Just finished a book called FIFTY YEARS A HUNTER, circa 1913. Author opines that the new fangled long range guns like the thirty-thirty are just a passing fad. He long ago gave up the 44-40 and settled on the 38-40 blackpowder as the perfect arm for deer. His experience level was as a market hunter from 1867 until the whitetails were pretty much gone from Pennsylvania. We ruminate about FPS and foot pounds in a seemingly endless discussion, while those folks just went out and took huge amounts of game without all the fuss and bother.

I ran across this book about a month ago but did not buy it. MAybe I'll grab it next time I;m there...

Yes...we seem to worry more about the theoretical and less about the practical...such is the luxury of the modern man...

As a market hunter in the early 20th century he didn't have a couple of weeks for hunting season and 25 million other hunters in the field with him.

The book is free in the Kindle library. I do think the author was the real deal. Living in the woods and living off the woods in north central PA was not for the faint of heart, or having a weak constituion. We used to tell the tenderfeet that the deer had legs shorter on one side, so they could run the steep side hills!

and if you just waited 5 minutes they'd come back around.

he was not in contact with indoor plumbing either...

also free in the google books library. I have found e-books to be quite nice to help pass the time on a slow day of hunting

The external ballistics aren't far from a 10mm auto. Which actually is a fine deer round, within the right conditions. . 150 years ago the hunting wasn't anything like today. I have taken a few animals with both. .. no real difference and no bloodshot meat

All that being said, hunting is 90% the hunter and 10% his tools. Just saying

quote:

150 years ago the hunting wasn't anything like today.

Even 50 years ago,hunting was not like it is today.

There is one constant that applies to the vast majority of hunters, and it goes all the way back to when the first human picked up a rock and threw it and killed a critter.

Hunters have always been ready and willing to accept and embrace advances in technology when they saw that it made their job easier.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

Even 50 years ago,hunting was not like it is today.

I know I was there!!

This thread brings out something of interest to me. That is the performance of relatively modest capacity cartridges with gas checked bullets.
The vast majority of deer and elk I have killed were seldom over 100 yds. Two of my wildcats, .358x41 and .375 x41,( 06 head dia.), will push a 300 gr. Gas Checked bullet out of a 16.5" barrel at over 2000 ft/sec. That's more than equals the original 06 energy levels. Tweaking that performance with say a 24" barrel would easily extend the effective range for a "HUNTER" by 50 yds. These 300 gr. bullets also have an equal trajectory to the .444 Marlin 300 gr. jacketed bullet.
roger

A 30-30 is all you need in the North East. Out west a 270 is fine deer/elk medicine IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by chuck375:
A 30-30 is all you need in the North East. Out west a 270 is fine deer/elk medicine IMHO.

The old 30-30 and similar ballistics don't cut it for longer shots. There can be longer shots in the East.

I know I was there!! Me Too! I had an interesting conversation with some of my shooting buddies at the range the other day. It was about the ultimate deer round. Since I am a 270 guy I thru that in there, another a 7X64, and another the 25-06. After a while as we thought about it, we began to say well the 270 is too powerful for most deer, unless at long range, same with the others that were talked about. We all had had a deer that had suffered lots of blood shot meat with all the cartridges we talked about. So what's perfect? I guess the closest thing we came to was a 243 with the right bullet. It should also be noted that we don't have the Ford Chevy arguments anymore, as we like all of them.

Jerry

]

quote:

We ruminate about FPS and foot pounds in a seemingly endless discussion, while those folks just went out and took huge amounts of game without all the fuss and bother

The rifles and cartridges they used tended to shoot big diameter soft lead bullets. These bullets would upset in tissue creating a bigger hole and the weight of the bullets increased the length of that hole. The older I get, the more I believe that a large through hole is far more important than all the gobble gook KE arguments I have ever read. A big hole through and through that causes a lot of blood loss is absolute death to anything that breathes air and pumps blood. This is the secret that gunwriters promoting small bore high velocity cartridges never reveal: if it bleeds enough, it will die. Blood loss is 100% terminal.

Small caliber modern cartridges are just wonderful for flat trajectories, but for lethality, there is no substitute for hole size.

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Fifty Years a Hunter and Trapper, by Eldred Nathaniel Woodcock

http://www.gutenberg.org/files.../34063-h/34063-h.htm

Now I wish to ask, why it is that a hunter cares for a high power gun that will shoot into the next township and kill a man or a horse that the hunter was not aware of existing, when a gun of less power will do just as good execution in deer hunting? The ammunition for the gun of lower power costs much less and there is far less danger in killing a man or beast a mile away. We hear men talk of shooting deer 200 and even 300 yards. In the many years that I have hunted deer, I believe that I have killed two deer at a distance of from 50 to 75 yards, to one a distance of 100 or 150. I believe most deer hunters will agree that there are far more deer killed at a distance of 50 or 60 yards than over that distance. I think that if those hunters who kill deer at a distance of 100 or 200 yards will take the trouble to step off the distance of their long shots, instead of estimating them, they will find that 100 yards in timber is a long ways. Yes, boys, 20 rods through the timber is a long ways to shoot a deer. Why? Because the deer can not often be seen at a greater distance, where there would be any use of shooting at all, and the little .38 will do all of that and more too.

Another reader asks what kind of a gun he shall take with him to hunt deer, as he is contemplating going on a deer hunting trip next fall. Now I would say any kind of a rifle that suits you. But if you should ask me what kind of a gun I use, I would not hesitate to say that I prefer the 38-40 and black powder. This gun shoots plenty strong to do all the shooting as to distance or penetrations that the deer hunter will require, and there is not near so much danger of shooting a man or domestic animal a mile away that the hunter knows nothing of, as is the case with a high power gun. Besides, from an economical point, the ammunition for the 38-40 black powder gun costs only about one-half that of the smokeless or high power guns. However, if the hunter thinks that he must have a high power gun in order to be a successful deer hunter, he will find the 30-30 or similar calibers good for large game, and it is not heavy to handle.

quote:

But if you should ask me what kind of a gun I use, I would not hesitate to say that I prefer the 38-40 and black powder. This gun shoots plenty strong to do all the shooting as to distance or penetrations that the deer hunter will require, and there is not near so much danger of shooting a man or domestic animal a mile away that the hunter knows nothing of, as is the case with a high power gun.

Slamfire,

I don't agree at all with your statement above:

"But if you should ask me what kind of a gun I use, I would not hesitate to say that I prefer the 38-40 and black powder. This gun shoots plenty strong to do all the shooting as to distance or penetrations that the deer hunter will require, and there is not near so much danger of shooting a man or domestic animal a mile away that the hunter knows nothing of, as is the case with a high power gun."

Those old blooper cartridges just don't cut it when there is some distance to the shot.

And the solution is-Stalk and Hunt, don't take long shots using that fence beside a paved road for a steady rest.
Many of the cowboys I hunted with years ago had a hard time hitting anything at 100 yards.

I must really suck at judging distance in photos or something but I ain't seen anything in those pictures I couldn't cover with a 30-30

it must be all of 60yds across that field.

unless your talking about shooting something down by that lake.
if that's the case I'd probably just drive down there and walk a bit closer.

quote:

quote:

But if you should ask me what kind of a gun I use, I would not hesitate to say that I prefer the 38-40 and black powder. This gun shoots plenty strong to do all the shooting as to distance or penetrations that the deer hunter will require, and there is not near so much danger of shooting a man or domestic animal a mile away that the hunter knows nothing of, as is the case with a high power gun.

quote:

quote:

Slamfire,

I don't agree at all with your statement above:

quote:

But if you should ask me what kind of a gun I use, I would not hesitate to say that I prefer the 38-40 and black powder. This gun shoots plenty strong to do all the shooting as to distance or penetrations that the deer hunter will require, and there is not near so much danger of shooting a man or domestic animal a mile away that the hunter knows nothing of, as is the case with a high power gun."

Those old blooper cartridges just don't cut it when there is some distance to the shot.

This was not meant to be a "got yah" Those words in italics are Eldred Nathaniel Woodcock's. If this is really an issue, any debate with him is going to have to wait till you have graduated into an alternate dimension.

Find a Grave

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-...age=gr&GRid=29049415

I was once asked to evaluate a book by an old hunter who had hunted sambar deer over hounds for many years. Now, the sambar is the world's third largest deer and we like to think that it is tougher than wapiti and moose - but this old bloke said he had shot most of his with a .44/40 and that it killed well out to 70 yards.

In line with modern thought, I generally use something with more power and sectional density, even though the deer I shoot are generally not pumping adrenalin the way his would have been, but I've still not shot any over 60 yards.

I have my granddads 38-40 rifle and have killed a handful of deer with it, when I was a kid..It is better with handloads, but most here would not be particularly impressed with it...I suspect the author had never actually used the 30-30 or he would not have made such a statement, then again I suppose some of the old timers were delusional then as they are today.

I'm merely a 65 year old hunter and enjoying my 51st deer season. My woods are deep woods, longest shot ever was 62 yards. I've used everything from 35SL Winchester, 30-30, .50 cal black poweder, 7-08, 308, 270, '06, and 280. That's not much variety, really. All I can say to this thread is I'm sick of black powder. Hate it. I'm lazy. Cleaning is a pain. Life is too short. 308 is my favorite. I love the way my '06 animals fall immediately dead. Blood shot meat? Give me a break. That is a non-issue. Maybe from a magnum, but I just don't see it as a problem. I'm a nostalgic guy, getting worse all the time. But you will NEVER get me to dream about a 38-40 unless you put me on some kind of drug.

Right on Mike the 38-40 is a 50 yard gun, max IMO, a real wounder unless you place the bullet right in the heart, even double lung shots let them run an unreasonable distance, never lost one with my 38-40, as they bleed good enough, but it was always worrisome, and I used rather warm handloads, With factory Rem or Win ammo, a 22 L.R. always seemed more effective for whatever reason???