- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,497
- Reaction score
- 4,656
I meant Appalachians. MD
.45 vs .50?
- Thread starter Electric Miner
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
All my responses refer to RB and not to conical of any kind. If a person choose to use a conical, which I don't, than a 45 is probably OK.
I confess I have not shot an elk with a muzzle loader but I have killed several with a 30/06 and I know how hard it can be. I have tracked down many more shot by other hunters, too. There are just too many extenuating circumstances to condone the small calibers that may do the job (again considering RB).
Our mind set is not that of the forefathers as this is a hobby to use not a livelihood. We are supposed to be hunters, not killers!
Waiting for the, my grand dad shot deer with a 22 and never lost one, reply!
I stick by my recommendation of 50 for deer and 54 for elk. :thumbsup:
I confess I have not shot an elk with a muzzle loader but I have killed several with a 30/06 and I know how hard it can be. I have tracked down many more shot by other hunters, too. There are just too many extenuating circumstances to condone the small calibers that may do the job (again considering RB).
Our mind set is not that of the forefathers as this is a hobby to use not a livelihood. We are supposed to be hunters, not killers!
Waiting for the, my grand dad shot deer with a 22 and never lost one, reply!
I stick by my recommendation of 50 for deer and 54 for elk. :thumbsup:
Yes there were buffalo.
However, it is extremely unlikely that the HUNTERS killed off the buffalo (anymore than the western hunters killed of the southern or Northern Herds in the west) or even hunted them in Kentucky to any extent for reasons stated below.
I suspect given your background that you may have read "The Buffalo Disaster of 1882" by Dr. Rudolph W. Kouchy, M.D. originally published in Volume 50, No. 1 (Winter 1983) edition of "North Dakota History: Journal of the Northern Plains" (N.D. Historical Society) and reprinted by John Baird in the Oct. 1983 "The Blackpowder Report".
This details the devastating effect that European cattle disease had on the American Bison (and the similar effect Texas Cattle had on cattle in Missouri that shut down all Texas herds entering that state). Based on R.R. shipping data the number of hides shipped would not have killed off the calf crop of the Western Herds by a significant margin.
So its very possible that the number of buffalo especially in eastern Kentucky by 1770 was but a fraction of the previous population due to disease. European diseases did not just effect the Native American population it would seem.
Then, from the long hunters perspective, the real question is what do you do with the hides? To transport any number of these one needs a FREIGHT WAGON or a large resale. Something that we have no mention of in pre-settlement Kentucky. They take far longer to skin and the hides take a LOT more work to preserve. Based on this there is no reason for the longhunter to waste time shooting a bison.
This said I too have wondered about the Eastern Bison thing as well but until I find some documentation of the long hunters hunting them in significant numbers I am not going to consider it a factor. I also would dispute that at the distances involved in the east that the 45 was inadequate for buffalo. IF the longhunter was concerned with the species. For the stated reason the longhunters were going to Kentucky, deer hides and exploration, rifles over 45 were not needed and a 40-42 cal would have worked. But does this mean there were NO rifles over 45 in Kentucky? No. It means that based on the USAGE that rifles from 40-45 would have been somewhere between adequate for the 45 and barely adequate perhaps for the 40, its all a balancing act between ammo weight/cost and killing power. But given the terrain they hunted in a good shot could killed deer and bear with head shots (behind the ear actually for bear). But bear would be a pain to deal with as well and the valuable fat and oil would have been wasted as well. So we keep coming back the the stated purpose of deer hides, market driven by fashion. Dandies wanting buckskin breehes.
Small bore rifles were common apparently even from the 1750s. This is based on a quotes in DeWitt Bailey's "British Military FLintlock Rifles" concerning the economy of the rifle in the 1750s being bad for trade vs the trade gun and a citation of rifle stocked smooth bores with "very small bores" unfortunately we have no reference point for "very small" but I suspect given the context that it was in comparison to the trade gun of the time. These guns and the longrifles mentioned in the same inventory were made in England.
So I keep falling back to rifles returned from or still in England, Hangers description and J.J. Henry's account of the short rifle he bought. There are others, in Huddleston's "Colonial Riflemen in the American Revolution" and "The Frontier Rifleman" by LaCrosse. You will find references to larger bores in the latter.
If we survey the rifled bore arms in "Rifles of Colonial America" Vol 1 & 2 we will find that excluding the wall rifle but including a couple of other atypical large bore rifles the average is still 52.5 IIRC.
Averages can be misleading so people should do their own research.
Here is a chart of original rifle calibers from a couple of "picture books" of American Longrifles.
These were rifles that were FL or originally flintlock. Note that its very likely that a significant percentage of the smooth rifles were bored smooth sometime during their service life.
I have spent a lot of time thinking and reading whatever I could on the subject. Unfortunately in many cases one is at the mercy of the person checking the bore size and this can vary in the same rifle from one account to another.
I believe that Hancock Taylor's "Haymaker" rifle is now a 52. Given its service life it was likely no larger than 48 when made and its a bonifide pre-Revolutionary war rifle. Given the typical cleaning process of the time and place if Taylor carried it on the trip he made before the fatal one it likely was freshed at least once before he was killed.
This whole rifle bore size thing is very frustrating to anyone who wonders about such minutia. Some people, according to an account a friend quoted to me, liked a ball the size of a pea and others liked a ball the size of a cranberry. How big was the Cranberry in Colonial times? One account says they were this big if used for war but we have a certified battlefield capture rifle, the “Thomas rifle” that is listed as 47 caliber.
So I keep going to the economics. What worked? How much money would the average rifle owner or even a longhunter want to budget for powder and lead?
A 45 will kill deer dead at 50 yards with 45 gr of powder, but its going to run 40-100 yards if shot in the lungs. How hard will it be to find? They will run off shot in the same place with a 54 and 120 gr of powder but the noise factor is pretty bad when hunting in a forbidden place. But the blood trail may be better. So would the hunter in Kentucky be better served with head shots taken along trails or licks at maybe 15-20 yards? I honestly do not know and neither does anyone else that I know of. We have to remember that OUR hunting practices and ethics may be far different than a hide hunters of 1768.
So we make suppositions and put forth theories. Thats all these ideas are, theory. But discussing them in places like this shakes the bushes and people who may have documentation hopefully will drop snippets of it for us to consider.
I sure as heck cannot force Daniel Boone to carry a 40 or 50 or 60 caliber rifle into Kentucky in 1770. I can only wonder what would I do considering what I know today?
A 32 to the pound kills better than a 50 to the pound, maybe, but it costs a LOT more to shoot and the ammo is a lot heavier. The 70 to the pound is cheaper still but how effective is it. Would it exceed the killing power of the modern 22 LR? I know people who have shot deer with this and say it works. So how much power did they need. What about native Americans? Would 70 to the pound be effective there?
What about the documented shots on or at British officers during the Rev-War? Would a 70 to the pound ball do much at 300 yards? I know a 40 to the pound will.
Like many of these things its possible to meet oneself coming from the other direction...
The 70 to the pound will kill deer at 30-40 yards but we have people talking of shooting at the enemy at 150 in the 1740s-50s and 300 during the 1770s. We have Hanger and his CO be shot at from 400 yards and the shot missed them but killed the horse the man behind them was riding. Now what caliber rifle was being used for this? Where was the horse hit, it staggered and fell so it was not likely a head shot? Was this rifle a 58 like the surviving Marshal Rifle? Was it a 60 like the Shreit? Was it a 49-50 caliber like JJ Henry’s new to him short rifle using a 48 caliber ball in 1775? We will never know.
Dan
However, it is extremely unlikely that the HUNTERS killed off the buffalo (anymore than the western hunters killed of the southern or Northern Herds in the west) or even hunted them in Kentucky to any extent for reasons stated below.
I suspect given your background that you may have read "The Buffalo Disaster of 1882" by Dr. Rudolph W. Kouchy, M.D. originally published in Volume 50, No. 1 (Winter 1983) edition of "North Dakota History: Journal of the Northern Plains" (N.D. Historical Society) and reprinted by John Baird in the Oct. 1983 "The Blackpowder Report".
This details the devastating effect that European cattle disease had on the American Bison (and the similar effect Texas Cattle had on cattle in Missouri that shut down all Texas herds entering that state). Based on R.R. shipping data the number of hides shipped would not have killed off the calf crop of the Western Herds by a significant margin.
So its very possible that the number of buffalo especially in eastern Kentucky by 1770 was but a fraction of the previous population due to disease. European diseases did not just effect the Native American population it would seem.
Then, from the long hunters perspective, the real question is what do you do with the hides? To transport any number of these one needs a FREIGHT WAGON or a large resale. Something that we have no mention of in pre-settlement Kentucky. They take far longer to skin and the hides take a LOT more work to preserve. Based on this there is no reason for the longhunter to waste time shooting a bison.
This said I too have wondered about the Eastern Bison thing as well but until I find some documentation of the long hunters hunting them in significant numbers I am not going to consider it a factor. I also would dispute that at the distances involved in the east that the 45 was inadequate for buffalo. IF the longhunter was concerned with the species. For the stated reason the longhunters were going to Kentucky, deer hides and exploration, rifles over 45 were not needed and a 40-42 cal would have worked. But does this mean there were NO rifles over 45 in Kentucky? No. It means that based on the USAGE that rifles from 40-45 would have been somewhere between adequate for the 45 and barely adequate perhaps for the 40, its all a balancing act between ammo weight/cost and killing power. But given the terrain they hunted in a good shot could killed deer and bear with head shots (behind the ear actually for bear). But bear would be a pain to deal with as well and the valuable fat and oil would have been wasted as well. So we keep coming back the the stated purpose of deer hides, market driven by fashion. Dandies wanting buckskin breehes.
Small bore rifles were common apparently even from the 1750s. This is based on a quotes in DeWitt Bailey's "British Military FLintlock Rifles" concerning the economy of the rifle in the 1750s being bad for trade vs the trade gun and a citation of rifle stocked smooth bores with "very small bores" unfortunately we have no reference point for "very small" but I suspect given the context that it was in comparison to the trade gun of the time. These guns and the longrifles mentioned in the same inventory were made in England.
So I keep falling back to rifles returned from or still in England, Hangers description and J.J. Henry's account of the short rifle he bought. There are others, in Huddleston's "Colonial Riflemen in the American Revolution" and "The Frontier Rifleman" by LaCrosse. You will find references to larger bores in the latter.
If we survey the rifled bore arms in "Rifles of Colonial America" Vol 1 & 2 we will find that excluding the wall rifle but including a couple of other atypical large bore rifles the average is still 52.5 IIRC.
Averages can be misleading so people should do their own research.
Here is a chart of original rifle calibers from a couple of "picture books" of American Longrifles.
These were rifles that were FL or originally flintlock. Note that its very likely that a significant percentage of the smooth rifles were bored smooth sometime during their service life.
I have spent a lot of time thinking and reading whatever I could on the subject. Unfortunately in many cases one is at the mercy of the person checking the bore size and this can vary in the same rifle from one account to another.
I believe that Hancock Taylor's "Haymaker" rifle is now a 52. Given its service life it was likely no larger than 48 when made and its a bonifide pre-Revolutionary war rifle. Given the typical cleaning process of the time and place if Taylor carried it on the trip he made before the fatal one it likely was freshed at least once before he was killed.
This whole rifle bore size thing is very frustrating to anyone who wonders about such minutia. Some people, according to an account a friend quoted to me, liked a ball the size of a pea and others liked a ball the size of a cranberry. How big was the Cranberry in Colonial times? One account says they were this big if used for war but we have a certified battlefield capture rifle, the “Thomas rifle” that is listed as 47 caliber.
So I keep going to the economics. What worked? How much money would the average rifle owner or even a longhunter want to budget for powder and lead?
A 45 will kill deer dead at 50 yards with 45 gr of powder, but its going to run 40-100 yards if shot in the lungs. How hard will it be to find? They will run off shot in the same place with a 54 and 120 gr of powder but the noise factor is pretty bad when hunting in a forbidden place. But the blood trail may be better. So would the hunter in Kentucky be better served with head shots taken along trails or licks at maybe 15-20 yards? I honestly do not know and neither does anyone else that I know of. We have to remember that OUR hunting practices and ethics may be far different than a hide hunters of 1768.
So we make suppositions and put forth theories. Thats all these ideas are, theory. But discussing them in places like this shakes the bushes and people who may have documentation hopefully will drop snippets of it for us to consider.
I sure as heck cannot force Daniel Boone to carry a 40 or 50 or 60 caliber rifle into Kentucky in 1770. I can only wonder what would I do considering what I know today?
A 32 to the pound kills better than a 50 to the pound, maybe, but it costs a LOT more to shoot and the ammo is a lot heavier. The 70 to the pound is cheaper still but how effective is it. Would it exceed the killing power of the modern 22 LR? I know people who have shot deer with this and say it works. So how much power did they need. What about native Americans? Would 70 to the pound be effective there?
What about the documented shots on or at British officers during the Rev-War? Would a 70 to the pound ball do much at 300 yards? I know a 40 to the pound will.
Like many of these things its possible to meet oneself coming from the other direction...
The 70 to the pound will kill deer at 30-40 yards but we have people talking of shooting at the enemy at 150 in the 1740s-50s and 300 during the 1770s. We have Hanger and his CO be shot at from 400 yards and the shot missed them but killed the horse the man behind them was riding. Now what caliber rifle was being used for this? Where was the horse hit, it staggered and fell so it was not likely a head shot? Was this rifle a 58 like the surviving Marshal Rifle? Was it a 60 like the Shreit? Was it a 49-50 caliber like JJ Henry’s new to him short rifle using a 48 caliber ball in 1775? We will never know.
Dan
I have a post in on another site looking for PERIOD documentation for commercial hunting of buffalo by the long hunters of Kentucky prior to European Settlement. May take a day or three.
The Buffalo thing is a good angle but I still think that unless they were worth more by the POUND than deer and fine fur packhorse moving of buffalo parts would be less profitable than the deer or fine fur. It goes back the economics again.
To make money off Buffalo there is a need for a skinner to take care of the hides and a way to ship heavy cargo efficiently. Kentucky in 1770 lacked the latter.
If horsebacking the tongues, for example, then salt would be needed to preserve them unless cold weather.
Dan
The Buffalo thing is a good angle but I still think that unless they were worth more by the POUND than deer and fine fur packhorse moving of buffalo parts would be less profitable than the deer or fine fur. It goes back the economics again.
To make money off Buffalo there is a need for a skinner to take care of the hides and a way to ship heavy cargo efficiently. Kentucky in 1770 lacked the latter.
If horsebacking the tongues, for example, then salt would be needed to preserve them unless cold weather.
Dan
Dan - know where did I say the Buffalo went "extinct" in the east due to being hunted to death, just that the last ones were hunted there in the 1790's.
And yes I saw your post on FF and noted you have already received answers that will help verify my post regarding buffalo being a prime money maker in the east, dependent as always on time and place. And by the way - some of the links I posted above will lead to more Period Documentation - some of which is included in the first link. Here's one by Boone himself
As for about the calibers used - I suspect some one like Nathan Kobuck who has done extensive research into the items bought and used by the Baynton Wharton hunters might shed some light - Mark Baker and Mick Archer (aka Curt Schmidt) are other students of that time and area. John Curry should have at least some on the hunters father south as does Ted Belue in the book I listed. Ted Belue's article in BOB 7 includes an invoice paying Daniel Boone and others for buffalo meat. As for salt, there was apparently lots available in the country Boone hunted in the 1760's and 70's. Places such as Salt Licks, Blue Licks which is along the Licking River, Bullitt's Lick, and the aptly named Buffalo Lick.
As for the hassle of the extra weight and such for carrying a heavier caliber, it was no more a hassle than it was for the western trappers of 80+ years later - the market and long hunters of the areas I mentioned were invariably horsemen just like the later mountain men were so it's not an inherently valid argument for lighter calibers in and of itself. Nor would buffalo hides be too hard to handle - eastern buffalo were generally somewhat smaller for one, but mainly where there was a market there were those that filled that market. Even during the 1822-1840 western fur trade while beaver was by far the prime fur for sale, buffalo and other course furs as well as dried buffalo tongues and pemmican were bought from them whenever available.
And yes I saw your post on FF and noted you have already received answers that will help verify my post regarding buffalo being a prime money maker in the east, dependent as always on time and place. And by the way - some of the links I posted above will lead to more Period Documentation - some of which is included in the first link. Here's one by Boone himself
As for about the calibers used - I suspect some one like Nathan Kobuck who has done extensive research into the items bought and used by the Baynton Wharton hunters might shed some light - Mark Baker and Mick Archer (aka Curt Schmidt) are other students of that time and area. John Curry should have at least some on the hunters father south as does Ted Belue in the book I listed. Ted Belue's article in BOB 7 includes an invoice paying Daniel Boone and others for buffalo meat. As for salt, there was apparently lots available in the country Boone hunted in the 1760's and 70's. Places such as Salt Licks, Blue Licks which is along the Licking River, Bullitt's Lick, and the aptly named Buffalo Lick.
As for the hassle of the extra weight and such for carrying a heavier caliber, it was no more a hassle than it was for the western trappers of 80+ years later - the market and long hunters of the areas I mentioned were invariably horsemen just like the later mountain men were so it's not an inherently valid argument for lighter calibers in and of itself. Nor would buffalo hides be too hard to handle - eastern buffalo were generally somewhat smaller for one, but mainly where there was a market there were those that filled that market. Even during the 1822-1840 western fur trade while beaver was by far the prime fur for sale, buffalo and other course furs as well as dried buffalo tongues and pemmican were bought from them whenever available.
Sperit de bois
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 909
- Reaction score
- 5
Did your question get lost in the answer????? :idunno:
Electric Miner
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 445
- Reaction score
- 72
If nothing else, I discovered that the simplest questions cause the biggest arguments. The question now becomes "Which barrel to bore out smooth for shooting shot?"
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2012
- Messages
- 928
- Reaction score
- 1,286
I would use the barrel and build a new gun then you have 2 guns just saying
Greg Blackburn
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2012
- Messages
- 900
- Reaction score
- 395
I have seen some sharp-looking .45's on gunbroker. If I had had the money, at least one I would have gotten. If I hunted with it, I'd just use a conical bullet but that's just a preference.
Most guns are .50 and so are most accessories, get what you want, don't worry about it, if you don't like it, sell it. Plenty of buyers here for good guns I'm sure.
Greg
Most guns are .50 and so are most accessories, get what you want, don't worry about it, if you don't like it, sell it. Plenty of buyers here for good guns I'm sure.
Greg
ebiggs said:
Depends on what you are talking about.
For example in the transporting meat or tongues, have you ever had to pack out something big, like a boned out moose when the weather was hitting 70 degrees and you are over a day from any refrigeration, most of it horseback?
Do you know how fast an elk will turn green on the "down" side if left laying on the ground with weather in the 40s?
Believe it or not killing a critter a days ride from anywhere today is not different than 1770. Stuff rots, hair slips etc. if things are not done right.
I am still reading material on the buffalo thing, but spent the day in Billings today.
Dan
Yes many times. Elk that is. I have only seen one live moose in Colorado as they were/are strictly protected.
Still no matter how difficult you may find it or how much you read about it, does not absolutely rule out the possibility that they didn't do it.
It simply means you don't know how it was done, if it was.
Electric Miner
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 445
- Reaction score
- 72
Unfortunately, that's the thing about negatives. You can never prove that something never happened. You can just go on available evidence that something never happened.
In reading “The Long Hunt”, parts of it anyway...
I can find nothing that indicates that anywhere but along major streams the buffalo in Kentucky was of any significant commercial value before settlement. When the cows arrived the buffalo were short lived.
Anyway rifles in the 40-45 caliber range will kill them with head shots with proper placement. So there would be little need for a “buffalo rifle” in the horse packer (as Boone and many others were) long hunter inventory. They apparently shot buffalo in limited numbers, deer by the hundreds and head shots would work here too, no tracking to do. Some deer will run long distances shot fatally with 50-54. I have had a WT run 200 shot with a 54 through the shoulders and a Mule Deer run just as far shot a couple of inches over the heart with a 50, both at ranges under 50. My 16 bore will not reliably stop Mule deer at 40-50 yards with the heart destroyed.
In my experience, on deer, there is no significant difference in 45-50-54 with equal shot placement. So why would I pack a 54 to
The bear was apparently more valuable than the Buffalo and I have read that shots, behind the ear actually, were preferred for these. In this case a large caliber is not needed. A bear shot in the heart/lung are with much larger calibers that used in a Kentucky can still cover a lot of ground and be dangerous. Thinking of 2 instances of 12 ga slugs used on black bear. So a head shot might be a better idea perhaps hunting on your own and Boone apparently did.
Did they use headshots? Have no idea but it would reduce the number of holes in the hide if this was important.
Dan
cowpoke1955
58 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 2,090
- Reaction score
- 6
It seems funny. When Navy Arms and Dixie Gun Works started importing muzzle loading rifles, most were in .45 caliber. Thousands of deer fell to these rifles. The .50 caliber did not become popular until the plains style rifles came on the market at a later date. I can't say much. I have two GPRs, a Lyman Trade Rifle and a T/C Hawkens...all in .54 caliber. BUT I also have a .45 caliber Pedersoli Blue Ridge flinter and never feel under gunned when hunting deer with it. Like comparing a .30-30 to a .30-06. Both will do the job.
Electric Miner
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 445
- Reaction score
- 72
I'm struggling to see what your point here is.
Evidence has been provided that buffalo were not commercially exploited. No evidence has been provided that they were commercially exploited.
It is not possible to prove they were not commercially exploited, since you cannot prove a negative. However, logic dictates that they were not, since that is what the available evidence shows.
As far as the pyramids, it is, likewise, not possible to prove that aliens did not build them. However, given available evidence, it is not reasonable to assume that aliens built them.
Evidence has been provided that buffalo were not commercially exploited. No evidence has been provided that they were commercially exploited.
It is not possible to prove they were not commercially exploited, since you cannot prove a negative. However, logic dictates that they were not, since that is what the available evidence shows.
As far as the pyramids, it is, likewise, not possible to prove that aliens did not build them. However, given available evidence, it is not reasonable to assume that aliens built them.
ebiggs said:
Unlike trying to build a pyramid like the Ancients may or may not have, I CAN shoot deer with different ball sizes and bullet designs and view the results.
Not only that I ALREADY HAVE.
I have shot a probably 3 year old Mule Deer with a 38-40 WCF blackpowder load form a first model Colt LMR with 24" barrel. I was using 37 gr FFF in a "semi-balloon head" case, Lyman 40143 (copy of factory bullet). Deer was shot through the lungs. Tiny wound channels, deer ran 40-50 yards and collapsed.
Shot a deer with a 54 loaded with 120 gr of FFF. Made BIG wound channels through lungs. Deer ran 40-50 yards and fell. Shot a WT doe at 25-30 yards 54 RB 100 gr of FFF Swiss. Just under the front of the shoulder blades, pass through, impact velocity probably 1700. Deer ran 200 yards with no reaction at all other than running away. Fell dead at full speed sliding about 25 feet on the snow.
Mule deer buck, very similar to the one shot at close range with the 38-40, shot at 140 long steps with 50 caliber RB, deer made 40 yards and fell dead. Son shot a Mule deer near identical to the the last one mentioned, 45 gr of FFF 45 cal RB. Shot passed through the lungs just over the heart. Deer ran maybe 80 yards (died in seconds at any rate).
Shot a doe that was somewhat agitated at about 50 yards with a 50, 90 gr fff, perfect lung shot. Deer ran 200+ stood and bled out a pool of blood from her nose and then fell forward into it.
Doe Mule Deer broad side, shot with 400 gr soft PP bullet with 35 caliber flat point, 92 gr of FF in a 44-90, perfect lung shot, deer ran about 120 yards. This load was very destructive in heavy muscle based on a neck shot I made that missed to bone and blew all the meat off the tendons above the spine for about 4". Deer dropped to the shot and I cut his throat.
Deer shot at 40-50 yards, .662 ball, 140 gr of FF Swiss. Deer facing the gun. Ball entered to one side of the windpipe, make a large hole at the top 2/3 of the heart. A trail of blood and tissue was blown back out the wound toward the gun.
Massive blood loss up the path she took
Ran FARTHER then the deer shot with the 50 at 140 that MISSED the heart, FARTHER than the one shot with the anemic 38-40.
I shot a MD Doe with 54 PISTOL distance 20-25 yards. Ball breaks the humerus, takes arteries at top of heart, deer runs about 40 yards and collapses. Ball under far side hide.
In the end ALL the guns listed performed the same.
The deer died. The size of the hole, the potential energy of the bullet, how it was shaped had little to do with how soon they collapsed.
This is DEER. Now if we go to larger animals the larger bores will show better results. Or should.
Elk shot at about 70-80 yards with a 54. Broke Humerus, holed aorta, elk went down, struggled, got up ran about (you guessed it) 50 yards and collapsed.
I have seen a buck run 100+ shot with a 7mm Mag with chunks of lung hanging out the exit wound.
The point is this.
If the deer is shot in the lungs or heart there will be little PRACTICAL difference, on average, between a 45-50-54 rb rifle. This carries over to a number of other firearms as well that are far more powerful, capable, higher velocity, better bullet design, etc etc which I added as a point of reference.
So a GOOD shot with a 45 RB will have better luck than a mediocre shot with a 54. Since BOTH calibers will RELIABLY kill deer IF used properly. If people insist on taking risky shots, trying to hit the heart from the wrong end, trying to shoot the deer in the lungs from too much of an angle etc etc all bets are off..
From a PRACTICAL standpoint. With PROPER shot placement the 45-50-54 are EQUAL so far as killing deer. The individual stamina of the deer will have more effect on how long the deer lives/how far it travels, than the caliber.
These are all things I have personally witnessed, no theory, no formulas, no working as a shill for some powder/bullet/gun maker. Just what REALLY happened. Yes I have rarely shot deer that dropped at the shot, but aside from a deer my son shot with a 6.5x55 and an antelope I shot with a clients 270, all involved the bullet passing close to the spine or striking it.
This one dropped to the shot. I was uphill from him 30 yards maybe and it was a quartering shot, he was walking up a trail that passed to my right and was looking at me with his neck slightly bent, the ball passed just under the spinal column. The ruffled tuft of hair is the entrance.
Would a 45 have done the same thing? PROBABLY. No way to know short of finding a deer coming up the trail with me setting at the same spot, having him stop at the same place etc, etc. But the 45 will KILL the deer with the same shot placement.
Dan
