colorado clyde said: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.