Rifle vs smoothie

[Homesteader]

I hope this one hasn't been done to death. I haven't been able to find much if it has.

If you were to head off into the woods for an extended trip with only one front stuffer, whether flint or percussion, which would you want with you? The versatility of the smoothie, or the greater distance and accuracy of the rifle?

Never mind modern arms, btw. I'm just curious about the perceived benefits and liabilities of antique arms. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[renovato]

If you're in an area where you can get closer shots, the versatility of a smoothie gives it a lot of benefits. I rarely seem to hunt in areas where my shots are 50 yards or less. I think I'd stick with a rifle because it's what I know the best. I might not be eating any flushed birds, but I'd still have my share of small game anyway.

 

[roundball]

If you were to head off into the woods for an extended trip with only one front stuffer, whether flint or percussion, which would you want with you? The versatility of the smoothie, or the greater distance and accuracy of the rifle?

A lot would depend on how much supplies you could have with you...ie: each lead ball is smaller and lighter than each 1.5oz lead shot load.

The other consideration would be the terrain:
If I'd be in the middle of wide open spaces with long shots the norm, I'd take a rifle;
If shots would be closer in thick eastern type woods I'd take a smoothbore;

Flintlock in both cases.

 

[BrownBear]

Though more open long range shots are offered up here, by nature I'm a get-in-close kind of hunter. Been doing it for a lifetime with handguns and archery, so it was natural to do the same when I took up charcoal burners. Add in all the small game opportunities along with large brown bears requiring large balls to hunt around, and a smoothie is definitely my next step. Right now my debate is between 62, 69, 72 or 75 caliber.

The only thing that's stopped me is the question of barrel length and style. I've been trending toward shorter guns with their center of gravity right between my hands, and that sure doesn't describe any traditional fowlers I've handled. I've handled a couple of trade guns with 32" barrels and that comes closer. Whether I go for a style with more wood in the butt for balance or an even shorter barrel is a puzzler right now.

But for me a 50 yard shot on deer is a long one, so yeah, I'm definitely headed toward a smoothie as my principal arm. Just not a smoothie that I've seen and handled yet.

 

[thewho66]

Going by your post and you stated extended trip I take to live off the land, I would go with smoothbore using shot. I say this with the idea that you would more likely be looking for small game. I would though make sure that I have round ball for taking dear size game.( not that I can hit anything myself yet). Hope that helps.

John

 

[William Joy]

Well, I was wonderin that myself for a while. I spent a while in Northern Canada canoeing and had a 20 ga smoothbore. Worked great, since I had a canoe so the weight of shot and lead was no problem. Went to New Zealand the following year with the plan to live in the woods for 3 month. On foot the smooth bore ( same gun as in Canada) was a HUGE burden ( weight of lead). I now are a firm believer that a 50 cal rifle is almost perfect. I can shoot small game with it, but if you are trying to live of the land as they did in the early days, you wouldn't shoot small game if it can be avoided ( you could trap it) . In NZ, deer and goats are pests, and believe me they feed you better then a rabbit..... So even here in the US, if I have to live of the land I guess I have to "bend" some game laws....

 

[oldboot]

If I were living in my present residence, North Dakota, I would surely choose a rifle, at least a .50 caliber. If I were to life in my native south Texas I would choose a smooth bore. Venison does not last too long in the Texas heat, besides how long can you be sucessfully kill a deer every day or two. There plently of small game everywhere a smooth bore would work perfectly

 

[RC]

:hmm: Smoooothie...a very versatile weapon... :thumbsup:

 

[Roy]

:hmm: Smoooothie...a very versatile weapon... :thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

 

[MSW]

20 guage flint.

just one guy's opinion.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Subsistence hunting is quite different from sport hunting. The subsistence hunter will sneak along quietly, see the game and shoot. He won't flush game just to provide a sporting target for his smoothbore.
I have had the experience of living off the land on a couple of occasions. I had a Savage .22 over 20 gauge and soon realized that I hardly ever fired the shotgun even though I carried it every day. I took all small game with the .22, although the shotgun was a comforting thing to have around camp at night. If I ever had to do that again I'd take only a scope sighted .22, or if muzzleloading, a rifle no larger than .40 caliber. Forty caliber balls run about 78 per pound and .36 caliber about 108 per pound. That will feed you a lot longer than the 12-20 shots of a smoothbore. Game laws aside, the careful hunter can take deer very well with a smallbore rifle out to at least as far as with a smoothbore.
The frontier settler making short hunts out of his frontier cabin might choose a smoothbore but the long hunter would be better served with a rifle.

 

[tg]

I would choose a smoothbore .58-.62 bore size and carry shot, buck and ball I have found the smoothgun to be capable of anything I need.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Great point, Coyote Joe! We all tend to solve " problems " involving the choice of firearms based on our current supply and resupply process. We also think in terms of sport hunting, and not subsistence living. You explain quite nicely why so many of the early explorers, who went into Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Indian, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee chose to take long rifles chambered for small caliber balls.

I recall reading an early diary where the author reported that the deer and wood bison were so unaware of the danger that humans posed, that hunters could walk to within a few feet to kill them. He complained that after several years of hunting the same herds, the animals began to shy away! When one pound of lead will cast almost 200 RB for a .36 caliber rifle, but half that number for a 20 gauge smoothie, it doesn't take a genius to understand why longhunters like Boone, Crockett, and Kenton, used the smaller caliber rifles. :thumbsup:

My first thought was to take a smoothbore, but I think you have convinced me that a small bore rifle makes much more sense. Now, how small bore the gun is will depend on what part of the country that extended trip takes place. I know some places where nothing less than a .50 caliber makes much sense. In others, a .32 or .36 caliber rifle fills the bill quite well. The caliber choice gets smaller, of course, the longer the trip is going to be, and the more walking is involved. Without a horse or canoe to carry extra supplies, weight becomes critical, as does the amount of powder used for any given caliber.

I agree with Roundball's comments concerning the carrying of shot for smoothbores. It takes a lot of heavy lead to feed a shotgun very long. I have no desire to carry a 25 lb. bag of shot to have approx. 400 shots from my smoothie in a subsistence situation. With round ball, shooting big game like deer, you can usually recover the lead ball and remelt it to use again. I don't know how you recover much lead shot from animals. :hmm:

 

Tweezers? :grin:

 

[paulvallandigham]

I pinch them out of the meat when I am preparing bird for cooking, using my thumb nails, but I don't recall getting more than half a dozen out of a bird, save one bird that I hit too close too hard, and made swiss cheese out of the breast. I made pheasant Stir Fry with that breast.

 

[Joel/Calgary]

... and a smoothie is definitely my next step. Right now my debate is between 62, 69, 72 or 75 caliber.

But Sir, you neglect the wonderful one-ounce bore of .66"!

Glancing at my favorite and most versatile firelock, a 16ga double,
I remain &c.,

Joel

 

[Elnathan]

Longhunters aren't really a good guide for substinence hunting - they were market hunters and packed in all their supplies on horseback, then hunted from base camps.
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is the use of dogs - there was one longhunting party that reportedly had 200 with them! Using the dogs to chase and corner the game until the hunter could shoot it at point blank range seems to have been standard practice in the early 19th century, and maybe earlier.

As for the original question, too many variables to say. I tend to favor a medium caliber rifle (.54 or so) - I'll use snares to deal with small game and fish, and save the rifle for big game.

 

[Stumpkiller]

What he said. A half-dozen wire snares and a rifle. I learned a flint musket in my hands just makes more mess as I had to wait and pot sitting game anyway.