Is a .454 RB enough for deer?

[Old Stony]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people that want to hunt with calibers not designed for the game they are after. Sure a round ball of any size will kill a deer...given the velocity to do it! This velocity will not occur using it out of a pistol...period!
Sure a guy can get lucky, but ethics should enter into the equation somewhere. I really expect someone on here someday claim the .17 hmr as a proper deer caliber, given their expert status with it. Deer have been killed with everything from a .22 LR to a Ford F-150, but neither are the proper tool to do it with.

 

[eastbank]

i can see you were never a farmer, when deer get into buckwheat field and fight or roll around they break the stems and the buckwheat develop a rust and rots, its not like regular wheat. it was not poaching then or now, its called crop damage controll and the comparison was only to say that lung shots will kill deer size animals quickly even with the lowly .22. if you ate buckwheat pan cakes in the early 50,s maybe thats why. eastbank.

 

[deerslayer303]

I will get ahold of a Lee mold and maybe work up a load with the Conicals, you guys are right the roundball may be a little light. It is still beyond me how a 147 grain ball moving at 1000 fps and 300 ft lbs of energy cannot be enough. Anyway I have a press I can load the cylinders off the gun to save modifying the pistol. where we hunt around here 75 to 100 yards is your longest shot, many deer are taken within 50 yards. The Hawken will do most of the work for sure, but if one ventures within 30 yards, I just may take it with the '58.

 

[deerslayer303]

Anyone have the part number for the Lee Conical mold?

 

[jimbob86]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people that want to hunt with calibers not designed for the game they are after. Sure a round ball of any size will kill a deer...given the velocity to do it! This velocity will not occur using it out of a pistol...period!

Oh, it'll kill 'em, allright ..... just not real soon, and they won't bleed enough to follow very well..... unless there's a good inch of fresh snow on the ground, a drop of blood every 10-15 yards and one set of tracks among many is a darn hard trail to stay on.

I killed one with a .440" patched round ball, pushed by 90gr of FFFg from 30 yards ..... but the coyotes found it before I did.

 

[eastbank]

where did you hit that deer, in the tail? TC,s loading chart lists 90grs ff and a 127gr ball at the muzzle, 2003fps and 1140fpe and with you useing fff it would have a higher fps-fpe. that load would have more fps-fpe than a 125gr bullet(1850fps-950fpe) out of a 6" barreled .357 handgun at the muzzle. if you put that .440gr RB thru a deers lungs it will not be very far away, with a easy trail.eastbank.

 

[jimbob86]

where did you hit that deer, in the tail?

Right behind the shoulder. It did not go far- piled up less than 150 yards as the crow flies from where I shot it ...... but it took off running back up the draw where it came from, and out of sight..... the little bit of blood I found led me that way ..... and some fresh tracks misled me to think it kept going that direction out across a small cornfield toward some trees a short distance away, when it in fact got to the end of the trees I was in, took a hard left and went up a little hill about 50 yards and keeled over. I found the 1/2 eaten carcass frozen solid, days later when I hunted the property again.

I had chronographed the load @ a bit over 1850 f/sec. .45 cal flintlock, .440 ball patched with mattress ticking, 90gr of FFFg "Elephant Brand" black powder ....

Chronographing that load was ....... problematic: the blast of smoke kept giving me error messages on my Chrony, even shooting several feet back from the end of the 15 foot remote cable.

 

[MJN77]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people that.....

......think you need a cannon to kill a deer.

Sure a round ball of any size will kill a deer...given the velocity to do it! This velocity will not occur using it out of a pistol...period!

In 1869 Bill Hickok shot Dave Tutt with a percussion revolver (some say he used a Dragoon) at, according to surviving eyewitness accounts and by actual measurement, based upon old city maps, 75 yards. According to the coroner's report, the ball from Hickok’s pistol had entered Mr. Tutt at his fifth rib on the right side and exited through the fifth rib on the left side, passing through his heart. That is a complete pass through and includes at least a couple of layers of clothing on top of meat and bone. But some of you folk don't think a Remington style revolver can kill a deer at 25 yards?

I imagine a lot were wounded and lost also

I know of more than a few that were wounded and lost with modern high powered rifles too.

 

[Old Stony]

I'm sure there are lots of stories around about things getting shot with marginal cartridges and dropping on the spot, but there are always exceptions that can be used to justify about anything of this nature. I just don't understand the shooting of an animal with a minimal cartridge or round ball just to prove a guy can do it. Probably some guy out there that can brag about shooting deer in the ear with his .22 Hornet because of his sniper abilities, but it still is not ethical. An animal is not ballistic media and deserves to be taken humanely.

 

[Snyper]

I know of more than a few that were wounded and lost with modern high powered rifles too.

All the more reason to not use an anemic round

But some of you folk don't think a Remington style revolver can kill a deer at 25 yards?

It's not enough to just "kill" the animal.

It has to be done quickly, and preferably with lots of blood spilled

In most places a round that weak isn't even legal

 

[MJN77]

All the more reason to not use an anemic round

Actually, the problem mostly goes away when you work within the range of your firearm and concentrate more on shot placement instead of worrying about power. A deer shot in the heart with a .44 C&B revolver is better than one shot in the guts with a .300 magnum. I have been hunting for almost thirty years, and killed Lord knows how many deer. Most with a .44-40 rifle of some kind. I have never lost a deer, and only had to track down two, one of which I shot through both lungs with a .30-06. At close range, a percussion revolver is more than capable of killing a deer. The Remington and Colt percussion revolvers were designed to kill full grown men. They were used as military arms for that purpose for decades, and to good effect. But somehow they won't kill a 100-150 pound deer at close range? Good grief.

It's not enough to just "kill" the animal.

It has to be done quickly, and preferably with lots of blood spilled

Will a deer shot in the heart/lungs with a .45 caliber slug die slower than one shot in the heart/lungs with a .50 caliber slug? Will holes a few thousandths of an inch smaller leak that much less?

 

[MJN77]

I just don't understand the shooting of an animal with a minimal cartridge or round ball just to prove a guy can do it.

I don't understand people thinking that deer are armor plated.

http://hoveyhunts.com/2011/11/17/ca...handguns-killing-deer-with-black-powder-revo/

From above link, "My next opportunity was when I was sitting on the ground and a deer walked past at about 30-yards across the valley. My first shot hit a bit high on the spine and knocked it down. My second shot penetrated the heart and finished the animal. "Both bullets passed through the small deer with the heart shot penetrating about 10-inches of fur, hide, bone and flesh."

An animal is not ballistic media and deserves to be taken humanely.

A .45 caliber bullet through the heart/lungs is humane.

Probably some guy out there that can brag about shooting deer in the ear with his .22 Hornet because of his sniper abilities, but it still is not ethical.

It's no less "ethical" than some bubba gut shooting a deer with his new magnum huntin' rifle because he relied on the power to kill instead of hitting it in the right place. What is your idea of ethical? Having others use a gun/caliber of your choosing? One that you're comfortable with? If you can cleanly kill a deer at 25 yards with a BP revolver, is that less ethical/humane than cleanly killing one at 150 yards with a .30-06?

 

[maillemaker]

They were used as military arms for that purpose for decades, and to good effect. But somehow they won't kill a 100-150 pound deer at close range? Good grief.

They were, and still are, primarily a weapon of last resort. The saying goes, "A pistol is what you use to fight your way to a rifle".

Does that mean they are ineffective? No. Does it mean they are not lethal? No. Does it mean that they are as effective as rifles? Generally, no.

It's no less "ethical" than some bubba gut shooting a deer with his new magnum huntin' rifle because he relied on the power to kill instead of hitting it in the right place.

This is a false dichotomy. No one is suggesting that one poor shot is better than another poor shot.

From above link, "My next opportunity was when I was sitting on the ground and a deer walked past at about 30-yards across the valley. My first shot hit a bit high on the spine and knocked it down. My second shot penetrated the heart and finished the animal. "Both bullets passed through the small deer with the heart shot penetrating about 10-inches of fur, hide, bone and flesh."

Yes, but also from the same link:

"This is an interesting gun as it has the strong topstrap of the 1858 Remington design, adjustable sights, a 12-inch barrel and my version is all stainless steel. There is a less expensive brass-framed model which is not recommended for the load I used. This load consist of of 40 grains of Hodgdon’s Triple Seven Powder (FFFg)(10 percent more powerful that black powder), an Ox-Yoke Wonder Wad (lubricated felt), round ball and topped off by Ox-Yoke’s wax Revolver Wonder Seals. This is a powerful load in this gun and approaches 500 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy. I had previously condemed all percussion revolvers as being suitable only for small game or for point-black kill shots on deer, but this load has big-game killing potential on the smallish deer and hogs that I mostly shoot."

If you are running 500 ft-lbs of energy out of your handgun muzzle, you're probably OK shooting deer with it. This is .357 magnum muzzle energy range. Bear in mind this guy is getting double the muzzle energy you typically get out of a 5.5" barreled 1858 with 37 grains of 3F Goex.

This is not your typical 1860 Army or 1858 Remington. He's in Colt Walker range which most folks here have said is probably quite sufficient for taking a deer.

Steve

 

[MJN77]

Does it mean that they are as effective as rifles? Generally, no.

Now who said they were?

This is a false dichotomy. No one is suggesting that one poor shot is better than another poor shot.

No, they're suggesting a .45 caliber bullet in the right spot is somehow less effective than a .50 caliber bullet in the right spot. As long as the important organs are penetrated the deer dies rather quickly.

Yes, but also from the same link:

I'm aware of what it says. I read it and posted it for you to read. Did you think I hoped you wouldn't see that part? Re read the last sentence of the quote you posted. "I had previously condemed all percussion revolvers as being suitable only for small game or for point-black kill shots on deer, but this load has big-game killing potential on the smallish deer and hogs that I mostly shoot."

This is not your typical 1860 Army or 1858 Remington.

Actually it is. It is nothing more than a longer barreled version of the 1858. The difference in that he used 777 instead of BP. Nothing more. The OP could do the same thing as long as his remington isn't a brass framed revolver.

 

[rodwhaincamo]

"It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people that want to hunt with calibers not designed for the game they are after. Sure a round ball of any size will kill a deer...given the velocity to do it! This velocity will not occur using it out of a pistol...period!"

Guess you had better let all of those PRB shooters know they shouldn't be shooting past 75 yds then. If you take a moment to look at the .45 cal rifle energies I posted above you'll note that you would be incorrect in your notion...period!

 

[rodwhaincamo]

"They were, and still are, primarily a weapon of last resort. The saying goes, "A pistol is what you use to fight your way to a rifle"."

Not true. Look at what the Walker was designed for and what was said about it.

"Does that mean they are ineffective? No. Does it mean they are not lethal? No. Does it mean that they are as effective as rifles? Generally, no."

Again, not true as stated above.

 

[rodwhaincamo]

"Bear in mind this guy is getting double the muzzle energy you typically get out of a 5.5" barreled 1858 with 37 grains of 3F Goex."

This is a part of the problem. Goes, and many other powder are weak in comparison to Swiss, Olde Eynsford by Goex, and Triple 7. These powders will get you closer to 400 ft/lbs with a ball and 500 ft/lbs with a bullet. Use those other powders and you lose a fair amount of velocity. But 300 ft/lbs is right around where a PRB from a rifle is at 100-125 yds and they seem to work just fine. The ball that hit Tutt had MUCH less than that at 75 yds...

 

[maillemaker]

Now who said they were?

Well, the entire debate here is the efficacy of BP pistols for shooting deer. The logical alternative for comparison is a rifle, which I don't think anyone disputes is effective for shooting deer.

So it seems pretty obvious that the debate here is about the relative effectiveness of BP revolvers vs. BP rifles.

No, they're suggesting a .45 caliber bullet in the right spot is somehow less effective than a .50 caliber bullet in the right spot. As long as the important organs are penetrated the deer dies rather quickly.

That is not the false dichotomy I was referring to, which was this:

It's no less "ethical" than some bubba gut shooting a deer with his new magnum huntin' rifle because he relied on the power to kill instead of hitting it in the right place.

We do not have to make a choice between shooting a deer with an under-powered firearm or gut-shooting with a rifle. This is a false dichotomy.

No one is suggesting that poor shots with any kind of firearm are a good choice.

I'm aware of what it says.

I'm glad you are. I just quoted it for everyone else since you neglected to quote this very important part of the article here. You quoted the part talking about how effective the shots were, without quoting anything about the firearm and load being used. I think that's kind of important to the conversation here, and it would be misleading quote to everyone the efficacy part of the article without the firearm and load details.

Actually it is. It is nothing more than a longer barreled version of the 1858. The difference in that he used 777 instead of BP. Nothing more. The OP could do the same thing as long as his remington isn't a brass framed revolver.

Not in my book. If you take your typical 1858 Remington and put 40 grains of regular 3F Goex in it you are going to get about 300 ft-lbs of muzzle energy out of it. Compare this to the 500 ft-lbs from the energy of the firearm from the article. Anyway the details are irrelevant. Like I said - if you are going to be shooting 500 ft-lbs I don't think anyone is disputing that that will make an excellent hunting arm.

But if you're shooting a standard period load out of your 1858 you aren't going to be anything close to that performance.

Not true. Look at what the Walker was designed for and what was said about it.

I have, and have written much about it here. As I have said before, the Walker was specifically designed to achieve musket/rifle performance. Captain Walker said himself (as I have quoted here before), "It is better than a musket and as good as a rifle at 100 yards".

Also as I have said in this thread, I don't think anyone would dispute that the Walker would probably be fine for hunting deer. It's 60 grain charge puts you in .357 magnum power ranges.

The Walker is an exception to the rule. That is why I said, "They were, and still are, primarily a weapon of last resort." And I further said, "Does it mean that they are as effective as rifles? Generally, no."

This is a part of the problem. Goes, and many other powder are weak in comparison to Swiss, Olde Eynsford by Goex, and Triple 7. These powders will get you closer to 400 ft/lbs with a ball and 500 ft/lbs with a bullet. Use those other powders and you lose a fair amount of velocity. But 300 ft/lbs is right around where a PRB from a rifle is at 100-125 yds and they seem to work just fine. The ball that hit Tutt had MUCH less than that at 75 yds...

Like I said above, if you can crank up the ME, go for it.

Steve

 

[Snyper]

So it seems pretty obvious that the debate here is about the relative effectiveness of BP revolvers vs. BP rifles.

No, rifles really have no place in the topic at all

The OP topic is whether or not a BP revolver should be used for deer, and the consensus seems to be that it shouldn't

Any comparisons to rifles are just a distraction

The Remington and Colt percussion revolvers were designed to kill full grown men.

Another topic that has nothing to do with hunting deer

 

[jimbob86]

"Both bullets passed through the small deer with the heart shot penetrating about 10-inches of fur, hide, bone and flesh."

This is an interesting gun as it has the strong topstrap of the 1858 Remington design, adjustable sights, a 12-inch barrel and my version is all stainless steel. There is a less expensive brass-framed model which is not recommended for the load I used. This load consist of of 40 grains of Hodgdon’s Triple Seven Powder (FFFg)(10 percent more powerful that black powder), an Ox-Yoke Wonder Wad (lubricated felt), round ball and topped off by Ox-Yoke’s wax Revolver Wonder Seals. This is a powerful load in this gun and approaches 500 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy.

this load has big-game killing potential on the smallish deer and hogs that I mostly shoot."

"big game" and "smallish deer" seems to be an oxymoron .....

So the guy is actually saying a hot-loaded,, long barrelled horse pistol is adequate for deer the size of a standard poodle.

If that's what you are after, have at it.

The problem is that Cletus and Jethro will read this, comprehend 10% of it and conclude that because their brass framed 1851 uses a .451" ball, it'll kill Bambi's daddy .... and then are all sorts of dismayed when they can't find the deer they just centerpunched with their pea-shooter.

Oh, well ....somebody has to feed the coyotes ....