Anyone know about what caliber and rifles were used to hunt American bison. What are the new copies being made?

Thanks

Arjun

Most used were 45 & 50 cal variants Sharps rifles. Check Chuck Hawks web site. He has a couple of articles on black powder buffalo cartridges. Can't help with the modern version releases.

The two most popular guns were the Remington Rolling Block and the Sharps. A few others thrown in here and there. Most popular caliber was the 44-77 and the 50-70 to start with, later the 50-90 and various 45 cal, 45-70 & 45-110, a few 40 cal like the 40-90 Sharps. The 45-120 and the bigger 50's came in after most of the buffalo were gone.

New makers for Sharps.
Shiloh
C. Sharps
Pedrosoli

Remington Rolling Block
Lone Star
Pedrosoli

A few other for the Sharps. Don't know about their quality. These are ones I have or had and was pleased with all.

Aaron

Ditto Carolina Man.

Buffalo Bill Cody used the 50-70 Govt. cartridge in a Trapdoor Springfield "Second Allin Alteration" of the percussion forerunner,
after the .58-cal rimfire version was found problematic.
That was the first centerfire metallic cartridge adopted by the USA in 1866.
Rifles were produced from 1867-1871.
The 45-70 Govt. replaced it in 1873.

The 50-70 Govt. is externally just a little larger than the 500 S&W revolver round, but less powerful in its original BP loadings.

Somehow the stubby 50-70 got the job done, like "Lucretia Borgia" was a deadly woman in the news around 1870, hence Buffalo Bill's rifle's name.

You can actually beat the BP ballistics of all those old buffalo rifles, even the late-comer pretender "Big Fifties" by using a 45-70 and smokeless loads.

Hence the popularity of the 45-70 in all the rifles mentioned above.
You can even load it with BP too, if you are a nostalgiac just wanting to plink or compete.

I'm just getting interested in that now. Shiloh Sharps makes the best modern BPCRs (Black Powder Cartridge Rifles). Of the Italian brands, the Pedersoli is the best, but prices for them are catching up to the Shiloh Sharps, so you might as well get the best. Plan on $2,300-$3,400, depending on options. Carolina Man has a few nice ones for sale! (Shameless Plug) :-)

Trying to start a trend, I shot my bison in October of 2011 with my 4-bore double. It has not caught on yet. But it will!!
Cheers,
Cal

The reason I have read as to why the 45-70 replaced the 50-70 for the military, was because at 100 yards, a human could see the smoke at the shot from a 50-70, and simply step to the side. Where as a 45-70 was traveling fast enough, that could not happen. The bigger sharps rounds came along at the end of the big hunts.

I used to shoot a 45-110 Shiloh Sharps in competition with paper patched home swaged 500 gr bullets and a duplex load of 4FG and 2FG. Out to 1000 yrds it was a thing to be feared. I have targets shot at 600 yrds with 4 inch groups. That's with Montana arms ladder sights and buffalo sticks. those soft lead pp bullets expanded on game like a gum wad too. Agree with Rip, the old buffalo guns were sharps and Remmington rolling blocks with trajectories like rainbows!-Rob

I always thought the 45/70 was a big part of the buffalo killing. The other day, I was reading a gun collector magazine and thought I read an article that said that the buffalo herds were gone by the time the 45/70 made it into civilian use. Am I having a senior moment, was the guy just wrong, or was that correct. If I remember the article correctly, the military wouldn't provide the newer cartridges to the public. They limited soldiers to 10 cartridges a month and charged them for any cartridges or rifles they didn't turn when they got out. The article also mentioned that the military gave some ammo and guns to settlers, but it was mostly muzzleloader stuff, and then very limited.
Can anybody elaborate?
Thanks
Bfly

The real big push in Buffalo Hunting took place between 1870 amd 1888 or so. The bigger sharps rounds came along near the end, with the 45-120 and 50-140 seeing little if any use. The 50-70, .56 Spencer, muzzle loaders in .50 caliber and above, almost any of the commercially available at the time cpould be used for buffalo, depending on the hunters abilities.

Go over to the 24HourCampfire Forums under BPCR. They are the equivalent of what this place is for African hunting. Lots of experts over there on the whole Bison era to include rifles, cartridges used etc. There are four or five guys over there (some post here), Sharpsguy, Ranch13, BrentD, Evil Twin, and others that among holding national championships have a wealth of info on the subject. jorge

Try BPCR.net but try not to mention smokeless powder unless you have a thick skin.

I asked a Moderator to add a BPCR forum to the AR menu....no response yet. Seems like there's enough interest....hell, we have a Falconry forum!!! :-)

One reason for the popularty of the 50-70 & the 45-70 is because this ammo was being furnished by the Army to the hunters and settlers to reduce the Buffalo numbers to starve out the indians. From what I have read this happened mostly with the southern herds.

Sharps introduced the 45-70 into the line with 1873 Model.Which is the version we see most often.

My loads for the 45-70 is 70 gr 2F Swiss Black Powder with a 535 gr cast lead bullet, volocity is about 1250 fps. Paper Patch 535 gr bullets in my 45-110 with 106 gr 1F Swiss, volocity is about 1325 fps. But they will damn sure take the black out of a target at 1000 yds. 50-90 with 90 gr 1F and a 570 gr paper patch bullet. Duplex loads are no longer allowed for registered matches.

Try it you'll like it. For even more fun try 1000 yds with a muzzleloader. OH YEAH!

I'm using the 500515 Lyman bullet with 38 grains of 5744 (hard to get blackpowder here in Southeast Alaska) in my 50 2 1/2 Shiloh Sharps for a velocity of 1500 fps. I use pure lead and it opens to 0.65 inches upon impact. Good accuracy 3 inches at 300 yards with a 20 shot string, a lot of fun to shoot. Took a nice bull moose with it and it went down faster than any other bull I've shot or seen shot. Jim

Biebs,

If you want a buffalo rifle I have a 1870 trapdoor cadet in 50-70 with a mint probably unfired bore. I'll make you a good deal on it.

The 50-70 probably killed most of the buffalo.

Sam

I shot my first Bison with a 338-06 250gr Nosler partition. The second one I killed with a 50-140 Sharps. Of course the 50-140 and the 500 Express are nearly identical in black powder loads. My 50-140 is on a Shiloh Sharps action. Like Jim Brainard I am casting using the 500515 mold but I am running full Black Powder Loads.

Cowboy, do you still have your 50-140 sharps?? I have a 13" SSK hand cannon that shoots the 50-140.

Yep, one of my favorite "old" rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Biebs,

If you want a buffalo rifle I have a 1870 trapdoor cadet in 50-70 with a mint probably unfired bore. I'll make you a good deal on it.

The 50-70 probably killed most of the buffalo.

Sam

Sam,
How much?
Those can be pricey. I have seen them going for $2500 in excellent condition.
I have bought a couple of the old "Lucretia Borgia" 50-70 Govt. "Second Allin" types in sad condition for $300 and $600 and had Rusty McGee do what he could to restore them.
I might shoot them with BP one day.
Until then I plink with a Sharps 1859 replica "McNelly Carbine" in 50-70.
Another percussion-to-centerfire conversion, Texas Ranger "True Grit" style.

Carolina Man, Many people have said that the Army supplied ammo to the hide hunters. It is mentioned so often that it has become fact. However, I have seen no documentation (invoices, receipts, actual eyewitness of transfer of ammo) to support the claim. If you can point me to documentation I would love to see it.

quote:

The reason I have read as to why the 45-70 replaced the 50-70 for the military, was because at 100 yards, a human could see the smoke at the shot from a 50-70, and simply step to the side

My brother and I did some testing with black powder rounds. Trying to move the target out of the way when we saw the smoke. One could change the point of impact by and inch or two. But we decided one would have to far away and very fast to not get hit.

All you have to do when you see the smoke is fall down or to the side. You might get hit or you might not, but apart from snipers, lots of bullets are thrown around in battle, with no one getting hit.

quote:

Carolina Man, Many people have said that the Army supplied ammo to the hide hunters. It is mentioned so often that it has become fact. However, I have seen no documentation (invoices, receipts, actual eyewitness of transfer of ammo) to support the claim. If you can point me to documentation I would love to see it.

I'm absolutly fascinated by the history of the 'Great Buffalo Harvest' circa 1870 - 1882. At times I think the old-time buffalo hunters were the luckiest men who ever lived. In reality it was a dangerous, brutal, filthy and nasty way to earn a living.

Many of the buffalo hunters left written accounts of thier adventures. The most well-known is the autobiography of Col. Frank H. Mayer. The book is called "The Buffalo Harvest" and it was published in 1958, 4 years after Mayer died at the age of 104. It's very well written and a must read for any Western history buff. (Read it free here: http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewes...ves/five/buffalo.htm)

It's a great story but "The Buffalo Harvest" is probably more fiction than fact. This little book is probably responsible for most of the myths and misconceptions of the buffalo hunting era. Among those is the idea that the Army handed out free ammunition. Mayer mentions that all a hunter had to do way visit any Army post and he'd receive "ammunition, free ammunition, all you could use, all you wanted, more than you needed." I've read accounts of how soldiers stationed on the frontier were allowed (and even encouraged) to hunt while off-duty. The idea was that hunting helped to keep a soldier's marksmanship and riding skills honed. Even though hunting was considered a legitimate training exercise the soldiers had to pay for any ammunition that they used. It's hard to believe that the Army handed out ammunition by the case to any civillian who asked for it while limiting its own personnel to 10 rounds per month.

"The Buffalo Harvest" is also probably the source of the oft-quoted notion that the slaughter of the buffalo was part of an official government policy intended to starve out the Indians and force them onto reservations. That's absolute nonsense. The governement didn't need to adopt such a policy. A newly developed tanning process turned buffalo hides into industrial-grade leather. Times were hard and a good buffalo hide brought the equalivent of $50 - $100 in today's money. The there were millions of them out there for the taking and all a man needed was a $40 rifle ($900 in today's money) some wagons, horses and camp equipment and he was in business. It beat the hell out of staring at the north end of a south-bound plow horse all day or working 16 hour days in a crude factory. (At least that was what 1000's of adventureous young men thought. The reality was somewhat different but many made their fortunes in the hide business.) The governemnet was complicant in the buffalo slaughter but only because they failed to prevent the hunters from plying their trade on Indian land.

Many other things mentioned in "The Buffalo Harvest" are, to put it nicely, of questionable accuracy. One of them is that 30 power scope-sighted rifles were often used by the hide hunters. Telescopic sights were available back in the day but they were rare and mostly used by wealthy long-range target shooters in the East.

I own a C. Sharps Arms model 1874 Sharps rifle in .45-70 caliber. It's a beautiful rifle but technically not set up exactly like a buffalo rifle back in the day. My Sharps sports a standard weight barrel instead of the heavy barrel preferred by the hide hunters who shot dozens, if not hundreds of rounds per day. The .45-70 caliber probably accounted for its share of buffalo but it came into to play late in the era and was a bit light compared to the far more popular 45-110.

My Sharps took down a nice buffalo with one shot at 120 yards. Does that make me a buffalo hunter?

Big, I concur. Many folks who write history never let facts get in the way of a good story.

Getting a Stand by Miles Gilbert is a good account of the realities faced during the hide trade.

Big, not to start a pissing match, but the U.S. Goverments stated policy during that period was one thing, while what was in actual practice in the field, was quite different, not too much unlike what takes place today.

The commanders in the field and at the frontier forts did what they felt was going to help their cause.

The problem with practically all of books written by the te folks that were there, is that all or most were written years, even decades after the events happened.

In many cases, Wright Mooar's narratives as an example, were written after all the other individuals involved were dead. If no one is around that can accurately support or deny the veracity of ther events, it is hard to dispute what the writer is saying.

Also, too many of us when reading these old narratives, view them with our own pre-conceived concepts about how things might have happened, using 20th. century thought processes.

The two concepts that the military personell that were on the "Front" as it were, understood that taking away the Indians food pantry and the horse was going to make their job easier and faster.

As for Dan416's common about not letting facts get in the way of a good story, that was as true in the 1800's as it was in thec 1700's as it is true today.

Real history is often unpleasant for many folks to deal with, simply because they have embraced a more palatable view of how they want to believe things happened.

Off topic a little but two really good books that are more centered around Texas history, that shed better light on how things more likely happened than the way we have come to believe they happened.

One deals with the fight for Texas Indepenence and is titled "Lone Star Rising" by William C. Davis.

The other and the one I feel is more pertinent to this discussion is titled "Empire of the Summer Moon" by S.C. Gwynne. It deals with the Comanche War in Texas and gives a somewhat different view of the interactions of civilians/the military and the Comanches and their allies prior to being subdued and moved to the Reservation system.

Crazy,
I don't see a pissing match here as I agree in full with everything you say. Excellent post, by the way

The point I was making about government policy regarding the slaughter of the buffalo is that there was no formal policy re the hide trade beyond turning a blind eye toward it.

Wartime tactics such as a "scorched earth" policy and supplying supplying materiel to ones' allies goes back thousands of years. Looked at in this light, giving ammunition to civillian hunters so that they could wipe out the Indian's food supply makes perfect sense. But this is a great example of looking at events that took place 130+ years ago with modern sensibilities.

Back in the 1870's the buffalo were thought to be inexhaustable. At the time nobody believed it was even possible to wipe them out. A lot of the buffalo hunters thought the hide business was going to be their lifetime career.

The notion that natural resources were inexhaustable was not limited to buffalo. Here in my part of the country, at the same time the buffalo herds were being slaughtered, great stands of virgin timber were being cut down in the north woods of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. The supply of timber was thought to be unlimited and, indeed, it rebuilt the entire city of Chicago after the great fire of 1871. Also at that time, whales were being hunted relentlessly.

(When you think about it, it's amazing that a relative handful of men armed mostly with single shot rifles nearly wiped out 15 - 60 million buffalo in a 12 year period. It's just as impressive is how the old-time lumberjacks decimated the North Woods with nothing more than hand axes and bucksaws.)

With that in mind, if the governement intended to destroy the buffalo herd as part of a "scorched earth" policy towards the Indians they would first have to believe doing so was feasible, if even possible. Then, if such a policy were in place, wouldn't it make more sense to give the responsibility of carrying it out to the Army instead of civillians? Imagine the great herds of buffalo being attacked by organized regiments equipped with cannon and Gatling guns. There's no evidence that the Army intentionally destroyed buffalo - beyond recreational hunting by off-duty soldiers or foraging.

That's not to say that there's no way any of the Army's ammunition found its way into any of the buffalo hunter's Sharps or Rolling Block rifles. I'm sure that more than a few Army quartermasters were offered a few dollars or a bottles of rotgut in exchange for "losing" a case of ammo here or there. But I really doubt that it was offical policy. If it were, don't you think other hunters would have mentioned it in their writings? Col. Frank Mayer is the only one who makes this claim and he's the same man who says he patched bullets with antelope skin, used a caliber that didn't exist at the time and paid $240 for a rifle that cost $38 at the time.

One of the differences from my reading accounts from that era, was that not a great many of the hunters themselves wrote about their exploits.

While a scorched earth policy was not officially in place, the cavalry on the frontier turned a lot of blind eyes. As for being able to wipe out the buffalo in such a relatively short period, look at the period when the main hunting was taking place, after the civil war. Yes there were the hide hunters, but there were also settlers looking for land, and without refrigeration people had to shoot a lot of buffalo just to have something to eat on a steady basis.

Also, there were still Indians out there hunting buffal also and unlike the picture many folks develope about there being buffalo everywhere, that was not true. Many an Indian camp, starved to death because when the buffalo migrated to a new area, the camp did not follow. Some folks do not really appreciate how often and how far villages had to move to find good food and water and a healthier environment, not only for themselves but for their horses.

Imagine a village made up of 150 to 200 individuals and the demand and effects such a village would have on an area. Human waste, fuel for cooking fires, water requirements, food for themselves, forage and water for 100 to 200 horses, waste from the horses and dogs and food for the dogs. It wpould not take a real long time to deplete the areas resources and turn the environs of camp pretty filthy. Also, the whites were not the only ones selling buffalo hides, there were Indians involved as well.

Crazy,

Good points.

There are a number of first-hand accounts of the buffalo hunters. (I especially recommend "Getting A Stand," compiled by Miles Gilbert.)

For better or worse, the story of the great buffalo harvest was overshadowed by that of the cowboy. In a way that's a good thing because we all know how fake a typical Western book or movie is. The bad thing is that I've never seen a buffalo hunter depicted in a positive light in any Western movie. They're always greedy, murderous drunks.

"Also, the whites were not the only ones selling buffalo hides, there were Indians involved as well."

You've got that right! In fact, the Indians are the ones who actually got the buffalo hide trade rolling. They sold countless thousands of hides to the evil white man before, during and after the "great slaughter." (Another inconvenient truth lost to P.C. history.) In the Indians' defense it is true that the rest of the buffalo was usually (but not always) put to use. The commercial hide hunters often (but not always) left the rest of the carcass to rot.

quote:

Also, too many of us when reading these old narratives, view them with our own pre-conceived concepts about how things might have happened, using 20th. century thought processes.

If you prove anything there should be more than an often repeated tale. You can use any sort of concept you want, but establishing fact takes more than a tale in a book.

In one Texas county there are more than 100 documented "Indian fights". When the circumstances are investigated you find many are like this:

The woman and her two daughters were washing clothes at the local creek when 3 Indian "warriors" appeared. The women screamed and fled toward the house where the father was plowing the garden. He grabbed his rifle and ran to investigate. He found the warriors and the washing had vanished.....
Some Indian fight.

One thing that is for certain is that when a cow or horse went missing or someone was bushwhacked in a robbery the Indian always got the blame.

The county is Palo Pinto.
The location was on the Old Bosley Road near the intersection of Highway 281 and Interstate 20.

Another issue with the "free ammo" tale is back then the government was cheap and tight with a dollar. The original .50-70 Trap Doors for example were reworks of muzzle loaders rather than new rifles.
While black powder cartridge repeaters were often owned by some civilians, the government continued to use singleshots until the Krag was adopted.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
All you have to do when you see the smoke is fall down or to the side. You might get hit or you might not, but apart from snipers, lots of bullets are thrown around in battle, with no one getting hit.

Time of flight for a 1000 FPS bullet with low BC to 300 yards is about 1 second.
Higher velocity, shorter range and not looking exactly at the rifle when it is fired makes this hard to believe. There are numerous time of flight calculators on the net that will tell you this notion is a stretch.

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
Shiloh Sharps makes the best modern BPCRs (Black Powder Cartridge Rifles).

It depends on your criteria of best.
The Sharps is a transition firearm having started as a rifle that used paper cartridges with a manually cocked hammer. Shooting one is much like shooting a cross between a muzzle loader and a cartridge rifle. What the shooters don't tell you is the Sharps does not have a rebounding hammer. The firing pin will not retract unless you pull the hammer to half cock.
Opening the lever without pulling the hammer back first risks breaking the firing pin nose as the breech block is lowered with the firing pin still jammed into the primer dent.
The other issue is with the heavy flat spring that keeps the lever and breech block up. This spring breaks now and then.
Sharps shooter always fail to mention this, but are quick to say that Shiloh will take care of it.

I mention all of that because of the Browning/Winchester Highwall replicas. So far as I know they do not break and the hammer is self cocking when the lever is lowered. The Highwall is a much stonger design.

The Sharps are easier to field strip for removal of BP soot from the interior - the Highwall replicas are not.

The Sharps lovers are crazy about the DST but I dislike them since I shoot a mixture of rifles.
I much prefer a decent single trigger.

The typical Sharps firing routine goes like this.

Assuming you start with a fired round in the chamber.

1. Pull the hammer back to half cocked
2. Open the breech
3. Remove the empty case
4. Reload (the hammer is a little in the way)
5. Close the breech
6 Pull the hammer to full cock
7 Pull the rear trigger with about a 12 to 15 pound pull to set the front trigger
8 Using the same finger that just pulled the heavy setting trigger, lightly touch the front trigger to fire.

Arjun: PM sent!