period correct caliber for deer

[marsh trapper]

I'm curious as to what would be a pc caliber for all around living and deer hunting from east coast north eastern woods from 1780-1830? ..40 ,or 44 or cal 45 what did our forefathers carry main caliber that was used? im sure question has been asked but im wanting to get another flintlock and want to keep everything accurate as to my region

 

[ohio ramrod]

While most early rifles were of smaller caliber, there were also larger calibers used. If you want to hunt deer the most important thing to consider is your states minimum caliber requirement . If my memory is correct( it seldom is these days)the most common caliber for rifles was "100 balls to a pound" :idunno:

 

[BrownBear]

..."100 balls to a pound"....

That would be a 70 grain ball, or roughly 36 caliber (71 grains for a .360" ball or 65 grains for a .350" ball.) A .395" ball for 40 caliber weighs 92 grains.

All that's according to the weights/diameters from this chart here on the site.

 

[nit wit]

I agree! Smooth bores would have been 62-75 cal generally speaking.
Nit Wit

 

[necchi]

Ok Maryland,,
John Armstrong; http://www.emmitsburg.net/archive_list/articles/places/business/armstrong_rifles.htm https://www.google.com/search?q=john+armstrong+rifles&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[sidelock]

Right on blackbear

 

[Larry Akers]

While most early rifles were of smaller caliber

My research shows early rifles were about .50 cal. on average. As large game was depleted the need for large calibers lessened and smaller caliber guns became the norm. I think a .45 cal. would fit for the period and the purpose you specify. Remember, when hunting with round ball--bigger is better.

 

[hanshi]

Many states list .45 as the minimum as Ga and Va do. I've taken a lot of deer with a .45.

 

[excess650]

.44 is minimum in Pa for big game. I have a .45 and a .50 and am more confident at 100 yards with the .50 than the .45. I'm more interested in taking game cleanly than being "period correct". Guys with .54s swear by them, and I've taken bucks with .58 and .62. The big hammers work. :wink:

 

[Zonie]

Generally speaking, very early guns used in America started with large calibers and as time passed the size decreased.

A quick look at my "Rifles of Colonial America" (often abbreviated RCA on the forum) seems to indicate the larger bores ranging from .53 thru .62 far outnumber the smaller .50 and smaller bores.

As time went by and the number of bears and bison decreased (yes there were buffalo in the East. Buffalo New York wasn't named after the African critter), smaller calibers became popular.

After all, if deer, feral hogs and an occasional black bear were the biggest thing in the woods, a .50 would be more than enough to do the job.

In these modern times, the popular .54 should fit the bill nicely.

 

[Stumpkiller]

What period?

New Amsterdam & Virginia Colony - maybe 0.80" smooth.

1750 - .54

1776 - .50

1790 - .45

 

[hanshi]

Yeah, that sounds about right, Stumpy.

 

[jbwilliams3]

I love .45s, .50s, and .54s. Toward the end of your timeframe a .45 (or .40, even) would be likelier seen on the east coast than a .54 for a hunting rifle. But that had to do mostly with big game scarcity. As others have pointed out, after the third quarter of the 18th century, rifle calibers start to come down generally speaking. Some figure that the average rifle in the American Revolution was around .50 with .52 being a pretty popular caliber. Keep in mind that if you have such a broad timeframe and you’re trying to emulate that, it’s usually best to go with the earliest you can justify. It would be silly to reenact 1790s with a 1830 rifle. Not necessarily so the other way around, when Jacob Dickert styled longrifles were still known.

I like .50s and .54s for deer hunting, but a .45 is not an inhumane caliber if one is well acquainted with it and hunting is done within reasonable distances. That said, a .54 leaves little doubt that a shot to the killzone will down a whitetail with no problem.

 

[George]

In 1822-23 Wm. Blane traveed and hunted with the backwoodsmen along the Ohio river in northern Kentucky, southern Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. This is what he had to say about the size of guns used for various game in that area.

"The usual size of the balls for shooting squirrels and wild turkeys, is from 100 [36 cal.] to 150 [31.4 cal.] to the pound. For deer and bear, the size varies from 60 [42.7 cal.] to 80 [38.8 cal.], and for larger animals, as the buffalo and elk, from 50 [45.4 cal.] to 60 [42.7 cal.]; though a rifle carrying a ball of a larger size than 60 [42.7 cal.] to the pound, is very seldom made use of. For general use, and for shooting at a mark, the favorite size is from 60 [42.7 cal.] to 80 [38.8 cal.]."

Spence

 

[hanshi]

Guns did start to be built smaller in the bore as time passed. But the larger bore rifles were still around and being used rather than scrapped. Kinda mixes things up, doesn't it. :hmm:

 

[excess650]

They never got smaller by being freshed out either. :wink:

 

[Loyalist Dave]

My research shows early rifles were about .50 cal. on average. As large game was depleted the need for large calibers lessened and smaller caliber guns became the norm. I think a .45 cal. would fit for the period and the purpose you specify.

Yes you see a jump up in rifle calibers when the Corps of Discovery opens up the Louisiana Territory. While the Eastern rifles were beginning to dip below .50 caliber and continued a trend to mostly in the .40 - .45 caliber area, the rifles made for men going West from St. Louis and then farther, into the Rocky Mountains, jumps back up to .54 and even larger. Bison, elk, and Grizzly Bears necessitated the caliber jump.

LD

 

[Elnathan]

I'm curious as to what would be a pc caliber for all around living and deer hunting from east coast north eastern woods from 1780-1830? ..40 ,or 44 or cal 45 what did our forefathers carry main caliber that was used? im sure question has been asked but im wanting to get another flintlock and want to keep everything accurate as to my region

That is a pretty big time frame. The smallest 1770s bore I know of is a .42, and there are quite a number of surviving rifles in the .45-.50 range from the Revolutionary War era. Documentary and archeological evidence suggests that sub-.50 calibers were around even earlier. Likewise, there are a lot of bigger bores up to about .60 that survive. So for the beginning of the timeframe you have a pretty large range to choose from. Later on the calibers get smaller - you just don't see .60 calibers on a Golden Age kentucky (Now that I say that, someone is sure to find one...) .50 is something like a max size, with .54 being something of a stretch, though I'm not nearly as familiar with firearms of this period as I am with earlier weapons.

Honestly, think you are going about this the wrong way. You should narrow down your timeframe a bit and figure out what style of gun you want. Get ahold of some books and see what kind of gun appeals to you (lots of different styles in your time/region parameters)- the books will give you caliber info. You also should be aware that not every period gun was designed to hunt deer, and that period hunting techniques were often very different from today (jacklighting, the use of hounds) and that modern game regulations and hunting ethos impose constraints our ancestors didn't have to deal with.

Adding: I just noticed that you specified the NE. You might want to look at Shumway's collected longrifles articles, vol. 2, at some of the "Vermont" rifles and other New England guns. While not examined by Shumway, IIRC there is another Vermont rifle out there with a .53 bore.