Views on the 40 caliber

[Loyalist Dave]

Well you see some folks are pretty new at this type of firearm (black powder round ball), and they try to equate the modern stuff that they know to what they don't know about the antique stuff.  There is some confusion of projectile weight being the only factor, when it's weight, velocity, bullet cross section, and bullet composition that are the determining factors at impact, with accuracy being the determining factor prior to impact.  

It [.40 round ball] works fine on Deer if you get close as in archery hunting

One of the problems with something like this quote is many folks don't understand what kind of range(s) we are talking about.  40 yards is the max for archery (imho) and the archers that I know who shoot at those ranges miss a lot of deer, and track a lot of deer.  I'd say proper archery range is at 25 yards or less, while a .40 will reach out to 50 yards and kill deer with a 60 grain charge of 3Fg, with a standard heart/lung shot and a pure lead ball.  On another forum, folks were upset at a popular writer who used a 50 grain BP charge with his .490 ball (iirc), but the critics paid no attention to the range that he chose to engage the deer, which always makes a difference.

(Note I mentioned the location of the impact with the .40, and the type of projectile.  For example, go for a neck shot, or use a .390 ball made of wheel-weight alloy, or both, go for a long shot, and you change the parameters.)

Range vs. animal are always factors in ANY hunting, whether archery, or muzzleloader, or cartridge/shell firing gun.  No matter what you use, a .45 caliber flinter or .458 Remington Magnum, you will reach a range where the bullet will not do the job.  A hunter must know the limitations of the load that is being used in both accuracy and impact.

Many hunters, especially in the cartridge community [I have observed], try and substitute caliber and energy for accuracy and shot placement (imho).  I have had conversations with folks who hunt Western PA, The MD Panhandle, and Northern WVA who say a .30-06 is mediocre, and a .338 magnum or 7mm Magnum  is the way to go, while scoffing at the .270, .25-06, and the .30-30.  They have told me that my .54 round ball just won't "knock 'em down", though none of them ever tried to hunt with one.      

What is interesting I find is that some in our own group swear by a 125 grain .440 ball, but disdain a 90 grain .390 ball, which is a difference in weight of a .22 short's projectile, and a diameter of difference of a mere .05, with no discussion of powder charge, bullet material, shot placement.  

The original question was about the advantage of using the same load for squirrels and for deer with the .40, and that being an advantage as one would know from long use where the bullet would go when aimed, and so not have to practice with two different loads.  I think the popularity in one region of America of the .40 was due to it's accuracy allowing the user to be very confident of shot placement, while being  very frugal in powder and lead use.  So YES, it would work, if you knew how close you need to get the deer to allow for a quick, humane kill.  In Maryland, today, the question would be moot, as the minimum powder charge is 60 grains of BP for deer, which is screaming fast in a .40, and a little hard on a bushy tail.    

LD

[Uncle Russ]

but why is there so much discussion of centerfire vs. muzzleloading round balls on this thread?

LD certainly touched on it, and was in fact all over it. However, I will try to clarify a bit more.

Many black powder shooters get their start right here on this forum,  and while they may be knowledgeable with the performance of modern firearms, they are at something of a loss when it comes to muzzleloaders.

Centerfire vs Muzzleloading discussions are permitted solely to put things into a perspective that can be better understood by those just starting out, or those with very little experience.

Those who have experience and has been shooting BP for a few years, no longer need or use the comparison, so the conversation turns  more to subjects that they feel has improved their Muzzleloading experience.

Uncle Russ...

[Daehenoc]

Some very interesting points have come out in this discussion. I came away with these in particular:
(1) A long barreled 40 strongly loaded with round ball is certainly a better deer rifle than a 38-40 rifle.
(2) 40 rifles are fine for squirrel and rabbit if loaded properly and a smoothbore 40-41 would be great.
(3) 40 rifles are reknown for accuracy and flat shooting.
(4) The use of 40's is often forbidden.

[flintlock62]

I see nothing wrong with hunting deer with a .40 caliber as long as the range does not exceed 50 yards.  For squirrel, bark shoot them critters!

[Mitch]

a good friend dropped a nice fat mulie doe at 120yd with his .40-perfect head shot and she just folded up....

[mark davidson]

Now Mitch? Did your friend actually on-purpose take a 120 yard head shot with an open sighted muzzle loader?......or could the lethal head shot have been a well placed accident? Very few shooters are capable of making a 100 yard plus head shot with open sights under field conditions. No disrespect intended; I'm just curious.

[Mitch]

yes he actually on purpose took that shot...some of us are damn good shooters and I'll not take offense to your questioning my or my friends' integrity this time.....I've often taken 100+yd shots with open sights,muzzleloader,etc-I make my shots...and I don't take long shots "off-hand"-ALWAYS from a rest-sitting/fence post,etc..

[mark davidson]

Mitch, I did not as stated intend to question your or your friend's integrity. You well know I am a proponent of 100 yard accuracy and shooting especially from a solid rest.  I do think most would agree that a 100 yard plus head shot even from a good rest on live game in the field is an ethically questionable shot. The odds of blowing a jaw off or some other crippling nightmare are really good. However, that is between the shooter and the deer and the Lord and I will leave that alone at this point.

[flintlock62]

I just may consider a .40 caliber.  After reading some of the posts here.  I have a .36 Bedford County and love it for squirrel/rabbit and if loaded up, I know it produces mucho FPS, even though I do not own a cronograph.  Problem is, I can not deer hunt with it, and it is so fancy, I have to really baby it in order not to scratch it up.  The gall-darn thing is worth over $3,000 (it has solid silver inlays, not plated) and I am not a rich person.

Most of my deer hunting is definately close range.  Most of my shots are within 50 yards easily, with the closest shot to date at about 10 yards.  Here in this part of Tennessee, one usually can not get a long shot anyway because of the hills.  

It is kind of over-kill sometimes when I use my .62 Hawken full stock, but I guess I just love that big ka-boom sound when I shoot it.  But it does chew up the powder and lead.  Man, powder is geting really expensive these days!  The last powder I purchased was Swiss at $7.50/lb.  My fifty pounds are now almost all gone and was shocked at the current prices.  I guess I will change to KIK.  The thing I like about the Hawken though, is it has the patent breech, which makes cleaning easier.  I am getting lazy in my old age!

[Captchee]

Boy do times change .
 We live in an age where bigger is better  with no   consideration of competence .
 How many of us here remember a time when that was the opposite?
 I can remember when a 30.30, 270  and 30.06 where the best  big game rifles one could use .
 Many ranchers carried something in the 22  range  ..

The first  muzzle loading rifles I ever built were converted cartridge guns
 The  first was an O3A3 with  a  low number barrel . The second was a 30.30 marlin that  I got real sheep from a local gunsmith because it s receiver had been  burnt in a fire .
 For  projectiles I made my own conical . I used the factory bullet shape . Carved it from wood  and used that as a mould to make porcelain bullet moulds in Jr High art class . As I recall the  03 used a 190 grain bullet and the Marlin a 175 grain  bullet.
 I  cant rightly recall how many deer and elk fell to those rifles ,  more then a few . I never ever thought of  them being to small .
 I shot those rifles the very same way I was taught to shoot by my father . Settle the front behind the shoulder  and  squeeze the trigger
 Now granted  our  ranges were for the most part under  100 yards . Heck even for center fire  I can only think of one time in growing up  or  for that mater tell today where  shots were over  maybe 50 yards .

 When I first started muzzleloading  a charge of 110 grains was  a  heavy load . Today it seems that many folks think they need 150 or 200+ . . Recommended calibers also have  went the same way .
 I think maybe we spend to much time today depending or relying on the mechanics of a given situation  and  less and less on   maintaining  quality  of our own ability  . .
 
 I wish to quote a friend of mine  who told me this once some years back while  over then phone while discussing small calibers . His words were  very true then

when it comes to  small bore calibers , strange things begin to happen . small powder charges can  produce very high pressures  with very impressive velocities

 You remember  telling me that Uncle Russ

[mark davidson]

The biggest thing I see chaning with time is TIME. We do not have the time we used to have to spend hunting. I think gun choice today is often dictated by time. Years and years ago it did not matter if it took two weeks to get within 50 yards instead of 100. Today we often have that one Saturday or one weekend to do what we are going to do or have an unfilled tag. In days of old a long track that took a long time and covered lots of ground was not a big deal. Today we have commitments and jobs and familys to get home to and we really do not need game to travel far after the shot or onto posted property. Therefore, we choose guns and calibers to compliment our skills and reach farther and kill quicker. I do not see the lament over that. Small calibers with high velocity will for sure kill deer. But how far will they run before they drop...how far onto posted land....how far into the thicket....how far into the night will you be tracking??? I am new and get accused of magnumitis a lot here and that is OK. I have shot six deer so far this year with my .62 and 140 grains of 2F. Five of them hit the ground on the spot with both shoulders broke and a nice exit and instant fatality. The one deer that ran went less than 40 yards and dropped in sight. For my life style and hunting opportunities, i unashamedly shoot a bigger gun with a hefty charge, not to make up for my inadequecy but because it works and it works efficiently and keeps me from tracking on posted property or from spending excess time tracking instead of skinning. JMO

[Captchee]

LMAO how far will they run ?  
 how far do you expect  deer to run  when hit with a 30.30 ?
 lest take a 36 cal rifle shooting a 125  gr  buffalo bullet
 with 70 grains of 3F she is  leaving the muzzle at  just over 1900fps  and  roughly 380-390 ftlbs at 100 yards .

 compare that to a 50 cal  round ball being fired  with 120 grains  of 2F  is leaving the muzzle at 1790 and has 434 ftlbs at 100

 now i ask you  if  one was to use a 170 grain conical  in a  36 cal rifle .
and lets say we pumped that  out of the muzzle at 1900fps

 the very same velocities and  projectile weight of a standard federal 30.30 load .
 why do you think that projectile would  produce  any less of an expected effect ?


See cause and effect  is based on  projectile and velocities , NOT  type of loading procedure
 The projectile does not care how it gets to a velocity  it only cares that it gets there .
 yet many folks will stand there and tell you with a strait face that the 36 cal  muzzleloader is to small for  big game  with no qualification of the statment

So again I ask  how far would you expect an animal to go  when hit  through the hart and lungs  with a  170 grain 30 cal bullet  which   letf the muzzle at 1900  and doesn’t contact tell  100 ?
 do you really exspect it to be less if you use a 40 cal  in the same weight  fired at the same volocities ?
 

 Until I started muzzle loading  100 % some 15  years ago my only rifle was a 30.30 marlin .
 The farthest I have had a bull elk go was  200 yards . But I also shot him at 175 yards .
 Mule deer  0-maybe 20 yards  when hit through the hart and lungs  under 100 yards
.
As to not having the time
Sorry I don’t by that at all
 One of the biggest sporting industries un the US right now is  providing hunters with tools to scout pre season  with . Everything from maps  to , GPS , trail cameras , to scents. Attractants , you name it .
 I also don’t recall spending  all that much time in the field  back in the days I was talking about . Not really anymore then today  .
Time is what you make of it .
 IMO folks spend to much time  worrying about  what if they see a giant buck of a life time at 300 yards over  learning and enjoying the hunt

[mark davidson]

LOL Charles. I love to get you on a roll. :-) A 30-30 in my opinion is a darn fine kids gun. Grown men normally put away such childish things. The .36 caliber MLer is a darn fine squirrel rifle and that is my opinion of it. Now you mentioned conicals!! That changes everything. A heavy 370 grain conical turns a .45 cal MLer into the big brother of a .62 with round ball.  Conicals change my opinion of everything. Most here do not shoot conicals but do shoot the venerable and effective round ball. I simply like big heavy projectiles in the 300grain plus range for reliably breaking deer shoulders and exiting. To get that I feel like big conicals or round balls of .62 cal. to a better job. FWIW I have seen many a whitetail deer shot right through the lungs with a .300 win mag run dang near a hundred yards off into the awfulest cutover thick mess you ever saw. That is why I am not a fan of the heart lung shot. I like a double shoulder breaker and DRT(dead right there)  The 30-30 nor the .36 squirrel rifle  with round ball will do that in my opinion. And FWIW a 175 yard shot on a bull elk with a 30-30 is bordering on irresponsible. I am glad you recovered him but 200 yards is a lot of turf and time lapse before death. I'm not sure I would use that story to further my cause.
   Everybody's needs and circumstances are different. I respect that. Time may not matter to you but it does to me. I still scout the old way with my feet not a map or gps or computer. I still work five days a week and get to hunt mostly on Saturday amid other family and home obligations. My gun suits my needs and I reckon that ought to be OK.  I just don't think that me not shooting a mouse gun makes me a bad hunter or lazy or an incompetent woodsman or marksman. Finally lets not compare big heavy conicals with round balls in small calibers; they just ain't the same varmint.

[Captchee]

well i guess the men of yesterday  are = to kids today then hu ?

[mark davidson]

WOW, Three shots in the boiler room and he still ran 200 yards. HMMMM? See what I mean? A little more gun might have meant a much quicker cleaner kill to go with your expert marksmanship. Coffee can at a hundred and "never miss"... congrat's... that is good shooting to "never" miss.  The "Men back Then" in the black powder days in Africa shot really big round projectiles. :-) The men back in the day here like Elmer Keith liked big bores too. FWIW  I was never a .270 or o'Conner fan either. Also, I grew up shooting too and still do. I just don't claim to never miss or make a mistake. Maybe that is why I think I need a bit more gun.  I also ain't a big fan of having to shoot a critter over and over and over. (three times)