AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: blackjack on August 15, 2016, 08:24:00 PM
-
Reading some historical work on rifles as well as some historical fiction, it becomes obvious that carrying everything you needed to hunt and fight had to be practiced and developed skill. Weight had to be the number one problem for this kind of situation. It follows that the use of a smaller caliber would allow a hunter/ranger to carry more shots in the same amount of weight.
I see a lot of reference to the use of .40s and .45s, but it seems most reproduction flint rifles are larger caliber--at least .50, with lots of .54s, .58s and .62+. I know we don't have a lot of originals from which to make broad conclusions, so few of our modern reproduction choices can be seriously assaulted, and I suspect modern hunting laws that seek to ensure a quick kill is a major factor in the adoption of these larger calibers, that plus the fact that most hunters arrive within a mile of their game in a Ford F-150.
It seems to me that, if the .32 or .36 round ball could be made to take down a deer and possibly even a small bear, it would have been a far preferable size to carry as an all around caliber back in the mid-18th century. A round ball in those smaller calibers might be enough to dissuade human attackers though most "finishing off of an enemy" probably had to be done with the hawk, club or knife even if larger calibers were used.
Any thoughts or observations on this topic would be interesting. Thanks in advance.
-
I have 14 1810-1850 originals. Ten of them are in the 36-38cal. range.
-
In the 18th century , on a long hunt , they wouldn't have worried about it to much. When they went out they had pack animals to carry supplies in and hides out, so they left most of their stuff in camp when they went out on a hunt. I've also read of them bringing supplies in by canoe. A settler hunting for food wouldn't worry about it much because he'd be going back home that night.
-
I have 14 1810-1850 originals. Ten of them are in the 36-38cal. range.
Does anybody still make .38 barrels nowadays?
-
I'm sure you can get some of the custom barrel makers to make you a .38 cal. Barrel. Years ago I bought some barrels from either Dixie Gun Works, or Track of the Wolf, that were from a commercially produced modern reproduction, that were just a little less than 13/16 across the flats, and .38 cal. They shot very well with balls molded from a case mold for a .36 cal. Navy revolver. These barrels were not very long as I recall, around 32 to 34 inches. They made up into great guns for kids.
Hungry Horse
-
I have 14 1810-1850 originals. Ten of them are in the 36-38cal. range.
Does anybody still make .38 barrels nowadays?
Yes Charley Burton
-
Try Ed Rayle also
-
If I recall correctly there are a few references to rifles in the .40 cal range being used even for black bear hunting [ and deer ] That would be in the first 1/4 of the 19th C
Time and place is everything. Today, the bore size of reproductions is largely governed by the hunting regulations , and use in target shooting. Most of the serious target shooters here use a .50 or .54 for 100 yard and further. For an all around rifle I probably shoot my .40 the most, but not for bear or moose hunting ;D
-
I think Hoyt makes a .38 as well.
-
I am under the impression that .36 caliber rifles were fairly common on the frontier once American gun makers began producing rifles for the colonial who needed to hunt game (mainly deer and smaller) but who had to conserve lead and powder. I suppose the thought was that a .36 would sufficiently wound a menacing native, as well. However, I'm foggy on the approximate time period when various calibers began to show up.
On a similar note, when did .32 caliber rifles make an appearance? I would suppose they were also the result of the need for an economical choice for putting small game in the pot.
-
There was thread titled "Small Bores" in the gun building section a while back that might help answer some of your questions.
-
Question on calibers, I have thought about for some time. Were calibers as we know them really that common in the past.
I do have a Simple working Ohio percussion of 36 cal..
-
George shumway's book on George Shroyer shows a lot of rifles under 50 caliber. Quite a few are 42 calibers.
-
I do not tout the .36 as a deer caliber but apparently the .36 was a fairly common bore size in certain parts of the east. Buffalo, elk, cougar and wolves were soon gone leaving deer/black bear as the largest game. Since bear was usually hunted with hounds a hunter could take time and pick his shot; in which case a .36 would work - a .38 or .40 even better. A .36, not to mention a .40, can be given quite a bit of power, easily 2000fps or more. Properly placed it would be lethal on game, redcoat or native hostiles.
-
Googled Lewis and Clark's expedition - 1803
Arms and Ammunition:
•15 prototype Model 1803 muzzle-loading .54 caliber rifles
•knives
•500 rifle flints
•420 pounds of sheet lead for bullets
•176 pounds of gunpowder packed in 52 lead canisters
•1 long-barreled rifle that fired its bullet with compressed air, rather than by flint, spark and powder
-
I suppose that unless caliber uniformity was required as in military unit, caliber was determined by what you ended up with after you got a smooth tube bored out of the forge welded blank. The smith would then make a mold for the rifle, whatever the caliber happenened to work out to be. Then as it was shot and freshed out it would become bigger caliber. So would you figure not much uniformity in caliber in originals?
-
William Clark's favorite rifle on the famous expedition was his"Small rifle" it is not known if the rifle was indeed made by a smith named small, or if he was referring to its diminutive caliber of .36. But history shows that he did own a small caliber rifle in later life made by a gunsmith named Small. He stated that he took every kind of game on the trek with the small rifle, with the exception of the great bears (grizzly's) and buffalo. Of course the game had very little fear of man, and could be taken at close range.
Hungry Horse
-
A .36 caliber muzzleloader is legal for deer and black bear in Tennessee. I might take a shot at a deer standing broadside 30 or 40 yards away, but the .36 seems a little light for bear, to me.........robin 8)
-
Maybe the motivation to go to smaller caliber rifles is much the same as today. There are more .22s than large bores by far. Cheaper to shoot, less recoil, lighter to carry.
-
William Clark's favorite rifle on the famous expedition was his"Small rifle" it is not known if the rifle was indeed made by a smith named small, or if he was referring to its diminutive caliber of .36. But history shows that he did own a small caliber rifle in later life made by a gunsmith named Small. He stated that he took every kind of game on the trek with the small rifle, with the exception of the great bears (grizzly's) and buffalo. Of course the game had very little fear of man, and could be taken at close range.
Hungry Horse
John Small was a very multi skilled person who came to Vincennes Indiana in the mid 1780s and set up his bussiness here. He ran a tavern, river ferry across the Wabash river, was a gun builder, master engraver, Militia Capt. and designed our state seal.A few of his guns survive today.The late Jim Dressler owned several of his pieces and I had the honor of displaying them at the Spirit of Vincennes Rendezvous several years ago.
-
I had never heard of John Small so I did a quick search. He certainly did beautiful work.
http://jamesdjulia.com/item/lot-2500-important-and-extraordinary-18th-century-flintlock-rifle-by-john-small-of-vincennes-indiana-41831/
Robby
-
Robbie that's the John small rifle that I was referring to in my post
-
A .36 caliber muzzleloader is legal for deer and black bear in Tennessee. I might take a shot at a deer standing broadside 30 or 40 yards away, but the .36 seems a little light for bear, to me.........robin 8)
Depends on how far that bear done runt you up a tree!
But for one bayed up with dogs, why not?
I don't want to make "too much noise" about 36 being legal for all things here, because I LIKE the ability to chose according to my whims and experience and practicality.
And I think 36/38/40 makes the most balanced TN-style gun of all.
-
Well, if you can kill a brown bear with a 9mm, I don't see why you couldn't kill a black bear with a .36.
https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2016/8/10/alaska-outfitter-defends-fishermen-from-raging-grizzly-with-9mm-pistol
-
.36 - 100 to the pound, would take 110 (or so) to the pound ball.
Chuck - bit of difference between 18, 147gr. FMJ .356" conicals (or however many Phil had to fire), and a single 65 to 68gr. round ball of pure lead. In the second instance I have observed (post mortum) how 9, .32" round balls of 3% antimony content, fail to make the lungs of a black bear, shot broadside at 15 to 20 foot range - cylinder bore gun, so there was some 8 to 10" or more spread of the "00 Buck Shot. They stopped in the fat, muscle and on the ribs - really made that bear angry - it happened to be a full grown adult, a 6 footer, not a 150pound 3 yr,. old cub. I do not know if a single 15 grain heavier ball would have been any more decisive. It took another load of the same 00 buck shot at a range of 6 feet, delivered to the side of it's head - THAT worked a treat, although that fellow, a member of my riot squad probably needed a change of shorts.
-
.36 - 100 to the pound, would take 110 (or so) to the pound ball.
Chuck - bit of difference between 18, 147gr. FMJ .356" conicals (or however many Phil had to fire), and a single 65 to 68gr. round ball of pure lead. In the second instance I have observed (post mortum) how 9, .32" round balls of 3% antimony content, fail to make the lungs of a black bear, shot broadside at 15 to 20 foot range - cylinder bore gun, so there was some 8 to 10" or more spread of the "00 Buck Shot. They stopped in the fat, muscle and on the ribs - really made that bear angry - it happened to be a full grown adult, a 6 footer, not a 150pound 3 yr,. old cub. I do not know if a single 15 grain heavier ball would have been any more decisive. It took another load of the same 00 buck shot at a range of 6 feet, delivered to the side of it's head - THAT worked a treat, although that fellow, a member of my riot squad probably needed a change of shorts.
Elmer Keith told about a fellow that used a 9x19 Luger to kill moose with a head shot.It was the only gun he had
and he knew how to place a shot.A 36 caliber round lead ball on anything bigger than a raccoon is taking a chance IMHO.
Also,using any inadequate load on any animal is a cruelty.IF I were to hunt deer again with a muzzle loader loaded with
a round ball it would be 50 caliber minimum.A 36 is a fun gun to plink with be it a pistol or a rifle but if you hunt with it
or any other round ball gun be sure it's up to the job of a one shot kill out of respect for the critter you're hunting.
Bob Roller
-
Well Daryl, if you insist on taking long range shots like 15-20 feet, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get poor bullet performance. Do like Phil does, and shoot at 2 or 3 feet. He says he shot the bear 6 times, but who knows. I’ve never been impressed with Phil’s math.
-
I saw an old original 2 cavity .36 mold in SW Virginia . One cavity molded a .36 round ball
the other molded an almost football shaped bullet that weighted the same as a .40 cal round ball.
The only thing I could guess was that someone wanted a heavier bullet for bigger game
-
I saw an old original 2 cavity .36 mold in SW Virginia . One cavity molded a .36 round ball
the other molded an almost football shaped bullet that weighted the same as a .40 cal round ball.
The only thing I could guess was that someone wanted a heavier bullet for bigger game
Similar old moulds were meant for the cap and ball revolvers. One cavity a round ball, while the other cast a conical.
In the instance above, the conical seems to be a sugar loaf or picket bullet.
-
Well said Mr. Roller. Mine is used for tree rats, raccoons an coyotes out to 50 yards. Elmer Keith claimed killing an elk at 600 with a handgun 4 inch barrel. Wished I could have seen that.................
-
What does .357 and .440 Mag,s have to do with a .36 cal muzzleloader?
-
What does .357 and .440 Mag,s have to do with a .36 cal muzzleloader?
Ask the guy that wants to use an inadequate caliber to hunt larger game with.
Also read the follow up from Oldtraveler61.
Bob Roller
-
It would seem to me if we want to discuss 30.06- .243- .270,s rifles and.357 ect. pistols we should be on a board that deals with that and not on American Longrifles and the Black Powder shooting thread.
-
Evidently many of our members keep forgetting that ALR has rules that restricts all discussions in all our forums to side lock muzzleloaders only. Please refrain from making comments to modern arms. We have nothing against modern arms but we wish to keep ALR focused on traditional sidelock muzzleloaders.
In case you have not read the ALR rules here is a link to both the Mission Statement and our rules/policy's :
Our Mission Statement http://americanlongrifles.org/?action=recent
Our Rules and Policy's http://americanlongrifles.org/american-longrifles-privacy-policy-2.htm?action=recent
Thanks for your cooperation.
Dennis
-
Mea culpa. For some of us, as we age our brains seem to soften…
To answer the question “Was .36 ever used as an all around caliber?"
I don’t know of any data that would suggest that was ever widely true. No doubt there were folks who had only a .36 caliber gun, and shot everything with it. Then, as now, they would have had good results on small game, and marginal or worse results on larger game. Big animals can be killed with small bullets, but it’s less than ideal.
We do have a lot of pretty good data on the caliber of a “typical” long rifle. Last time I looked into this topic, I calculated an average for the 100 or so guns I could find calibers for. As I recall, the average was .42 caliber. Other references commonly peg the figure for typical late 1700’s – early 1800’s long rifles in the .40 - .45 caliber range. Prior to that time, and later in the west, .50 caliber and up was more common.
An all around caliber depends a lot on what you value. If the cost of powder and ball matter a lot, then you would go with the smallest caliber that is adequate for your largest game. If you hunt everything from squirrels to deer, that puts the optimal caliber in the .40 to .45 caliber range. .45 is a little big for squirrels, but they can be barked, head shot or shot with reduced loads.
If your usual targets were elk, buffalo and Indians, .50 and up would be much better.
-
While doing family and historical research in East Tennessee, I've seen numerous mentions of the men taking their "squirrel rifles" to War be it with the Natives or during the Mexican War. So, to me that suggests two things; these squirrel rifles were their main go to rifles and they were probably in the light calibers we are talking about.
-
Years ago I cataloged all the rifle calibers I could find (Kindig, Shumway, Roberts, etc). Something like 350 rifles went into the mix. The average was 0.49, representing mostly Golden Age pieces, but some earlier and some later. A casual takeaway might be that in the 1790-1810 timeframe, 0.50 was the norm, as was self defense and big game. Earlier guns were bigger and later guns got pretty small.
-
It would be interesting to go back and analyze caliber by 10 year period. There's plenty of data so we wouldn't need to speculate. A good winter project for someone.
-
I have noticed that .45 is big for an eastern gun post 1800. I'm sure there were lots of deer killed with .36 ish guns back in the day. I've been working with a .36 and have no doubt it would be lethal with a well placed shot. I have seen large deer killed with much smaller modern rimfire calibers.
-
If one peruses the pages of "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865" one will find reference, indeed, re-prints of gun and paraphernalia orders to the Rifle makers in the East, from hunters and travelers as well as stores in the West.
Mentioned in these are many orders for barrels 3' to 4' - gun weights usually 10 to 12 pounds and 'taking' ball sizes from 32 to 180. Thus, many orders for rifles from 54 cal. down to as small as 28 cal. Now, what were the most? I seem to recall higher numbers in the 40 to 60 to the pound sizes, thus approx. .50" down to about 44 cal. as most common, although there were many orders for guns in the 100 to the pound range, which would be 37 to 38 cal.
ball diameters - # per pound = inches:
180 = .296"
100 = .360"
60 = .427"
40 = .488
32 = .526"
So, to answer the question was .36 ever used as an all round gun? That is certainly most likely. Recommended today as an all round rifle calibre? - NO! Can killing big game with what amounts to a squirrel rifle be accomplished - most assuredly. Many people today would call that a stunt - or a trick, just as people and most poachers around the world today continue to use inadequate guns on big game - including moose with RF's right here in B.C. Can it be done - yes - but many are lost wounded, for every one brought to bag.
Is it Ethical to use a .36 as an all round rifle should perhaps be the question.
-
It was always my understanding that the smaller calibers rifles, like .36,.40, 44, etc. were all that was needed for most hunting along the East coast and on into the Eastern frontier, but once trappers started coming up against large thick hided and heavy muscled animals like the buffalo, elk, and grizzly bear they needed something with more knock down power, thus the .50, .54, and larger were more popular out West. Just because someone wrote such information in some magazine doesn't mean that it was necessarily true, but it does make sense.
-
I think we need to take into account what would have been seen as being most useful [ calibre wise ]in terms of having a rifle at a given time in history. My wife's great Grandfather's "deer rifle" was a single shot .32 RF long.
For most, I would assume that having multiple rifles/guns allocated to various types of game would not have been the norm. If I had a .36 or .40 as my rifle, would I use it to take a deer once a year or so....absolutely.
The rest of the time it would take smaller game and the varmints encountered in a farm environment
-
Was .36 ever used as an all around caliber?
Yes, in Scandinavia, I believe. Small caliber snaplocks were used to hunt both capercaillie (a type of big grouse) and elk (European Elk, Alces alces alces, what we would call a moose). Capercaillie were taken using headshots, while the elk were shot at very close range while being driven by dogs through prepared stands.
Maybe in Alaska by Russian/siberian fur hunters using similar snaplocks. Not much available on Russian guns, at least in this country.
As for the American frontier, which is what I suspect you were referring to, while I can't say that it was never done, I doubt it was done by choice. I can't recall any evidence for sub-.40 calibers prior to 1800 and the near eradication of big game in the east (and remember that buffalo, elk, and moose lived east of the Mississippi in the 18th century) and I think that the pioneers were a lot less concerned with economy of lead and powder than popular imagination would have it. (Not that it wasn't a factor, but it wasn't an overriding concern. I can't remember if it is Isaac Weld or Doddridge that remarks that some folks wanted a smaller bore (.40-something) for economy while others wanted a bigger bore for power).
It is my impression that earlier generations, including those of the early modern eras, do seem to have been happy with calibers and cartridges that modern generations would consider underpowered. This might be due to the fact that practices such as running deer with hounds and jacklighting game were accepted and normal methods of hunting prior to the development of the modern hunting ethos at the end of the 19th century, and the gradual adoption of bigger calibers is due to the desire for a sure kill under modern hunting conditions. Another, more cynical, explanation for the increasing power of hunting guns might be that gun and ammo companies need to be push their latest and greatest new products on an increasingly urban hunting population, and in practice that means increasingly more powerful and efficient ammo, whereas a small, low-powered weapons places a premium on individual skills which aren't easily commercialized nor all that common these days - we traditionalists aren't directly affected by what mainstream hunting population is doing, but we aren't necessarily immune to it either...
I'm kind of toying with the idea of trying to sell or trade off my extra .54 barrel in favor a .40 or .45. I kind of like the idea of an economical little bore suitable for both our itty-bitty local whitetail and small game...
-
Checking, of course, the local game laws on calibre size vs. animal to be hunted.
I have a .36 for the squirrel match at Hefley Creek Rendezvous. Only .40 calibre and under are allowed. A fun shoot and the targets are all squirrels. Unfortunately this year is was pouring rain and I already had a cold starting - I bagged out, and of course, the cold is still getting worse.
-
I have 14 1810-1850 originals. Ten of them are in the 36-38cal. range.
Does anybody still make .38 barrels nowadays?
Try Chas. Burton
.38 uses same ball as .36 Navy revolver, Ball wt. 80 gr.
Davo
-
A .36 would only be legal here in Colorado for small game. As it should be.
-
I have 14 1810-1850 originals. Ten of them are in the 36-38cal. range.
Does anybody still make .38 barrels nowadays?
Try Chas. Burton
.38 uses same ball as .36 Navy revolver, Ball wt. 80 gr.
Davo
I have a Burton .38 cal and I like it very well.
-
Well, if you can kill a brown bear with a 9mm, I don't see why you couldn't kill a black bear with a .36.
https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2016/8/10/alaska-outfitter-defends-fishermen-from-raging-grizzly-with-9mm-pistol
A 9MM is essentially the same diameter bullet as the 38 Special and the .357 Mag. They are interchangeable when reloading cartridges. I used a 3/8ths drill bit as a mandrel to open up a collapsed chamber on an 1856 Eli Whitney. The chamber had been collapsed by being dropped. My cousin sold that pistol on Pawn Stars a couple of years ago. If you want to look at it, pull up the video.
The 36 was a pretty standard caliber among the southerners during the civil war. I am pretty sure it was to conserve Lead. Just a thought
-
A .36 caliber muzzleloader is legal for deer and black bear in Tennessee. I might take a shot at a deer standing broadside 30 or 40 yards away, but the .36 seems a little light for bear, to me.........robin 8)
It's legal for ALL big game in Tennessee except the one with feathers. You forgot Elk (yeah, those 5 or 6 tags) and Boar, but of course, ~97.8% of big game in TN is white-tailus-flaggus-and-runnus.
Not that it's wise for any big game, but that it's legal and I like the ability to make my own decisions rather than a politico, so I don't fuss about it.
My fuss is that I think it's PERFECT for popping a Turkey. But nooooo, we can't shoot turkeys with anything but a stupor-magnum shotgun. Not legally. not yet.
I yet hold that a small caliber/modest velocity rifle, smokey or smokeless is a valid and safe enough weapon for turkeys on private lands-Spring or Fall. But Fall mostly. Turkeys are thick as ticks everywhere now.
-
A .36 caliber muzzleloader is legal for deer and black bear in Tennessee. I might take a shot at a deer standing broadside 30 or 40 yards away, but the .36 seems a little light for bear, to me.........robin 8)
It's legal for ALL big game in Tennessee except the one with feathers. You forgot Elk (yeah, those 5 or 6 tags) and Boar. Not that it's wise for any big game, but that it's legal and I like the ability to make my own decisions rather than a politico, so I don't fuss about it.
My fuss is that I think it's PERFECT for popping a Turkey. But nooooo, we can't shoot turkeys with anything but a stupor-magnum shotgun. Not legally.
I yet hold that a small caliber/modest velocity rifle, smokey or smokeless is a valid and safe enough weapon for turkeys on private lands-Spring or Fall. But Fall mostly. Turkeys are thick as ticks everywhere now.
I agree on the Turkey, I would think that shooting a Turkey with a muzzleloader would be safer that hunting with a shotgun. .40 cal and below to .25
-
It was always my understanding that the smaller calibers rifles, like .36,.40, 44, etc. were all that was needed for most hunting along the East coast and on into the Eastern frontier, but once trappers started coming up against large thick hided and heavy muscled animals like the buffalo, elk, and grizzly bear they needed something with more knock down power, thus the .50, .54, and larger were more popular out West. Just because someone wrote such information in some magazine doesn't mean that it was necessarily true, but it does make sense.
.50-.58 were also common military calibers in rifles as we moved west and rifles saw more official use by the military. This was very likely based on the calibers used in many civilian rifles in the late 1700s and early 1800s. It would have also reinforced the use of those same calibers on guns used in the West since the military was most active in that region, and that is what men on expeditions would have used already. The fact that larger calibers were better suited to the larger game naturally helped I'm sure as well. Some of 1830s and later smaller long rifles seem to also be made much more for sport shooting than hunting which likely also explains why they were often smaller bore added to the fact that the game remaining in the East was generally much smaller than that of the West.
-
Good point on the military calibres. The government, throughout the 1800's was very good at selling outdated muskets to the population, for hunting and for protection. A single BP ctg., up until about 1820, carried a .64" ball and 165gr. of musket powder. After 1820, a .65" ball and 135gr. of higher grade musket powder.
A few "ctgs." would last a fellow having a small calibre rifle, a fair amount of time in powder and lead. Interesting.
.64 and .65 calibre balls would run 390 to 412gr.
-
What seems to be overlooked here is that although bores smaller than .40 caliber dominated in the percussion period, the round ball projectile largely departed with the flintlock. In the 1830s. the flintlock all but disappeared in sporting rifles and the round ball was mostly displaced by the picket ball. A picket ball packed a lot of long-range whollop even if only .36 caliber. Most of the percussion long rifles I have handled had bores in the .30-.36 range. Relatively few are larger. In fact, the biggest percussion hunting rifle in my collection is an N. Kendall from around 1838 at .47 caliber. It is an unusual exception.
Shooting the picket bullet seems to be a lost art, perhaps largely due to the lack of available moulds.
-
I had never heard of John Small so I did a quick search. He certainly did beautiful work.
http://jamesdjulia.com/item/lot-2500-important-and-extraordinary-18th-century-flintlock-rifle-by-john-small-of-vincennes-indiana-41831/
Robby
Yep.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjamesdjulia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2Fauctions%2F303%2Fimages%2Forg%2F41831x16.jpg&hash=d518db906fc67b8f8655c43604ebb314e6a2fafc)
-
While conducting family history research in East Tennessee, I've come across some references regarding rifles. When talking about the rifles that men picked up to protect their home and go to War ca. 1812 onward, the term squirrel rifle is used to describe them. I would assume 40 and smaller with the 36's, 38's and smaller in there.
"Rhea and Meigs counties(Tennessee) were set-
tled by the same people, coming from Southwest
Virginia and upper East Tennessee in carts and
flatboats, and from North Carolina on foot, bring-
ing their possessions on pack horses. They were
largely of Scotch-Irish descent. The first settlers of
these counties had followed Campbell and Sevier at
King's Mountain, and Jackson at New Orleans.
Their descendants were with Jessup in the Glades
of Florida, and with Scott in Mexico. They were
men who were ready to shoulder their squirrel rifles
and face an enemy, whether he wore the red coat of
a British soldier, the war paint of a savage, or car-
ried the lance of a Mexican." VC Allen, Rhea and Meigs County in Confederate War
-
Enjoyable thread .
Locally here in the upper central part of the nation I remember see quite a few half stock caplocks with heavy barrels , pea sized bores and deep crescent buttplates as having been passed down as family wall hangers in the 70's.
One of the local gunsmiths installed a new drum on one that dated back to the 1840's and the owner took it to shoot at a small rendezvous. As a new shooter 16 years old I was profoundly impressed that something so old still worked and worked well after not having been used in probably a 110 yrs .
It was one of the hooks that got me interested in making my own rifles .
There were a lot of these pea bores around. Cheap to shoot and since there were no game laws per se
you just made do even if it were light for deer. Just the thing if you were a sodbuster and wanted something besides the ubiquitious smoothbore shotgun .
These weren't proper plains rifles but a lot more common or at least survived the intervening years in greater number around here .
-
Just my thought but if you were working the fields, garden, whatever, barely scratching out a living and a deer or turkey walked by you would grab what ever rifle that you had and shoot it! They did not have the luxury of a choice of rifles probably had a shotgun and a rifle if lucky at that, no game laws just the law of survival.
RB
-
Have you ever thought about how much game was wounded and never recovered in those days?
Just because it was all they had in those days. Doesn't make it proper now.
-
Good point OldMtnMan. I would hope what is morally correct today, would take precedence over what might be historically correct?
How many grizzlies were wounded by Louis and Clark before they stopped trying to shoot them with those .54's? I seem to recall "Louis" noting his .32 (.36?) had no real effect on them at all - perhaps they were already upset from the .54 balls?
-
Which is why so many mountain men died young. Tough life back then.
-
Have you ever thought about how much game was wounded and never recovered in those days?
Just because it was all they had in those days. Doesn't make it proper now.
To paraphrase John Wayne, "That's for sure,that's for darned sure". The Brits with their
gauge bore rifles had the right idea.A 32 or 36 caliber round ball can't really be considered as
a "stopper" on anything bigger than a red squirrel. Any critter but a child molester deserves as painless
a death as possible.
Bob Roller
-
Have you ever thought about how much game was wounded and never recovered in those days?
Just because it was all they had in those days. Doesn't make it proper now.
Probably why they got to be such good shots. They had to. They'd starve!!
-
Have you ever thought about how much game was wounded and never recovered in those days?
Just because it was all they had in those days. Doesn't make it proper now.
Probably why they got to be such good shots. They had to. They'd starve!!
I've thought of that a lot. I'm sure some were good shots and were probably natural shots. I question if it was normal though. They couldn't afford to shoot that much. Certainly, not as much as we do in these times.
-
Always wonder what really happened back then. We all have thoughts an opinions on what they did an used. But it all boils down to a well placed shot with enough power to get it done. Old saying " Fear the man who only has one gun" More than likely he knows how to use it. Oldtravler