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