Calibers and history

[nkbj]

elkand buff east or west all die the same if the ball is in the right spot guns from across the ocean were lager cals and came over with the owners the cal stayed big do to bear and man hunting then as hunters traveled further a field hunting and market hunting for the armys and people centers cals dropd also a lot of the big game had been pushed away and the Indian troubles were not a concern you did not need a big cal rifle

Good reason for going bigger...because speaking in broad general terms, the terrain changes as you go west and you're more often faced with making longer shots. Not to say say that I haven't had bullwinkle looking over my shoulder when I was trying to rustle up the morning coals and and walked up on mating pairs in a small clearing.

 

[Dphar]

By the time of the Rev war, the rifle smiths here had gotten away from the large bore Jaeger style rifles, due in part to the heavy tax on lead imposed by England. Many of the Colonial Riflesmiths from before the F&I war were still making the large bore Jaeger styles that they learned in Central Europe. There may well have been a difference depending on the intended travels of the purchaser. If we look at the originals from the pre 1760 era, they are probably mostly large bores. After 1760 the lengths grew and the bores shrank. My only original from the early 1800's, is about a 42 caliber. I don't have anything from the 1700's in America to compare. In addition, the Golden Age guns that survived, were probably intended partially as show pieces. Who would have all that fancy brass on a knock about frontier gun. Maybe someone has access to the records of an early gunsmith to see what guns were made/requested during the years. Also rememmber that thhere was 100 years of firearms use in the Eastern US before the Revolutionary war. I don't think a 1730's gun would be near what a 1780's gun would be.

"Four foot barrels" were apparently the norm by the 1750s.
I would like to see images of the pre-1760 examples of American short rifles. Ones that can be dated accurately.


Dan

 

[oldude]

I do belive the western Elk are larger then the eastern and the same for Plains buff compared to the woodland buff of the east, plus out west you had to contend with ol griz which takes a larger pill than a black bar. The shootin distance is mostly more open out west(more so then), as I understand it back east alot of the open country there now was once preety well forested.Out west the deer are mostly Mule Deer and a doe can weigh 100-130 lbs and a buck around 150 plus. you can see the samething today, a 30-30 or slug gun is a fine white tail choice but when hunting mulies out west they ain't so good at 3-400 yrd shots. Bent

 

[Snow on the Roof]

Why do elk and bison west of the mississippi need larger calibers to kill than elk and bison east of the mississippi? :idunno: :idunno:

Perhaps elk and buffalo were not the concern but rather ursus horriblus. I do believe since horseback was a more prevelent mode of transport in the west, although certainly not exclusive too, the weight of supplies to feed the larger calibers was of less concern to the free trapper of the west than the eastern hunter on foot. Then again I'm often wrong... just ask my wife.

Snow

 

[smoothshooter]

Why do elk and bison west of the mississippi need larger calibers to kill than elk and bison east of the mississippi? :idunno: :idunno:

Because the ranges are often longer.
And the wind is worse.