The main paradox I see in the entire controversy is this:

The 1956 .458 Win. Mag. has been criticised for years because of case capacity issues that limited real-world velocities, and thus penetration with 500 gr. solids on heavy, dangerous game animals such as buffalo. Book after book written by African professional hunters of long experience alludes to a widespread dislike of the .458 Win. Mag. in Africa. Erratic, inconsistent performance due to the limited case capacity of the .458 Win. Mag. is the entire reason that cartridges like the .458 Lott can into being in the first place. Of course there are those hunters who've had good luck with the .458 Win., and I'm one of them, but my experience has been limited. But right now I want to focus on the issues that are behind the checkered reputation of that cartridge. Again, the fundamental problem with the .458 is case-capacity related, which sets up my next point.

Now, if the .458 is an off and on again performer because of that basic shortcoming, how in the world does the old 1873 .45-70, with a case capacity that does not come close to that of the .458 Win. become such a sudden, resurgent super-star killer on buffalo and stuff. Special, hard-cast bullets? A "Cowboy In Africa" mentality? The lure and intrigue of using something old, yet new and different? What is it? Terminal performance is based on physics, not romance.

It's funny, but I don't recall reading anything about someone loading those 'magic' bullets in the woefully inadequate .458 Win. Mag. I guess they figure it's not worth the bother!

But maybe the believers in magic should - then maybe they'd have something to really write about! I could just see the glossy, "Guns & Ammo"-type magazine cover headline now: "Old-Style Bullets Make The Difference: A Fresh Look at the .458 Winchester!"

I wonder why steel-jacketed solids were invented in the first place?

AD

The thinking, of most here, that one can always depend on the PH to drag their nuts out of the fire, is amazeing to me! At the tune of $1500 per day, and a $2000 trophy fee for a good cape buffalo in a good area, I, for one, wanht to place a Buffalo head on my wall that "I" shot! One of the first things I do when I get to camp, is make it clear, the shooting will be done by me, unless the Buffalo is about to kill someone!



You may do anything you please, if that is your bag, but I'm here to tell you, you can't always depend on a PH, and he may not be willing, or able to defend you! It is my opinion, one should be prepared to do the whole thing regardless of what the trip brings.



One thing I haven't seen anyone here bring up, and that is the Buffalo himself! I believe it is the responsability of any hunter to kill his game with as little suffering, as possible! To diliberately use an inferior tool that allows the buffalo to suffer longer,if he has another choice, is, IMO, criminal!



The 458 Win Mag is indeed a victim of a small powder capacity, and with factory ammo it is not dependable. IMO, the 458 WM, can be handloaded with proper powders, and can be loaded with bullets of less than 500 grs and be a very nice round, but is still not an optimum choice, when better chamberings are available. I personally would rather have a finly made 375 H&H rifle with properly handloaded ammo that the 458 win mag, or certainly the 45-70 with any load. And that's in a stopping sittuation!



As for WOODHITS statement about a person being afraid of his rifle, that is just plain silly. Anyone who is afraid of a rifle, has little business faceing a Cape Buffalo, and should stick to playing golf! It is my opinion, a Cape Buffalo can do far more damage to your anatomy than any rifle ever made!

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone gives a damn what Seyfried and Mr.Pearce say about anything. Seyfried contradicts himself on a regular basis. I remember reading some of the things he wrote about the 338-378KT and the 500 Linebaugh years ago, only to have him jump the fence later on. If his writings are looked at over the years, the 500 S&W could be considered a better charge stopper that the 458 Win. He said once that John Linebaughs handguns were "Buff stoppers. Personally I think Ross should think about retirement. As far as Mr.Pearce goes, he writes what the magazine payes him to write. The gun rags are a poor place to get advice on a big bore stopping round.


Joe

I've never hunted Buff, and when I do I won't be using a 45-70. That being said- I don't understand the hostility toward the idea. Inadequate against charging animals? Perhaps, but how often does that actually happen? Isn't that why the PH generally carries a stopper? What about those hunting with muzzleloaders, handguns, and bows- are they some how exempt from the same criticism? I'm all for using "enough gun" and would probably choose something along the lines of a .416 for buffalo huting, but wouldn't a hunter who can place his shots confidently with a 45-70 be "better" than an out of breath, nervous hunter flinching away at a buff's guts with a "proper" big bore that he fears? I think that a hunter using "primitive" equipment has a responsibility to choose his shots carefully so as not to put himself or the PH in danger, but if he does so I don't see a problem with hunting buffalo with a 45-70. I'd take one over an arrow any day!

Jim, there's a difference, as you indicated: I used a .300 Win. Mag. as an expedient, not as my cartridge-of-choice. Guys like Pearce with his .45-70 and Seyfried with his handguns hunted with those guns out of choice.

I don't believe in stuntsmanship with animals that can kill you, and I really think that buffalo cartridges should be selected with stopping capability in mind if you've got that choice before you. I also think that the .375 H&H is a more practical choice than the .45-70 for buffalo from every standpoint of consideration.

I looked up this last Pearce article, and I see that he used, as Bob stated, a Cor-Bon .45-70 load with a 405 gr. solid @ just under 1,800 fps., and evidently found this load to be a real piss-cutter.

But still other guys claim that the .458 Win. Mag. with a 500 gr. solid at somewhere between 2,000 & 2,100 fps. isn't good for much of anything but burnin' powder and wastin' bullets. So I'm confused by this conficting testimony!

I'm also confused by Seyfried hunting buffalo with handguns, yet he has no use for the .458 Win. Mag. HUH?

Yet, my friend Jim Carmichel from "Outdoor Life" has taken over eighty buffalo (control shoots plus trophy hunts), not to mention elephants and lions (softs) with his .458 Win. Mag., mostly with 500 gr. Hornady solids (old-style) that he handloaded to just over 2,100 fps. He's used the same .458 since the early 1970s, except for a hunt in which he used a Ruger 77 .458. He's had mostly very good luck with it, and even wrote a ODL article about the cartridge a short time ago. So go figure!

AD

RSY, I'm sure the 45-90 would suffer the same short comings as the 458win, 458 Lott, and 460 Weatherby. To much powder capacity and to much velocity to really penetrate well. But you could always download it and switch to hard cast bullets to really tune it up.

Don�t even want to put a dog in the ring on this, but this topic always reminds me of the economist�s argument:

�Oh, sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?�

Should we stop using the .375 H&H with solids in 2042 � it�s 130th birthday?

Apparently no one claims that a .45-70 won�t kill a buff, but it is always heavily criticized because it is not a �stopper�. Yet, according to the info I�ve gleaned here, it�s perfectly okay to bring a .375 buff hunting even though it is not an ideal buff stopper, because the PH will be carrying the stopper. IIRC, Allen shot a buff with a .300 Win. Mag � not your first choice, I realize, circumstances dictated it, but I think you ended up with a dead buff and not a dead Allen, nicht wahr? Why is okay to use any other caliber that�s not a �stopper�, but the .45-70 is verboten simply because it isn�t a stopper?

Now don�t everybody pile on me as an ardent .45-70 supporter. If I ever hunt buff it will be with my .375 because I can shoot straight with it. But 9.3 calibers are deemed okay by popular opinion, the .375 is okay, only the .45-70 seems to provoke such an autonomous leg joint reaction. If it�s legal and someone wants to do it, why do so many people get so worked up about what someone else wants to do?

To reiterate � not particularly supporting the .45-70, don�t own one and never will, but mostly because I don�t care to suffer a Copernican fate. My main question is � why does everybody seem to hate the .45-70 in particular when other calibers of similar killing power (however you want to define that) are not only considered okay but heartily endorsed?

I don't have the magazine handy at the moment so I can't double check this, but I think Brian Pearce used the Corbon .45-70 405gr Flat Point "Penetrator" (Corbon's name) load on the Buffs. He described it as a flat point, jacketed solid if I remember correctly. He didn't use a hard cast lead bullet on the Buffalo. I'm just passing this info along in the interests of fairness and accuracy concerning the article for those that haven't read it yet.



Pesonally, I have not hunted Buffalo though I do hope to do it someday. But I think, if I ever get to do it, I'm going to use either my .416 Rigby (Ruger M77) or my .470 NE (Merkel double). I'll let other people test the .45-70 on Buffalo. I do own two .45-70 rifles; a Browning 1885 and a Browning 1886. So, I'm not anti .45-70 but I think there are better tools for hunting Cape Buff.



-Bob F.

If the 45-70 is better than the 458 lott for buffalo, then the 45 acp must be better still.

I bet that Mr. Pearce did not hit any bone when the bullet went through both "shoulders" to hit a cow on the other side.

Or perhaps Mr. Pearce fired more shots than he told about in his article, and a stray bullet hit the cow. The disease of gunwriter typewriter has not been eradicated yet.

All good points, Allen; especially in light of the fact that the previous issue of "Rifle" had a column wherein the writer (Seyfried) ruthlessly eviscerated the .458 WM.



As for "romance," I think that is largely a factor in the amount of dislike for the .458 WM, as well. When all the old African rounds started becoming unavailable in the middle of the last century, people missed them and looked down on the .458 newcomer. I do know one thing, though: "romance" alone doesn't fully penetrate two buffalo with one shot.



RSY

1. Ross Seyfried killed a buffalo with a .454 casull. Lots of buffalo have been killed by 7.62 x 39 shout out of AK47's. Does that make them appropriate buffalo calibers?

2. I would like to see one of these famous 45-70 cast lead slugs penetrate lengthwise through a charging cape buffalo's jaw/teeth and make it to the brain - not going to happen.

3. If a guy insists on hunting with 130 year old equipment (45-70 with lead bullets), he should also make his trip to Africa on a sailboat to be consistent with the other technology of the time.

4. It is one thing to perform a stunt by shooting a buffalo with an inadquate caliber when a PH is there with his big bore to clean up your mess. It is quite another to actually rely on that inadequate caliber to save your life when there are better options.

5. Mr. Pearce makes a living by promoting the old black powder cartridges and cast bullets.

There was a fellow named Vince Lupo who posted here about his hunt with a 45-70 for the Bix 6 (elephant, rhino, buffalo, lion, leopard, hippo). According to Mr. Lupo, 5 of the 6 charged him after being shot with a 45-70. Notwithstanding those 5 charges, Mr. Lupo still thinks a 45-70 is a great choice for the big 6.

Here is his story:

http://www.garrettcartridges.com/lupoindex.asp

A souped up 45-70 is no slouch when it comes to killing power. It's my favorite non dangerous game hunting cartridge. Even though it will kill a cape buffalo, I think it's a poor choice for this task.

Dave

.

Woodhits,

You've mentioned several of the points that are used to buttress the ".45-70 as DGR cartridge" argument.

Hopefully, I can explain the reason for my opinion:

Quote:

---

Inadequate against charging animals? Perhaps, but how often does that actually happen?

---

Once would be too many times. Having the means to end a charge would be very important at that point, i.e., what if the PH runs, or his rifle malfunctions?

Quote:

---

Isn't that why the PH generally carries a stopper?

---

Perhaps, but I want to be the one to kill my buff; after all, it's my hunt.

Quote:

---

What about those hunting with muzzleloaders, handguns, and bows- are they some how exempt from the same criticism?

---

I know several people who have taken Cape buffalo with handguns, and NONE of them will tell you that a handgun is better than a rifle. Each of them accepts that a PH may have to save their bacon due to their choice of tool.

Quote:

---

...but wouldn't a hunter who can place his shots confidently with a 45-70 be "better" than an out of breath, nervous hunter flinching away at a buff's guts with a "proper" big bore that he fears?

---

This is an uneven comparison. Why would the hunter using a "proper" big bore be any more out of breath, nervous, or prone to flinching or gut-shooting a buff than the hunter using a .45-70?
Given the identical situation, with shooters of equal skill and experience, whose cartridge will work better under any circumstances possible, the man with the .45-70, or the man with the .458 Win. Mag.?
Besides, at the ranges where I have shot, 90% of the people I see shooting "proper" Cape buffalo rifles do not flinch, and are very good shots, whereas many of the people I see shooting lever-action .45-70s (especially Marlin Guide Guns) flinch like mad.
SERIOUS African hunters will use a gun they have acclimated to and mastered; most are not first-timers.

Quote:

---

I think that a hunter using "primitive" equipment has a responsibility to choose his shots carefully so as not to put himself or the PH in danger, but if he does so I don't see a problem with hunting buffalo with a 45-70. I'd take one over an arrow any day!

---

I agree with you on all points, adding only that if he acknowledges relying on his PH having to back him up, he has a far different mindset than I do.

I hope you won't take personal offense, but I feel some of your points needed to be rebutted.

George

I forgot to mention that the PHs he was with said it penetrated better than any .458 they had seen (not sure if they included the Lott in this statement). Also forgot to mention that Pearce's second shot was a stern-to-bow full-length penetration that took off the top of the heart.

RSY

The 45-70 is not "good enough" because it makes a smaller wound than other common bigbores used on dangerous game. The 45-70 also oftan takes too long to kill anything large on some "vital" hits.

Many cartridges can kill a Cape buffalo at rest. Driving a bullet into one that is adrenalized and running (towards you) is a different matter.

This comes up every time someone takes a buff with the .45-70.

George

I haven't and don't plan to hunt Africa with the .45-70, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. However, the events chronicled in this month's "Rifle" magazine by Brian Pearce need to be addressed by those who claim hunting with the .45-70 is an unnatural act.

To briefly summarize the crux of the article, he shoots an old bull buff with the 405-gr. Cor-Bons from a 22"-barrel Marlin levergun. The result is full penetration on the bull, with the bullet coming to rest under the hide on the far side of a cow(!) that was standing (hidden) a few yards behind the bull. These were both double-shoulder penetrations!

So, two buffalo with one bullet. Now, why is the .45-70 not good enough, again???

RSY

Allen

I think the people like Seyfried who show inconsistency in cases like the 454 pistol and 458 Winchester are simply judging them on a different basis rather than having forgotten what they previously wrote.

It is not unlike saying on the one hand that the 270 is a very good long range calibre in a very accurate sporting type rifle then on the other hand saying that the 300 Winchester is inadequate but when discussed in the context of a 13 pound bench style gun.

Mike

George- no offense taken, especially since I don't plan on ever taking any rifle with a lever on it to Africa. Your points are valid, and I considered them when I made my post- my real point is "to each his own". I wouldn't want the PH to kill my buff either, but those hunting with bows, handguns, etc. probably have to take that into consideration when making ther choice. So long as one's chosen method of taking game doesn't unecessarily endanger anyone, and does not cause the game any undue suffering- I applaud their efforts. That being said- make mine a double.

I do not know anything about Africa or Cape Buffalo from firsthand experience, but, I do know a bit about dangerous North American game and I find Ross Seyfied to be a rather pompous fellow who seems to have very little personal experience with big bears, for example, yet mocks those who do.

I have two .45-70s, an early 70s Marlin 1895 and a Browning 1886 SRC, with Kodiak or Swift bullets I consider them adequate for deer, Moose and raghorn Elk inside 100 yds. I also consider them useful at point-blank range for stopping bears.

I agree that we all have a responsibility to the animals we hunt to see to it that they die swiftly and humanely. I think that hunting any dangerous animal with a handgun, bow or inadequate rifle is a stunt and not the act of a true sportsman.

I own a few leverguns and I love the 45-70 for it's handiness. When I can finally re-retire, I will go to the big A with a really big gun and maybe take a Marlin 45-70 just for everything else that doesn't require 5000# of muzzle energy.

LongShotRX



My opinion still stands...that is Mac37 (and many others) are antis that happen to own guns.



As I said in my posting above, Mac37 does not seem to realise that a "gov't body" might see a two shot gun as being totally useless....



When I say Mac37 is an "anti" I mean he has a "control this...attitude" but he has a lot of company among gun owners.



Look at what Mac37 said:



To diliberately use an inferior tool that allows the buffalo to suffer longer,if he has another choice, is, IMO, criminal!



Fucking unbelievable!!





Mike

After all this commotion I went to the Garrett site to look at this article!! what a buch of crap!!! if he was a real man, he should have used a .22 WMR to take the big six or if he was a man's man the .17 hmr. The 45-70 is underpowered and inadequete to take to africa and hunt dangerous game. Only a fool would tout such a stunt as an "accomplishment".
Man invented nitro express cartridges for a reason!!

Also IMO I do not believe Mr. Lupos 420 grain bullet traveling at 1850 fps penetrated 4 shoulders, two sets of lungs maybe?? If a 45-70 will not fully penetrate a bison through both shoulders why would it do it in a cape buffalo.