Too much rifle

[Empty Quiver]

I have too much time on my hands, which means I've been thinking.
 
Do you suppose the mountain men had to put up with a bunch of crap about how they had too much gun? Can't you just hear the talk around the river wharf.
 
"I mean really it's all about shot placement is it not fella's. Those 50 cal Hawkens waste a bunch of powder, and the lead, my God the lead. Daniel Boone, Davey Crocket and many others fed a young nation with little more than 36 calibre weapons. Those young punks heading out west with a freeking cannon bored to .50". If they would put half as much effort into hunting ability as they did in carrying balls for those short little cannons they would be far ahead. If they were to shoot a reasonable sized charge they could  practice more, the recoil from those enormous loads is why half of them couldn't hit anything and have to trap rather than shoot the beaver."
 
So whatta' ya'll think,The Mountain Man, candy ass or modern thinker? 

[james]

I'd say the first time someone with a Kentucky 36 cal ran up against a griz, they felt undergunned.  There were grizzly bears in Kans and Neb when the first potential mountain men headed for the mountains and when they never made it to the mountains, they were only known as dead plainsmen.    I doubt if the real mountain men cared what someone thought or said about the caliber of gun they carried.

[Flynmoose]

I would think a Hawkens rifle would be very desirable to anyone headed into the wilds in those days.
FM

[FPH]

I think the .50 Hawkens was the Gold Standard rifle in those days.

[Dave in WV]

I reckon they didn't care what others thought about thier choice in firearms or equipment, like I do.

[Lloyd Smale]

werent a bunch of prissy mamas boys back then that ran crying from a gun that had a bit of recoil. Most of them were intelegent enough to know that more was better. Ive seen cases where underpowered gun caused game to be wounded. Never have seen a case where a gun a bit big for the job killed an animal to dead
 

[SHOOTALL]

In a world where many consider the weapon to depend on for saving their lives and the constant rethinking of the bug out bag and it's contents it would seem that it would be a simple leap back to the Mt Man and realize that unlike today where our best efforts to insure we had everything we needed in most cases is but a dry run the Mt Mans life really did depend on his load and any extra weight was unacceptable. I would then assume if he carried a big 50 it was needed .

[tomtomz]

Too much gun?

Explain the concept to me. I'll be caressing my 300 WIN MAG and trying to listen.

[SHOOTALL]

300 win mag , nice med bore gun 

[BUGEYE]

300 win mag , nice med bore gun 

My BIL couldn't wait to trade his .308 for a .300 WinMag.  1/2 box of shells later he had a detached retina.  those .300 WinMags are for young folks.

[D Fischer]

If you think about it, the only thing the 50 cal had over the 36 cal was a heavier, larger projectile.  With today's thinking the mountain man would have carried a 36 cal in a 5# rifle. Imagine a 50 cal in a 5# firearm!

[FPH]

300 win mag , nice med bore gun 

My BIL couldn't wait to trade his .308 for a .300 WinMag.  1/2 box of shells later he had a detached retina.  those .300 WinMags are for young folks.

My hunting friend is 83......he loves the .300 Win Mag.  That is all he shoots.  No such thing as "too much rifle".

[SHOOTALL]

I don't know , the older I get the less I like to carry. Lighter gun less ammo , flask of water a snack, some para cord , knife and a few small items. Years ago it was all the ammo and junk that would fit in my pockets and a big gun and revolver , may another one , sometimes a fishing rod if the stand was near a pond. 

[BUGEYE]

300 win mag , nice med bore gun 

My BIL couldn't wait to trade his .308 for a .300 WinMag.  1/2 box of shells later he had a detached retina.  those .300 WinMags are for young folks.

My hunting friend is 83......he loves the .300 Win Mag.  That is all he shoots.  No such thing as "too much rifle".

Some folks don't have a problem. my BIL is a big guy probably 300lbs (needs to diet) but the surgeon told him that hard kicking guns can detach a retina.  it might never do it again, but he won't shoot it.  he hasn't been deer hunting now for two years.

[Empty Quiver]

What got me thinking was all the talk about using .223 or .22-250 deer hunting. The 30-30 also comes up a bunch when a person starts discussing a Magnum for hunting.


The typical responses always include the "with proper bullet placement" a .22 short will suffice. Then the ain't no such thing as too dead school pipes up, and soon the wastes too much meat / powder crowd joins in. Followed quickly on with the recoil kills accuracy bunch.


Sorta wondered if Mountain Men had to endure this as they were picking up their new Hawkens and the powder and lead.

[flintlock]

Empty Quiver...Your thoughts about what calibers they carried is wrong...
 
Daniel Boone and David Crockett didn't carry .36 caliber flintlocks...And a 22-250 is more powerful than a .50 caliber round ball in front of a .490 ball in front of 100grs FFF Goex at 100 yards...
 
The American Longrifle started being developed during the first half of the 1700s...It was developed by German gunsmiths that were use to making Jeagers of .54-62 caliber or so...Many of the flintlocks during the American Revolution were .50 caliber or larger...This is the type weapon Daniel Boone carried into Kentucky when he first went there in 1769...
 
By the time David Crockett was in the Alamo (1836) calibers in the eastern US had gotten smaller because the deer population was decimated by market hunting...David's favorite rifle "Betsy" was actually around .48 caliber...But many rifles from that period and later were .36-.40 calibers...The stock design changed as well and went from the wide, flat butt of a Lancaster to the curved, narrow butt plate of a east Tennessee or western Carolina gun...
 
So all the Hawken boys did was go back to larger calibers from the Revolution and instead of swamped barrels they went to heavier barrels with a taper for heavier powder charges...
 
But to your original question, yes they did in fact discuss larger vs smaller balls for game...I can't remember who it was but I have seen period documentation that said something to the effect that while some hunters prefer smaller bores as they require less powder and lead others prefer the larger bores and the certainty of quick death that follow...
 
I've killed deer with .40, .45 and .54 caliber flintlocks and round balls...I prefer a .54, it puts them down a bit quicker and leaves a better blood trail...But maybe what is more important is I have had a large black bear within 35 yards of me and a .45 caliber flintlock in my hands...I made the decision to move up to a .54 at that time.....
 
With modern rifles...During the '70s, I killed 50 or so whitetails with a 22-250...In 1980 I moved up to a .243 and have used it ever since with no complaints...This was before the current selection of .22 caliber bullets...While I know .22 centerfires will kill deer, I wouldn't go out and buy one just to deer hunt with...

[tomtomz]

My brother says "...it's too much gun if it knocks you out of your tree stand!"

I reckon he's right!

[Empty Quiver]

I understand the energy of modern arms vs. patched ball and black powder. I have supposed that the modern mt man would like the AR platform including the light ammo. No doubt the Indian fighting would have another proposition all together. I have read many accounts that the Inuit are big fans of the .243 for the economics of the thing if for no other reason.


Sounds like they were not able to settle the calibre debate, and it still rages. Guess that is why more are introduced every couple years.

[tomtomz]

300 win mag , nice med bore gun 

My BIL couldn't wait to trade his .308 for a .300 WinMag.  1/2 box of shells later he had a detached retina.  those .300 WinMags are for young folks.

Did the scope get him?  I'd like to learn from this.  If I may ask, respectfully, what happened that caused the injury?

[purpledragon]

My brother says "...it's too much gun if it knocks you out of your tree stand!"

I reckon he's right!
[/quote

Lean against the tree...........No such thing as to much rifle.I've shot fox squirrels with my 7stw losing just the head

[bulletstuffer]

The deer in my avatar was shot with a boomer and I was in my climbing tree stand.  I took an extra couple of seconds to brace myself just to be sure the deer wasn't going to be the only thing hitting the ground


When I walked up to it I thought to myself that I blew the hair right out the end of the antlers


Bulletstuffer

[hillbill]

the mountain man was a" modern thinker." his life was so dangerous that any advantage he could get, i would imagine he would take advantage of .can you imagine looking at a grizz with a 36 cal rifle in your hand?
 
im sure there were those that balked at the percussion thing but i dont think the larger calibers were scoffed at.
 
i know larger caliber fusils, muskets etc were available before we all went west of the big muddy. but what was the actual date of the first big 50 rifled muzzelloader?

[454Puma]

If I was sighting down the muzzle at a Griz knowing I had one shot  to stop him from nawing on my bones  a .50 Hawkens is the smallest I'd want with a big 385 gr slug over 100 grs. 

[flintlock]

the mountain man was a" modern thinker." his life was so dangerous that any advantage he could get, i would imagine he would take advantage of .can you imagine looking at a grizz with a 36 cal rifle in your hand?
 
im sure there were those that balked at the percussion thing but i dont think the larger calibers were scoffed at.
 
i know larger caliber fusils, muskets etc were available before we all went west of the big muddy. but what was the actual date of the first big 50 rifled muzzelloader?

The earliest signed and dated American longrifle we know of is dated 1761 and it was made by John Scherit...It has a fairly plain maple stock with a sliding wood patch box and has incise carving...The trigger guard is a replacement and should actually have a more open guard on it...If I remember correctly, it is around .62 caliber and the barrel is about 42 inches long...

It's in Shumway's books...

[Savage .250]

Bring what you have.............  I doubt if those old timers had a gun cabinet full of weaopons.   

[foto]

Think you guys got it wrong. From my understanding the rifles all started out small(36 -50) and then got progressively larger from use. They were using blackpowder, and or mercury fulminate caps and the stuff was extremely corrosive and water attracting plus the "mountain men" were not in the best situation to maintain their rifle barrels. Every few years or so they would get the barrels bored out and what was once a 40 caliber became a 45 and then 50 and eventually what was once a 54 caliber became .62. Back then no one said "this barrel is shot out after only a year of use so I am throwing away my hawkens rifle, shoulda cleaned it more often." They took it to a smith and he would bore it out to the next larger caliber and put rifling into fresh metal. No one started out with a .62 caliber because where do you go from there? might as well start carrying a cannon as that is what the ammo would  eventually start to weigh after a few years. A .62caliber rifle was probably reaching the end of its useful life as it probably started out a lot smaller and had been through many reborings.
Correct me if wrong but this is how I remember reading about it. take care.

[Ranger99]

several well known mountain men carried
large bore hawken or hawken type rifles.
jim bridger- mariano medina- john brown
the morman elder/frontier guide to name a few.
these i named started as .54 minimum and
some like john brown's was ordered as a .62
you have to keep in mind they were shooting
dead soft pure lead- no jacketed pointy bullets-
at big animals and hostile folks in life or death
situations. and most if not all western mountain
men had at least one pack animal. weight was
not an issue. a 10 pound authentic hawken type
rifle is a lightweight. in one old writing, it was
recommended that folks heading west should
have "a rifle that does not exceed forty balls
to the pound"  the mountaineers had plenty of lead
on their pack animals, two or three knives on their
person, and a years worth of personal items and
food (things that weren't game- spices,flour,meal,etc.)


i'll have to go find the books if you need sources.

[Lloyd Smale]

wonder if given a choise what theyd take for a modern gun. A 243 or a 300 wby mag??   betcha not many would take the 243 cause the 300 hurt there pour little shoulder to much. 

[mannyrock]

 
  Food for thought.
 
   Would any of us who hunts deer with a muzzleloader ever in a million years choose a .40 caliber rifle to go hunting with, and put a conical bullet in it, with only 40 grains of blackpowder behind it?  Would we ever say, "Wow, this will be a helluva good deer killer at 100 yards"  ?
 
  Nope.   
 
    And yet, the .38-40 Winchester was regarded as a perfectly fine deer round in its day.  It was touted as being better than the .44-40, because of its flatter trajectory.
 
   I think that the bottom line is this.  People are going to shoot what they've got, at any given historical moment.  But only after being subjected to thousands of hours of advertising and marketing BS, and tens of millions of dollars of print ads and promotion.  So, their "perceptions" after all of this brainwashing, become for them "reality."
 
Mannyrock

[scootrd]

But to your original question, yes they did in fact discuss larger vs smaller balls for game...I can't remember who it was but I have seen period documentation that said something to the effect that while some hunters prefer smaller bores as they require less powder and lead others prefer the larger bores and the certainty of quick death that follow...

I suppose if you could trace them on Ancestry. com you would discover, the small bore guys were ancestors of Jack , and the big bore guys were the ancestors of Elmer.   

And the beat goes on