AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: Ken G on January 19, 2010, 04:43:30 AM
-
From Roundball:
POLL EXPLANATION
Trying to identify through actual field results, the effectiveness of a .40cal as an all around, general purpose whitetail deer caliber. Looking for accurate distances that hunters have shot whitetail deer using the .40cal 92grn patched ball. (shot meaning killed and recovered)
-
Ken, I'd like to vote but I can't. Where I live it is not legal to hunt deer with the .40 caliber, though I have no doubts I could take a deer with the .40... Glad to see we can still veiw the vote count pole without voting. :)
-
Sure like the .40 for general shooting. Wouldnt use it for deer. Have a perfectly good .54 for that.
-
Ken, I shot at a bunch of deer eating in my corn crib with my 50 miss hitting my double blade axe splitting the bullet killing two deer does that count, thinking was about 60 yards or so. ;D
-
Canyon, wouldn't splitting that ball have made it two .20's then? :-\
-
Wait a minute, I am going back for my hip boots!
-
Be interesting to see how many have done it. One older gentleman on another site claimed to have shot a few deer with a 40 but claimed you needed to be close and "give them time to bleed out before tracking". I hunted with my 40 last fall, but figured it was for smaller antlerless deer. I did shoot a forkhorn with a 36 cap and ball once, 375 ball, 900+ fps. It was very close and I shot it straight on facing me between the shoulders. It ran about 70 yards and folded up. Was dead when I found it. Blood trail was tricky in the brush, but as when found it was laying in open woods was not much of an issue. The ball stopped somewhere in the back of the ribcage which was very impressive penetration considering. That would have been ballistically equivalent to a 40 rifle at about 75 yards. Thst episode is one reason I do consider hunting deer with a 40.
DP
-
Ken, I shot at a bunch of deer eating in my corn crib with my 50 miss hitting my double blade axe splitting the bullet killing two deer does that count, thinking was about 60 yards or so. ;D
Hey! .25 caliber don't count, though .25 was the preferred caliber during the colonial days. ;)
-
I remember seeing reference to a 180 bore once (.296"), mostly 150 bores (.314"). I don't believe I've ever seen a 318 bore, though. I think that's around .25.
-
Never have...but I would if the opportunity arose and it was a close shot, under 60 yards broadside. But why not just use a 50?
Roundball,
Maybe there was tons of deer available back then. With close shots , the forty will get the job done. Forget bears!
-
Got 4 bear guns - couple .58's & a smooth .62 for deer or small bear & a larger bore for, well, larger bears. The .58's would do I guess, in a pinch.
-
When I looked at parts for a future build which likely will be started either this summer or next year, I finally settled on a 40. But in doing so I felt I had enough deer rifles and just wanted a gun to shoot for the sheer enjoyment of shooting. Folks get a gun they really like and tend to start thinking about deer as well as other critters with guns of that type. I have heard more than one 32 fan state that they would not be afraid to use one on deer. In these times when we can afford more than one rifle that is kind of foolish, but they really like the small bores. Is a 40 that has been shot all summer at targets at Rondy's that bad a choice ??? Might be better than some big bore in the hands of someone that can't shoot all that well. Personally I do not consider the 40 a primary deer rifle and think the 50 is probably the best all around deer rifle there is, but do not own a 50 in flintlock killed deer with a 50 in percussion) and have a smoothbore 20 ga and a rifled 58 in progress for that purpose. When people start giving guns fond names (unlike my jinxed 54) they tend to have a lot of faith in them. 40 is a darn good choice for squirrels, foxes, coyotes and maybe deer ???
DP
-
Ohio has a .38 requirement for ML. I've been a traditional bowhunter for a few years (first bowkill in 1958) and due to that have a ~30 yd. mentality when it comes to Whitetail Deer hunting (bow). My last bowkill was ~15 yds, with all homemade equipment, bow, arrow, point (flint)...I need that out of the sport.
I haven't yet taken a muzzleloader shot over 50 yds. since I started hunting with a ML in 1978, using .50 and .45 cal. then 'till now. A .40 would be within my self imposed criteria as suitable, but not the .38, and not over a ~30 yd shot.
Could I make a longer shot...probly, but what if.....?
OTOH, My .375 is waiting, quivering, for Ohio to allow ML's for Turkey.
My .02, plus tax.
R
-
.40's before and now even better, the .32, are wonderful guns "just to shoot". For me, they are 'fun guns', most enjoyable, the 'tink' very quickly following the discharge of the piece - much higher velocity compared to other people's guns. Even on the 100 yard and farther targets, the ball is out there much faster.
-
"but my deer hunting distances are not all limited to close shots like that and I don't want to be carrying the little .40cal through the woods and spot a P&Y buck of a lifetime standing broadside down a loggers road at 120 yards and have to just stand there and watch. ...and is why I leave it in the rack during deer season."
That's where we differ. I don't have to take that 120 yd. shot with my "whatever cal. >.45" because he might get away. BTDT You have established your self as able to make that shot, knowing the exact distance. My hat is off to you.
As a qualified member of the PBS (Professional Bowhunters Society) I have played distance games with brother members who are well respected in that fraternity, judging distance on scale sized animals. Is that a 150#, ~140"er at 120 yds....or a 175# at 130 yds? What differance does it make...10 yds.? Some extremely good bowhunters have misjudged closer than that.
I have to see 'em blink, hear that Turkey go "SSSSSSSMMMMMM". This is what I need out of the sport and why that P&Y/B&C at 120 yds. walks, regardless of caliber.
R
-
I have shot a couple of deer with a longbow and recurve and may do so again this fall as I kind of miss it and I am getting old and fat and can sit longer (not meaning any one else is that bow hunts so don't get offended at me). Bird hunting is not as good as it was either. While bow hunting close is OK, the firearm replaced the bow because even a smoothbore will shoot at least as far and does not require any movement to shoot. Early bowhunters, like Bear and Hill used to make some pretty long shots themselves, out to 60-70 yards, but Hill did admit that he should have limited shots to about 30 yards. As to what can happen deer hunting, I have had a couple of off hits at over 50 yards when the deer took a step in between the time the mind said pull and the trigger got pulled. Also I have no idea how effective a 40 would be on a liver hit. A liver hit with a broadhead can take a while where with a larger bore firearm they usually lay down and get too weak to get up within 150 yards or less. One thing the poll may not indicate ???
-
Since the subject of slower lock time has come up I can testify that this is a real consideration. I've made two very nice neck shots on deer; one was running. Trouble is, I was not AIMING at the neck! Another time, another deer, 20 - 25 yards in the open; the ball hit the spine (elevated stand). The aiming point was an easy quartering dbl lung shot. All it took was a jerk of the deer's neck to replace the ribs with the spine. This CAN happen and you won't know it until the smoke clears. While I would not hesitate to chase deer with a .40, a larger ball insures better results in such situations.
-
hanshi, you reminded me of an article in a gun rag, perhaps 30 years ago. One of the old time gun writers, John Whooters, I think it was, on a long learning streak about black powder while writing about hunting with a muzzleloading rifle, made an honest proclamation in one article about neck shooting. He stated that he knew a lot of guys who shot all their game in the neck and that he had hit many there himself. He also stated he;d never aimed at an animals neck. He then stated that "All Neck Shooters are Liers". Afterall, the neck is a lousy place to shoot a deer, moose, bear - whatever - the spine is narrow and the lungs or shoulder is a much larger & deadly target. But, as hanshi noted, neck hits happen. It is good to have something that will do the job when IT happens.
-
Years back I read that as the frontier was settle and folks were populating the areas east of the ol'Miss, many settlers went with smaller caliber rifles because of small game being more plentiful then big game.
To me this makes sense. However, I bet if that hunter back then had his small game rifle with him, say .40 cal or less, he'd have taken his chance at bringing home some deer meat if the opportunity presented itself.
Other articles I have read was that powder was in short supply back in the early days of the expansion to the Mississippi. Therefore smaller caliber rifles became popular.
Larger caliber rifles became popular after the Lewis and Clark Exp., when the reports of large game animals and the grizzly bears, needed a bigger ball to put them down when expansion headed across the Missouri River.
Naturally their was always the large bore smoothbores throughout our history, and I believe that by the time we reached the Pacific there was a pretty good mix of all size calibers being used and the opportunity of taking a deer with what you had in hand I doubt was passed on because of caliber consideration back in those early years of westward expansion.
-
I can tell you that a .32 RB driven to 1650 fps or so will penetrate a 130 whitetail buck broadside at 65 yards, clipping a rib at entrance, penetrating the heart dead center, clipping a rib at exit, and stop under the offside hide. The ball looked like a rivet headcut off. It was still, the leaves had long fallen and you could hear a bug crawl. I heard the buck breaking brush very soon and crash all within 40 yards of ball impact.
Now what our forefathers have done in 1834 sitting there watching the place where three dry branches merged, an hour before dark, waiting for the turkeys milling about over the hill to come and roost? Well, I know. Lon
-
I have wondered if another factor in smaller calibers was the wild turkey. They are about perfect for 36-40 calibers or so. How popular were they in the early days in the East? Deer are more plentiful today than ever according to wildlife managers. As to the larger bores going west. The most popular calibers were the 50-54 class. Not really large bores. Is a 50 on a buffalo or elk or moose any different than a 40 on deer ??? Even the 54 is not a real powerhouse compared to some more modern calibers and considered rather feeble by todays standard or even by buffalo hunter standards of the 1870's. Pvt. Grifles story supports what I have mentioned before. Not all deer are built alike. A 130 pound buck in the midwest would barely have antlers and likely be a spike. In the South it may be a very nice deer. In the midwest deer can be 230 pounds. Also consider mule deer which reach a little more weight. A 22 magnum is a popular rifle for poachers, but finding one shot with one if it decides to run a ways can be a problem.
DP
-
Guess I just don't see any good reason to use a minimal caliber to harvest large game animals. We are no longer in the frontier survival mode, powder isn't hard to come by, and lead is relatively inexpensive (free in many cases if you want to use wheel weights, scrap plumbers lead etc. ) A .50caliber or .54 is no more expensive to build than a .40. They can be built light enough to be easy to carry if that is your hot button. Further, since we are reloading with each round, we can regulate the power of the .50+ calibers with light loads so they too are suitable for small game if you can only have one gun. I guess I just have too much concern for the animal to wound one with an inadequate caliber. And a .92gr ball is an inadequate projectile, about the same as a .380 pistol cartridge which isn't adequate for deer either. How many times have we all agreed with the statement to use enough gun?
-
This discussion occurs everywhere men hunt or where there are gun forums. I know the DRT factor increases dramatically from 45 RB on up. The older I get the more I rely on that.
I also believe some men should not hunt at all. That writer mentioned above that shot deer in the neck even though he never aimed there is one. He's a Zumbo.
Here in North Carolina where most hunting is via "club" arrangements the young fellers consistently need an ultimag to dump deer with their nose in the bait pile from an 85 yard tree stand. It's a rare fellow can make an offhand shot at distance.
A fellow that can head shoot gray squirrels at 50 yards or more under typical field conditions has a choice. Lon
-
What I have noticed over the years is that "minimums" have increased. A lot is to blame on the shooting magazines where writers test and extol the virtues of such and such a caliber or magnum. there are a few more reasonable heads left, but few. A store clerk at Gander Mountain told me once that he ahd a call asking if the 200 grain bullet in his 338 was enough for deer or should he get a 250 grain. Big bores are fun to many and those that use them tend to rationalize their use because of their "increased" effectiveness. You then get the old arguement that a 22 will kill and elephant if you hit him right. Over the years one sees what is called the class of rifles known as "deer rifles" which are weapons accepted by experienced hunters as being plenty adequate. If you look at surviving cartridges from the early days you see more than a few that developed bad reputations and kind of fizzled as well as those that have survived the test of time. The 22 Savage Hi-Power, 32-20 and 25-35 come to mind as obsolete hunting cartridges and did not have a good reputation as larger game rifles. The 220 swift was tried and dropped. The old 30-30 that I use is still a very fine deer rifle in its place. It is also more powerful over 75 yards, than many muzzle loaders we consider deer rifles. Some will say that they know some old timer that uses one of these and gets his game every year, but on a whole they failed. The 40 seems to fall in that category of is it or isn't it? This poll has been started to kind of determine the question. I have learned from years of deer hunting that too big is not so bad as too little and has 9 results. Even a good hit can sometimes have complications on a deer with a little adrenlenin in its system. My problem at this time is that I have more than one rifle to choose for deer and like others really wonder at the need to use a marginal one. In a way only 9 responses may say something.
DP
-
The 9 reponses are telling us something, but you may be right about the 'demographics' of this site--few deer hunters or few that use small calibers for deer? If I lived in central Texas where a big buck can be lifted with one hand into the back of the pick-up, the .40 would seem more than adequate. For a big PA buck, no. For our so-so LA deer, marginal. Would I pick it as an all-around deer rifle? no. If I had only one rifle would I pick a .40? not if I was a deer hunter. [the question is moot for me, living in a state where the .40 is not legal for either deer or any other game, large or small]. But if all I had, through whatever circumtances, was a .40, I'd use it if needed.
-
I've hunted deer a long time with fair success. I've got a .40 flint too, though fairly new. I do plan to take a deer with it, under circumstances I can forsee to some degree.
An odd shaped bottom where a wet branch feeds a 50 foot wide creek. The longest shot is 50 yards and 5 yards wide, the next longest is 29 yards, some are 7 yards. I get one or more there every year and have for years. Lucky to be in NC, where the state now gives you all the tags you want on request in the eastern zone. Got one 4 pt. this last season at 17 yards with a cartridge gun, the first time I've ever seen a bullet impact before the recoil drove the scope off.
I am just thankful to my maker I can still hunt and make a short drag to the path I can get the truck to. Those young guys with magnum itis razz me endlessly when I seek help. You know how it is. I have to do something to keep them in awe. Heck, many of them miss, few can track, and some are even skeered in the woods at night.
Use your 40s. Set up the hunt in your favor. If you don't feel its a good shot, just wait. That's no different than watching a great deer that is too far, no matter the gun.
I once carried an 8 X 56 M-S ten years, a few days each year, without a shot until a perfect Ga. woods deer, 10 point typical @ 16" fell to it. Thats my life time eastern whitetail trophy, even though I have larger mounted. A poll isn't required to hunt as our forefathers did. The spark is in you. Lon
-
This discussion occurs everywhere men hunt or where there are gun forums. I know the DRT factor increases dramatically from 45 RB on up. The older I get the more I rely on that.
I also believe some men should not hunt at all. That writer mentioned above that shot deer in the neck even though he never aimed there is one. He's a Zumbo.
Here in North Carolina where most hunting is via "club" arrangements the young fellers consistently need an ultimag to dump deer with their nose in the bait pile from an 85 yard tree stand. It's a rare fellow can make an offhand shot at distance.
A fellow that can head shoot gray squirrels at 50 yards or more under typical field conditions has a choice. Lon
I'm just guessing but I'm fairly sure I'm the one (of those) who shouldn't "hunt at all" that you referred to. Well, I don't know, but you could be right; who knows. I have no idea what a "zumbo" might be but I'm quite sure it isn't a compliment. It's curious, though, as you don't know me or anything about me yet can decide on the spur of the moment that I shouldn't hunt and am a "zumbo". I'm not offended or anything like that because I know what I can and can't do and what I should or should not be doing.
I will say this, however; hitting a deer but not where you aimed has been acknowledged by a couple of other posters. Anyone who has ACTUALLY hunted more than just a "little bit" has experienced off shots. ALL my "accidental" hits were DRTs, NONE ran very far and I NEVER lost one. How can this be improved? Pretty good, I say, for someone who shouldn't be hunting. I've been a hunter for nearly half a century and I've learned a lot. I know some claim skills, knowledge and experience that don't stand up to scrutiny. And some of these tend to judge others.
I've never taken a deer with a .40 so couldn't vote on the poll. All my deer were taken with either a .45, .50 or .54. I'm not surprised more didn't vote. The number is still on par with other polls I've seen. Also there are probably not that many who actually do use a .40 for deer. Could you please tell me what a "zumbo" is? That's a new one on me. 8)
-
I had to go back and search for the zumbo remark--I think he was referring to a sportswriter named Zumbo, but I can't figure the meaning...
-
Ah, okay. I know who Jim Zumbo is and have read some of his articles. I'm not sure about the comparison as I don't know that much about him. Don't know if he even shoots bp. Interesting!
-
I will say this, however; hitting a deer but not where you aimed has been acknowledged by a couple of other posters. Anyone who has ACTUALLY hunted more than just a "little bit" has experienced off shots. ALL my "accidental" hits were DRTs, NONE ran very far and I NEVER lost one. How can this be improved? Pretty good, I say, for someone who shouldn't be hunting. I've been a hunter for nearly half a century and I've learned a lot. I know some claim skills, knowledge and experience that don't stand up to scrutiny. And some of these tend to judge others.
I've never taken a deer with a .40 so couldn't vote on the poll. All my deer were taken with either a .45, .50 or .54. I'm not surprised more didn't vote. The number is still on par with other polls I've seen. Also there are probably not that many who actually do use a .40 for deer.)
I suspected some claim's are based on a few deer also. when you have hunted about a half century like we have, you have seen a lot of things happen. I remember one deer I skillfully hit in the neck which was very close. It was a quick shot situation as I walked up on the deer. I aimed behind the shoulder on a very quartering shot and hit a little high and broke the neck right above the torso. Sometimes things go very right other times even under ideal conditions things do not.
DP
-
I mean no offense to anyone. Some of what is said here is opinion. Zumbo was the long time hunting writer who suggested hunters had no real use for a semi-auto ar-15. Upset 3/4 of american shooters. My reference to him was to suggest he had so little experience despite his public pontification that he did not know that millions of these rifles were in successful use in deer hunting. We have 8 year olds in the county, hunting with their fathers, kill deer with the 223. He was a phony in my experience.
But no offence to anyone. My little .32 story was my experience. I've killed many deer with the traditional southern shotgun and buckshot ahead of dogs. How fast is buckshot. Well my old load of 30 caliber # 1 buck Winchester 2 3/4 12 ga. was 12 pellets @ 1250 fps. But I limited my shots too. I know how buckshot penetrates the deer.
What if Fadala had said 50 was the minimum for BP RB deer hunting? He has. That a nice opinion. It's sure not valid for many of us.
I have a story like Northmn's too. Only a young buck in my case and maybe 25 yards. The only difference was a blood trail allowed recovery. I remember it now like it was yesterday.
Deer will jump the hammer on a close flint shot sure as jumping a string on a bow.
That deer ducked, turned slightly, took the shot doing that, continued turning, jumped, landed, crossed its backtrail, and went nearly 200 yards. I did too after I cut the trail, on my hands and knees. the animal's skin recovered the entrance hole after the escape duck and turn, the 58 RB lodged in the rear quarter after entering the opposite front quarter so once the initial blood loss shed off the hide, very little escaped. It took two hours in the dark to find it nearly dead. The only deer I ever killed with a hearty KLONK between the horns delivered by a Leman brass buttplate. Lon.
-
i didnt vote because my experience has been with mule deer does. but here goes. the first was less than 10 yds, she was looking at me and i aimed between the eyes. i figure she jumped the flash cause it just cut a groove in the top of her head. the second was about 30 yds, figure she jumped the flash also. she was looking at me, but her body was pointed to my right. i aimed just behind her shoulder. when the smoke cleared she was facing left and recovering from what looked like a stumble. she ran to the left and jumped a fence. i trailed her about 1/4 mile to find her barely alive. turned out i hit her in the neck on the left side, ball traveled forward and came out under her jaw towards the right. she bled a lot, easy trailing. the third was about 40 yds. she was turned to my right and had her head down (trying to beat the flash jumping). aimed behind her right shoulder and she dropped like a sack of hammers. hit her high and broke her back with the ball angling toward the rear. this was the only ball i recovered. i guess to state my opinion, for deer i think a 50 should be about the min with a rb. i have been deer hunting ml for about 40 yrs. i have used 40, 50 and 62, all with rb. if you can pick your shot, a 40 will do, obviously.
-
to finish my thought,if you shoot any distances, as is common in colo. you should use at least a 50 and my next rifle will probably be a 54. if i remember right, i only recovered 1 ball from a 50 in a mulie. i had gut shot him and he stopped with his butt to me, so i felt i needed to shoot to get him down, and it did. i have yet to recover a ball from my 62.
-
Yep, this is a fact. All my accidental neck/spine hits were very close shots. I also firmly believe many, many more deer are lost to centerfire/inline hunters than to traditional prb hunters. Really something when you consider traditionalists don't use scopes or have firearms with fast lock times.
-
Pvt. Lon: I hunted mule deer with Jim Zumbo up by Graybull, Wyoming, in the late 1970's and knew him when he lived in Vernal. He was (is) a very skilled hunter and did a lot for the hunting sports. He has my photo in his book "Hunting America's Mule Deer" on page 117, describes a shot I made on pages 113-114 and has a photo of that mulie buck I killed on page 259, with the .257 Roberts Ackley Improved I built. In this book he has a chapter on muzzleloading hunting, and he did hunt with a flintlock and caplock. He gives good information. He said "Mule deer hunters should not use anything less than a .50 caliber rifle, even though many deer have been killed with smaller calibers. The proper velocities and energies are found in the .50 and bigger calibers."
As I understand what happened to him, he voiced his opinion on his web site that military style semi-automatic weapons were not proper hunting arms. That cost him very dearly. But he is a fine proponent of sporting firearms and hunting and I respect him very much. He is not a phony, and he is my friend.
-
Zumbo got singed by the NRA for making comments that the AR15 may give a paramilitary impression to hunters by non-hunters. "Tactical" weapons have become popular and weren't his thing. The acolytes of the NRA that devoutly follow their every word went after him. While I am a member of the NRA, I do feel that they get a little carried away sometimes. They also have strongly supported hunting with modern zip-guns in ML seasons. That is the story of Zumbo who was probably one of the more experienced hunters to write articles. Most writers today write advertisements for equipment more tahn for hunting experiences, which is why I do not subscribe to many magazines any more. The magazines have to support their advertisers.
DP
-
Boys, 'nuf about people. Has this topic about run the roost? I would appreciate if the personal attacks were eliminated - you can edit. This adds nothing to the thread. I like a discussion as much as anyone - we don't need personal attacks. This leads to confrontational debates & this forum is not about that.
-
This is just me. After reading all these posts, my fear of hunting big game with muzzleloaders is more confirmed. I really dislike the thought of any game I've shot to run off and die slowly. None, that I have shot with modern cartridge have.Not one! This includes big mulies, trophy size moose, elk, and whitetails. I really like the one shot poleaxe, and I believe(just me again), that the shots which anchor the game makes for better table fare. No time for the adrenalin rush which I believe happens when the animal runs.
In a previous post I said that I may shoot a whitetail if all the conditions were right, with the forty, and I would...but, I would do the same with a high power. I only shoot if the conditions and correct variables present themselves and the shot can be placed correctly.
So, hunting big game with a muzzleloader has become my phobia.
-
just a couple comments:
"Maybe there was tons of deer available back then." Most ecologists of historic bent believe that the climax forest with minimal understory that covered the eastern US did not support a large deer population. In addition the larger pre-contact pre-epidemic Native American population may have kept what deer there were trimmed down. Most deer were probably taken in the "edges", margins of swamps, canebreaks, fire cleared openings, around salt licks, etc where they could find browse.
After the country was logged off it opened things up for new growth which allowed a greatly augmented food supply and an greatly enlarged deer population. Everything I have read seems to indicate that we currently have a larger deer population that at any time in the past.
I also wonder about the effectiveness of a smaller diameter/lighter weight lead round ball. While a pure lead ball will flatten somewhat on contact with bone it still is not an "expanding bullet". It must depend on reduced kinetic energy and a smaller wound channel to cause death. I personally would not be comfortable hunting deer with anything under 45 cal and even then would be extremely picky with the shots I chose to take. Others with more experience and skill might see things differently of course.
-
I would refute DWS's statement regarding deer populations - the eastern US had had continuous occupation by semi-agricultural people practising slash and burn agriculture for about 8 to 10 thousand years, and the forest was likely a mosaic of different aged stands with small to large openings. Also, many native americans maintained an open forest canopy by the use of fire. The indians, attuned to the animals with which they shared habitat, probably picked up early on what types of habitat supported game, and practiced some manipulations of their environment.
-
What I have noticed over the years is that "minimums" have increased.
Yah. I'll bet back in the 19th century guys didn't sit around jammerin' about ft-lbs, fps, trajectories etc.
I bet they just went behind the barn, set up some targets and actually tried to SEE if the gun & shooter (every gun still needs a shooter don't it?) could do anything worthwhile. They probably didn't just punch holes in paper (too valuable, scrap paper was saved for the outhouse). They tested terminal ballistics as well as accuracy. So the .32 might hit the long dead center, but the 50 succeeded in knocking it over. And so on.
-
All of the rifles that I have seen/ handled in NC were 36 to 40 cal and they were generally working rifles. Long barreled, half stocked, back action percusion for the most part, that dated sometime around the civil war when tobacco and corn was grown everywhere on small farms. Lead, powder and caps cost so the smallest useful bore was the way to go. The earlier longrifles were the same bore too. By the 19th century the Bison, big cats and big bears were long gone and after 1830 or so, the Indians too. Dangerous game need a fat lead pill. deer, coons, tree bacon...not so much.
-
Yes , I would shoot a deer with a .40, but, during deer hunting season, I would not normally be carrying a .40. Usually I carry a .54 or .62 or my 10 bore. If you have ever looked around while on your watch and noticed a bear stalking you [ it happened to me ] you'd probably carry something bigger than a .40 unless small critter hunting . As for fear /apprehension re hunting with a muzzleloader, and mine are flintlocks, I fear absolutely nothing with the .62 or especially the 10 bore. Nothing has ever walked far after a hit from "Bess" Leatherbelly, if you want a guarantee, 140 gr FFg and a .735 ball is about as close as you will get ;D
-
Leatherbelly, if you want a guarantee, 140 gr FFg and a .735 ball is about as close as you will get ;D
A 480gr. ball and 165gr.2F will also work - if you hit them right.
-
???
ahhh well.... dunno, ??? after reading ??? this post, and reading other posts on other sites, this subject comes up alot, .40 caliber for deer, etc....
im just sayin ? seems too me, the .45 caliber would be a very good all around choice.
and this opinion is from reading the web... soooo throw alotta salt over yer left shoulder, and touch yer toes ten times... ;D
powder and lead savings, light rifles, accurate, eazy to shoot.
i thinkin ? the .45 is a jack of all trades, just a thought.
and having said all that, im wantin a southern poor boy, flinklock in the worst way.....
and yes, i want a .40 ;D
peabody
-
45 is an excellent choice. I have shot mine since 1985 and it too is a Southern Poorboy. It has been restocked from walnut to maple, re triggered, new sights and is now due for a new lock as the original is shot out. The barrel is an old 7/8 by 41in Douglas and she has always shot well. I bought her second hand in Burlington, NC at the Patch and Ball. The owner wanted a thousand for a 40 caliber Poorboy with a large Siler lock and 135 for the 45 so the choice wasn't that hard. I always wanted the 40 though. My next project will be a Deringer in 40 with a 44 in swamped barrel and a Chambers Ketland lock. You think that would work Sean? A bit light for high Mesa hunting in Texas, but perfect for tree bacon and coon in NC.