Going big or going home?

[Gene L]

It's Magnumitis.... :haha:

I agree with Clyde. I wonder what the Mountain Men carried and what they ate. Well, I have read they ate a lot of meat from larger game. But how important is that now?

Not that it's important now, but we who don't have to deal with grizzly bears or hostiles, might consider going small to fit the circumstances, as did the Mountain Men who went for their circumstances. I'm far more likely to bust a squirrel than an elk, but were to encounter an elk with my .32, I'd politely decline. Were I very likely encounter a squirrel with my .50 I'd likely decline as well. I don't depend on elk or squirrel or rabbits for my dinner.

There's something to be said for tailoring your rifle for what you hunt or likely to encounter or what the season or game laws permit.

Our ancestors didn't have the advantages we have; they usually carried one rifle, and from what I've read at least in the East, about a .50 caliber. I guess they either made head shots on squirrels if they were hungry enough to burn the powder on a couple of squirrel hams, but they were loaded for the maximum they were likely to encounter for the very good reason they wanted to eat larger animals. Makes sense.

Maybe .69 caliber hunting rifles or muskets were common in the East, but I don't think so. As Clyde said, they were expensive to shoot and in most cases, way over-powered.

One of the taxes that was opposed by the Colonists and contributed to the Revolution was a heavy tax on lead. Something to consider.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Velocity trumps size.... :grin:

 

[BigAl52]

I don't think a ferrari will do more damage than a Kenworth. Just saying :haha:

 

[jethro224]

:rotf:

 

[coloradoclyde]

:surrender: I won't go there.... :wink:

 

[wattlebuster]

I like big calibers cause they make big holes. I have shot deer with 45s 54s 62s and 12 ga enough to see that big holes lose more blood than smaller holes in the same location. That seems to be working very well for me. If i were you i would shoot what you can shoot well and comfortably an not worry bout what anyone else thinks. If your 50 does it for you then the smallbore fans and the magnumittus folks alike will be just fine with it also :thumbsup:

 

[will5a1]

By "back when" do you mean the 1970's, 1980's? If so my memory is that the larger bore (.54 and up) rifles were available, and popular, perhaps not as available from the mass producers, but certainly from Sharon, GRRW, Western/Uberti, even Navy Arms.

I hunted whitetail with a .45 T-C, moved up to a .50 then a .54 (various brands) and this year used a .58 for deer hunting, which is over kill for deer, but I like the rifle and shoot it well.
My experience is that I don't have to track, and drag, a whitetail shot thru the lungs with .54 as far as one shot thru the lungs with a .45, but that is just me. All things being even (and I know each shot is really unique) the .54, for me, works better as a hunting rifle.

For punching paper I use a .45 with moderate loads, and thoroughly enjoy trying to keep all the shots in the black offhand at 50 yards.

PS - I've got a nice .45 I'll trade you for the Ford if you still have it.

 

[Austrian]

Personally I see no reason not to go big with patched roundball rifles or smoothbores. I like the flexibility large calibers give me, with light target loads recoil is still very tolerable and the increased cost of bigger balls is negligible since I won't shoot more than 30 shots per session anyway (concentration).
Compared to center fire rifle ammunition shooting even large caliber muzzleloaders is dirt cheap.

If I wanted to hunt (or have some fun at the range :grin: ) I could simply increase the powder load and with the large caliber I'd never have to worry about range or stopping power / penetration.
Also as a nice side effect the larger bores foul less so you don't need to be as careful with wiping the bore between the shots.

Its just that a large caliber is more versatile than a .45 or .50. I'm a fan of the .62 as ''general purpose'' caliber. I'm not saying that the smaller calibers don't have their purpose or anything like that, larger calibers simply make more sense to me in the world of muzzle loaders.

Besides that, whats more fun that sending lead downrange and burning black powder? Sending more lead downrange and burning more powder. :haha: :grin:
I'm a big guy and not very recoil sensitive. IMO its a good idea - unless you are getting a rifle in specific caliber for a collection - to go with the biggest caliber you can comfortably and accurately shoot.

 

[nkbj]

Like with jaeger rifles, like always with preferences, what people want is all over the map.
:haha:

 

[galamb]

I have gone the other way over the past few years.

In both my Center Fires and my Muzzle Loaders I have been dialing back what I shoot.

30.06 is gone in favour of a 7.08, 12 gauge is now a 20.

My 54 was sold, 50 stays in the safe. My 45 "deer rifle" was replaced with a 40 which was replaced by a 38 (38 is legal in my piece of Canada for deer).

For me hunting is more of a game now - "let's see how close I can get and let's see if I can get the perfect broadside view" - I don't "need" to shoot anything now. A successful hunt is now measured differently for me and a 150 yard shot with a 54 cal is "not" something I want to do anymore.

I sell firearms at work and there is some guys that just want "more power". Had a guy buy a 300 Wby for no other reason than his son had bought a 300 Win and he had to have something "bigger and badder".

I figure the push for higher calibers is caused by the "washroom syndrome".

You know, the one where the guy is coming into the gun shop. He plans on buying a nice 45 cal Flintlock. He get's into the store but has a full bladder so he goes to the washroom.

While standing at the urinal his curiosity gets the best of him and he glances to the guy at the next urinal.

Upon finishing up he promptly approaches the gun counter and asks for a 72 caliber side by side percussion

 

[azmntman]

:rotf: :redface: :applause:

 

[user 27715]

I have a .62, both my pistol and my Tulle. For me, it's more about physical capability than anything. The tapered barrel on my Tulle is absolutely perfect with .0625" walls at the muzzle, it's balanced just right. I find caliber to be less important than firearm design and balance. I can either shoulder most of the weight or have it up through the lock, but past that it needs to be quite light or I won't be able to lift it. No straight barrels, not sure about swamped barrels. I held a .45 once but almost dropped it because it was too front heavy, it only had a 30" barrel and my Tulle has a 40" barrel.

 

[Vaino]

In the end, it's all about personal preferences and what the laws allow.

I ceased shooting .22s a long time ago because when I pull the trigger, I want to know that I'm actually shooting.

Sometimes wondered why smaller MLer cals are popular and then remembered my days at the "deer sight-ins" at my gun club....many of the deer hunters were gun shy and flinched badly. Even the .30/06 was too much gun for them.

I've shot rifles from the age of 7 and got my first shotgun when 12....a big old 12 gage which was punishing to shoot...but, finally overcame my recoil sensitivity and went on to shoot some really big kickers, eg....458 Weatherby was the biggest w/ 102 ft/lbs of recoil compared to the 27 ft/lbs of the .30/06.

A bigger cal. MLer has its advantages on larger game if one can tolerate the greater recoil...and shoot accurately. But it is a personal preference.....Fred

 

[tenngun]

Most of my time I'm shooting smooth now, and a 62 is bigger then most rifles. 40s and 45 do deer just as dead. The shooter has to believe in his gun. Shooting a deer with too big of a gun can't hurt. There is too much gun for thumper and rocky, but not too much gun for deer, unless you have to mount it on wheels.

 

[galamb]

Yes, and should add to my post, all kidding aside.

If you are starting to flinch "before" you pull the trigger, you are shooting too much gun.

And all the power in the world won't compensate for a poor shot that you pulled because you are afraid of how bad it's going to hurt.

My shoulders are screwed and shooting should be a pleasant experience so I shoot "lesser calibers" and rely more on my ability to get close so that those lesser calibers are effective.

Or maybe I'm just the guy at the next urinal :rotf:

 

[coloradoclyde]

Two roads diverged in a wood and I - I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.

Robert Frost

If you do go big.....do it for the right reasons....

 

[BrownBear]

...do it for the right reasons....

Personal reasons are da very best.

 

[BigAl52]

I agree and WANT is a good reason at my house. Al

 

[George]

Our ancestors didn't have the advantages we have; they usually carried one rifle, and from what I've read at least in the East, about a .50 caliber.

In the east, early 19th century, Ohio Valley area, smaller calibers were apparently the norm. Wm. Blane, "An Excursion through the United States and Canada, during the Years 1822-3 by an English Gentleman":

"The usual size of the balls for shooting squirrels and wild turkeys, is from 100 [36 cal. 70 gr.] to 150 [31.4 cal. 46.7 gr.] to the pound. For deer and bear, the size varies from 60 [42.7 cal. 116.7 gr.] to 80 [38.8 cal. 87.5 gr.], and for larger animals, as the buffalo and elk, from 50 [45.4 cal. 140 gr.] to 60 [42.7 cal. 116.7 gr.]; though a rifle carrying a ball of a larger size than 60 [42.7 cal. 116.7 gr.] to the pound, is very seldom made use of. For general use, and for shooting at a mark, the favorite size is from 60 to 80."

Buffalo and elk with a .45 would not fit into our modern idea of proper usage.

Spence

 

[azmntman]

45-70 :idunno: The .45 bullet was a buffalo killer, breech loaded though I guess? All shot placement. Injuns used bows, ride into herd, shoot all yer arrows, eat lunch, pick teeth, follow heard and harvest buffs down by arrows? I'd guess many were recovered miles from where the flint tipped arrows hit home tho?

Agree myself, elk n buff deserve my .54 or .58