If you could only have one......

[Homesteader]

I believe it was in Ambrose's Undaunted Courage that I read the Corps of Discovery would tip or pull the overshot and pour out the shot load when they encountered large game. They'd ram a ball home and make meat.

He's a well regarded historian who does his homework, but I wonder if any of you who've read the original diaries ever encountered a mention of this practice?

 

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

I thought The Corps was issued .54 Harper's Ferry rifles?

 

[longcruise]

Uh Oh! Now ya gone and done it!

I can see that they may have pulled shot and reloaded a ball. That would assume a smooth bore which were probably issue military muskets brought along by soldiers assigned to the expedition.

Maybe they loaded shot in their .54/.49 (take yet choice :haha: ) rifles?

 

[stantdm]

Depends on where I was in Montana. Up by Trout Creek of further north I would take my .62 smooth flint trade gun. It is a versatile gun and worked well enough that it was still in use in percussion form in 1920 in the north country.

Eastern Montana I would take a .54 rifled flintlock with a 36" barrel. I can hit stuff out to 100 yards or so with that.

 

[BrownBear]

Much as I prefer a rifle in this hypothetical goulash, one thing that's kinda overlooked with any talk about shot versus ball in a smoothy. Get close enough and you can kill large game with bird shot.

Twice now I've killed deer while duck hunting. Walked right up to the blind, and I'm here to tell you that a load of #6's to the head at inside 25 yards puts their lights out right now.

If I was stuck with shot in a smoothy barrel when a chance for deer came along, you can bet I'd devote myself to getting close.

 

[Alden]

I say "odd" because if I CHOOSE to only hunt big game I can use my .62 smoothrifle with PRB. Yeah, I guess ya might as well have a rifle at that point. But CHOICE is the issue. I want to keep my options open. When not hunting a specific game, just keeping a gun at hand, I'd probably have a fast 12-pellet load of #2 Buckshot in it...

 

[longcruise]

Yeah, there is always that buck shot option. Not a very good choice for a bunny 🐰 though. :haha:

I remain in the rifle camp with the goal of killing big animals occasionally rather than searching desperately on a daily basis in the hope of finding something small and cuddly.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Much as I prefer a rifle in this hypothetical goulash, one thing that's kinda overlooked with any talk about shot versus ball in a smoothy. Get close enough and you can kill large game with bird shot.

Twice now I've killed deer while duck hunting. Walked right up to the blind, and I'm here to tell you that a load of #6's to the head at inside 25 yards puts their lights out right now.

If I was stuck with shot in a smoothy barrel when a chance for deer came along, you can bet I'd devote myself to getting close.

A friend of mine did that with a .410 ....dropped it like a bad habit. I asked him why he did that and he said "I didn't think it would kill it" :slap: :youcrazy:

 

[Elnathan]

I believe it was in Ambrose's Undaunted Courage ...He's a well regarded historian who does his homework

Heh. "Did his homework" does sound nicer than "plagiarized." http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/504

Kind of an ironically amusing turn of phrase there.

 

[Alden]

Better than ball for that bunny I'd at least stand a chance of hitting. Good for deer and such as well as wolves too. Then there's coyote, 2-legged varmints, and I wouldn't be averse to using it as bear-spray within 15 meters either.

 

[longcruise]

If we are surviving out there, why would we pay any attention whatsoever to coyotes and wolves? Quite harmless and not worth powder and lead. G bears and lions might be a concern. In the case of the bear, you will probably have one shot. Would you want it to be birdshot? Never mind the lion, you won't even see it coming :haha:

 

[coloradoclyde]

If we are surviving out there, why would we pay any attention whatsoever to coyotes and wolves?

Fur is a valuable resource.

 

[Carl Fowler III]

If we are surviving out there, why would we pay any attention whatsoever to coyotes and wolves?

Fur is a valuable resource.

I would kill both, for fur as well as to eliminate a predator that should have never been re-introduced to the wilds! :stir:

 

[Homesteader]

I believe it was in Ambrose's Undaunted Courage ...He's a well regarded historian who does his homework

Heh. "Did his homework" does sound nicer than "plagiarized." http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/504

Kind of an ironically amusing turn of phrase there.

I wasn't aware of that. Interesting, and disappointing, to read. :shake:

 

[coloradoclyde]

I would kill both, for fur as well as to eliminate a predator that should have never been re-introduced to the wilds!

We are in complete agreement.

 

[Jamie from Alberta]

.54 Hawken
If need be I would have load up some wad & shot for close range meat critters.
Its survival, you do what you have to, to succeed day to day.

 

[Walks with fire]

The .54 flint rifle is what I think would be my choice. I often wonder what kind of accuracy could be had with a thick deerskin patch and a .36 caliber ball in a .54 over 20 grains of powder or so. Seems to me it would work fine but never tried it.

I never cared for shotgunning anything but I don't hunt ducks or geese either.

 

[longcruise]

Fur may or may not be a valuable resource. It somewhat depends on the context of the OP's original question. Are we surviving short term or long term? Past or present time period?

Short term in the present would make fur gathering pointless. Killing wolves in the context of the present is getting into politics rather than survival.

Long term survival in the past puts fur into a monetary context. The point of being there in the first place. In that case, our survivalist is living out the annual economic cycle of a fur trapper trying to not only survive, but to prosper.

 

[coloradoclyde]

The .54 flint rifle is what I think would be my choice. I often wonder what kind of accuracy could be had with a thick deerskin patch and a .36 caliber ball in a .54 over 20 grains of powder or so. Seems to me it would work fine but never tried it.

I never cared for shotgunning anything but I don't hunt ducks or geese either.

I've done it and upon firing the smaller ball actually tore through the leather. Not completely, but enough to destroy accuracy .....back to the drawing board.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Fur may or may not be a valuable resource. It somewhat depends on the context of the OP's original question. Are we surviving short term or long term? Past or present time period?

Short term in the present would make fur gathering pointless. Killing wolves in the context of the present is getting into politics rather than survival.

Long term survival in the past puts fur into a monetary context. The point of being there in the first place. In that case, our survivalist is living out the annual economic cycle of a fur trapper trying to not only survive, but to prosper.

Now there's a shotgun answer. :haha:
Pick one point to debate and I will happily engage.