.32 or another .40...???

[Curt]

Mac if a 32 Lancaster is what you want and you're not worried about historical correctness I would keep right on building that 32 and not look back. You'll have more fun then you'll be able to stand probably. The 32 squirrel guns taught me more about Flintlock and hunting than all of them put together because things have to be just right with them or it don't work.

 

[tenngun]

Lancasters not so much, but at the local bass pro they have a gun meusem with a .36 Hawken.

 

[BrownBear]

Yup, and the much vaunted Leman who turned out so many plains rifles in larger calibers also turned out small calibers. In fact I have on being built now along the lines of the one offered long ago by GRRW.

 

[Micah Clark]

The .32 is my first build so it's special wether it is historically correct or not . . I chose it because I wanted a 32 that was a step above a production import rifle to hunt with, and i am left handed, and I like flint . . . so it all seemed to make sense.

I had just always assumed there were small caliber Lancasters for some reason.

However, I am learning that this ML thing is such a small niche group . . that most people who I show my progress too, outside this forum, like Church friends or business friends who are big gun guys, but shooters of modern firearms, barely know a Brown bess from a Lehman, even when laid side by side . . . ( I was that way too a few years ago.)

Most of those who do know ML's well and know something of Historic correctness, seem to have their preferences, but seem to like ALL custom or hand made traditional ML rifles.

For example, I don't really, like Fusil's or Trade guns, and I prefer Lancasters over Southerns, but I'll admire them all especially if their owner built it, and respect anyone who likes them.

 

[Micah Clark]

Having a .40, myself, as well as a .32 and a .36, I can't see getting another .40 when you already have a good one. I don't hunt much at all anymore, and like you; I shoot targets. Powder is expensive so the less it takes to make the gun work, the better (for me). At the range I shoot my .32 and .36 more than any of the others. During a full shooting session I normally don't have to swab the bore out even once and the accuracy stays shot after shot. If you use the right lube - a liquid lube - The bore will have just the fouling from the first shot. Also a thick patch is needed; I use a .024" patch lubed with Hoppes BP lube. As far as cleaning goes, the .32 is no more prone to fouling than a .54. I cast my own ammo and Lee molds are cheap. If you are determined to go larger, the .54 would be my recommendation. It shoots moderate charges very well and won't break the bank.

I read your "Hanshi Notebook" years ago, I think it was called about your Traditions Crockett. I could not get mine to group. I never could, and thus am building a 32, but your wisdom was very sound and helpful. In fact, I still use Hoppes BP patch lube because of your recommendation in that item I read online and printed out and kept In my shooting box.

 

[Rifleman1776]

This is a "do yer own thang" game.
YOU tell us what you decide.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

WAIT you mean we don't have a say in how he spends his money? :shocked2:

Sorry...., started thinking like a politician there for a second...., I'm better now....

LD

 

[Captjoel]

Having always been a strong proponent of "Have at least one of everything" I would usually vote for the 32, but it is just wrong for a Lancaster, even late style.

My vote goes to either a Lancaster in 45 or another SMR in 32.

Oh boy . . . I'm building a TVM late lancaster and chose .32 because I liked the lancaster style the most, but wanted a good "squirrel" gun for the woods.

Never considered that it isn't historically Kosher. . not that I am all that concerned, but I assumed that there were small caliber Penn Rifles . . I thought that the only caliber specific makes would be fowlers, and Hawkens both of which would be larger calibers in smooth fowlers and rifled Hawkens (that were big game plains rifles).

They are very RARE, but I do know of one Golden Age era long rifle made near York PA (Littlestown) that is 36 caliber. It has all of the bells and whistles of a true GA gun.

 

[Curt]

What caliber is the John small rifle that was made in Vincennes Indiana that would be a good one to copy I know it's not a Lancaster butt it's still a nice rifle and Mack is from Indiana.

 

[hanshi]

Thank you for the kind words, Mac1967. I should have been updating it but nowadays I'm lazy and not worth taking a crowbar to. I did eventually have a .32 flintlock built and am still working with it. It's very temperamental; it shoots just fine for those who come around when I'm at the range, but it starts acting up when I shoot it. :idunno:

 

[Gene L]

William Clark had a .36 caliber squirrel rifle on the Lewis and Clark expedition. Always a good choice, IMO.

 

[mooman76]

Since you feel so strongly against a 36 and I can understand that, I'd go with the 32. It's kind of like shooting a 22 in BP version.

 

[Zonie]

Since you feel so strongly against a 36 and I can understand that, I'd go with the 32. It's kind of like shooting a 22 in BP version.

I kinda agree.

The .32 is about as close as most modern muzzleloading calibers get to a .22 rimfire but there is a sizeable difference if the gun is used for hunting.

Even with a little 20 grain, 3Fg powder load, a patched roundball will have a muzzle velocity of around 1890 fps which is getting up around a .22 magnum speed.

At 50 yards (which IMO is about the average limit most small game is hunted at), a little .31 diameter roundball shot over 20 grains of 3Fg is still traveling at around 1100 fps or slightly faster than a .22 long rifle standard velocity at the muzzle.

The .31 caliber balls weight is about 44 grains, a little heavier than many .22 RF's and the area of the hole it pokes into a critter is about twice as large as the .22 pokes into it. (.22= 0.038 in² vs .31= 0.076 in²)

Yes. I know. :cursing:

Numbers again, but to really evaluate something, sometimes they are necessary.

 

[BrownBear]

Even with a little 20 grain, 3Fg powder load, a patched roundball will have a muzzle velocity of around 1890 fps which is getting up around a .22 magnum speed.

That's my assessment too, based on impacts on game. It led me to drop my charges to 10 grains. "Feels" like it's more in the realm of 22LR (haven't chrono'ed it), but due to the larger diameter of the projectile, it still hits with lots more authority. If I drop a head shot down into the neck of a snowshoe hare, I basically have to throw away the front shoulders due to severe bloodshot.

I'm shooting 8 grains in my 30 cal (.290 ball weighing around 37 grains), and velocity still seems a little high compared to the 22LR. Impact damages are much in line with those of the .310 balls from a 32.

 

[Don Steele]

Thanks Rifleman. I'll let you all know when I get this decision made. :thumbsup:
Dave...I brought the question to this august body precisely to allow all of my "internet friends" tell me how to spend my money.. :hatsoff: !!!
Thanks again for the various thoughts, opinions, and experiences with the smaller end of the calibers available to choose from.
In all likelihood, I'll be holding my fire(so to speak) on a new rifle until after I get to Friendship in September. You never know what might show up there. :hmm:

 

[tenngun]

William Clark had a .36 caliber squirrel rifle on the Lewis and Clark expedition. Always a good choice, IMO.

Did he have a .36 cal or a 36 bore?

 

[Gene L]

I read .36 caliber and squirrel rifle. A 36 bore would be something like 50 caliber and not a squirrel rifle.

 

[hanshi]

I used to hunt squirrels with my .32 loaded with 30 grains of 3F and a .311" ball and even with body hits I never had the kind of damage reported by some. The actual damage was just a hole such as might result from a .22LR hollow point. Of course I never shot one in the shoulder or rear quarters and I'm sure that might make a substantial difference.

 

[BrownBear]

I think too, squirrels are just heavier built. You can rip rabbit hide with your hands and no more effort than ripping paper, but the squirrels (western grays) I shot over the years required a good sharp knife to skin. Don't recall trying it with squirrel, but you can twist the head right off a rabbit with little more effort than twisting the cap off a bottle of brew. I really doubt you could twist the head off a squirrel, but that's a guess.

 

[tenngun]

That's what I was thinking. Many rifles at this time were around .45 and up in caliber, but at this same time we start to see smaller rifles becoming common. Caliber as it was used back then many size, and not always in .01 inch as we think of it today.
A British officer, a man familiar with guns, during the AWI discribed rifles in the Carolinias as 7/16, this was only twenty years or so before L&C.
Why would it have been called a squirrel rifle if it was .50 or .52 a deer and elk killer shouldn't be called a squirrel rifle, unless it was super accurate that head shots or barking :idunno:
I will accept .36, but have often wondered.