deer hunting

[babybill]

I will be hunting with a pedersolli pennsylvania rifle. What would be a maximum killing range on a whitetail. I will be using 100 grains of 2fg and a .490 roundball. thanks1

 

[hawk]

how good is your group off hand at 80-100 yards ?

the ball will do the job if you can.

maybe you should be asking how close can i get to a deer when hunting ,makes the job much easier JMHO.

good luck

 

[Lonegun1894]

Like Hawk told you, the limitation is the shooter, not the gun. The load you listed will easily do the job if the ball goes in the right place. Also, most people go to these more primitive weapons for the challenge of having to get a little closer along with the historical aspect of it. Personally, I know I can take a deer at over 500 yds with one of my modern rifles, but would much rather do it at 100 or less with a ML... it's not just a shopping trip if you have to actually hunt and get close. Much more satisfying when you succeed after having worked for it.

My two last season were at about 12 yds, and 45 yds, respectively.

 

[CaptainKirk]

A .490 PRB will easily carry enough remaining energy to 100 yard and beyond to drop deer-sized game, but as the others say, it is more about assessing your shooting skills (honestly) and trying to get as close as possible for the shot. It honestly makes you a better hunter. :v

 

[longcruise]

Unless you are an extraordinarly gifted shooter, then the ball will kill out to the range at which you can repeatedly put it in the vitals 100% of the time.

In order to qualify as "extraordinarly gifted" you would have to be able to estimate range accurately every time to with 5 yards once you get beyond about 120 yards and then be able to place the ball in the vitals every time.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

You should have 800 lbs of energy to humanly kill a deer. You don't have that at 100 yds with your load.

I'd get closer.

 

[jethro224]

I have killed deer out past 100 yards with 70 grains of 2F behind a .490 ball with complete penetration. If you can put the ball thru the lungs the deer will die.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Maybe, but you still didn't have 800 ft lbs.

That's what's considered safe.


You get 100 yd shots in your neck of the woods. :rotf:

 

[Trench]

You should have 800 lbs of energy to humanly kill a deer. You don't have that at 100 yds with your load.

I'd get closer.

I don't get too wrapped up in energy. 800ft lbs seems excesive. It seems to me that only enough energy to crush a hole through a deer is what is needed and that's no where near 800ft-lbs.

Every time I find myself wondering if I've got enough energy in that ball, I remember that archers take deer with an arrow moving at 130fps.

 

[Lonegun1894]

Capper,
not trying to start an argument, but I disagree with you on this. Per the Lyman handbook, a .495 ball, started at 2300 fps at the muzzle, only has 697 ft/lbs left at 100 yds. To accomplish this, per Lyman ballistic tables, you need a 43" barrell (as shorter ones wont do it, and you need the ball pushed by 140grs of fff powder or more. Lyman stopped the testing at a maximum of 170 grs of fff, which according to their load tables, only develops 739 ft/lbs at 100.

I cant explain the discrepancy, but I know I am not willing to load my guns that heavy, and my 70 gr load of goex fff takes deer just as well as any modern rifle I've used, and better than some.

Personally, I believe that the ft/lbs figures are just a way to compare power levels of certain loads, but are heavily skewed in favor of high velocity, which these guns just dont deliver. Going purely by the ft/lbs measurements, my bow only gives me about 170 ft/lbs, but the last deer I took with it was a complete pass through also, and didnt go far either. Those measurements dont provide a true picture of what happens to game, and we all know the old technology worked back in the old days just as well as it does today, and we as a species have not starved yet. Those tables definitely sell guns though. I know they sold me a couple before I woke up and realized thats what it was being used for.

Placement is much more important than velocity. I believe it was in the late 1800s that the US Army determined that you need 300 fps to perforate a human being--which is very close is size to most deer. I am not advocating loading down to those levels, just saying that we tend to use more than we absolutely need to--as we should out of respect for the game we pursue. But we also don't have a need to turn our MLs into cannons either. It'd accuracy that means the most, everything else is negotiable.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Well, I come from the CF world. It's pretty much accepted that 800lbs for deer and 1200lbs for elk is what's needed. Now, a 30 cal bullet is different than a .50/.54 ball. So, maybe a fast moving.30 cal bullet doesn't have the hitting power that a slow moving .50 ball does.

In my research i've read this.

A .50 cal ML loaded with a PRB and 70 gr of 3F has 1800fps and 1300fpe at the muzzle. At 100 yds it has 400fpe. That seemed pretty light to me, but doesn't seem to agree with figures posted above.


Now a .54 loaded with 100gr and a 430gr maxi-ball still has 1000fpe at 100yds. More than enough. Maybe too much.

So, i'm thinking something between those two loads would be an ideal deer load at 100yds.

I always go on the safe side of loads and shots taken. I'm always thinking of the animal. I don't like to see them suffer.

 

[tg]

That 800 lb thing was developed for a number to use in modern guns I would not give it any thought with a PRB or a broad head,I have always felt that is best to put modern ballistic data/recomendations on the shelf when tossing PRBs at game.Though I do think that by the nature of open iron sights that being closer than 100 yds is a good thing with the slowewr ball and open sights the farther away the more the chance of not putting the ball in the best spot, think archery plus a few yds when hunting with a ML, if you have to shoot 100 yds or more stay with modern guns and bullets. 70-75 yds is plenty far enough for most ML hunters to be taking shots at Deer, though there are exceptions, that extra 25yds just gives Murphy more room to play.

 

[BrownBear]

That 800 fpe is the stuff writers use to pimp the latest guns and ammo ad buyers in magazines. The articles that appear in those rags are dictated by the ad departments, and I'm in a position to know a lot about that fact.

I've shot waaaaaay too many deer with handguns in 44 Special and 45 Colt to buy into the 800 fpe hype. My 44 and 45 loads are churning out 750 fps with 240-250 grain bullets for around 300 fpe at the muzzle and 275 fpe at 50 yards. They've killed every deer I've ever shot with them out to a little beyond 50 yards, and most dropped right in their tracks. Never tried it further because I wasn't confident of a good hit, but I have no doubt the bullet would do fine to at least 100 if I could manage to put it in the boiler room.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Yeah, I wouldn't trust my eyes for an open sight 100 yd shot.

I might make or I might not. I wouldn't chance it.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Ok, so my limit isn't the gun, but my eyes.

If I can see the shot. The gun will do it's part.

 

[BrownBear]

Yeah, I wouldn't trust my eyes for an open sight 100 yd shot.

I might make or I might not. I wouldn't chance it.

Aint that the truth! I'm deciding it's time for me to stop shooting past 50 even with a rifle or revisit the optometrist. Sheesh.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

As much as I want to stay primitive. I think it's time to try a peep sight. Do they help much? I've never tried one.

 

[CaptainKirk]

Pete, I've never shot peep on a ML, but on CF rifles they are amazing. Basically, you only focus on the front sight and your eye automatically does the rest.
I suggest you try one. For hunting, use a larger aperature to let in more light.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

I read about using a ghost sight. Is that the same peep sight without the aperture?

I have a horrible time with open sights. I can see distance fine with no glasses, but I need reading glasses. So, no glasses and I see the target, but the sights are blurry. Use reading glasses and the sights look good, but the target is blurry. I always go with no glasses and do my best with seeing the sights. It's annoying.

A scope solves the problem, but I won't use one on anything but a CF gun.

Will a peep sight help my problem?

 

[tg]

Going to smoothbores allowed me to stay pretty much in the primitive mode as the shots are closer anyway, don't know why but I just got hooked the first time I shot one (.62 NW gun from NSW) then a couple of months later taking a forkhorn buck at 35 yds sealed the deal for good, and squirrels,Grouse. and such with shot from the same gun is a nice bonus.