Caliber poll

[Ezra]

This is a poll to determine what caliber (regardless of existant laws) you would use as a realistic minimum for whitetail deer.  I am NOT, and would not advocate illegal behavior.  The intent of this poll is to solicit opinions as if one were living in pre-colonial America. 


Ez

[crispy]

OK in pre- colonial America,, you would have a spear and perhaps a bow

[bob in the woods]

In that situation, I would use what I happened to have,and since smallbores were very rare in America at that time, it would likely be .50 or larger, so the Poll is not realistic. [ IMO ]

[karwelis]

all i own are .50-.54 cal. rifles. but i have been thinking about building a squirel gun this winter

[Candle Snuffer]

Agreed on the poll not really being realistic, but I think while reading between the lines I got the idea that what Ezra was looking for was really the minimum caliber each of us would hunt a deer with if there were no caliber restrictions as we have today in each state.

While I use .45, .50, and .54 calibers to hunt deer size game, I would not feel under gunned using a .40 caliber. 

Shot placement is everything and not to stir the pot on this topic,,, I personally don't feel the need to use anything larger then I do now as a poor shot with any caliber is still a poor shot if it has not entered into the vitals or immobilized the deer such as a spine shot.

So,,, I think our ancestors used what they had available to them to make meat no
matter what the caliber was.

Just my two cents worth.

[Leatherbelly]

Ez,
  I think you meant pre- Rev. America. Or Colonial America,same thing. I voted for the fifty but would lean more towards a fifty-four or sixty-two to be more period correct. My $0.02.

[Ezra]

This was mean't to be a fun little exercise.  Don't get hung up on the tilmeframe.  Just curious what you would consider the minimum for white tail deer, nothing more than that.


Ez

[B.Habermehl]

Personally I use a .58 for white tailed deer.  After having shot a couple of deer with a .45 cal rifle and not had any trouble recovering them. I was bothered by the fact that neither deer left a blood  trail that I could have found.... So i built my .58.  It spoke last fall, the deer ran 40 yds and went down.  Leaving a blood trail a blind man could follow. Nothing would bother me worse than shooting a deer and not being able to follow and find it  My friends and I have had deer that we only found by painstaking grid search shot with smaller legal calibers leaving little or no blood trail.

[bob in the woods]

My wife's Grandfather's deer rifle was a single shot , in .32 long rim fire !    80 grain lead bullet.
He always got deer with it.  Not my choice, but he used what he had. This was in the early 1900's
in the Ottawa valley.  My friend claims to have seen a deer shot last week that weighed 270 Lbs.
That is a big deer for around here.
To answer your question, I have used everything from a .45 up to a .75
If I could only have one, I'd probably opt for a .54 rifle or a .62 smoothbore. That being said, I've shot more deer with a .50 cal flintlock than anything else. I love those B weight swamped barrels!

[david50]

.40caliber is the smallest i personally would feel good about using,i agree with Candle Snuffer, shot placement is everything no matter how large or small the caliber.

[omark]

i have shot 3 mulie does with my 40 prb. 2 fell like a sack of hammers, had to trail the other about 1/4 mile. (shot placement) though im not comfortable shooting over about 50 yds. i have killed several with a 50 and a 62. again, with good shots, im ok with a 45.

[Daryl]

Friend of mine has a Dad, still with us, who opened up this country (early logging) and supplied his family and other families with moose meat, their only meat beyond chickens and pigs.  His rifle in the early days was a .25 Stevens Rimfire single shot. It worked for him.  Years later, he bought a P-17 (.30/06) surplus rifle from Sears and the neighbours thought he'd made a mistake, wasting his money on that cannon because the .25 had always put meat on the table.  I guess they didn't have to track and pack the moose after being lung'd by that tiny bullet.

[northmn]

When you ask about "minimum" caliber it does not neccessarily mean that smaller ones would not work under ideal conditions.  My opinion is based upon about 40 years experience hunting whitetails.  They are not really all that tough but it is nice to have a litttle extra.  A bigger bore, especially a patched roundball really will not mess up that much more extra meat.  Also small bores can be overextended in range so easily.  It isn't the close range shots so much as hits at longer ranges.  A 40 at 75-100 yards loses a lot of steam.  All roundball loads do which is why they were replaced by conical bullets.  You hear about some old timer that filled the freezer with a pop gun, but those were often situations of opportunity in which the person really did not have a season but shot meat when he needed to or the opportunity presented itself while doing other things. Loggers up here often would get an occaisonal deer that they would see watching them work.  Kind of like an old farmer/logger I heard of in the depression days that took even took his 32 special to the outhouse with him.  Hunting conditions under pressured deer are a different story.  Great grand dad also likely lost a few deer, some had tracking dogs (they are darn nice) and a deer was a deer, not neccessarily just a buck.

DP

[Dphariss]

Friend of mine has a Dad, still with us, who opened up this country (early logging) and supplied his family and other families with moose meat, their only meat beyond chickens and pigs.  His rifle in the early days was a .25 Stevens Rimfire single shot. It worked for him.  Years later, he bought a P-17 (.30/06) surplus rifle from Sears and the neighbours thought he'd made a mistake, wasting his money on that cannon because the .25 had always put meat on the table.  I guess they didn't have to track and pack the moose after being lung'd by that tiny bullet.

The 25 SRF is certainly not a powerhouse from shooting one. But the previous owners son said it was a great deer poaching gun.

Dan

[Daryl]

The 25 SRF is certainly not a powerhouse from shooting one. But the previous owners son said it was a great deer poaching gun.

Dan

 After shooting my .40 today, I know darn tootin' I could manage a whitetail buck to about 90 or 100 yards.  I'd likely try to limit shots to 75 though.  Friend of mine has shot several with his .45 and got near identical results with RB and 200gr. REAL bullets.  The balls idd a great job.

[Mike R]

Seems like we've plowed this field before.  As before, a .22 can and has taken deer [big bears and one elephant]. But in best conscience I selected .45-.50.  In most states, I venture to say, .44 is the minimum MLer caliber. The little .40 ball is considered a squirrel or hog rifle caliber--and by some an "all-around" caliber, but reallistically it is a puny ball.  Even a puny ball placed right with enough energy will kill, but it is not the best choice.

[Dphariss]

The 25 SRF is certainly not a powerhouse from shooting one. But the previous owners son said it was a great deer poaching gun.

Dan

 After shooting my .40 today, I know darn tootin' I could manage a whitetail buck to about 90 or 100 yards.  I'd likely try to limit shots to 75 though.  Friend of mine has shot several with his .45 and got near identical results with RB and 200gr. REAL bullets.  The balls idd a great job.

I have a 40 cal percussion, GM barrel screwed on an Mowrey action I have thought about shooting a deer with it but the hunting in the areas I generally hunt has been so grim this year that I have not taken it out.

Dan

[Paddlefoot]

The field may be plowed but everyone sees it his own way. We limited this to deer but still I would think hat some of the decision "back then" would have been how good the caliber was for defense and how much of your supply of lead and powder did it use. I could very well imagine that a frontersman who was around enough game that he could pick his shots but could't easily get more supplies might choose a smaller caliber but then if he was more worried about bears or buffalo he might pick bigger.  Still an interesting set of factors today.

[arcticap]

Since a .395 RB weighing 92 grains is capable, then a .36 maxiball weighing 128 grains should also work within it's limited range.

[roundball]

And, while a double ball load of 2 x 92 grn balls does not get the penetration that a single 184grn ball would, a double ball load in a .40cal would be pretty strong medicine certainly to 50-60yds

[Dphariss]

Since a .395 RB weighing 92 grains is capable, then a .36 maxiball weighing 128 grains should also work within it's limited range.

Maxi-balls are not famed for good wound channels. The design promotes the nose collapsing into the front lube groove and then producing a very small wound channel.
I am sure a 36 maxi will kill deer. But its a long way from what I would want and I would hesitate to think its better than a 40 rb just because its a modern design and heavier.
I would also point out that there is a lot of difference between what works well *every time* and what one can get by with.
The poll is about the realistic minimum caliber. I consider the 50 to be near ideal for whitetails and very good for Mule Deer.
The 40 is not realistic unless the hunter has a situation where he never has to take a shot past 40-50 yards (though I am sure it will kill deer farther than this).
I consider it to be an absolute minimum rather than a realistic minimum.

Now a good rifleman who knows his shots are going to be under 50-60 yards will probably do fine. Especially if he uses head shots. I am sure that in the east hunting around licks and such that a long hunter like Boone may have been very well served with a 40. But its a very narrow set of circumstances that allows a small caliber (under 45) to work well.
Modern expectations and hunting ethics require a larger bore.

Dan

[Daryl]

Neil does well around here on mule-deer with his .45.  He's tried the short REAL bullets as well as round ball - both seemed to kill about equally although the REAL is 200gr. compared to his 128gr. RB's.  As long as penetration through the vitals is sufficient, producing a large enough wound channel through that tissue, the animal will die.  The RB's higher veloctiy seems to make up for it's lighter weight.  The larger the ball, the lower can be the projectile's speed and still produce an deadly wound.

 Baker has a conical mold made for his double 4 bore. Instead of making that enormous cannon more effective, it destroyed it's efficiency at killing game and led him into such scrapes with dangerous animals that he gave up the conical as useless for killing game.  His own words in "The Field" periodical tells it all as I've sescribed above. He also states, the "cone' makes too neat a wound. Seems to me the Maxiball has a coned nose as to some extent, does the REAL, however the REAL has shallow grooves that prevent 'slumping' of the bullet, and promote expansion - something the Maxi fails to do on our moose- it collapses instead.

[northmn]

I looked at a good all around caliber and not just one used for specific situations.  Roundballs should be used to around 100 yards or so.  I have wooded deer stands here I would not hesitate to use a 45 as it would be plenty.  I also have a stand where I sit in a semi-opening between two patches of woods in a funnel where 100 yards would not be an unusual shot.  I could "get by" with a 45 RB but see no reason to.  A 50 would offer the minimum caliber where there would be a limited gain using a bigger bore.  At 100 yards most hunting loads in most Ml calibers are moving at about 1000 fps according to tables.  Bigger bores would be going faster but tend to be loaded to lower speeds than a smaller bore.  There is nothing magical about the killing power of a round ball.   Experienced shooters that have hunted with maxi ball users tell me that RB seem to kill better up close.  Likely because the higher speed pure lead ball expands and the conicals do not.  However you still need both velocity and weight to have an effective combination and RB's lose that pretty quick.  What you run into using a smaller bore is that it will work pretty fair most of the time.  But at the longer ranges the bigger bore and heavier weight have an advantage in peripheral hits.  The wind blows the same in the hunting field as it does on the target range and I have had a couple of instances where I held off shooting due to the wind.  There usually are no wind flags.  Ranges are not always marked. Unlike Great grand dad I have a ready supply of powder and ball and can afford the luxury of a larger bore.  While I take some of the comments with a grain of salt, I  have read the comments the English visitors made concerning the efficiency of the smaller bores the mountain men used and the fact that they felt the increased killing power of the big bores made up for economy in less lost game.  The small bores seem to be an American thing.  The German Jaegers (hunters?) and the English game guns were both shorter barreled big bores.  I guess I could kill a leopard with a 22 but I am darned if I would hunt one with it and possibly irritate him.

DP   

[Candle Snuffer]

It is my understanding that small bores came about in the east as the larger game animals had been hunted so much that there wasn't much left except tons of small game for the cook pot around the settlements.  This would possibly explain Crockett and his .40 cal rifle and the use of it on both black bear and small game.

Yes, history tells us that Crockett was an exceptional shot, but he wasn't the only exceptional shot to live in those days.  He was just noted from his political career, and I have nothing but respect for the man.

Larger calibers came into their own once again when the the "woodsmen/ longhunters" crossed the Missouri and headed for the mountains.  They soon found out that the small calibers were not going to down a grizzly along those streams where they were making their living trapping. 

They needed the big bores once again and the Northwest Trade Gun was the deal to get.  Yes, the Hawken brothers saw a demand for large caliber rifles and was making them for those that could afford them.  Soon everyone was getting in on the action of gun making and the west is known for the big bore game getters, (kind of a rebirth of large bore muzzle loaders one might say) when folks started taking the lore of the grizzly attacks as fact.

Will a .40 take deer size game with round ball?  Sure it will.  It's the person behind the trigger that knows what they're doing that makes all the difference.

Is the .40 legal for deer size game where I live?  Nope...  While there are many folks still alive today with good hunting knowledge, the new group coming of age simply don't understand the round ball and  its effectiveness with well placed shots.  They don't bother to spend range time learning.  Not all, but there is a large portion out there. 

A good example is the person zeroing in on an 8 inch paper plate from 50 yards and their shots are all over it and they comment, "it's good enough for hunting..."  With an attitude like that they could be using a .62 caliber for that matter, possibly even hit the deer,,, but if they didn't hit in the vitals they're no better off then the person who used the .40 caliber and zeroed in on a 3 inch dot and kept all the shots in it from 50 yards.  I give the edge to the person using the .40 in this case that he/she will bring home some meat.     

[doug]

Baker has a conical mold made for his double 4 bore. Instead of making that enormous cannon more effective, it destroyed it's efficiency at killing game and led him into such scrapes with dangerous animals that he gave up the conical as useless for killing game. 

     Its my impression that Baker felt the round ball penetrated better and I think the reason was that he and others shot hardened round balls while their elongate bullets were presumably mini balls and much softer.  It is my impression that the elongate bullets mushroomed out quickly and penetrated much less for that reason.  I think it was Val Forgett of Navy Arms that shot an elephant with a 4 guage roundball and it only penetrated a couple of feet vs the full length penetration that Baker reports.  I think the difference again is hardened balls vs soft balls (in the gun of course)

cheers Doug