Reasons for small bore MLers

[Vaino]

Have often thought of why a hunter would use a smaller bore MLer on deer or black bear. This topic was prompted by the topic concerning the uses of a .40 cal. MLer.

First reason might be that a smaller caliber gun is the only one available.

Second reason is that some hunters are excellent shots and are patient enough for a close up shot and don't need a larger cal. The first reason is valid if the hunter is as described by the second reason.

If the shooter mainly hits targets, the economy of a smaller cal. is worthwhile, but this reason is off topic.

The third reason might be that many hunters who are recoil sensitive can't tolerate big bore recoil, so opt for a smaller cal. Again...this is a valid reason if the hunter uses a smaller cal. and is as described by the second reason.

Let's face reality....many circumstances for shots at deer and black bear aren't ideal and besides the terrain and hindrances of a clear path for the projectile, the mental state of the hunter in the form of "buck fever" and some other mental lapses all might contribute to a hit that's not ideal.

One reason for poorly placed shots on the above animals is less than perfect eyesight. Iron sights require decent vision and many hunters also CF hunt but mostly have the eyesight aid of a 'scope.

A related reason is dim lighting....many hunters wouldn't pass up a shot in the dim light of early morning or early evening. A larger bore MLer would definitely help in some cases but in the end, a shot shouldn't have been taken....but humans will be humans.

Seeing very few hunters are capable of humane, killing shots on deer or black bear using a .40-.45 MLer, most hunters should use at least a .50 cal. and a .54 would even be better. Some will counter w/..".a well placed shot w/ a smaller caliber is all that's needed" and that for sure is a fact, but what if a "well placed shot" doesn't happen. because of all the previously stated reasons?

For many years I worked the firing line at my gun club for the annual "deer sight-in clinic" and encountered all sorts of hunters....'nuff said...Fred

 

[Gene L]

The larger bore the quicker the kill is a false dichotomy. A poorly-placed shot with a .50 or .54 caliber won't produce a clean and humane kill, either. I'm not advocating .36 caliber rifles for large animals, but seeing that deer season is a month long (or so) and squirrel and rabbit season is several months long, if I had to buy only one gun, it would fall in between .32 and .45.

Most people here who are interested in hunting large game will rightly buy a heavy "deer" rifle, and many will also have a light "squirrel" rifle. If you have to own only one, a compromise may be in order.

 

[BrownBear]

...but what if a "well placed shot" doesn't happen. because of all the previously stated reasons?

That's squarely on the shoulders of the hunter.

 

[Katahdin]

but what if a "well placed shot" doesn't happen. because of all the previously stated reasons?
Nothing takes the place of a Well placed shot,,if you put the bullet where it needs/should be it will do the job,if not no amount of firepower will ,,,

 

[Eric Krewson]

I agree about John Q Public's shooting ability, I have helped run an indoor archery range and firmly believe some folk should stay out of the woods from what I have seen.

I have killed a pile of deer with a .44 flintlock, all were less than 50 yards, broadside, and hit like this, game over.



It doesn't bother me to let a deer walk, if I don't get the shot I want, I won't shoot.

 

[George]

The important thing is the caliber if the hunter, not of the gun.

Spence

 

[Vaino]

Yes it is...and we also don't live in a perfect world..."manure" happens.

Many of the posts following mine are correct....a perfect hit on an animal is lethal, but from my observations when deer hunting, many deer are just wounded and some never found.

Again....I'll repeat....helped hunters sight in their rifles at our club's annual "deer sight in clinic" and found that most hunters were lousy shots and the good shots were about 20%. Talked to other guys on the firing line and they said approx. the same thing. No wonder....because these poor shots only shoot once a year.

Naturally if a deer is hit in the leg w/ a .58 cal PRB, the chances of getting the deer are nil, but common sense would dictate that the larger cals. would do a better job than say a .40 w/ a so-so hit.......Fred

 

[The Baron]

I tend to lean toward agreement with you, Fred. As hunters, we have a responsibility to choose a gun of sufficient power to humanely take game within our own personal ability. When discussing traditional ML with a PRB, the lesser the caliber the less room for error there is in accuracy, shot angle and distance. As long as we are truly honest with ourselves and our ability, and arm ourselves accordingly, all should work out well. The problems arise when we overestimate our ability, and stretch the limits of luck. I would not want to hear excuses like "it's all I have" or "it's more economical to shoot" from a hunter who has wounded and lost an animal by use of a (too) small caliber weapon.

 

[BrownBear]

There's also been a change in what's considered a "reasonable" shot, I think. I've formed that impression over the years in reading various historic accounts, but the stories from Lewis and Clark about of some of the shooting pretty well sealed the deal in my mind: Wounding was just part of the routine, and if you lost the animal afterward, meh. There was always another to go for.

The "sporting" concept of quick, clean, humane kills came along pretty late in life for the hunting world.

 

[Gene L]

It might be instructive to view on another thread the penetration of a .40 flintlock on water jugs. Penetration isn't a problem with that rifle, which penetrated a lot of water with lower charges.

But as I said, a heavy caliber does little to make up for a bad hit. It's definitely down to the shooter.

 

[Lonegun1894]

I know this is comparing apples and oranges in a sense, but here goes. Here in Texas, we have no caliber restrictions for MLs, but for modern, we can use any legal weapon for hogs, but have to use a center-fire for deer. So, and please bear with me, but I prefer to use a .50 or .54 for deer, and use the same for hogs, but I have also taken many hogs with a .22LR pistol, and a few with a .32 ML. After seeing the difference in wounds between a .22LR and a .32 RB, I would not have any problems with a hunter who used a .32-.40 RB to take deer. Yes, I know many will disagree, but as Spence said above, it is the caliber of the hunter and not the weapon that matters. I can't and won't recommend a .32 or even a .40 for a beginners first deer rifle, but for an experienced hunter with the skills to place the RB where it belongs and the discipline to pass on questionable shots, even a .32 can be a very effective deer rifle. In fact, I remember a post here a few years ago by a fine gentleman, great hunter, and excellent shot taking a deer with a .32, but too many people gave him grief about it and I haven't seen him post here in some time. Here is my personal opinion about those kinds of things. Just because I can do something with a given weapon, doesn't mean you can too, and vice versa. We all have our strong and weak points, so I can tell you what I can or can't do, and what ML I would or wouldn't do it with, but I have no rights or qualifications telling any of you what you can or can't do, or with what. All we can demand of each other is that whatever weapon we use to take our game, we do it safely and in accordance to whatever the game laws are in our various locations. :hatsoff:

 

[Britsmoothy]

Personally my reaction to the opening post here is nothing more than it is a conceited self righteous opinion even to the point of dictating what others should or should not be doing! :hmm:

B.

 

[Donny]

I read it the opposite.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Well good for you.

After seeing many a bad shot resulting in less than ideal results from all kinds of Cal's, bores, bullets, slugs and shot, it makes little if any difference the actual calibre of the gun.

Giving a poor shooter a bigger gun on the basis because he or she is a bad shot won't swing anything in their favour.

Practice practice practice is the only answer and not bore size, bore size and bore size!

B.

 

[azmntman]

In AZ no caliber restrictions for big came in BP season. So the .20 flinter in another thread is legal. I suppose G&F is expecting th owner/hnter using that .20 (or a .32) to tag his 1200lb bull elk will wait till an eye shot presents itself. If things go wrong the bull lives! (half blind but still alive?)

I say use what you like but be able to use it effectively! I killed a few cow elk with .50 rb and my first bull as well. That bull did take 4 shots, (two foolish shots to end it). One in the shoulder, another in the hip (he was still up n walking). A .32 in the shoulder? Likley not recovered. .32 in the heart/lungs? DEAD ELK (maybe 600+ yds away with a lil bitty blood trail (if any) to follow. I got a caliber for each animal I pursue, if only one was allowed (we had that fight and I won :grin: ) would be a .54.

Gotta remeber SmOME animals both big n small have an INCREDIBLE will to live. Our gun must out preform that will IMHO

 

[tenngun]

Shot placement is more important then other considerations. How ever it's nice to have good sized holes. Small white tails, and similar sized deer shot at close range are not to be confused with elk or moose at long range.
If you question if your gun is too small, get a bigger gun. If you know your gun is 'big 'nouph' it's big 'nough'.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Well good for you.

After seeing many a bad shot resulting in less than ideal results from all kinds of Cal's, bores, bullets, slugs and shot, it makes little if any difference the actual calibre of the gun.

Giving a poor shooter a bigger gun on the basis because he or she is a bad shot won't swing anything in their favour.

Practice practice practice is the only answer and not bore size, bore size and bore size!

B.

:thumbsup: :bow:

 

[Vaino]

Perhaps many of you responders are excellent game shots and achieved this skill through a lot of practice and natural ability and replied to this topic from your experiences...but, sorry to say, you're in the minority among the general hunting population.

I listed some of the contributing factors responsible for poor marksmanship of many hunters and this along w/ being "under gunned", causes wounded animals.

What I stated is the "real world" of the general hunting population's poor shooting, sorry to say and the remarks of some responders, and I'm paraphrasing....a larger cal. isn't a substitute for poor marksmanship... a statement I agree w/, but in some instances, a larger cal. could be the difference between a kill and a wounded animal.

So....I still advocate being over gunned rather than under gunned which is relative to a person's shooting skills.....Fred

 

[BrownBear]

Perhaps many of you responders are excellent game shots....

Actually I'm an excellent shot passer upper. Heck, I've passed up more shots than I've ever taken with my 58 and 62 calibers. I'm even passing up shots with those on snowshoe hare.

Waaay too much emphasis on shooting prowess in my book, and not near enough on responsible shooting.

 

[Dave Marsh]

:metoo: BB, I agree 100%. I shudder when I hear or see shots guys take that they had no business taking. I cringe when I hear the statement "well it was the only shot I had excuse". :nono:

Dave