.40 did it then

[nchawkeye]

There are a lot of assumptions going on here...

How many here have actually killed a deer with a .40??? I have, as well as a .45 and .54 round ball...While we are at it I have also killed a couple of dozen with a .22...

As mentioned, we are assuming that the animal of chioce was deer...I'll bet more meals were made of turkey, squirrels, rabbits, coons, possums, groundhogs, ducks and the like...

As most know, previous to the Revolution calibers from .50-.58 were common...Calibers in the east did get smaller in the 1780s-1820s and by that time Daniel Boone had left North Carolina, then Kentucky and finally went to the Spanish Territory in Missouri...It's a pretty good bet that the rifle Daniel carried with him on his first trip into Kentucky in 1769 was larger than a .40 and probably larger than .45...

In addition, those guys could track better than we can simply because they hunted 12 months out of the year...

If you look at many of the original journals then you will also find that they preferred a younger deer for comsumption...So, instead of killing a 150-200 pound rutting buck they were eating a 50-90 pouund doe, big difference...

A .40 caliber round ball with 50-60 grains of powder has about the same effect on a deer hit in the ribs as a .22 Mag...The deer sprints off for 75-150 yards and piles up...Typically there is little blood on the ground so you need to be good at tracking sign...Hopefully you are not near a swamp, cutover, pond or river for the deer to crash in...

You'll have more success finding deer when hit with a .45...

 

[hanshi]

No, I've yet to take a deer with a .40 and have no anecdotal experiences to relate. This just means any comment I have on the .40's effectiveness is pure speculation. I have taken a fair number of deer with .357 revolvers with both 6" & 4" barrels and all were one shot kills and only one (hit too far back) ran more than a few feet. I've also used the .41 & .44 mags with similar success. Energy wise the .40 prb leaves the .357 mag in the dust. We do know prb me does not kill, there's more to it than that. I'd think a .40 would cleanly take deer at at least the same distances as the .357mag (a couple were 60 +- yards). Beyond that I won't speculate. :v

 

[mazo kid]

45 cal. Minimum -in smooth[/color] 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!
..............." The TERMITE".....................

Yes, 45 for smooth bore, but .40 for rifles. I agree that as the range increases the edge goes to the larger calibers. Most of the shooting around here is 75 yards or less, so shot placement is paramount. Some of the "old timers" used to take deer with head shots with a .22!

 

[ozark57]

I would say the average shot in this area is about 30 yards. The thing about larger calibers was the fact they would ruin a lot of small game. You did not have several guns, your one gun might be your most valuable posestion.
Many of the local guns I have examined are around .40 maybe .41 or .42. from what I understand the mold came with the rifle. It seems that it was the best choice for the time.

 

[rdillion]

The 40cal is still a good choice IMHO. Keep your shots under 50 yrds. Shot placement as always is the key. I still wouldn't shoot a big trophy buck with a 40cal unless he was 20yrds or so away. Probably not even then. If your hunting the big boys carry your big rifle.

 

[roundball]

"...If your hunting the big boys carry your big rifle..."

And that's always the wild card in these kinds of discussions...speaking only for myself, after waiting all year for the next deer season to get here, and I only have a fixed number of days to get out after them, I don't want to leave anything to chance and kick myself in the butt for the next 5 years...so I go after them with all possible advantages tilted my way
:wink:

 

[tg]

There is no doubt that a .40 ball will take deer at moderate ranges, it does limit one if a long shot presents itself but the same can be said for the man packing a .54 when a buck steps out at 175 yds, in the past a gun that was easy on lead and powder would offer one the chance at most of the game still avaiable in the eastern woods, and I suspect they were smart enough to know the limitations of a particular caliber and hunt accordingly,taking a very long shot with a small ball figuring on a long tracking episode would not be a favorable practice then anymore than it is now.i have taken several deer with the .40 one just needs to hunt within the envelope the caliber creates.

 

[fyrfyter43]

A .40 will undoubtedly kill deer when used within its limits. I've killed several deer with a single pellet of 00 Buck (roughly .33 cal.) at ranges out to about 35 yards. Every one was DRT. MV is lower with 00 Buck (only about 1250 fps), and the ball is smaller and lighter.

 

[Shine]

Someone ask Danny Caywood what he hunts deer with.
Anyway
With my .40 I have killed 2 Bucks 1 250 lb. black bear. snowshoe hare, squirrels red and gray. 2 turkeys in pa. and many many of my favorite meal Ruffed grouse,or partridge for us Mainers.
All were clean kills one deer I tracked for about 50 yards. The bear died with a jelly donut in his mouth . They do that when you drill em in the back of the mellon.
With a .395 ball and 60 grs of 3f it will kill anyting in the east. If you keep your cool and place that little ball where it needs to go.
I haven't tried a moose yet but maybe i'll draw a tag someday.
I have called moose within in 10 feet of me im not worried about range.

 

[roundball]

No question small calibers will do the job when just shooting animals up close on a bait pile.
However, the discussion has been about real hunting with the context of a general purpose deer caliber for hunting...where shots, distances, conditions, and the time clock are variable issue to contend with.
Significantly different than shooting an unspecting bear doing a head stand in a 55 gallon drum of sugar doughnuts

 

[Stumpkiller]

They had one rifle and knew it well.

I used to have a neighbor (still going at 103, by the way) who took a deer every year with a .32-20 lever action . . . which was not legal but he'd been doing it since he was a kid in the same farmhouse. He also used that rifle for anything that dared set paw in his garden.

Sure a .40 will take deer. If you hunt to its limitations and get close. If you need "guar-an-teed" at 100 yards (for a rifle you shoot maybe 20 times a year) like many posters desire it probably is not the best choice. Shoot 300 times a year and practice on squirrels, chucks, coyotes and targets of opportunity on woods walks or such and you have leveled the curve some.

 

[larry wv]

Seems a bit small, .40 round ball for moose :shocked2: If I was starving I would do it otherwise you aren't doing the moose any favors. And no I have never shot a moose.. Larry Wv

 

[Shine]

I never said anything about a bait pile.
I caught him breaking into a dunkin donuts.

 

[larry wv]

Ha-Ha Good one Shine. :thumbsup: Larry

 

[tg]

" 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."

I think there is a lot of truth in what you say, not to put down users of larger cals but to dampen their looking down, and lecturing the ones who have learned to use the smaller cals with regular sucess.

 

[roundball]

"...bait..."

jelly doughnut...bait...easy to connect the dots.

:thumbsup:

 

[roundball]

"...distances a typical Ozark meat hunter would typically face..."

And what would they be?

 

[rdillion]

The last several deer I have shot have been around 35 yrds. During bow season I've had them directly under my stand. One button buck got within feet of me while I was prone in a hay field trying not to be seen. Well, he saw me and came to investigate. LOL :rotf:

 

[ron ward]

danged you guys,
now you got me thinking about a .45 barrel for my vincent again!

 

[ozark57]

" 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."

I think there is a lot of truth in what you say, not to put down users of larger cals but to dampen their looking down, and lecturing the ones who have learned to use the smaller cals with regular sucess.

TG, this is what I am getting at. There have been a lot of threads lately concerning less than .50 rb's not being effective enouph for deer and large calibers being a "must". Even with modern centerfire rifles, i've seen deer lost after bad shot placement. The skilled hunter with a smaller caliber can effectivley take deer with well placed shots.A large gun does not make up for lack of skill.