The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting African Big Game Hunting The velocity/penetration issue revistedGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| The velocity/penetration issue revisted | Login/Join |
| one of us |
Gentlemen . . . I seem to recall an attitude that the .45-70 was an incapable weapon/load with respect to DG hunting in Africa some time back. I would like to ask if anyone of you has overcome his/her fear of the truth and acutally conducted any penetration tests based on different impact velocities while holding all other variables constant? | ||
|
| One of Us |
CapeBuff, Would it be fair to say that you are not open minded on this subject? Do your initials happen to be V.L.? The penetration tests which debunk Randy Garrett's marketing hype that slower solid bullets penetrate deeper are found here: http://www.accuratereloading.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=538024&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&fpart=1&vc=1 Quote: | |||
|
| one of us |
After it is all said and done, the 45/70 has been proven to have enough penetration to do the job on cape buffalo. So, what's to argue about. | |||
|
| one of us |
NO, 500grains, my intials are TC. Let's say that I've not been convinced that the magnums have such a decided edge over the non-magnums that I can write them off without further examination. I'm just trying to arrive amicably at the truth. I saw (thank you) MBOGO's pictures and read his data. That speaks for itself. But does not the test conducted Garrett along with with John Linebaugh, witnessed by more than one gunwriter just as valid ? ? ? John Taffin, if I'm not mistaken, was one. In fact, who was it that MBOGO had in attendance at his tests? I'm certainly not implying that MBOGO did anything that wouldn't be concidered "valid" in his testing methodology but who will vouch for his tests? I'm not saying there weren't any of significance there, I'm merely asking who and asking you if you would then take that at face value if there were, in fact, none? | |||
|
| one of us |
500grains... I tried editing my last post to no avail. I'll have to resort to a new post. Now, MBOGO's tests, I see, USED WOOD ! ! ! Surely he jests with such a test ! ? ! ? What kind of analogy am I supposed to draw from flesh vs wood ? ? ? That takes into account absolutely ZERO for any hydrostatic reaction to the bullet. I can't believe that. You are not telling me you are as gullible as that, are you??? Why didn't he just perform the test on dead automobiles? The analogy is just about as good! Is that the best you can do for evidence ? ? ? | |||
|
one of us |
500 grains, You are right about velocity. I shot 500 gr Hornady FMJ's through a Mike Lagrange stop box of 3/4 inch plywood spaced 3/4 inch apart. The 450 Ackley at 2,400 fps 1-14 twist penetrated 70 1/2 boards, 1980 Remington FMJ .458 Winchester (2,021 fps) and 2001 Federal FMJ (2,105 fps) penetrated 58-59 boards same twist. A faster twist helps. 1-10 twist at 2,030 fps gave 62 boards, three more than a 1-14 twist. Andy | |||
|
| one of us |
I could care less about if the 45-70 is the caliber in question, but it irks the crap out of me for some pinhead to claim any caliber with less than 2100 FPS, a SD of 300, a caliber less than 9.3 and shoots a bullet that is less in length than 2.5 times its its cross section, is a Cape Buffalo rifle...Besides that 22 inches is not enough penitration for Cape Buffalo... I have no doubt that a 45-70 or a 8x57 will kill a Buff, I know the 8x57 will and with military ball ammo, as I have done it, but I have seen enough game shot with the slower old blackbores like the 45-90, 45-70, 50 cal. Beowolf, and a couple of others to know that a big animal lives too long after being shot with them and they can do a lot of damage to you in a short time, and they are hard to stop when wounded and the adrenaline has set in...this old arguement crops up repeatedly and is pushed to a ridiculas point by folks who have never even seen a live Cape Buffalo, much less hunted them and their general response is so and so did such and such or I heard such and such.... Leo, thats what difference it makes....but, if you have a PH handy to save your bacon then go ahead and use whatever suits you, hopefully you won't get the poor bastard killed... Would I use one if nothing else was available, sure I would and I have used much less but its not very smart, it comes under the stunt catagory because if one gets that charge then he is in deep dookey... | |||
|
| one of us |
Atkinson... What .45/70 in the world are you referring to, black powder ? ! ? ! Pleeeease! The number of end-to-end penetrations on DG (CapeBuff) are a well documented fact. You are obviously taking the same irrelevant penetratioon tests that 500grains did as Gospel. Yu guys better get some relevant data before you talk penetration. If you want to talk penetration of wood planks then I submit to you that a .223 will out penetrate your .458 Lotts | |||
|
| One of Us |
capebuff, you are either a troll or a person simply looking for a fight, but they are probably one and the same. I suppose you think there is no evidence that smoking causes cancer either. We have been over this topic repeatedly. Go ahead and break the law and shoot 10 buff with a 45-70 without a PH backing you up and see how it really does. By the way, Vince Lupo's lengthwise penetration of cape buffalo is about as believable as his story that 5 out of 6 dangerous game animals charged him. And he probably thinks that Britney Spiers wants to date him as well. Let us know when you are finished with fantasy and want to enter reality. | |||
|
| one of us |
500 grains, this capebuff is a fool. Like Ray said these people that have never seen a buffalo and never will can always tell us about what kills and what doesn't. Mike | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Your move to the use of personal attacks and snide remarks along with all your unsubstantiated data is much more the sign of a troll than anything I have posted. My statement is still as valid as anything posted in this entire Forum! To wit: Wood is not (in any way, shape or form) an acceptable medium for terminal ballistic testing. The hyrdrostatic factor is completely removed and this simple fact completely disqualifies the test as being valid. Dirt would be far superior and relavent! Soaked newsprint is an acceptable medium as, of course, is 10% ballistic gelatin. | |||
|
| one of us |
Capebuff, I can say without a doubt in my mind my 450 ackley will out penetrate my 45-70. I use LBTs in my 45-70 and have tried GHH. I shoot Gs solids, trophy bonded, and CDA 360 solids I have turned myself. If you get around to hunting at all, one thing you will notice right off the bat with the 45-70 is that it doesnt hit nearly as hard, and if you hit game in other traditional aiming points, aside from a shoulder shot, it kills fairly slowly compairativly. The shoulder shot is a great tactic if you choose to hunt with the 45-70 because its oftan easier to catch up with game to put a finisher in it, no harm in that at least you know its limitations. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: You asking someone if they are "As gullible as that!??" to a straight forward reply was of course no sign of troll like behaviour.. Quote: Wood whilst not a 'hydrostatic medium' makes a fair attempt at simulating heavy bones at the very least,wouldn't you say? Indeed this may even be the likeliest thing to upset a bullet in its path. At the very least Better than 'dirt', no? Unless animals have evolved to have bones filled with dirt suddenly? Idiot. Quote: Evidently you have never used either. Otherwise you would know the difficulties in trying to assemble enough ballistic gelatin to stop a solid bullet. Try it and then you can remark on how 'acceptable' it is. In fact to settle any of this in your own mind you will obviously have to go and test the calibres yourself anyway. Since the guys you are quoting are on one side of the coin, The guys on this forum are on the other side of the coin. And you are the guy with no experience at either end getting worked up comparing two lots of hearsay. To wit- Idiot. Karl. | |||
|
| one of us |
Lindsay... Is it possible for you to simply stick to the facts? If you want to trade insults I suggest you go elsewhere. Considering that you've added nothing, I'll assume you have nothing of value to add. | |||
|
One of Us |
CapeBuff: If a .45/70 was adequete for DG, then no one would have bothered to invent the .458 Lott (due to problems with the .458 Win Mag at velocities around 1900 fps), much less snap up the .450 N.E a hundred years ago.... Double rifles would still have the ballistics of the old BPE rifles if those velocities worked. Heck a .577 BPE wasn't even considered a DGR for a reason... It didn't kill big, mad animals well with any type bullet. It was just too slow. And professional hunters wanted to have a toddy at night, instead of be hyena bait. Why do the .45/70 guys forget that the 4 bores and .500 BPE's got dumped immediately upon the introduction of rifles that could produce 2150 fps with a 500 grain bullet in .458 or so... I submit that there is a reason that 5000 ft. pounds of energy, good sectional density and 2150 were goals... They kept men alive and animals dead. CapeBuff, you can play golf with a square golf ball. Check the regs. It's legal, but I've yet seen an Open champion play with one. You go ahead and take a "square" rifle to Africa... just don't ask me to invite you to Augusta National if you're playing square balls, or to Tanzania if you've got a .45/70. J.A. Hunter used a .500 N.E. for a reason: He, like our friend, Ray Atkinson, was blessed with a brain. Enjoy your fantasy and have a good day. | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
Listen, my friend if you would only think, comparing the penetration of various calibers in the same medium will give you the answer. It does not matter if you shoot the calibers into jello,cotton, or gelatin as long as the medium is the same for each caliber. But you are happy in just theorizing and probably have no field experience. Mike | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: That is impossible to know, my friend, and as such, is an assumption on your part. By virtue of the rules of logic that is considered a non sequitur. What you said above "does not necessarily follow!" | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Judge... First off, allow me to compliment you on the civil tone of your missive. Some of us do seem to allow emotion to creep into the equation rendering the arguement to the level of two women viciously scratching and clawing at one another. Thank you. To your above assertion I submit the following: Regarding the fact that some thing may justifiably satiate a specific requirement is also subject to the whims of human emotion, i.e., One-upmanship! Tis human nature to better that which has already been accomplished especially in a capitalistic environment rendering that arguement moot! Res ipsa Loquitur ! ! ! | |||
|
one of us |
CapeBuff, Sorry, my friend...I've gotta side with the "non .45-70 DGR" crowd. And I've got a LOT of respect for the .45-70. AND I've carried a Marlin to Africa (Zim '02; before it became fashionable). AND I've used it successfully on dangerous game...a spottie at 30 steps. That's what I brought it for and it did yeoman duty, to which I say well done. AND that's all the dangerous game I'll take with it! Buffalo? No, thank you...I reckon that's why God made the .416 Rigby. The .45-70 is a fine tool, and like all tools has specific uses. My experience with buffalo suggests that they require a bigger wrench than the warhorse .45-70. Using the wrong tool for any job has a very real potential for getting someone hurt, whether in industry or in the jesse. Nyathi + .45-70 = train wreck waiting to happen. As my late father used to suggest to me when I was growing up, "Son, we don't all have to invent the wheel". And all the best intentions will never turn the .45-70 into a reliable "heavy", at least not for this fellow. I wish you all the best, Mark | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Alf . . . I would also like to take the time to thank you for the civil tone of your response as well as that of the Judge! Thank you! And that which you state regarding the compression factor of the newsprint is a very valid one. But I would assert that this, too, is a quality of hydrostatic compression as well. | |||
|
One of Us |
I will be succint, if not diplomatic. Two words will suffice. Shut up! I'm only kidding. If more is needed, please consult your Atlas. Yes, the Earth is ROUND. | |||
|
| one of us |
Cape Buff, A 5.56mm does not out penetrate a 458 Lott. A 5.56 x 45 Nato (M855) 1-7 twist perforates 16 boards. M193 1-12 twist perforates 11 boards. (I used this set up for years as a light foliage simulator). Multiply the plywood times 3/4 inch and you get very similar penetration as 10% International Wound Ballistic (IWBA) gelatin. By the way, I am a member of the IWBA. Are you??? I thought not. If you keep an open mind you really can learn something on this forumn. Andy | |||
|
| one of us |
Well he has learnt to thank polite replies at least. Funny what a little spanking will do. Education may even follow. Karl. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Quote: CapeBuff: Interestingly, your quote, if using the doctrine, proves you are wrong. The very "absense" of DBR rifles in .45/70, using the legal doctrine to which you refer, proves the lack of efficacy of the same. | |||
|
| one of us |
A couple of years ago, and I can't remember which country it was in, they caught a native poacher killing elephants with a .22 short. The story goes that he would hide in a hole until the elephant passed over him and then shoot it from below, penetrating the heart. Some of you probably remember this story. Since the .22 short has proved itself to have enough penetration to kill an elephant, I don't think we can argue that it is inadequate as an elephant gun. Long live the .22 short! | |||
|
| one of us |
Gentlemen: I don't have the time to reply to each of you individually so I'll have to resort to group "therapy!" I see some of you still insist on emotionally based arguements while others are still in the insult and run mode. Amazing how you wish to do nothing here but excoriate me to the best of your abilities! Although I will again thank those who have remained civil and/or logical! I submit to you gentlemen that there simply are none so blind as those who will not see. Vince Lupo is going back to Africa this May I believe. He will be hunting Elephant and Cape Buff. I suggest we all keep an eye towards the terminal performance of his projectiles. | |||
|
| one of us |
It's a good thing the 22 short isn't a stopper. Having jumbo cover the hole you're shooting from when he fell on the spot would put a damper on the day's hunting.  Bob | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The problem with the Vince Lupo anecodotes is that they are inherently not credible. He tells us that 5 out of 6 dangerous game animals charged him when shot with the 45-70. But such a high rate of charges is in direct contradiction with the field experience of both experienced an inexperienced African hands alike, leading us to conclude that: (i) Mr. Lupo is spinning a yarn, (ii) Mr. Lupo's marksmanship is a bit off, (iii) the Garrett 45-70 ammo serves only to initiate charges, or (iv) any combination of the above. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I view the 45/70 in Africa as a bit like spotlight shooting kangaroos with a 375 H&H or 460. The latter can be done and is done and for different people it is more fun and more interesting that using a 223 or 22/250. But for efficiency etc the 223 or 22/250 will win every day. Thus there is a totally valid argument for using a 375 on the roos in the spotlight rather than 223 or 22/250. However the argument is only valid when support for the 375 is based on what the shooter "wants to use". If the goal is to have the most effective overall gun for a nights spotlighting, then no argument, the 223 or 22/250 win easily. I think the mistake the pro 45/70 people make is arguing that the 45/70 is as good and even better than the 458 Win or 458 Lott etc. If the approach was that they choose to use the 45/70 because they simply like the big lever gun and then acknowledge that they are trading off some efficiency in exchange for a gun/calibre they "just want to use" then the argument would be replaced by discussion.  At the end of the day, even if the claim of 550 grainers at 1500 f/s is true, then not only can such loads be duplicated in the 458 Win/Lott but 350 grain Barnes Xs can be loaded to 2500 f/s or so and then the same rifle can be used on plains game. Mike | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Poor kid... he thinks he is every ones mentor. I truly hope you do not walk about life like this. I do not believe anyone here doesnt think a 45-70 cant kill the big five, though this is never enough for 45-70 fanatics. The half dozen-dozen poster children for the 45-70 have proven nothing that isnt already known... that slight cartridges, even slighter then a 45-70, will kill big game. But again this is never enough for 45-70 fanatics. The 45-70 just kills to slowly when you dont hit the shoulder so you can make quick follow ups. You use argumentation of the experiance of others, which says alot for the type of direct experance you probably have. Why not find out for yourself? Why argue what most already know... that the 45-70 can kill the big 5 but is a poor choice. | |||
|
One of Us |
CB, I know you are busy, so no individual reply is need for me. Gee I thought we'd ridden this one to ground enough times? I think the 45/70 has poor terminal ballistics performance and that's why My Marlin 45/70 is taking a nap in the back of my gun safe! Bless the 45/70's heart it was a fine man killer in 1873 when it was adopted as the offical U.S. Government military cartridge. Today, it's just a straight walled hold over black powder round that folks have been trying to make into poor man's big bore! If you want it to perform well you need to load it up to brutal recoil levels in a bolt action rifle to generate enough velocity to overcome the poor bullet design of that .458 bullet. My old Speer manual says "Because of the high trajectory of its slow-moving bullet, the .45-70 is limited to short range hunting with 150 yards about the limit for reliable bullet placement." Let's see it says a 300 grain bullet out of a 1895 Marlin at 2150. Respectable! However, Kynoch specs on my 450/400 3 inch launches a 400 grain bullet at 2100. A long, 400 grain .408 bullet that penetrates well. And the recoil is very managable. You go for that 45/70 it's your money. But I'd stick to plains game and white-tailed deer, up close. Just my opine! | |||
|
| Moderator |
Quote: Indeed. | |||
|
| one of us |
Cape Buff, Mike La Grange killed something like 1000 buffalo and elephant and used a stop box to test penetration like the one 500 grains and I used. He thought it was meaningful. The late George Hoffman (from whence the 416 Hoffman came) shot into plywood to test penetration of his rifles, and kept in close contact with me when I did my test. And he thought it was meaningful. Norbert, who posts here frequently, has shot many cow and bull elephant, and uses a 450 Ackley, told me, "The thickness of an elephants head varries considerably, but 48 inches broadside and 60 inches in length is a good estimate." He went on to say, "Your results are very reasonable and similar to observations in the field." For those of you interested in emperical results rather than dogma, a 375 1-12 twist penetrates 61 boards. A 375 1-8 twist penetrates 65 boards. A 375 improved at 2825 fps 1-8 twist penetrates 71 boards, same as a 450 Ackley. Penetration champ is 416 with 1-10 twist at 71 1/2 boards. But I would use anything equal to a standard 375 or better. A quick twist 458 will equal that. Best wishes to you all. Andy | |||
|
one of us |
Quote from CapeBuff, In fact, who was it that MBOGO had in attendance at his tests? I'm certainly not implying that MBOGO did anything that wouldn't be concidered "valid" in his testing methodology but who will vouch for his tests? I'm not saying there weren't any of significance there, I'm merely asking who and asking you if you would then take that at face value if there were, in fact, none? CapeBuff, I can't really see in this message where you are not implying something significant. I read through this post and really don't know why I'm replying at all. Most of the other members have already pointed out the facts etc but apparently they are quite clear enough. First of all plywood is a good comparrisson testing material because it is consistent each time. Wet paper is crap period. If you have ever done any testing with solids other than possibly flat nosed (I have not tried them in wet paper because of the poor results with other solids) you will find that due to the points Alf mentioned the build up infront of the bullet will cause the bullet to deflect. Many of the solids I tested putting together information for my website left the test box within 20 to 24 inches. These were the Barnes super solids. The test done this time as with the others was a comparrisson test as mentioned by other posters. Every bullet passed through the same pieces of plywood and were shot from the same distance through the same barrel. Every bullet was the same shape and weight. The ballistic coefficient was the same and the sectional density was the same. I personally funded all the requirements to do this test ( sheets of plywood, GS Custom solids ordered from South Africa with shipping, all powders for load development and a good deal of time cutting up plywood and putting my old test box back together plus many trips to the range testing loads for velocity) I'm just curious why you figure your entitled to your above remarks. Dave | |||
|
| Moderator |
Well Cape, just as your namesake might, you blustered and snorted your way into unknown territory, sure to impress and spewing bravado, only to find your hind-quarters mired, as the resident pride closes. I, for one, hope you somehow escape and come again one day, selecting a wiser, more respectful path. I'm sure you'll do better. | |||
|
| one of us |
Illogical, totally ilogical. You make a statement that you keep all the other variables constant. That would make your tests about as valid as keeping all the constants variable. Or am I missing something in your original post? Why is everyone all lathered up like a buffalo stampede over a test where the variables are held constant. Who would decide what variables would be held constant and maybe if some of the constants should be made variable? Just Trollin' | |||
|
| one of us |
Hi Walex, Is that comparable to picking flyshit out of pepper and pissing in your own sand box etc. Take care, Dave | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote:  I think this may be his second attempt already. He smells a lot like the beast that blundered onto here a couple of months ago telling us he was an AIDS patient surgeon and the whole Dangerous game thing was a figment of our macho imaginations. From the same herd at least. Karl. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting African Big Game Hunting The velocity/penetration issue revisted
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia