.40 did it then

[ozark57]

There have been several topics concering RB's and hunting as of late. I have found that most of the ML's used in my area ( Ozarks ) back in the day were around .40 caliber. My family has lived in the same place since the 1840's so I took my metal detector in the field where one of the original log cabins sat. I used a RB to set it up in discrimination mode, and it did not take long to find some old ones. They are chalky white and about .40.
Point is, they killed deer with these .40's and did not think anything of it. Maybe those that choose to hunt deer with a traditional ML should shoot more and learn your and your guns limits rather than look to larger calibers or modern bullet designs.

 

[Trench]

Well, I gotta say that's pretty cool that it was that easy for you to find some spent balls from that time period. :thumbsup:

 

[Kentuckywindage]

thats pretty cool find. i live out west and during that time period out here in Colorado, bigger was better

 

[ohio ramrod]

Colorado had not only deer but grissly bears instead of black bears.Eastern hunters and settlers had less to worry about than the western hunters and settlers.History has shown that as the frontier moved west the calibers increased and barrel lenghts decreased as the barrels became heavier.

 

[dbutch]

45 cal. Minimum -in smooth bore Here in the state of Wisconsin..That's the law.

Reasons for using a larger caliber...

1 deer in northern climates are larger in body size

2. seeing light from an entrance hole is a good thing.

3. ventilating a deer causes them to run out of gas quicker

4. some of us hunt larger game.elk-bear-moose-mule deer-funny looking aim points.

5. scrap lead is cheap-if cost of shooting a larger bore eats on you .you are in the wrong hobby.This is a product consuming one!

here's a sample targets at 100 yards--62 cal.
I believe the majority of the shooters here strive to find the most accurate loads in their rifles it's half the fun. Of the deer I have shot most have been 40 to 75 yards away..The larger calibers give me the edge past 75 yards-it just a fact! Some people like to track deer..I like to watch them fall.Use what you are comfortable with.I do!

Here is a 100 yard target 62 cal 2 different patch's

This one repels round balls at 25 yards! :rotf:
This aim point morphed :blah: on the way to the back stop-I heard it say"We Don't Need No Stinkn Bullits" :rotf:

..............." The TERMITE".....................

 

[RC]

:hmm: if I was goin out huntin to get somethin to eat.. a 40 would be my choice too. :thumbsup: wouldn't ruin a bird or rabbit, and I'd know the gun well enough to put down a deer....nowadays most of us have more than one gun, an only hunt one species at a time...imho.. :grin:

 

[mykeal]

Point is, they killed deer with these .40's and did not think anything of it. Maybe those that choose to hunt deer with a traditional ML should shoot more and learn your and your guns limits rather than look to larger calibers or modern bullet designs.

Maybe they did and maybe they didn't.

I don't recall reading any contemporary accounts about hunters in the 1700's-1800's being concerned about the humanity of a one shot kill. SOP was to wound and track. Clearly a one shot kill was the best answer if it happened, but that wasn't the goal like it is today.

Also, why do you assume the target of all those spent rb's were just deer? Small game was easier to find, render and cook. Seems more likely they were more interested in rabbit and squirrel, targets that made the smaller caliber a better choice.

In the end I agree with you on your main point - learn your gun and your prey better. But don't eschew the larger calibers for large game on that basis alone.

 

[Headhunter]

Some guys on this forum think a 50 is barely adequate for a whitetail, and a 40 will bounce clean off.

The next rifle I build will be a Southern Mountain .40 Flinter and I am going to hunt deer with it. Squirrels and such too.


HH

 

[410-er]

If we could use a 40 here in PA.,I would.If we could use the 36,I would.

 

[roundball]

Some guys on this forum think a 50 is barely adequate for a whitetail, and a 40 will bounce clean off.

I'm not "one of those guys"...and I think that statement over-simplifies and mis-represents the general theme of past .40cal discussions.

I'm fortunate at this stage of my life to have a few calibers to choose from...and while my little .40cal is a tack driver, I'd never leave the house with it for a day of general deer hunting woods and meadows for obvious reasons...ie: if a P&Y buck stepped out of the edge of the woods at 120yds arcoss a small field, I wouldn't take that shot with a little 92grn x .390" ball...but would kill him where he stood if I was carrying a more robust big game caliber.

On the other hand, if someone was going to take a seat overlooking a trail crossing a drainage ditch only 25 yards away and had the discipline to pass up that P&Y buck he saw while walking in to the trail crossing, more power to him.

I've also read a number of references over the years that deer back in the day were less wary of humans and often taken at very close range, where smaller calibers would have higher odds of being effective...but in spite of finding old lead balls that might be .40cal (or .45) that does not magically mean the little 92grn x .40cal ball is a consistent 100 yard reliable performer on deer size game.

So like with many discussions, absolute across the board statements rarely work and to be honest I don't ever recall seeing a post claiming that a .40cal could not be used for deer hunting...the closest reference to something like that are some states that prohibit the .40cal.

Otherwise, the context of discussions are generally out of consideration of things like unknown distances, angles, bones, and all the vagaries of hunting conditions that play a part in delivering a ball close enough to where it needs to be to consistently do the job 100% of the time...and the fact is, the little 92grn x .40cal ball comes right out of the starting gate with more limitations that have to be considered than say a .54cal.

 

[RickD]

I plan on deer hunting with a .44 cal rifle but will keep my shots well under 100 yards..I also hunt with a 40 cal and like you say my shots would be around 25 yards..I would hope common sense would come into play while hunting with small caliber rifles

 

[larry wv]

90% of the rbs I find with a detector here in western wv are .50 cal on up. A.32 cal round ball sounds loud so its not operator error. Larry Wv

 

[ozark57]

The only larger bullets I find around here are Minies from the war era. Most surviving guns from the ML period I have seen here are around .40. It seemed to be a standard more or less back then. Many ML's were used in this area until the turn of the century. My grandad was born in 1880 and grew up shootong ML's. I remember his stories well.
When you went somewhere you took the gun for targets of opertunity, deer or otherwise.
What I am getting at is the fact you do not have to have a .50 ( or bigger ) for deer and the RB is plenty good for deer. That's the way it was. Still is. If you hunt with a bigger caliber fine.

 

[ron ward]

i think it was due to the fact that 40. was adequite for deer in thier conditions and that,because of economics and a generally frugil lifestyle, the ownership of just one firearm meant that it had to dispatch small game without blowing them to pieces as well as put venison on the table.
in the eastern areas, small game was more a daily tablefair than big game was, the need for a larger bore wasn't as imprtant as it was out west where there were much bigger and leathal, big game.
i think the idea of a humane kill was just as much a goal then as now. i think the wound and track method of hunting was pretty much left to hunting with bows and arrows and clubs and spears. th people that settled here were mostly northern and eastern europeans, where they have been hunting with firearms a while before comming here.
granted, young men learned to track game much earlier than now, but i think it was mostly taught as a spot and stalk requirement rather than for the importance of game recovery. those people knew the capabilities of thier arms better than we do of ours today, thier very exhistance relied on it. eliminating the extra shots and extra energy expended from tracking and maybe not finding a wounded animal had far more impact on thier daily well being than i think we can imagine.

 

[biliff]

Another point is by the mid to late 1800's large game in the east was not particularly common. The eastern elk were wiped out as well as the eastern buffalo. Whitetail deer were approaching very low population levels (think they were estimated at only 300,000 nationwide by 1900). Having a gun that was primarily for small game but could take the very occassional deer when the oppurtunity presented itself probably made sense.

If you go back further to when the east was the frontier and large game was much more prevalent I think you would find calibers increasing as well. The eastern elk were estimated at up to 1200 lbs. Don't think a .40 would have been the caliber of choice for them.

 

[Headhunter]

Roundball,

We are not discussing past .40 Discussions, we are discussing THIS 40 cal discussion.

By what you say in your post, you ARE "one of those people" unless you have spoken wrong.

Everyone knows that a 54 has got more punch than the 40. What the original poster was talking about was history states that in the Ozarks the 40 was popular for deer hunting and.....

Point is, they killed deer with these .40's and did not think anything of it. Maybe those that choose to hunt deer with a traditional ML should shoot more and learn your and your guns limits rather than look to larger calibers or modern bullet designs.

What I was stating is that SOME members of this forum think that a 40 is inadequate. That is all.

I myself generally hunt and shoot competitivley with 50 or 58 Hawken rifles that either my father or myslef have built. I find the 40 to be a very good rifle caliber and killer and I can not wait to get home and build me one so I can squirrel and deer hunt with it. For hunting in the Ozarks, It would be a good all round rifle Caliber for the distances a typical Ozark meat hunter would typically face.

Headhunter

 

[Headhunter]

ohio ramrod,

You speak the truth with the Westward movement / caliber and rifle changes.

Big critters out there at that time and a bunch of them.

Headhunter

 

[redwing]

Early hunters were great trackers? Many of the movies and yarns would have us believe that. The fact is there were no seasons and no game laws. They killed deer for their hides. Ole D. Boone would bring in 1500 to 2000 hides per season. I doubt they worried that much about humane kills, that is a modern idea. Read Robert Morgans Book "Boone". Boone,and other hunters of the day hunted at night{So much for tracking}. They called it Fire Hunting. Men would walk thru the forest with torches other men with rifles. They would kill deer by the hundreds in this manner. Unlike the later western frontier, powder and lead was easier to get. The little .40 by todays rules and standards for ethical hunting fall short. The little 95 grs. ball with the power of a Saturday night Special is not a Deer load any where. Great on paper and small game, but think before you shoot deer. :nono:

 

[hanshi]

To no one in particular and speaking rhetorically many, possibly too many, hunters are overly concerned with "power". Puny rounds used to be the rule in the hunting field, rounds in the revolver class were fired in lever & single shot rifles of the time. Then the 30/30 came along and raised the power bar several notches. Today "experienced" hunters lump the 30/30 in with the .22LR.

Personal experience with deer has included one shot kills (all) with rifle and handgun calibers not even approaching the .40 prb in power. This leads me to believe a .40 prb will cleanly take deer within "reasonable range"-your definition. I won't hesitate to use my .40 as legally permitted.

I am impelled to add that "too much gun" and "overkill" are pure fantasy. There is only one (count 'em) degree of dead and no shoulder fired ML is too much as long as the shooter can truly handle it. My own dedicated deer rifle is a .45 but I've taken even more with various .50s. It makes sense to use whatever caliber that makes one comfortable. The longer the range, the larger the ball, up to at least .54-.58, at any rate. For woodland deer & small game hunting a .40 sounds fine. Just my sometimes "flawed" opinion.

 

[wvbuckbuster]

I always wondered about finding arrow heads laying around if those Indians were bad shots. Could that be with finding round balls? :haha: