What Cal. ?

[mupperm]

i am going to be building a rifle in the near future, and I want it for a squirrel gun along with a recreational woods walk target rifle.  i was thinking about a .32 but i am not sure if that is the way to go. 
looking for suggestions!

[alsask]

I have a .32 flintlock and it has more than enough power for small game.  At first I wanted to get a .36 but now I am satisfied with the .32.

[SCLoyalist]

The .32 may have disadvantages for a woodswalk.   I've seen instances where the .32 didn't clang steel targets hard  enough for a hit to be seen or heard.   A .40 packs more wallop for a woodswalk and is still usable for small game if you aim away from the meaty parts, but it's not as economical with respect to amounts of powder and lead.  Maybe all that means  is there's no perfect small bore caliber.

[alsask]

SC...yes you are right.  I wasn't thinking about clanging a gong and perhaps there would not be enough energy to make a hit obvious.

[Bull Shannon]

The .32 may have disadvantages for a woodswalk.  I've seen instances where the .32 didn't clang steel targets hard enough for a hit to be seen or heard.   A .40 packs more wallop for a woodswalk and is still usable for small game if you aim away from the meaty parts, but it's not as economical with respect to amounts of powder and lead.  Maybe all that means is there's no perfect small bore caliber.

I agree, you're going to want a caliber with a little more "oomph" to it for a woodswalk.  An accurate .40 will also allow you to hunt bigger game than squirrels at limited ranges.  Ideally you'd have a .32 for squirrels and such and a 40-45 caliber for ringing steel targets.

[Standing Bear]

.40.    95 gr rb can be loaded to 210-2200 fps or down as far as you want to go.
TC

[Kermit]

I don't know your game regs, but you'll want to pay attention. Some places have a max for small game and a minimum for large game. In some places a .40 falls in the middle and is not legal to hunt with. That said, I don't know why it took me so long to get one.

[Gene Carrell]

The woodswalks I've been on will  need a swiftly loaded  36cal to ring all targets. A 40cal seems  to  be best or even a  45cal.

[mupperm]

I have a .45 Hawken that was my Grandfathers but she needs some work. "it was never cleaned and the barrel is pitted"!  anyhow i was reading the regs and we are permitted to use muzzle-loader .38 cal and larger her in Ohio! 
so i may consider a .40.....

[b bogart]

Mike a 40 caliber would be great for a woodswalk! Also for hunting. I am working on one right now. I shoot my 32 at our woodswalk from time to time, I can tell WHEN I hit. Of course I stoke her up a bit for the further shots. 40 would be a good choice in my opinion.

[hanshi]

I own all three, .32, .36 and .40.  My .32 is a percussion, however with a 32" barrel.  The .32 is as good as it gets for squirrel and other small game, and unlike a few others have experienced, I've found little excess damage even with body shots.  I use fairly stout loads, too.  For small game there's no better choice.

My flint .36 does what the .32 does with small game though shot placement is more important on small stuff.  In addition, the .36 is about as cheap to feed as the .32 and can take on bigger stuff; it "dings" metal better as well.  I've killed squirrels with both and game up to coons with the .36.

The .40 is in a different class from the others.  Depending on your location, it could serve for small game, deer and match shooting.  Head shots only, with this one.  Though not as cheap to feed as the other two, it is still an economic caliber.  I really can't think of anything negative to say about the .40 but can say it is either an all around caliber or either a specialized target round; depends on how you consider it and what you use it for.  Small game only, the .32.  Small game and varmints, the .36.  Small game to deer and targets, the .40.

[david50]

was gonna put my 2 cents worth in but i think Hanshi pretty much covered it. what he said!

[xring2245]

I own all three, .32, .36 and .40.  My .32 is a percussion, however with a 32" barrel.  The .32 is as good as it gets for squirrel and other small game, and unlike a few others have experienced, I've found little excess damage even with body shots.  I use fairly stout loads, too.  For small game there's no better choice.

My flint .36 does what the .32 does with small game though shot placement is more important on small stuff.  In addition, the .36 is about as cheap to feed as the .32 and can take on bigger stuff; it "dings" metal better as well.  I've killed squirrels with both and game up to coons with the .36.

The .40 is in a different class from the others.  Depending on your location, it could serve for small game, deer and match shooting.  Head shots only, with this one.  Though not as cheap to feed as the other two, it is still an economic caliber.  I really can't think of anything negative to say about the .40 but can say it is either an all around caliber or either a specialized target round; depends on how you consider it and what you use it for.  Small game only, the .32.  Small game and varmints, the .36.  Small game to deer and targets, the .40.

Good answer here.  I have all three calibers as well and would go for a .40 cal. for what you propose.  Read the responses that you are getting for this post and I think you will get the "feel" for where it is going.

Regards,
James

[mupperm]

If I were to choose a .40 what would the max effective range be on deer sized game??? 

[SCLoyalist]

If I were to choose a .40 what would the max effective range be on deer sized game??? 

Even down here in Florida where the deer tend to be on the smallish side, I wouldn't feel good about shooting at more than maybe 50 yds with a .40 roundball.     If you hunt where deer are bigger or the distances are likely to be longer, then a larger caliber is well justified.  I've never heard of anyone having to track a wounded squirrel or woodswalk clanger, but have heard of people spending hours tracking or losing deer that they didn't use enough gun on.

There are threads on the forum debating about the .40 as a deer caliber.  And, while some states allow .40 for deer, I think more require .45 or even .50.

Looking back at your original post, I believe if I were going to expand my requirements from "small game or woodswalk" to "small game or woodswalk or deer" I'd either go with a .45 (realizing it's not going to be a perfect small game gun) or I'd go with a .40 for now with a plan to acquire a .45 or .50 later on.
 

[jamesthomas]

If I were to choose a .40 what would the max effective range be on deer sized game???  

I have a .40 cal. in the makings and it's the minimum for deer down here in Alabama. Roundball has a mold that he recieved from an indivual that casts a 200 grain maxi-ball that he has used to collect a couple of very nice deer with. You could check with him on how he got it and if there is a way you could get one if you want. I myself would feel better with it than the 95 grain round ball a forty uses. if you stay with the round ball I would stay within 50 yards and load it as fast as you can an still maintain good accuracy. Just my 2 cents worth.

[Bull Shannon]

If I were to choose a .40 what would the max effective range be on deer sized game??? 

It depends on what load you use and how accurate that load is in your hands.  You are going to have to penetrate far enough to put a hole in a deer's heart or destroy a major artery so I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to do that outside of 60 yards if it was standing perfectly broadside to me while shooting a 40 caliber RB.  I would not attempt a head shot on a deer unless I was starving and had no other possible shot.  Hogs are another situation but since you asked specifically about deer then I'll stop there. 

[mupperm]

thanks guys.  that helps greatly!  i'll stick with my .50 for the deer try and get my grandads .45 back in working order and then get a .32  or .36  to woods walk targets and small game!

[WadePatton]

Depends on where you put the ball and how good you are at putting it there.  i have no problem shooting a deer in the neck/head as i intend to kill it and eat it and tan the hide.  the big problem is that those areas move around a lot--but at other times it's all you can see.  these things work themselves out in the field better than online.

Also, 38 cal is in that realm but falls short of the 40 cal regulations.  TN allows 36 for big game.

I have a 54 (my first build) ongoing, a 30 planned next, and a 38 or 40 after that.  Then all bets are off because of course the best answer to "what cal?" has always been and shall ever remain:

One of each, at least.  

[WadePatton]

thanks guys.  that helps greatly!  i'll stick with my .50 for the deer try and get my grandads .45 back in working order and then get a .32  or .36  to woods walk targets and small game!

If it's a straight octagon, bbl replacement should be fairly simple.  If the pitting is from pyrostuff (i censor me) strip it and make paperweights/ tool handles.  A swamped or otherwise contoured bbl makes relining or freshing an viable option.

[Don Steele]

I've been agonizing for several years over which of the small calibers I should get. I've been shooting 50's since the mid-1970's. Looking back, I kinda wish I'd started with a .54 for big game, then I could drop to a .40 and feel like I had 2 good choices to cover everything, with sufficient difference between the 2 to notice. As it is....While I absolutely recognize the .40 as a GREAT choice(especially given the results Roundball has been sharing with that 200 gn. maxi)..there just doesn't seem to be enough difference between my 50's and a .40 to spend the money.
The .32 seems to have a lot of "issues" for many of my fellow shooters. Whenever this topic makes it's way to the front of my brain..I find myself wondering why the .36 never "caught on" to the level of the .32. ??
Add to the mix the fact that I'm a Lefty...and options in all small calibers shrink dramatically.
Ah Well. Thanks for listening. 

[heinz]

Don, I think you will find there is a huge difference between the 50 and the 40.  Look at the ball weights.  IIRC the 40 is 96 grains, the 50 is 200 and the 54 is 231.  The 50 and 54 are fairly close big bores, the 40 is 1/2 the weight.  I do not care for the 40 on deer but it will work.  It is awesome for eveything smaller and targets.

[jamesthomas]

 I'm a lefty too thats why I went for the John Bailes lock from L&R on mine .  Some folks don't like L&R cause a couple years ago they had some problems but mine seems alright with none of the sloopy play, (time at the range will see how good it is). some have experienced, so don't feel like you don't have options. Btw the .50 cal. is 177 grains. But there is a big difference between that an the 95 grains for the .40 cal.   

[Dphariss]

I've been agonizing for several years over which of the small calibers I should get. I've been shooting 50's since the mid-1970's. Looking back, I kinda wish I'd started with a .54 for big game, then I could drop to a .40 and feel like I had 2 good choices to cover everything, with sufficient difference between the 2 to notice. As it is....While I absolutely recognize the .40 as a GREAT choice(especially given the results Roundball has been sharing with that 200 gn. maxi)..there just doesn't seem to be enough difference between my 50's and a .40 to spend the money.
The .32 seems to have a lot of "issues" for many of my fellow shooters. Whenever this topic makes it's way to the front of my brain..I find myself wondering why the .36 never "caught on" to the level of the .32. ??
Add to the mix the fact that I'm a Lefty...and options in all small calibers shrink dramatically.
Ah Well. Thanks for listening. 

Look at the ball weights.
There is not much of a gain between 32-36. Anyone needing something bigger than a 32 needs a 40-45 to see a useful gain in ball weight. The advantage to the 32 is it will shoot buckshot and years ago 0 buck was common in gun shops.
The gain in ball weight from .315" to .395" is  double 47 vs 93 gr. The .355" give less than a 50% gain in weight over the 32.
The .495 ball is twice as heavy as the .395 ball (my 495s weight 183 and change). This makes the 50 a far more potent big game rifle than the 40.
A .662 ball is twice as heavy +- as a .526 ball.  And is FAR more effective than the 526 is regards to wound channel and energy transfer.
BUT in most instances it will likely not kill any faster with a lung shot on deer. Thus the American hunter saw little reason to carry the extra weight. 50 was apparently very popular in 18c kentuckys and this carried over to the western rifles as well. It is a useful minimum caliber even in the west where the ranges are often much longer.
So while a 32 will kill deer with headshots at 50 yards or so the 40 will work fine for lung shots. But the 50 is better from the modern standpoint. The 44-45-48 calibers were apparently common even in Rev-War times and before in the east they are perfectly capable of killing anything likely to be encountered with good shot placement. From Buff to a rabbit.
Beartooth bullets at
http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/roundball.htm?v1=.526&v2=2876.1

Has a RB weight calculator that is very close to what my cast balls weigh.
Dan

[bonron]

I agree 100% with Hanshi. Ron