40 cal for small game/deer

[roundball]

It seems that the real value of the .40 is it's suitability for small game with the knowledge that if you stumble across something larger you have an opportunity at taking it, rather than deliberately setting out after big game with it. That's the logic I've employed in selecting it for my next rifle anyway.

Well said IMO...and that's why for a small game rifle, I didn't go below the .40cal...because for me personally, the .32/.36 would have just been out of the question to attempt a deer

 

[Chuck Yoder]

Here in MO during the regular deer season, there ar a lot of magnum shooters, 300 mag, 7mm mag etc. These same hunters acoff at a 243 or 6mm. All will kill a deer realy good. I know of kids who kill deer with a 223. Not my choice because I have other firearms to use, but if my only gun was a 223 I would use it. If legal.

If I get my new 40 flinter sighted in where i am confident with it I'll use it. If I wanted to take a heart shot through the rear end or through the shoulder I would use my 54. But I am a meat hunter and I choose to not waste any meat if possible. I don't mind passing up shots that are marginal. I even have a number of unused tags from previous years. I am just not a magnum fan unless I'm after big and or dangerous game.

Many of our ancestors as they settled the midwest probably had only one gun and had to use it for everything. They had to conserve lead and powder and put food on the table. Hunting was not a sport but a necessity to survive. I like to think of myself in that way and as a careing ethical hunter and I hate the thought of possibly wounding an animal and not being able to find it or having it so shot up that it wasn't worth taking home.

So if your of the bigger is better croud, go for it and good luck this year.

 

[Kapow]

We all set ourselves limitations simply by choosing traditional. If we didn't we would be using those magnums, not smokepoles. Simply a matter of personal choice, experience and knowing your boundaries.