.40 caliber, then and now

[George]

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.”

Good input, Dan. Thanks.

Spence

 

[Bretwalda]

Good for you Spence!!!! :thumbsup: I am a user of an even smaller caliber, but I have also restricted my shooting distance to a very limited range and I am intimately familiar with my ability to place the tiny ball (time after time) to a precise point of aim. I have used a multitude of other guns to harvest deer in my younger days, but the small PRB I currently use has done the "job" time after time for me. I ask all members to "please donot pass judgement" on another shooters choice of caliber. If you have no experience with utilizing the smaller caliber (if the gun is legal) and I choose to us it judiciouly, then I am no more nor no less than any other hunter in the field. :hatsoff:

 

[AWsaddles]

Well I have killed several deer with my 40 but I also have used 50 and 54 for many too. 40 is like bow hunting for me, I don't take it if I will be trying long shots and I don't take shots that are questionable, I know my limits and have been successful. I hunt for the enjoyment of the hunt and I enjoy using my 40 because it's a pleasure to hunt with. I don't have to feed my family with it so if I pass on a shot it ok for me because I'll get another opportunity . I've got a smoothie kit on the way so next year I'll be using a 62 and I know my range will probable be 50 yards give or take. All that being said I have been curious the conical type bullets in them. I've used Prb and double Prb so I think a conical will be next on my list. :hmm:

Enjoy the hunt
Allen

 

[excess650]

IIRC, 44cal is minimum for deer in Pa, and 40cal is the largest now allowed for small game.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

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.

Ah so it was mere opinion.

For your "common sense" to apply in this case..., then for the decades where larger caliber bores were the norm the population as a whole on the frontier dealing with survival had to be without common sense or in other words, nonsensical. For if .40 was a mere question of "survival" then they would've moved to that immediately.

LD

 

[hanshi]

In the SE that's also a good average weight. I've killed deer a lot heavier but also some lighter. For this size there are no flies on the .40, though as I've said, it wouldn't be my first choice for a dedicated deer rifle. I agree they could be considered an "experts" caliber - like the .410 shotgun - but in truth, the .40 is a "hunter's" caliber rather than a "shooter's".

 

[nkbj]

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.

Ah so it was mere opinion.

For your "common sense" to apply in this case..., then for the decades where larger caliber bores were the norm the population as a whole on the frontier dealing with survival had to be without common sense or in other words, nonsensical. For if .40 was a mere question of "survival" then they would've moved to that immediately.

LD

Absolutely correct, it was the "mere opinions" of the people back then. Not yours or mine. If you don't want to see all those little bores along side the bigger ones then don't look. Bye.

 

[40calFlintlock]

Dirty Harry (Clint Eastwood) said it best in the movie Magnum Force, "Man's got to know his limitations."

This holds true for any aspect, especially when using my .40cal for hunting. I know my accuracy/confidence at 25 and limitations at 50 yds. Because I have no "factuals" on the effectiveness of power at 50yds, I won't take any shot beyond a guesstimated 35yds. On a sad side note, I have not had an opportunity to take a shot an any deer in the past two years in NE OH

 

[nkbj]

I'd deerly love to have a .40 with a 38" twist instead of 48".

 

[George]

I'd deerly love to have a .40 with a 38" twist instead of 48".

What would be the advantage?

Spence

 

[nkbj]

So far I have worked with 48" twist barrels (28" and 38" long) and also with 16" fast twist for longer bullets. I'm thinking that a 38" twist would be good for round ball and a little longer (as maxi) projectiles.

 

[Dphar]

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.

Do you have documentation that ammo cost was not a consideration?
Back in the 30s when granddad bought Dad a 22 he bought one that only shot shorts because LRs cost too much. Short will kill small game as well or better than a LR so why pay for more?
Ammo for a rifle that is 65 to the pound costs 1/2 what a 32 to the pound does, even the patches are smaller. Its about 42 caliber. If shooting both small game and deer sized what is the advantage to the 32 to the pound (this is bigger than Hanger states as the largest bore size for Rev-War rifles)? It is a mistake to think that everyone shot deer all the time. In fact in many areas they went to lengths to kill off ALL wild life to prevent crop and livestock damage. So deer would have been rare perhaps.
The 38-40/44-40 are really poor deer cartridges but people bought them in their hundreds of thousands from the 1870s till the 20th c. Winchester made 700,000 1873s alone (add 1892s, several models of Marlin and the Colt LMR etc and there were a LOT of them in use) and most were 38 and 44. Far more than the larger frame cartridge rifles. They worked and the ammo was a lot cheaper. When I say they worked I mean just that nothing added. I am sure a 40 cal FL is a better 50 yard deer rifle than either. But I have only shot one deer with a 38-40 BP load. Deer died after the typical run. But the wound channel was very small though placement was good. These rifles were actually inferior to a 45-54 caliber LR as hunting arms but they were REPEATERS and used waterproof ammo.
For people who were cash strapped and people on the frontier were often horribly poor, if it worked that was all that mattered. Cheap, works, what need is there for expensive?
It does not require a cannon to kill deer or even black bear. A large stock killing Gbear in Wyoming was killed by a cowboy with a 45 revolver.

However, I do not believe most rifles were this small,

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Thanks Dan, that's a very interesting graph, I've been meaning to do something similar when I getaroundtoit. May I ask where the info came from? It looks familiar.

 

[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.

Do you have documentation that ammo cost was not a consideration?
Back in the 30s when granddad bought Dad a 22 he bought one that only shot shorts because LRs cost too much. Short will kill small game as well or better than a LR so why pay for more?
Ammo for a rifle that is 65 to the pound costs 1/2 what a 32 to the pound does, even the patches are smaller. Its about 42 caliber. If shooting both small game and deer sized what is the advantage to the 32 to the pound (this is bigger than Hanger states as the largest bore size for Rev-War rifles)? It is a mistake to think that everyone shot deer all the time. In fact in many areas they went to lengths to kill off ALL wild life to prevent crop and livestock damage. So deer would have been rare perhaps.
The 38-40/44-40 are really poor deer cartridges but people bought them in their hundreds of thousands from the 1870s till the 20th c. Winchester made 700,000 1873s alone (add 1892s, several models of Marlin and the Colt LMR etc and there were a LOT of them in use) and most were 38 and 44. Far more than the larger frame cartridge rifles. They worked and the ammo was a lot cheaper. When I say they worked I mean just that nothing added. I am sure a 40 cal FL is a better 50 yard deer rifle than either. But I have only shot one deer with a 38-40 BP load. Deer died after the typical run. But the wound channel was very small though placement was good. These rifles were actually inferior to a 45-54 caliber LR as hunting arms but they were REPEATERS and used waterproof ammo.
For people who were cash strapped and people on the frontier were often horribly poor, if it worked that was all that mattered. Cheap, works, what need is there for expensive?
It does not require a cannon to kill deer or even black bear. A large stock killing Gbear in Wyoming was killed by a cowboy with a 45 revolver.

However, I do not believe most rifles were this small,

 

[nkbj]

Been out back today with the .46 flinter. That's just about the perfect caliber.

 

[Dphar]

Thanks Dan, that's a very interesting graph, I've been meaning to do something similar when I getaroundtoit. May I ask where the info came from? It looks familiar.

Its rifles from "Kentucky Rifle, A True American Heritage in Picture" and "Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1750-1850".

The problem lies in finding the same rifle in both books with different calibers listed.
Things of this sort leave one at the mercy of who ever measured the thing and how careful they were and if this had any idea what they were doing.

Dan

Dan

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Thanks Dan. I have the "Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1750-1850". I find it very useful to a builder since it presents photos from several points of view and is one of the few which bothers to list calibers at all. Most books on the American rifles are produced by collectors for collectors and they don't care about caliber because they have no intention of actually shooting them and quite possibly wouldn't know how. :haha: