| 9.3x57 |
| (.450 member) |
| 22/12/07 01:25 AM |
|
Re: "45-70 is the way to go from Ele to T Rex "
|
Quote:
And even though it's now obsolete for military use, the 30-06 is far more versatile than the 45-70 is as a hunting cartridge in just about every way.
Absolutely true. Did somebody say the .45-70 was more versatile than the .30-06? I didn't, and I can't find a post here on this thread of anyone who did.
Then along comes the 458 Win. Mag. in 1956, and almost immediately that cartridge became suspect due to the fact that it's short on case-capacity.
Interesting statement, as that cartridge really and truly did have some problems early on. But were those actually due to a muzzle velocity of 1950 fps to 2000 fps or due to the provable failures caused by early powder clumping, bad bullets, etc. I have read so much argument over this subject that I am really curious as to what the facts are. Many with vast experience with the .458 even in its early years had nothing but praise for it. The actual failures I have read about were due to poor load practices or bad early powders. Your point is well-taken as far as early ammo is concerned, but is the .458 considered a "dog" now...?
And now the 45-70...is the modern do-everything wunder cartridge, huh?
Again, not sure where you are getting this stuff. Has somebody here said this? Or is this statement based on other threads? I've never suggested such a thing at all. I've asked if anyone has extensive experience shooting heavy game with something along the lines of a .45/540/1550 load. Have you seen failures with such a load? Please, if you have, I for one am all ears. I'd love to read of documented results with such a load on Aussie or African buff or US bison or even stock cattle or other heavy game. You are making some wild accusations. Maybe they are based on proclamations from .45-70 devotees from other threads? If so, please specify, since I don't read anybody doing what you accuse here on this thread.
I don't think so.........not for any hunting purpose that I'll ever need to fill. In fact, I've been so turned-off by some of this 45-70 froth in recent years that I'll never own one, pure and simple.AD
I won't comment on your needs or interests for your purposes as that is your business and you know it better than I. However, you have ranted on in condemnation of a cartridge about which you admittedly have no experience and you have not brought to the discussion any reference to failures of the cartridge on heavy game. I have no reason to proclaim the .45-70 to be anything it is not. And I am not, nor have I ever said that it is the equal of many of the various NE cartridges. However, I also will not say that it is a three-legged mule in a horse race in the absence of extensive experience or trustworthy reports of others.
I am, as stated, very curious about the performance of a load that could be functioned thru a Marlin and that might consistently endanger animals on the far side of a big bull buffalo. IF that is true, that is significant in my opinion. If such a load is a loser, then let's hear it. Now I am beginning to see why SARG was hesitant about posting anything positive about the .45-70.
A question: Does the "modern .45-70" start a fire between "traditionalists" who reject it because of its looks and "experimenters" who keep trying to find a spot for it? I do not care much for Fadala's math, but if he can absolutely demonstrate that a gun like a Marlin 1895 can safely and consistently lay buff and elephant low then that is an interesting find. To me, the fascinating thing about guns is in what they do. Or don't do as the case may be.