.40 caliber, then and now

[George]

I took a chunky buck with my .40 caliber flintlock rifle a couple of days ago. I've had the rifle for 39 years but had never hunted deer with it before, mostly because I felt I would be undergunned. Seeing the damage done by the little ball, though, I was impressed. There was actually more tissue damage than that I see with my .62 smoothbore or .54 percussion, both shooting hefty charges, and generally at closer ranges than the 50 yards of this shot. I didn't need a bigger gun that time. Thinking about that experience reminded me of a description of the guns used in this area in early 19th century which made it clear a .40 caliber was the go-to gun of the time for whitetails.

The reference is from William N. Blaine's book, "An Excursion through the United States and Canada, during the Years 1822-23". Blaine was knowledgeable about guns, and spent about a year along the Ohio River in Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois, hunting and shooting with, boarding with and learning the ways of the backwoodsmen of the area. He described the guns he saw and shot in this way:

This is the only fire-arm used throughout all the Western States, and is generally from three and a half to four feet long in the barrel. It has one turn in four feet, weighs from twelve to fourteen pounds, has a very small and crooked stock, and carries a remarkably small bullet.....The usual size of the balls for shooting squirrels and wild turkeys, is from 100 to 150 to the pound. For deer and bear, the size varies from 60 to 80, and for larger animals, as the buffalo and elk, from 50 to 60; though a rifle carrying a ball of a larger size than 60 to the pound, is very seldom made use of. For general use, and for shooting at a mark, the favorite size is from 60 to 80.

Conversion of balls-to-the-pound to caliber:

50 = 45.4 cal.
60 = 42.7 cal.
80 = 38.8 cal.
100 = 36 cal.
150 = 31.4 cal.

So a rifle of .40 caliber was just about the average for deer at that time in this area. My experience with the .40 on that buck makes that a little easier to understand.

I also shoot a .30, and his observation about that one being used on squirrels and turkeys is no surprise.

Spence

 

[pargent]

Sounds like that little 40 ball can be made to travell along quite fast, do you find it shoots reasonably flat to ? A good friend shoots a 40 Lancaster flint he built from a kit about 20 years ago, it's all he uses in competition and he has no plans on replacing it anytime soon . :thumbsup:

 

[ebiggs1]

"... because I felt I would be undergunned. ..."

You are. :hmm:
The 40 cal is minimum in Kansas and a lot of states. Of course it worked, this time. But it's margin of error in a misplaced shot or unfavorable conditions is slim to none. Remember we are hunters not killers.
This is a hobby for us not survival. :wink:

 

[nkbj]

And remember that it was survival for them and that's the criteria for their choices, what worked. The idea that people chose small because of the price of lead and powder is bunkum.

 

[ncmtmike]

Ebiggs,This is no hobby for me :shake:

 

[George]

Sounds like that little 40 ball can be made to travell along quite fast, do you find it shoots reasonably flat to?

Yes, it's easy to push the smaller calibers to high velocity, which makes them "shoot flat". I expect my MV is above 2000 fps. The small balls poop out quickly, too, though, so you lose that velocity advantage not far down range. Makes them a short range deal as far as hunting game of any size.

Close inspection of the deer I shot impressed me that within reasonable operating range the .40 can deliver one heck of a wallop. Tissue along the path of the ball was ground meat, and extravasated blood was evident well up into the muscles of the neck even though it was a center-chest shot. I had to trim away damaged meat more than I usually do with my larger, slower calibers.

I agree that the margin for error is smaller with the smaller calibers, but I no longer believe a hunter shooting a .40 is at as much of a handicap as I once did. Margin of error is just another thing you have to factor in before taking the shot, and it can be learned as well as any other.

Spence

 

[Loyalist Dave]

And remember that it was survival for them and that's the criteria for their choices, what worked. The idea that people chose small because of the price of lead and powder is bunkum

Is that simply an opinion or do you have something to back that pronouncement up? :grin:

Because if prior to 1790 it is documented in one man's journal, that of Joseph Doddridge, "Rifles of former times, were different from those of modern date ;" [1824] "few of them carried more than forty-five bullets to the pound. Bullets of less size were not thought sufficiently heavy for hunting or for war."

Since it was also "survival" in Doddridge's day..., then how does one account for a 62% reduction of the size of the ball if it's not to stretch supplies of bullet metal and powder? Especially when it's very well documented that the rifle ball in Doddridge's day was effective on deer at longer ranges? Is it also not part of survival mentality to use the minimum necessary to reach the goal, and thus to stretch the available supply..., hence to use less lead and less powder, the cost of such items when in short supply being rather high?

LD

 

[nkbj]

And remember that it was survival for them and that's the criteria for their choices, what worked. The idea that people chose small because of the price of lead and powder is bunkum

Is that simply an opinion or do you have something to back that pronouncement up? :grin:

Because if prior to 1790 it is documented in one man's journal, that of Joseph Doddridge, "Rifles of former times, were different from those of modern date ;" [1824] "few of them carried more than forty-five bullets to the pound. Bullets of less size were not thought sufficiently heavy for hunting or for war."

Since it was also "survival" in Doddridge's day..., then how does one account for a 62% reduction of the size of the ball if it's not to stretch supplies of bullet metal and powder? Especially when it's very well documented that the rifle ball in Doddridge's day was effective on deer at longer ranges? Is it also not part of survival mentality to use the minimum necessary to reach the goal, and thus to stretch the available supply..., hence to use less lead and less powder, the cost of such items when in short supply being rather high?

LD

Sure I have something to back that. It's called common sense. As my father always said, people do what works. If it didn't work they didn't do it. By the way, don't forget that killing power is all a matter of rate of displacement. Get that .40 caliber zipping along and you get just the results spoken of above.

 

[ebiggs1]

Ebiggs,This is no hobby for me :shake:

Yes, it is. It may be your choice to make it more but it is not a survival situation in 2012.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Most of the response are not wrong.
But, overlooked is the fact that a tiny ball loses 'legs' very quickly. The .40 might have the effectivness we require as shorter ranges. e.g. 40 yards and under.
But, beyond that I consider it inadequate.
Keep in mind, those old timey stories rarely mention wounded game that ran off.

 

[George]

Keep in mind, those old timey stories rarely mention wounded game that ran off.

A good point. There seems little doubt that the attitude toward game was quite different from our modern one. With the abundance found in the early days, they didn't worry about losing a shot deer, there were plenty more available. This is perfectly typified by their custom of shooting buffalo just for sport and taking nothing from it, or maybe just the tongue.

Blane doesn't discuss this directly or express an opinion about it, but he mentions it:

The two young men who ferried me over the river, had just returned from a hunting excursion. They had only been out two days; and not to mention a great number of turkeys, had killed sixteen deer and two bears, besides wounding several others.

There's no way for us to know, today, why they wounded several. The attitude toward game I mentioned could well mean they would take any old shot, and that wounded game would result regardless of the caliber of gun they were using. Or, it could mean they didn't worry about shooting an inadequate caliber for the same reason.

In our modern situation, I believe a man armed with a .40 who understands the ballistics and the limitations of the smaller caliber, but has a real concern for humanely taking deer without letting any wounded ones run off, could do that with a high degree of success. We set limits for any caliber of gun we use and then live within them. I don't know why the .40 should be different.

Spence

 

[ohio ramrod]

My nephew and his youngest boy both use 40 calibers and prb on Ohio whitails out to 75 yrds with no problems. Where you hit them is more important than how hard! :hmm:

 

[nchawkeye]

Spence, what was your powder charge???

 

[George]

Spence, what was your powder charge???

It was 70 grains 3F Goex.

Spence

 

[hanshi]

I don't see the problem; you took your .40 out and cleanly killed your deer. Others have done so as well. While I wouldn't choose a .40 as my dedicated deer rifle, I'd feel perfectly confident taking one into the woods and shooting deer with it. :thumbsup:

 

[CoyoteJoe]

In our modern situation, I believe a man armed with a .40 who understands the ballistics and the limitations of the smaller caliber, but has a real concern for humanely taking deer without letting any wounded ones run off, could do that with a high degree of success. We set limits for any caliber of gun we use and then live within them. I don't know why the .40 should be different.

Spence

Exactly! It's my opinion that shot placement is so all important that bullet diameter and weight are almost irrelevant. So long as the projectile has sufficient penetration to reach the vitals it will do the job. I've never believed that a larger or more powerful rifle offered a greater margin for error, a poorly placed shot is a bad situation regardless. I grant that a larger caliber does allow for shots at angles and ranges where the smaller caliber may not offer sufficient penetration, thus I would take some shots with a .54 where I might pass with a .40, so there is an advantage to larger calibers. That is not the same as saying that a conscientious hunter who knows his limitations can't do fine work with a .40 or even smaller caliber.

 

[BrownBear]

There's no way for us to know, today, why they wounded several. The attitude toward game I mentioned could well mean they would take any old shot, and that wounded game would result regardless of the caliber of gun they were using. Or, it could mean they didn't worry about shooting an inadequate caliber for the same reason.

The Lewis and Clark journals and Glass are riddled with accounts of wounding. My sense from reading the accounts and comments about shooting in general is that marksmanship wasn't what we think of today, and if one animal was wounded, there was often another not far away. Pretty casual unless they were really getting hungry.

 

[hanshi]

I find myself pretty much in agreement with your post, Coyote Joe. Back in the old days I killed a few deer - one was a large buck - with my .22Hornet. Now there is no way I would ever recommend the Hornet as a deer rifle; my marksmanship was much better in those days. But properly placed that little pill dropped deer DRT.

I consider the .40 to be in about the same class as the Hornet. In the right hands or well placed within certain range limits, the little prb does it's job very well. In other words it's not the bore size that needs to be questioned but the shooter.

 

[jrmflintlock]

Keep in mind, those old timey stories rarely mention wounded game that ran off.

This is something we hear alot of these days, and quite frankly it makes me sick. I don't know if its just the local guys or if its in other places, but here anyways there is this crazy Notion that if you shoot at one and could not find it, its ok. I heard way too many guys tell me they "stuck" a monster, or "smoked" a herd bull or wounded one, only to fail to recover.

These were all done with more than addiquate hunting equiptment, ie. 80lb compounds, 50 cal inlines, 300 wetherbies

My point is that Most guys who go after game with smaller calibers do so to imcrease their hunting skills and know their limitations and stay within them. The RB will do its job if we do ours, regardless of caliber.

I know I ramble, but....

 

[Flash Pan Dan]

I too agree with Coyote Joe. Out here our blacktail bucks average about 140 pounds and like tight cover. A 40 is more than adequate if the right shot presents itself. So far I have not seen or taken a shot at a deer that would have been better done with a larger caliber than a 40. Not that it may not happen, but so far after 40 years of hunting I’ve never thought to myself; “I wish I had a bigger gun to take that shot.”