Longest distance whitetail taken with .40cal PRB ?

Geeze man, broadheads are nasty! Rather be shot than cut deep anyday!

"Geeze man, broadheads are nasty! Rather be shot than cut deep anyday!"

And so are flints, I was cleaning out my truck the other day and when reaching under the seat to get some trash I found that new 7/8 flint had lost some time back, not quite needing stitches but it was a drippy one for a while.

I should clarify my post on shooting deer as I hunt Blacktails which are smaller than most Whitetails, I wouldn't want someone to get upset that I was comparing the two as being equall game.

I've cut mys fingers badly before with flints, even arrow heads before! Smarts!

larry wv said:

A Bow puts a 3/4 to 1 1/2 inch hole through a deer on average. A bit more passing through the hide.( Not talking about expandable broad heads.) Thats some serious blood letting. Also 45-50 lbs is more than enough for deer. I would rather be hit in the lungs by a .40 rb than a bow. (nobody get any ideas) Larry

Click to expand...

You are exactly dead on...
Some people get a charge out of being substandard...To thier credit they just never wanted to be average so they went for "below average"
"Just because its legal does NOT make it ethical"

I have no expiriences with harvesting whitetails with a cal. 40 PRb because we have no whitetails here. :grin: But I think a .40 PRB will be adequat to harvest a roedeer up to 50m, even a weak redstag. Shootplacement is the most necessary thing. The bavarian poachers of the 18th and 19th century were always using smaller cals and were successful.

Regards

Kirrmeister

Wattsy said:

larry wv said:

A Bow puts a 3/4 to 1 1/2 inch hole through a deer on average. A bit more passing through the hide.( Not talking about expandable broad heads.) Thats some serious blood letting. Also 45-50 lbs is more than enough for deer. I would rather be hit in the lungs by a .40 rb than a bow. (nobody get any ideas) Larry

Click to expand...

You are exactly dead on...
Some people get a charge out of being substandard...To thier credit they just never wanted to be average so they went for "below average"
"Just because its legal does NOT make it ethical"

Click to expand...

No, its just that some of us are exceptional marksman. And since we dont have a problem hitting our mark we have no need to send an RPG into a deer to put it on the table. Practice practice practice,,,,,,
by the way, did I mention practice?

I have a .40 flinter and really don't know how many deer I have killed with it. somewhere around 28 is a good guess. I quit counting deer kills 15 years ago after I hit 50 (seemed rather pointless to keep count after that) I can only give estimates as to what I have killed since then.
The 40 flinter with 55 grains of 3F has been a good deer load though.
I've dropped every one of them in their tracks. Some were still kicking a little when I walked up to them and I put a second shot into the head but I'm not sure they needed it, It was just to be sure.
When I pace pace off yards I make 25 paces plus 2 regular steps to make 25 yards exactly and using the formula of 50 paces plus 4 steps and 17 more paces plus one step puts my longest shot with the 40 at about 67 yards. Not scientific but the best I can do under primitive circumstances.
I rarely see deer beyond 80 yards even in regular gun season so a shot below 80 yards would not only be common but account for about 99 percent of my shots on deer in any season. Muzzleloader or regular gun. I shoot the vast majority of deer even with cartridge guns at 60 yards and usually 40-50 yards. You just can't see much farther than that in the woods I hunt in.
The 40 does a great job though.

A lot of my serious ML hunting friends are also bow hunters. If you want to compare projectile energy, the.40 RB at 1600 ft. sec. has well over 1000 ft. lb. energy. The average arrow from a 70 lb. bow has about 380 ft lb. Think about it.

Click to expand...

That's exactly why I don't pay any attention to energy. The arrow kills by cutting a wound channel and reducing blood pressure. Bullets and balls do the same exact thing. So, it's just a matter of whether or not the projectile will make a hole through enough of the vitals to reduce the blood pressure. Major nerve system hits are another story, of course.

I see plenty of anecdotal evidence in this thread of the .40 being adequate for deer. The thing that is always missing is the stories of the animals lost (tg being an exception) and where and how they were hit.

Only deer I ever lost was a deer shot with a .270 winchester silver tip. Every deer I ever shot with a black powder rifle has been brought in.
All good tings comes da does dat shoot straight. :thumbsup:

marmotslayer said:

I see plenty of anecdotal evidence in this thread of the .40 being adequate for deer. The thing that is always missing is the stories of the animals lost (tg being an exception) and where and how they were hit.

Click to expand...

I have never lost a deer that I have shot with a 40 caliber so I can't comment. They have all been one shot kills. I have only lost one deer that I have ever shot in 40 years of hunting and that was in Colorado and I was using a 45-70.
I don't know exactly where that deer was hit because one of those freak thunder and lightning blizzards came over the divide while I was tracking him and the snow was covering the blood trail and tracks to the point that I could no longer find his trail. Add to that the fact I was carrying a long barreled Sharp's "Lightning rod" and there was lightning bouncing off the ridges all around me I had to give up on that one.
That was the only deer I ever lost and I still feel bad about it.

Yes, energy stats are extremely misleading.

Cutting and hemorrhaging are how muzzleloaders kill, same as bow hunting...another example about broadheads vs. energy: A broadhead can be shot through a bucket of sand...but not a .30-06.

And even if energy stats for round balls out of muzzleloaders had any relevance, "muzzle energy" itself is meaningless compared to what the energy would be out at 100 yards. IE: if a .45cal ball at 100 yards only has 300 ft lbs left, what would a tiny .40cal ball have left at 100yds?

This is the kind of offensive remark I think demeans this site. This thread asked members to take a poll and because you disagree you call us "below average" and the worst insult for a hunter "unethical" because of chosen caliber?

Yep. That's why I thought twice about commenting on my poll response, but I found the subject interesting. Turns out though that my first instinct was right. Nuff said.

PGTMG said:

This is the kind of offensive remark I think demeans this site. This thread asked members to take a poll and because you disagree you call us "below average" and the worst insult for a hunter "unethical" because of chosen caliber?

Click to expand...

Without getting too personal I will assume that A) Satire escapes you. (You might shoulda went after it with a bigger caliber :wink: ) I was saying that the .40 is below the average caliber used to hunt with....See?
and
B) ""Just because its legal does NOT make it ethical"" Does NOT make a statement about ANYBODY (those who are guilty can just stew on it). I assist in teaching Hunters Education in my area and that is a noteable segment, Ethics. And AGAIN I would say "Just because its legal does NOT make it ethical" ... Ill make it easy for you; Its legal to shoot a nurseing doe...But is it Ethical? Its legal to knowingly stomp through an area someone else is already hunting...But is it ethical. In some states, like the Great State of Texas, there are NO caliner restrictions for muzzleloaders....So ANYTHING is legal but at what point have ethics been lost? and even IF someone is that dam good (and I call :bull: because the deer, weather, terain, etc dont always cooperate) is it ethical to state that a questionable calliber, say a .32, be represented as "acceptable" if it takes "extrordinary" skill to use it? To me it smells like that guy who says he drives BETTER drunk...Maybe he does. I still dont want to hear it.

"by the way, did I mention practice?" I think so, but there are those who seem to find a need to determine what is ethical for others, many who have probably not been at this very long to be lecturing others.

"This is the kind of offensive remark I think demeans this site. This thread asked members to take a poll and because you disagree you call us "below average" and the worst insult for a hunter "unethical" because of chosen caliber? '

Well said PGTMG I don't let it bother me much I lost my love for clowns 50 years ago so I just do not pay much attention to them anymore.

I too am one that pays no attention to ft/lbs what so ever and as for questioning others ethics!

I applaud anyone useing these lesser bores :thumbsup:

One can work outside the "ethical" caperbilities of a larger bore as much as a person could not understand the limitations of a small bore.

There was a post months back from someone inquiring about using a pistol to hunt with. I did not here much quibble then! I hope he did ok.

Brits.

"One can work outside the "ethical" caperbilities of a larger bore as much as a person could not understand the limitations of a small bore."
Thats pretty much ,it, in a nut shell, well said Britsmoothy!
The ancient Greek aphorism still applies, "Know thyself", or as Clint Eastwood in his updated version said, "A mans' gotta know his limitation's"
Robby

I have been fairly quiet while watching this post and another .40 cal post. After my witty quip about hunting bear and dunkin donuts. That shot way over the head of some. No one laughs anymore.
anyway,
Hunter Ethics I belive are regional what is accepted practice in one place is alien in another.
.40 cal is the minimum legal caliber in maine.
It is not perfect no but it does work. It is the gun I own.The trick is not being a P!#@ poor hunter.
I was taught to hunt for meat when I was very young in a very remote part of maine. By one of the last real woodsmen to ever live.
Hunting for me now that I am older is not is important as it was when I was a kid. When we did not get to town much. But I still enjoy it and lessons learned young still are with me and will be passed to my young son.
These are rules from a wise man who had to make do with what he had all of his life.
1.Hunting is killing get used to it.
2.Make sure what you kill you can eat.
3.If your wasting ammo you can afford to go to the store.
4.The difference between a sportsman and a hunter is that missed shot only hurts a sportsmans ego. It will hurt a hunters family.
5.If the shot is to far get closer you should have the skills to do so.
6.don't play with your food.If you wound an animal you should have the skills to find it.
if you don't go to the store.
It is not important what caliber your using. It is the person behind that makes it work.
It comes down to the reason humans are the apex predators on the planet. We have the ability to use tools and make them work. Getting a bigger gun is not the answer. Learning the skills to make one an effective hunter is. Maybe if we all had to feed our families with what we had on hand.
We would not take a shot at a deer at 100 yds with a .40. We would crawl closer and and kill it at 25.

"We would not take a shot at a deer at 100 yds with a .40. We would crawl closer and and kill it at 25."

Not stepping on anyone's toes here, but I think this statement is what this thread has been rambling on and on about. :surrender:

Yes, you can kill a deer with a .40, and in the hands of a skilled hunter/marksman, it is an ethical killer, but it questions the ethics of the hunter to push the limits of this caliber (or any caliber) by settling for long range shots.

I think we can agree that people have made some long range shots with all calibers, but if we can crawl up to 25 yards for the shot, that should count for a few more points in ethics and skill.

Now that I think about it, I harvest at least one deer every year, and I think I've only shot one of them at a distance greater than 50 yards... :idunno:

So ANYTHING is legal but at what point have ethics been lost? and even IF someone is that dam good (and I call :bull: because the deer, weather, terain, etc dont always cooperate) is it ethical to state that a questionable calliber, say a .32, be represented as "acceptable" if it takes "extrordinary" skill to use it? To me it smells like that guy who says he drives BETTER drunk...Maybe he does. I still dont want to hear it.


[/quote]
Ok, one more time, and I will type it in caps,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
IF IT IS NOT AS IDEAL A SHOT AS I THINK IT SHOULD BE I DONT PULL THE TRIGGER!!!! CAPEESH?
YA GOT IT NOW? IF THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT EXACT THE DEER WALKS, IS THAT PLAIN ENOUGH FOR YOU SIR?You been hunting with black powder for at the most a couple of years. Some of us started with black powder, stayed with black powder, and will continue to do so. I could give a rats rear end what YOU think are ethics.