Effectiveness of a .40cal

[Ken G]

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)

[Candle Snuffer]

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.

[California Kid]

Sure like the .40 for general shooting. Wouldnt use it for deer. Have a perfectly good .54 for that.

[Canyonrun]

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.   

[RobertS]

Canyon, wouldn't splitting that ball have made it two .20's then?

[Jerry V Lape]

Wait a minute, I am going back for my hip boots! 

[northmn]

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

[hanshi]

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.   

Hey!  .25 caliber don't count, though .25 was the preferred caliber during the colonial days.   

[Daryl]

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.

[Leatherbelly]

   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!

[Daryl]

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.

[northmn]

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

[RonT]

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 

[Daryl]

.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.

[RonT]

"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 

[northmn]

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

[hanshi]

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. 

[Daryl]

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.

[Candle Snuffer]

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.

[Pvt. Lon Grifle]

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 

[northmn]

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

[Jerry V Lape]

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? 

[Pvt. Lon Grifle]

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

[northmn]

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

[Mike R]

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.