Was .36 ever used as an all around caliber?

[blackjack]

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.

[Nate McKenzie]

I have 14 1810-1850 originals. Ten of them are in the 36-38cal. range.

[Joe Schell]

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.

[mparker762]

I have 14 1810-1850 originals. Ten of them are in the 36-38cal. range.

Does anybody still make .38 barrels nowadays?

[Hungry Horse]

 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

[little joe]

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

[oldtravler61]

Try Ed Rayle also

[bob in the woods]

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

[Mike Brooks]

I think Hoyt makes a .38 as well.

[bones92]

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.

[rhbrink]

There was thread titled "Small Bores" in the gun building section a while back that might help answer some of your questions.

[hudson]

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..

[Curt Lyles]

George shumway's book on George Shroyer shows a lot of rifles under 50 caliber. Quite a few are 42 calibers.

[hanshi]

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.

[Don Adams]

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

[David R. Pennington]

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?

[Hungry Horse]

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

[HAWKEN]

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   

[Jerry V Lape]

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. 

[little joe]

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.

[Robby]

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

[Curt Lyles]

Robbie that's the John small rifle that I was referring to in my post

[WadePatton]

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   

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.

[Joe S]

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

[Daryl]

.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.