.36 vs. .44 "Stopping Power"

There is a misconception of shot placement and affect. Shot placement is best described a center of mass. You pick an area not a spot. Well I guess if you are Cool Hand Luke or Dirty Harry you of course pick your spot.

All the Caribou I shot were at close to 90 deg, behind the shoulder. None was ever knocked down. 7 mm Rem Mag, 2800 FPS and 165 gr bullet as I recall. One was at 40 yards in the fog and the longest was 250 yard moving left to right and kept goring straight after shot (to fall and was dead when we got up to it). All died because I blew out their lungs and or heart.

In each case it was an area behind the shoulder (never saw one with a Bulleye on it). Granted my brother shot a moose in the head but it was the only shot he had and he had a very accurate gun and he could shoot. I saw him drop a running Caribou at a paced 400 yards. That was after he ran downhill to reduce the range until the angle was starting to work against him, dropped to the ground, bang, dead caribou.

There is a reason they use solid on big dangerous game. You got to go deep to hit a brain or a heart.

People poached moose back in the day with a 22. Lung shot, leave it alone and it dropped eventually.

Animals are far easier because they are not shooting back (or I have yet to see one do that nor any reports of it)

PastorB said:

This is a follow up to a recent thread concerning the "Stopping Power" of a .36 Navy. Today's test was simple, and I did not use a chrono today. The test was to see if a .36 and .44 would penetrate a 2x6, and at what distance it would not. Well, I ran out of distance before I ran out of complete pass-thrus. Might repeat the test in the near future when I have a longer range. All loads used round balls, as I don't have conicals right now for .36. Powder loads were my standard 25 grains in .36, and 32 in .44. Neither are max loads, but moderately heavy. Balls were .375 and .451, using Pyro P as a propellant. Pyro P is the equal of Swiss 3f, and way hotter than Goex 3f, based upon thousands of shots over the chrono. All the shots easily blasted through the 2x6's. I figure if it will go thru a 2x6, it will go thru a sternum or brain-pan. As a means of comparison, a .31 1849 Pocket Model, using round ball, will only barely go thru a 2x6 using a max charge of 777 at very close range. Pyro P and Swiss 3f will bulge the back side out, but remain imbedded. The 2x6's are an analog for nothing other than a 2x6. Would not want to be hit by either! See pics attached for "wound cavities", marked by caliber and distance in yards.

Click to expand...

Good post, and an interesting test, @PastorB !

I thought you might be interested in some real-world experiences from the old frontier, regarding the effectiveness of the Navy (.36) versus Army (.44) revolvers against dangerous game. This is from Captain Randolph B. Marcy's Thirty Years of Army Life on the Border, first published in 1866:





Theodore Davis, who was a correspondent and illustrator for Harper's Weekly in the late 1860's, had even more to say regarding revolvers on the buffalo plains: "Of the revolvers in use the old style dragoon pistol of the Colt pattern seems to be the favorite, though the bullet that it shoots is no heavier than that used in the present style known as Colt's army revolver. The pistol itself is heavier and more steady to shoot, and the cylinder is chambered for more powder. I am not aware that this arm is any longer manufactured. The Plains men who possess a pair hold them in great esteem. Their caliber is 44-110ths of an inch. I have found it best in loading my pistols not to rely upon the fixed ammunition supplied for them, preferring to use loose ammunition, or cartridges made by myself. Then there is some certainty of the quantity of powder, and a charge as heavy as the weapon will contain."

That was from an article Davis wrote in (I believe) 1867, entitled "The Buffalo Range." I'm sorry I don't have a more complete citation at this time, as the quote was taken from a compilation of Davis' articles, and specific issues of Harpers were not listed. However, while Davis was a professional journalist, he was a seasoned plainsman in his own right by that time, and he knew what he was talking about. Here is a self portrait from August, 1867:



So, if we are to believe the people who were actually there, the .44 was by far the more effective caliber for stopping power, and the larger chamber capacity of the old-style dragoon revolvers made them even more effective on big game than the lighter Army models. Not very scientific, but written from practical experience in the field.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

I'm of the opinion that any gun is better than no gun.

The most useless thing in the world is an unloaded gun followed closely by a loaded gun that is not where you are.

FWIW watched a test on a ballistic dummy with 9mm (.356) and .45ACP. Slow motion footage showed the difference in impact. The frontal area of the .45 produced a much bigger crater on impact even at a slower velocity. YMMV

I love my sharpened sticks especially the heavier gauge ones. They can go right through a body and I've never had a misfire........

kje54 said:

I love my sharpened sticks especially the heavier gauge ones. They can go right through a body and I've never had a misfire........

Click to expand...

Never bring a sharpened stick to a gun fight.

B P Arn said:

Never bring a sharpened stick to a gun fight.

Click to expand...

What if your gun jams.......?

kje54 said:

What if your gun jams.......?

Click to expand...

Then you picked a lousy gun to carry. Bad decisions have consequences.

B P Arn said:

Then you picked a lousy gun to carry. Bad decisions have consequences.

Click to expand...

Welp, in that case I'll carry a S&W 500 for when there's a burglar hiding behind the fridge......., at my neighbor's house......., a half mile away.......

I love caliber wars, they're sooooo entertaining!!

Yes...

kje54 said:

Welp, in that case I'll carry a S&W 500 for when there's a burglar hiding behind the fridge......., at my neighbor's house......., a half mile away.......

Click to expand...

I've subscribed to Elmer Keith's theory, 'If it ain't big, it ain't sh*t!' for years. I think he knew a thing or two about 'big' calibers, having grown up with a 30-06 as his first rifle. Then going on to help develop both the .357 & .44 magnum. When concealability is an issue, I carry my NAA .22. When it isn't I carry my 1911 in ,45 ACP. Then if I am feeling particularly frivolous, I carry my New Army c&b in .44. At none of these times do I feel 'under armed' with even my NAA .22, Among other things, I believe that shot placement is important and often practice shot placement under stressful situations.

Dark Angel said:

I've subscribed to Elmer Keith's theory, 'If it ain't big, it ain't sh*t!' for years. I think he knew a thing or two about 'big' calibers, having grown up with a 30-06 as his first rifle. Then going on to help develop both the .357 & .44 magnum. When concealability is an issue, I carry my NAA .22. When it isn't I carry my 1911 in ,45 ACP. Then if I am feeling particularly frivolous, I carry my New Army c&b in .44. At none of these times do I feel 'under armed' with even my NAA .22, Among other things, I believe that shot placement is important and often practice shot placement under stressful situations.

Click to expand...

That's good, I'm happy for you and whomever this Elmer Keith is. Guess you wouldn't like my full auto M61 Vulcan spitwad gun.........

All the muzzle energy in the world means nothing. What counts is energy placed at the proper point in an animal. I prefer complete penetration but the projectile must slow to release energy yet still make two holes.
I have much experience with modern revolvers having taken hundreds of deer but will not discuss it here. Still a RB from a cap and ball will do amazing things inside a deer and I have found them affective.

kje54 said:

That's good, I'm happy for you and whomever this Elmer Keith is. Guess you wouldn't like my full auto M61 Vulcan spitwad gun.........

Click to expand...

SERIOUSLY!! You've never heard of Elmer Keith?!

Dark Angel said:

SERIOUSLY!! You've never heard of Elmer Keith?!

Click to expand...

Seriously. There's a lot of people I've never heard of.

For strictly self defense against two legged varmints I prefer a .45 hollow point that does not leave their body and possibly wound an innocent bystander.
I don’t own any BP revolvers but I would go for the largest caliber I could accurately shoot, using the heaviest expanding bullet I can.

Notchy Bob said:

Good post, and an interesting test, @PastorB !

I thought you might be interested in some real-world experiences from the old frontier, regarding the effectiveness of the Navy (.36) versus Army (.44) revolvers against dangerous game. This is from Captain Randolph B. Marcy's Thirty Years of Army Life on the Border, first published in 1866:

View attachment 301652

View attachment 301653

Theodore Davis, who was a correspondent and illustrator for Harper's Weekly in the late 1860's, had even more to say regarding revolvers on the buffalo plains: "Of the revolvers in use the old style dragoon pistol of the Colt pattern seems to be the favorite, though the bullet that it shoots is no heavier than that used in the present style known as Colt's army revolver. The pistol itself is heavier and more steady to shoot, and the cylinder is chambered for more powder. I am not aware that this arm is any longer manufactured. The Plains men who possess a pair hold them in great esteem. Their caliber is 44-110ths of an inch. I have found it best in loading my pistols not to rely upon the fixed ammunition supplied for them, preferring to use loose ammunition, or cartridges made by myself. Then there is some certainty of the quantity of powder, and a charge as heavy as the weapon will contain."

That was from an article Davis wrote in (I believe) 1867, entitled "The Buffalo Range." I'm sorry I don't have a more complete citation at this time, as the quote was taken from a compilation of Davis' articles, and specific issues of Harpers were not listed. However, while Davis was a professional journalist, he was a seasoned plainsman in his own right by that time, and he knew what he was talking about. Here is a self portrait from August, 1867:

View attachment 301655

So, if we are to believe the people who were actually there, the .44 was by far the more effective caliber for stopping power, and the larger chamber capacity of the old-style dragoon revolvers made them even more effective on big game than the lighter Army models. Not very scientific, but written from practical experience in the field.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

Click to expand...

Those boys (going after grizzlies with a Navy pistol) sure had some hair on them… live large!

CaptainVane said:

Solution….

Click to expand...

That's Stopping Power!!!

I do love the banter, ideas, etc.
But i can only imagine what them old boys from 150 years ago who were shooting pistols used up from the civil war, passed down from grandpa vet and the timing was so bad they had to hold the cylinder with left hand to align to barrel, just to hit a rabbit to get food for a family of 4.
I think they would be amused. Maybe confused.