Around 15 years back - - -
- - - My good friend Jim invited me to go on a buffalo hunt with him. I was unable, both from time constraints and money, but the price seemed quite reasonable. It was in a locale I would have considered unlikely, and wish I could recall exactly where. Minnesota? Wisconsin? In any case, my friend was to assist in thinning this particular herd, and most of the cost was to pay the skinners, cooks, and so forth.
He wanted to be traditional AND practical. He had his gunsmith build up a Remington Rolling Block in .45-70, with a
HUGELY long,
extremely heavy, octogon barrel, custom stock, complete with full curve brass buttplate, and a near-full length brass tube reproduction scope sight. Weighed a short ton, but soaked up most of the recoil of some medium-heavy loads using, I think, 500 gr. bullets. I could put three of 'em in about two inches at 100 yards. My friend could hit bullseye with the first shot but was so recoil shy, his second shot invariably was four to six inches out.
His other rifle was a pre-64 Model 70 lightweight rifle, with 180 gr. factory loads. I shot it about as well as I did the rolling block. Jim could still hit the bull at 100, and subsequent shots made about a
FIVE inch group. Did I say he was a leeetle soft shouldered?
Anyhow, he called me upon his return. He'd taken one very large bull with the .45-70 and a medium-size one with his aught-six. Both one shot kills. He was very pleased with himself, and I was very relieved . . . .
Yep, from a traditional stand point, I'd use my .45-70 1895GS, or possibly my .375 H&H. But if a .270 was what I had, and I could load up some strongly-constructed bullets, I'd have no qualms a-tall. Hey, Kevin Costner made do with a .44 Henry, huh?
Best,
Johnny