Is a .454 RB enough for deer?

[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/cab...k-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 ....

[maillemaker]

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.

That's a great summation.

Anyway I'm out of this conversation. I don't hunt; I just punch holes in paper using about 1/2 the usual service load for maximum accuracy. With just a little less powder I could send someone down range with a catcher's mitt to catch my bullets for me to re-use.

Steve

[deerslayer303]

It seems this thread went the way of most I guess. In hunting circles you will have guys state that their 300 Win Mag, 338 Lapua, 300 WSM, 7mm Mag, etc etc. Is the best because that's what they use and is the biggest and baddest rock chucker on this planet. Whereas I view them in my area as extreme over kill and resulting in a deer no deader than my 303 or 30-30 leaves them. 99% of the time my deer never take another step. And so.e folks will argue that the 357mag (out of a rifle) is a poor choice to hunt deer with, even though it was touted here. Shot placement is key. I have never taken a whitetail with a roundball (yet). And I have no doubts about the Hawkens ability. As far as the 1858 if I can develop a load passing 1000 fps and passing 300 ft lb I would be confident enough to take a shot out to 25 or 30 yds. I do appreciate all the comments and replies, you guys gave me lots of food for thought

[NoSecondBest]

I've shot a fair number of deer with both .45 cal and .50cal. Yes, a .45 will kill a deer but it doesn't penetrate anywhere near as well as a .50cal will. A .45cal round ball weighs a paltry 127 grains and a .50cal weighs 175 grains. I have shot deer with the .45 where the round ball didn't get to the vitals due to the angle of the shot. The same shot with the .50 cal made it all the way through. The .45cal will work but you need to be closer, have a lot better angle, and pass on the shots that are less than ideal. A round ball isn't that good of a projectile to begin with. If it was, conicals would have never been invented.

[jimbob86]

It seems this thread went the way of most I guess. In hunting circles you will have guys state that their 300 Win Mag, 338 Lapua, 300 WSM, 7mm Mag, etc etc. Is the best because that's what they use and is the biggest and baddest rock chucker on this planet. Whereas I view them in my area as extreme over kill and resulting in a deer no deader than my 303 or 30-30 leaves them.

I've shot a fair number of deer with both .45 cal and .50cal. Yes, a .45 will kill a deer but it doesn't penetrate anywhere near as well as a .50cal will. A .45cal round ball weighs a paltry 127 grains and a .50cal weighs 175 grains. I have shot deer with the .45 where the round ball didn't get to the vitals due to the angle of the shot. The same shot with the .50 cal made it all the way through. The .45cal will work but you need to be closer, have a lot better angle, and pass on the shots that are less than ideal. A round ball isn't that good of a projectile to begin with. If it was, conicals would have never been invented.

deerslayer, I'm coming from it the other way: having tried the .440 PRB (out of a rifle, mind you), and failed to recover the animal, I know it does not penetrate well enough to leave a good blood trail ..... I KNOW there are better tools for the job....... yet we have folks here advocating for even more marginal tools.....

Use whatever you want, so long as it does not violate any Game Laws .....

[deerslayer303]

Agreed Jimbob, I think a blood trail is very important to deer hunting. I took a deer this past season with a .243 100gr bullet, I bought the rifle for my daughter. Even though the animal didn't go but 50 yards and it was a full pass through the boiler room, a few drops of blood didn't tickle my fancy. Not bashing a 243 at all l, I was just not happy with the wound channel.

[maillemaker]

Jumping back in to talk about .243, that's my experience also. I shot 2 deer with my .243. One one I hit it in the spine which dropped it right there. But the other deer the bullet when through it like a laser. Very light blood trail. Found it by accident when I was hauling away the second deer.

My dad taught me the trick to finding your deer is after you shoot one to sit still a bit. If they aren't being chased, they will go lay down and die, usually nearby. Mine was only 15 yards or so into the woods.

Steve

[deerslayer303]

I shot that deer at 35 yards, and I think it was just too close and too fast for the bullet to open up. In all my years of hunting it seems a slow heavy slug knocks their fawn maker in the dirt rather quickly. My 2nd Dad (known him since I was a kid) hunts with a 44 mag lever gun loaded with 240 grain semi jacketed lead bullets. He has never had to track one. Granted he hunts in the woods with close shots, his deer look like they got hit with a mack truck on I40 LOL. I got into the whole BP thing with the whole intention of moving to solely hunting with them. And I'm finally ready and confident enough to do so. I want more of a challenge. A scoped 30 30 or My Scoped Enfield doesn't do much for me other than fill the freezer. It's time to get closer and take them kinda like my fore fathers did.

[rodwhaincamo]

"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 thing is that even a Ruger Old Army, Remington 1858, or Colt 1860 Army can get quite close too. My point in the videos where Mr. Beliveau, the editor for Guns of the Old West Magazine, shows that despite a reduced load with mild compression, neither which are necessary, he was able to get nearly 500 ft/lbs using conicals and nearly 400 ft/lbs with a ball.

And then the other point is that the ball from a pistol at 25 yds still has the energy levels that a rifle does at 100 yds, and at 100 yds a rifle is well known by those who hunt with them that you are likely to get a complete passthrough or find your ball under the hide on the offside. If that's not enough performance I'm uncertain what would change your opinion. But to say it's inhumane or incapable is false.

I hold myself to a slightly stricter standard in that I want all of my shots within 4" instead of the typical 6" I often note others are fine with as I want a little leeway in case I estimated the range wrong or wasn't quite steady enough, and I've not proven to myself that I'm qualified to make a 25 yds shot despite the powder or projectile, though at 15 yds I'd have no issues using it and would given an opportunity. For me it's more about a sidearm in case I were to need to track a wounded hog.


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

This is another false statement. There's a fellow who did a lot of research on Civil War paper cartridges and found that the powder Hazards Pistol Powder used was about 4F granulation and the power levels of Swiss. 4F was actually used with conicals as it reduced the powder capacity greatly. If you look at period powder charges for the heavier projectiles you'll note many at 22 grns of powder or less.

That fellow made public his work with the OK to post it. I have it saved to my computer and would certainly be willing to share it to anyone who'd like to see (it's available on the Yahoo group The Percussion Revolver), but it's too lengthy for a forum and would need to be emailed.

[rodwhaincamo]

"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."

If anyone has that little reading comprehension then it doesn't really matter what's being discussed. It really has nothing to do with whether or not it can be effective though...

[Snyper]

too fast for the bullet to open up.

That's not how bullet expansion works
If it were truly "too fast" it would have fragmented totally

[rodwhaincamo]

"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."

That's not the consensus at all. I guess you missed the many posts that state or show otherwise. Or better yet go to a traditional firearms forum and ask those who've been doing it for decades say about it.

I was under the impression myself that a ball was about useless from a .50 cal rifle beyond 50 yds due to the low weight/sectional density and poor BC values leaving the projectile with what I thought was useless amounts of energy. Reality shows that these numbers don't mean as much as we're led to believe.

A .50 cal ball only has 411 ft/lbs at 100 yds and 356 ft/lbs at 125 yds with a fairly stout charge of Pyrodex RS (80 grns) which is slightly more energetic than standard Goex and the like. Starting velocity is 1701 fps.

[deerslayer303]

Snyper, you may be correct in your statement but what I do know is that bullet went in and out leaving the same entry and exit wound. Not the 30 cal entry and half dollar sized exit my 30 30 leaves firing an FTX.

[publius]

Absolutely, it will kill a deer dead as a door nail.

[Snyper]

Snyper, you may be correct in your statement but what I do know is that bullet went in and out leaving the same entry and exit wound. Not the 30 cal entry and half dollar sized exit my 30 30 leaves firing an FTX.

A lack of expansion is from velocity that is too low, or a bullet that is too hard
Lead round balls tend to be pretty soft compared to most conical bullets

[jimbob86]

And then the other point is that the ball from a pistol at 25 yds still has the energy levels that a rifle does at 100 yds, and at 100 yds a rifle is well known by those who hunt with them that you are likely to get a complete passthrough or find your ball under the hide on the offside.

This has not been my experience.

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.

Actually, the question reads "Is a .454" RB enough for deer?" and goes on to talk about a revolver. You are trying to bring conicals into it. And really heavy loads only suitable for Walker reproductions ......

Check your local game laws, and use what you want, privided it's legal. Just know that a .45 cal round ball is pretty weak deer medicine when shot out of a rifle..... and much moreso when using a pistol. Get really close, and don't hit the shoulder.