? about .45-70 combat effectiveness

[coosbaycreep]

I already know that a .45-70 will shoot long ways through a buffalo, but I don't think I've ever heard anything about how well this caliber did against human targets.

I've seen gatling guns chambered in .45-70 on gunbroker before, and I can't even imagine the wall of lead that would be like considering how massive these bullets are. I'm an idiot on American history, so other than fighting with the Indians, I don't know if we we're involved in any major wars during the years that .45-70 was being used, or how it performed.

I know that infection from wounds and bad living conditions used to kill more people during war than the actual fighting did, but does anyone know a percentage figure or how effective 45-70 was with one shot kills? It seems like a bullet that big should usually be fatal in most places of the body with the exception of arms/legs, but I don't know since it was all black powder then and had little velocity.

Other than the size/weight of the cartridges, and bad trajectory of the 45-70, is there any other reasons why they switched to a smaller caliber? If ballistics had anything to do with it, how would modern 45-70 loads (like buffalo bore) do against humans?

Did soldiers/officers ever complain about the effectiveness of 45-70 way back when, the way our military complains about the effectiveness of 5.56 now?

What grain of bullet was used in trapdoor springfields, and what was the velocity on them?

I know this is probably an odd question to ask, but I was looking at my 45-70 ammo today, and couldn't help but wonder why they went from something as massive as that, to something as small as .223 (other than the fact that you can carry more .223 obviously).

 

[Kind of Blued]

I think you answered it with your first sentence.

 

[buttrap]

I get the idea they used to gripe over the kick and jamming issues with the things. Not to mention that in Cuba in 1898 it was like tossing bricks at the bad guys as they where shooting holes in you.

 

[moooose102]

i dont have the specific answers you are looking for. but just think about it for a miute. humans are really pretty easy to kill. buffalo's are huge compared to us. so even with the slow bp loads, if you were within shooting distance, i am pretty sure they would be extreemly effective. also imo, the reason they went to smaller bore rifles was to extend the range of the rifles. as for the bullet weight, i believe it was 500 grains. that is a big chunk of lead to be lobbing out there. they may have been better off with 300 grain bullets. but ballistics, even if it was around then, would have been in its infancy.

 

[rich636]

It'd be a physically effective cartridge no doubt. It would take more skill to be accurate with at distances because of the needed hold over. As far as practicality, carrying 200 rounds of 45-70 vs 200 rounds of 5.56 would be a pain. Also, you could make (7) 5.56 bullets out of one 45-70 so the GAO would probably not like the cost.

 

[Art Eatman]

Basketball trajectory. Heavy ammo. Heavy rifle, if rate of fire is any consideration.

Enuf.