try at home for anyone who is unfamiliar and would like to see an illustration of what we are talking about or Mythbusters did a segment on it). There is currently research into using shear thickening material to produce flexible body armor for instance. I think there is also a difference between what you'll find in a primary solution of water with paper pulp mixed in and a saturated paper solid.
Regardless, I don't know if it's applicable. As before, just mentioned it because it is a property that could explain an unexpected outcome.
I don't really have a side in this discussion, just bringing up a possible explanation. I also don't believe Garrett just because Garrett says so. As you mentioned, he's got an obvious conflict of interest. And if there really is something to a .45-70 velocity, it's always something you can load a .458 to duplicate.
That being said, a shear thinning liquid favors the faster velocity. It is shear thickening that resists faster movement (again like corn starch and water, it's incredibly easy to try at home for anyone who is unfamiliar and would like to see an illustration of what we are talking about or Mythbusters did a segment on it). There is currently research into using shear thickening material to produce flexible body armor for instance. I think there is also a difference between what you'll find in a primary solution of water with paper pulp mixed in and a saturated paper solid.
Regardless, I don't know if it's applicable. As before, just mentioned it because it is a property that could explain an unexpected outcome.
jgiehl
Member
During this last hunting season I shot a moose, granted he was just a spike fork, but when I shot him with my 45-70 loaded with a 425 grain bullet from Beartooth Bullets he didn't run. The bullet impacted and he just fell over, hit him from about 60 yards away.
Shoots like a cannon hits like an anvil.
Shoots like a cannon hits like an anvil.
I'd encourage you to look at additional sources. Both shear thinning and shear thickening are affected by shear rate (velocity in effect), just oppositely so.
Shear thinning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_thinning
Example given: ketchup. Under low velocity or shear force, it acts like a solid hence why you can never get it out of the bottle. Under high shear situations, it acts like a liquid such as when it finally gets to the nozzle of a squeeze bottle and shoots out like a liquid.
Shear thickening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilatant
Example: Corn starch and water. When high velocity movement creates high shear forces, it acts more like a solid but if you move through it gently, it acts like a liquid. This is a science experiment lots of kids do in early classes. The linked Mythbusters video also illustrates it well when Adam is able to run across the surface of a giant vat of cornstarch-water mixture. If you read the Wikipedia article, you'll also see the subsection on its uses in Traction Control devices and Body Armor. The article also addresses sand and water and provides an opposite example to what you are indicated. If you run or walk down a beach in the surf zone, you'll notice dry, solid spots forming under your footfalls. If you stop and stand, you're feet will start to sink in.
Shear thinning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_thinning
Example given: ketchup. Under low velocity or shear force, it acts like a solid hence why you can never get it out of the bottle. Under high shear situations, it acts like a liquid such as when it finally gets to the nozzle of a squeeze bottle and shoots out like a liquid.
Shear thickening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilatant
Example: Corn starch and water. When high velocity movement creates high shear forces, it acts more like a solid but if you move through it gently, it acts like a liquid. This is a science experiment lots of kids do in early classes. The linked Mythbusters video also illustrates it well when Adam is able to run across the surface of a giant vat of cornstarch-water mixture. If you read the Wikipedia article, you'll also see the subsection on its uses in Traction Control devices and Body Armor. The article also addresses sand and water and provides an opposite example to what you are indicated. If you run or walk down a beach in the surf zone, you'll notice dry, solid spots forming under your footfalls. If you stop and stand, you're feet will start to sink in.
Maverick223
Member
Jeff, this is a bit outside my area of specialty (I deal with statics more than dynamics), but I believe that Eldon is correct. That said, I don't believe that wet newsprint (or phone directories) is a non-Newtonian medium. It isn't a fluid, and is only wet to the point of saturation.
KodiakBeer
member
You don't have to suspend the laws of physics to get better penetration from a slower round. Garret makes extremely hard cast sharp-edged wadcutter bullets. They simply shear through newsprint (or tissue, presumably) like a cookie cutter and penetrate better than a blunt nosed .458 slug.
If you shot those same rounds out of a .458 Win Mag rifle, you'd get even better penetration (unless the increased velocity caused them to deform...) The problem is that you can't shoot such slugs out of a .458 bolt rifle unless you use it as a single shot, because the blunt profile won't feed allow them to feed from the magazine.
This is just a case of bullet design trumping velocity, not a violation of the laws of physics.
If you shot those same rounds out of a .458 Win Mag rifle, you'd get even better penetration (unless the increased velocity caused them to deform...) The problem is that you can't shoot such slugs out of a .458 bolt rifle unless you use it as a single shot, because the blunt profile won't feed allow them to feed from the magazine.
This is just a case of bullet design trumping velocity, not a violation of the laws of physics.
hardluk1
member
This is funny to continue to read. it is amazing how hunters killed anything with those old slow blackpowder/nitro loads from slow shooting cartrirdges. Got to run out and buy me a magnum for the next trip to africa cause we all now know the guns that have worked 30 to 75 or even 100 years ago will long work and could never do the job like the magnums of today. 2000fps with a 420gr bullet in a 45/70 just ain't hardly good enough for much of anything . How did it work 100 years ago out of cheap low pressure guns at a mlowly 1300 to 1600 fps. Justly lucky I guess. Didn't an ole president take a lowly 405 winchester to africa and kill darn near everything that held still long enought to shot at. God he need a new age magnum hehehe
Guys, people kill cape buffalo with traditional archery gear (longbows and heavy arrows)... let's not get carried away with doubting the effectiveness of ANY centerfire round. Although if you are using a .25-20 please allow me to get back to camp before you take the shot.
Maverick223
Member
No, he didn't use it for large game, but he said it was "big medicine" for lion. He carried more than a couple NE chambered rifles for the big stuff.
The mechanics of razor-tipped arrows (which primarily employ cutting) are nothing like a modern bullet (which relies upon crushing tissue as well as cavitation and hydrostatic pressure). The two are more dissimilar than alike, and the former is fairly simple, while the later is extremely complex.
Last edited:
DC Plumber
Member
So basically to summarize, what some are saying, in simple terms is that:
A wide meplat, hard cast lead bullet has a "perfect" velocity to penetrate the furthest. If you exceed that velocity, you risk yaw which will limit straight line velocity.
Ok, I can buy that.
But I'll never buy that given the same PRESSURE, a 45-70 is knocking on the door of a .458 winmag when the same bullet and barrel length are used. All data from reliable load manuals show approx. a 20% difference, i.e. 2000fps vs. 2400 fps for a 400g bullet.
If Jack Lott felt that 10% over a .458winmag was sufficient to cleanly dispatch elephants, then 20% over a 45-70 is nothing to sneeze at either.
And I'm not discounting the fact that the 45-70 is a great old cartridge. It is great, just like the 45acp is a great handgun cartridge, but it ain't no 454 casull.
That's all I got.
A wide meplat, hard cast lead bullet has a "perfect" velocity to penetrate the furthest. If you exceed that velocity, you risk yaw which will limit straight line velocity.
Ok, I can buy that.
But I'll never buy that given the same PRESSURE, a 45-70 is knocking on the door of a .458 winmag when the same bullet and barrel length are used. All data from reliable load manuals show approx. a 20% difference, i.e. 2000fps vs. 2400 fps for a 400g bullet.
If Jack Lott felt that 10% over a .458winmag was sufficient to cleanly dispatch elephants, then 20% over a 45-70 is nothing to sneeze at either.
And I'm not discounting the fact that the 45-70 is a great old cartridge. It is great, just like the 45acp is a great handgun cartridge, but it ain't no 454 casull.
That's all I got.
RobMoore
Member
4 pages that say the .45/70 isn't the most powerful cartridge in the world.
lol uh, a broadhead for buff is NOT a simple thing- there are a bunch of factors such as single bevels, which SIDE that single bevel is on, how much weight forward you have, and getting that bevel sharp enough to cut capillaries to arteries yet tough enough to break bones. There is nothing simple about tackling dangerous game with a stickbow : )
Lakedaemonian
Member
hand-loading is the only way to harness the full potential of that cartridge. The strongest action to take it is the Sharps falling block.
Maverick223
Member
The MECHANICS (how they operate) of arrows are simple, there is no arguing that. By comparison the mechanics of a bullet is very complex primarily due to the relatively high velocity at which they travel. I said nothing of construction or design.Motega said:
BTW, "guys" use the 7.62x39mm to kill elephant. Because someone attempts something (whether successful in their endeavor or not), does not make it a wise experiment, nor does it mean i'll attempt to replicate (or better) their result. In other words the average man probably shouldn't undertake the task with a 7.62x39mm or a bow.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2003
- Messages
- 13,341
The .45-70 is NOT knocking on the door of a .458 WM. It comes close to the same velocity in the very most hostile loads possible with a 400 Gr bullet that the .458 is getting with a 500 gr bullet. Can anybody see the difference here?
These penetration tests from Garret mean NOTHING until we use the EXACT same bullet shape weight and material from both weapons. I get so sick and tired of reading how a trumped up Garret load out penetrated a .416 Rigby. YEAH but the Rigby was using a soft point expanding bullet and the Garret was using a hard cast wad cutter. DUHHH!!! The amazing thing to me is how many people buy into that BS soaked "study".
Will the .45-70 penetrate well with the right load YES it WILL. And a .416 Rigby with a solid will punch a bullet through a buffalo length wise with an exit. So will a .458 Lott so will .470 NE. But on honest to god elephant carcasses it's been found that these super penetrator rounds out of a .45-70 WILL NOT reliably penetrate all the way to the brain on a frontal shot on a bull. Any of your legal thick skinned DG rounds will.
These penetration tests from Garret mean NOTHING until we use the EXACT same bullet shape weight and material from both weapons. I get so sick and tired of reading how a trumped up Garret load out penetrated a .416 Rigby. YEAH but the Rigby was using a soft point expanding bullet and the Garret was using a hard cast wad cutter. DUHHH!!! The amazing thing to me is how many people buy into that BS soaked "study".
Will the .45-70 penetrate well with the right load YES it WILL. And a .416 Rigby with a solid will punch a bullet through a buffalo length wise with an exit. So will a .458 Lott so will .470 NE. But on honest to god elephant carcasses it's been found that these super penetrator rounds out of a .45-70 WILL NOT reliably penetrate all the way to the brain on a frontal shot on a bull. Any of your legal thick skinned DG rounds will.
Both shear-thinning and shear-thickening fluids are non-Newtonian fluids (maybe this is what you are missing, there is no doubt that paper-pulp suspended in water is non-Newtonian?). Velocity (or rather shear stress) is part of the equation in both cases which is the main attribute that makes them non-Newtonian (viscosity is dependent upon shear stress). The two just behave oppositely. Shear thinning liquids thin under exposure to increased shear stress (they behave more like a solid in their resting state and more like a liquid when subjected to rapid mixing). Shear thickening liquids thicken when exposed to increased shear stress (they are closer to a liquid in their resting state but behave more like a solid to resist rapid mixing ie. they oppose an object of high velocity passing through). Neither one affects the deflection of the bullet as it is uniform around the axis of travel. It is the transfer of force that is deflected outward (in the case of a shear-thickening fluid).
The point in question in regards to post #80:
What is correct is your statement in paragraph 3 that, "As I said there had to be another type of force involved to explain why a slower bullet penetrated more. Sheer thickening is that force."
What is incorrect is that you keep trying to use the fact that a paper pulp slurry is a shear thinning liquid as the explanation for this phenomenon. That is the opposite of what you correctly identified in paragraph 3. A shear thinning fluid is less resistant to high velocity motion. And even then, paper pulp suspended in water (a slurry) is not the same thing as soaked newsprint (a saturated solid).
If you would be more comfortable having your son look at this matter, I think you should do so.
The point in question in regards to post #80:
What is correct is your statement in paragraph 3 that, "As I said there had to be another type of force involved to explain why a slower bullet penetrated more. Sheer thickening is that force."
What is incorrect is that you keep trying to use the fact that a paper pulp slurry is a shear thinning liquid as the explanation for this phenomenon. That is the opposite of what you correctly identified in paragraph 3. A shear thinning fluid is less resistant to high velocity motion. And even then, paper pulp suspended in water (a slurry) is not the same thing as soaked newsprint (a saturated solid).
If you would be more comfortable having your son look at this matter, I think you should do so.
That's "knocking on the door" of a somewhat controversial and sometimes misused terminal ballistics concept called "momentum density." What the momentum density is, is the momentum divided by the penetrating surface area. And that's all. How it's misused as a predictor of penetration is to use only the square of the bullet diameter as the surface area. Since penetrating surface areas are never square-shaped, this goes out the door quickly. A flat-nose bullet, wadcutter, or sphere probably would be the easiest surface areas to calculate.
Here's why the momentum density might be valid:
What is momentum? From physics, momentum is also the force times a unit of time.
So momentum density is then a unit of force times a unit of time divided by a surface area. But what is a unit of force divided by a surface area? A unit of pressure. So the momentum density is nothing more than a unit of pressure times a unit of time. In English units, lbs-force per square inch (or square foot) times seconds.
But living tissue isn't liquid and neither is wet newspaper. You're talking about a suspension of paper pulp in water. Still a liquid. Wet newspaper done in ballistic testing is definitely solid. And wetpack, or soaked newspaper, is pretty widely used in terminal ballistics testing, not just by some guy looking to make a buck from selling bullets.
The links I've already posted have results of ballistic testing done in wetpack. All of them were done in the spirit of research, not to "sell" anything. Two of these people do this research at entirely their own expense and post these results for all to see.
Last edited:
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,211
I am beginning to think my 20 ton press is not powerfull at all now that I have a 25 ton press...
Come to think of it both the 45-70 and 458 win mag are both too weak as the 45-70 is closer to the 458 than the 458 is to the 460 weatherby mag.
Come to think of it both the 45-70 and 458 win mag are both too weak as the 45-70 is closer to the 458 than the 458 is to the 460 weatherby mag.
Last edited:
Several points I'd like to comment on.
Wet newspaper, as was mentioned, has been used an a ballistics test medium for many years. I don't believe Garrett was trying to pull the wool over anyones eyes, it's simply whats available and generally accepted, tho I still do not believe it is an accurate predictor of what bullets do in animals, especially heavy African animals. Hands on experience trumps the theoretical testing every time, particularly when that hands on experience is over long periods of time and a large number of animals. We don't have this in regards to a direct comparison of the 458 and 45-70 with the rounds loaded today, but we do have many years of use of the heavy British rounds and the 458. In case anyone missed it, the 458 Winchester isn't a newfangled whiz bang fresh on the market, it came out in 1956, it wasnt something that was dreamed up by an advertiser to dupe unsuspecting sportsmen. It was trying to duplicate the performance and ballistics of British rounds like the 470 Nitro express (which came out in 1907), a 500 gr RN bullet at about 2100 fps, but in a magazine rifle (bolt action). The bullet shape also wasn't just a wild guess that they stuck with because nobody was paying attention, it was what worked, after experimentation and long use. Read Taylors book, he discuses this in various cartridges. Round nose bullets of the proper shape penetrate extremely well, poor shaped round noses and poor materials do not penetrate as well and change directions in large tough game animals.
A flat point sharp edged bullet penetrating more than a round nose, all esle being equal, does not make sense. I do not believe this is a factor. A flat nose and sharp edged bullet disrupts more tissue and causes more damage than a round nose bullet. Disect wounds made with both types and compare, it's obvious when you do ow much tissue damage there is with a flat point sharp edged bulet comapred to a round nose. The result wouldn't be more penetraion, it would be less, similar to a soft point bullet compared to a solid. If the flat point was truly cutting a wad of tissue, it would have to push all that ahead of it, which I do not believe they do. They do cut tissue, but it still has to part the tissue to penetrate. Soft points, all else being equal, don't penetrate as much as a solid. The energy used for tissue disruption and bullet deformation is energy that isnt being used for penetration. This is the simple facts, and why solids exist for dangerous African animals. We can have some of both in flat point bullets that we use on large animals in the States, but we arent shooting elephants or breaking down Rhinos or Cape Buffalo. In case anyone missed it before, American Bison aren't the same animal as a Cape Buffalo. Whatever the 45-70 or similar rounds did to kill American Bison in the past, it really has little bearing on this discussion. Nobody is disputing the past and what was done with them, the discusion is about comparing the modern loadings of the 45-70 with the 458 Winchester and 458 Lott. The Lott was developed by guys that shoot elephants, not internet or even American game hunters. I don't believe it would have got off the ground if it didnt work or penetrated less than the 458 Winchester round. again, experience and hands on trumps theory and wet paper. It exists because it filled a need, and functioned.
I think the best evidence of the penetrative abilties of the modern 45-70 loads is to give guns and ammo to some African guides to use for a couple years to compare to the standards they use now (or give them ammo loaded to modern 45-70 levels to use in their 458's and 458 Lotts) and see how they feel about after shooting numbers of animals. I don't for a minute dispute what the round has done on Cape Buffalo, just the contention that it's better than other rounds already in use, especially on elephant. The years (over 100) of use and literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thosuands of elephants killed with the 470 NE and similar rounds, and the 458 indicate they work rather well. Read some first hand accounts of those that did Ivory hunting, guiding, or culling. If the round didnt work very well, they didnt survive. Standing 30 feet or less from angry animals of that size and being able to reliably break them down or make reliably killing head shots is of paramount importance. There's no second chance for the most part, if the round fails to perform, you die, period. Lott and some others wanted a little more, and they got what they wanted, but the older rounds still work rather well.
I'd be interested in knowing more details of the tests on dead elephants shot with the heavy 45-70 rounds. The results don't surprise me, tho having more details would add much to the discusion. As it stands, without specifics it's interesting, but doesnt have as much weight as having specific information about who, what, where, when etc.
I think the 45-70 is a very interesting round, and quite up to anything I'm going to do with it for my neighborhood (grizzly country) or even Alaska, but I don't believe it's equal to the 470 NE, 458 Winchester or 458 Lott for African use. Yes, it will kill much African game, and pretty well, nobody is disputing that, that I've been able to tell, tho I'm not sure I'd want to be backed up with one if I was doing the shooting. The physics and math are interesting, but long use and experience indiate the common African rounds do the job. If they didnt, they wouldn't continue to be used. everyone has been tlaking about a single, or few instances of Cape Buffalo being killed, and killing another one behind it as the validating point fo the Garrett/modern 45-70 loads. Ok, good, thats a good starting point, but that's nowhere near the level of experience we have with the accepted loads used there. Lets get some hands on experience with more game, and a bunch of elephants (maybe 100 for a sample) before we all go shouting about how much better it is. That would be the defining moment, not wet paper and a handful of Cape Buff.
Wet newspaper, as was mentioned, has been used an a ballistics test medium for many years. I don't believe Garrett was trying to pull the wool over anyones eyes, it's simply whats available and generally accepted, tho I still do not believe it is an accurate predictor of what bullets do in animals, especially heavy African animals. Hands on experience trumps the theoretical testing every time, particularly when that hands on experience is over long periods of time and a large number of animals. We don't have this in regards to a direct comparison of the 458 and 45-70 with the rounds loaded today, but we do have many years of use of the heavy British rounds and the 458. In case anyone missed it, the 458 Winchester isn't a newfangled whiz bang fresh on the market, it came out in 1956, it wasnt something that was dreamed up by an advertiser to dupe unsuspecting sportsmen. It was trying to duplicate the performance and ballistics of British rounds like the 470 Nitro express (which came out in 1907), a 500 gr RN bullet at about 2100 fps, but in a magazine rifle (bolt action). The bullet shape also wasn't just a wild guess that they stuck with because nobody was paying attention, it was what worked, after experimentation and long use. Read Taylors book, he discuses this in various cartridges. Round nose bullets of the proper shape penetrate extremely well, poor shaped round noses and poor materials do not penetrate as well and change directions in large tough game animals.
A flat point sharp edged bullet penetrating more than a round nose, all esle being equal, does not make sense. I do not believe this is a factor. A flat nose and sharp edged bullet disrupts more tissue and causes more damage than a round nose bullet. Disect wounds made with both types and compare, it's obvious when you do ow much tissue damage there is with a flat point sharp edged bulet comapred to a round nose. The result wouldn't be more penetraion, it would be less, similar to a soft point bullet compared to a solid. If the flat point was truly cutting a wad of tissue, it would have to push all that ahead of it, which I do not believe they do. They do cut tissue, but it still has to part the tissue to penetrate. Soft points, all else being equal, don't penetrate as much as a solid. The energy used for tissue disruption and bullet deformation is energy that isnt being used for penetration. This is the simple facts, and why solids exist for dangerous African animals. We can have some of both in flat point bullets that we use on large animals in the States, but we arent shooting elephants or breaking down Rhinos or Cape Buffalo. In case anyone missed it before, American Bison aren't the same animal as a Cape Buffalo. Whatever the 45-70 or similar rounds did to kill American Bison in the past, it really has little bearing on this discussion. Nobody is disputing the past and what was done with them, the discusion is about comparing the modern loadings of the 45-70 with the 458 Winchester and 458 Lott. The Lott was developed by guys that shoot elephants, not internet or even American game hunters. I don't believe it would have got off the ground if it didnt work or penetrated less than the 458 Winchester round. again, experience and hands on trumps theory and wet paper. It exists because it filled a need, and functioned.
I think the best evidence of the penetrative abilties of the modern 45-70 loads is to give guns and ammo to some African guides to use for a couple years to compare to the standards they use now (or give them ammo loaded to modern 45-70 levels to use in their 458's and 458 Lotts) and see how they feel about after shooting numbers of animals. I don't for a minute dispute what the round has done on Cape Buffalo, just the contention that it's better than other rounds already in use, especially on elephant. The years (over 100) of use and literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thosuands of elephants killed with the 470 NE and similar rounds, and the 458 indicate they work rather well. Read some first hand accounts of those that did Ivory hunting, guiding, or culling. If the round didnt work very well, they didnt survive. Standing 30 feet or less from angry animals of that size and being able to reliably break them down or make reliably killing head shots is of paramount importance. There's no second chance for the most part, if the round fails to perform, you die, period. Lott and some others wanted a little more, and they got what they wanted, but the older rounds still work rather well.
I'd be interested in knowing more details of the tests on dead elephants shot with the heavy 45-70 rounds. The results don't surprise me, tho having more details would add much to the discusion. As it stands, without specifics it's interesting, but doesnt have as much weight as having specific information about who, what, where, when etc.
I think the 45-70 is a very interesting round, and quite up to anything I'm going to do with it for my neighborhood (grizzly country) or even Alaska, but I don't believe it's equal to the 470 NE, 458 Winchester or 458 Lott for African use. Yes, it will kill much African game, and pretty well, nobody is disputing that, that I've been able to tell, tho I'm not sure I'd want to be backed up with one if I was doing the shooting. The physics and math are interesting, but long use and experience indiate the common African rounds do the job. If they didnt, they wouldn't continue to be used. everyone has been tlaking about a single, or few instances of Cape Buffalo being killed, and killing another one behind it as the validating point fo the Garrett/modern 45-70 loads. Ok, good, thats a good starting point, but that's nowhere near the level of experience we have with the accepted loads used there. Lets get some hands on experience with more game, and a bunch of elephants (maybe 100 for a sample) before we all go shouting about how much better it is. That would be the defining moment, not wet paper and a handful of Cape Buff.
Maverick223
Member
I don't believe anyone here is arguing that a wood pulp suspension is non-Newtonian, or shear thinning. Only that sheer thinning has less viscosity when force is applied. Furthermore I believe that the wood pulp must be suspended in liquid for this effect to be present, so water content is of vital importance. In other words...Jeff56 said:
...or...eldon519 said:
McCall911 said:
Maverick223
Member
I'll second that. If H&H (who, through years of hands on experience, has gained a wealth of knowledge on this particular subject) says it isn't good enough, then I think i'll listen when my buttocks is on the line.Malamute said:
jerkface11
Member
.45-70 is gains extra power from fanboy dreams. The same way .45acp does. It's similar to unicorn horns and pixie dust.
Jim Watson
Member
I am just an Armchair Bwana but from my reading...
An overloaded .45-70 Nitro +P++ is a powerful gun, and reportedly a great killer, but it is not the equal of the real safari calibers. You might kill a buffalo or elephant with a heavily armed guide at hand, but would you want to BE the guide covering someone with less gun and less experience?
American Frontier bison harvesters did not face up to their quarry at close range. I have read that the usual technique was to set up at maybe 300 yards and shoot the herd leader through the lungs. Hopefully, she would bleed out quietly and the rest would mill around to be shot at leisure from as long a range as you were confident of killing hits. Shoot as many as you could skin before the hide slipped. Didn't W.D.M. Bell wipe out some elephant herds, braining them with his smallbore as fast as he could?
It took until Rigby's development of the .450 Nitro that "smallbores" were considered adequate for really big game. Before then, a .450 BPE was maybe a lion gun. One shot at buffalo and pachyderms with an 8 bore if following Greener's recommendations.
An overloaded .45-70 Nitro +P++ is a powerful gun, and reportedly a great killer, but it is not the equal of the real safari calibers. You might kill a buffalo or elephant with a heavily armed guide at hand, but would you want to BE the guide covering someone with less gun and less experience?
American Frontier bison harvesters did not face up to their quarry at close range. I have read that the usual technique was to set up at maybe 300 yards and shoot the herd leader through the lungs. Hopefully, she would bleed out quietly and the rest would mill around to be shot at leisure from as long a range as you were confident of killing hits. Shoot as many as you could skin before the hide slipped. Didn't W.D.M. Bell wipe out some elephant herds, braining them with his smallbore as fast as he could?
It took until Rigby's development of the .450 Nitro that "smallbores" were considered adequate for really big game. Before then, a .450 BPE was maybe a lion gun. One shot at buffalo and pachyderms with an 8 bore if following Greener's recommendations.
- Status
