38-40...Effective Deer Round?

[RIFLE MAN]

Fellow Hunters:

Do you believe the 38-40 is an effective round for
deer-sized game? If so, what do you believe the
effective distance is?

Thanks,
Rifle Man

[mcwoodduck]

In a rifle 100 yards or less and in a handgun 50 yards or less.
everything is an effective gun to kill something distance and your ability to hit the vitals is what is going to make one a better round over the others.
Grab the rifle or pistol, a box of ammo, a saw horse, a couple grocery paper sacks, a staple gun and a pack of balloon.
take the saw horse out to where you hunt deer and at the farthest shot.
Staple a paper sack on to the saw horse sideways align the bottom of the sack up with the front leg and blow up a balloon.  Stick the balloon in the paper sack to act as the lungs and heart,  sticking it in the front 1/3 and not all the was to the "bottom" of the sack.  Also allows you to practice head on shots as the sack is 3D.
the sack is about the size of the boiler room on a deer. The sacks are 7"X12"X 14" and even deer Brown.  If you can hit the sack with the 38-40 and put a round through the sack and hit the balloon inside, you are good to go.  If not practice, or move the saw horse closer to where you can.  Mark that spot and then anything inside of your flag is vennison.
good luck.

[mannyrock]

  Hmm.  To answer your question, "Is the .38-40 an effective deer round?", the answer is No.  Yes, it will kill a deer out to 100 yards from a rifle, with a perfectly placed shot, but that does not make it an effective deer round.  It makes it a barely adequate deer round.   Even when it was first invented, it wasn't sold as a deer hunting round.  It was an all purpose, light recoiling round, for saddle rifles, that might be used for deer in a pinch, but certainly not on a primary basis.

    Think about it.  It was a bullet under .40 caliber, being propelled by only 40 grains of black powder.  True hunting rounds were using a minimum of 70 grains, and generally alot more.

Regards,
Mannyrock

[Blackhawker]

  Hmm.  To answer your question, "Is the .38-40 an effective deer round?", the answer is No.  Yes, it will kill a deer out to 100 yards from a rifle, with a perfectly placed shot, but that does not make it an effective deer round.  It makes it a barely adequate deer round.   Even when it was first invented, it wasn't sold as a deer hunting round.  It was an all purpose, light recoiling round, for saddle rifles, that might be used for deer in a pinch, but certainly not on a primary basis.

    Think about it.  It was a bullet under .40 caliber, being propelled by only 40 grains of black powder.  True hunting rounds were using a minimum of 70 grains, and generally alot more.

Regards,
Mannyrock

Actually, it IS 40 caliber.  It's the same diameter as a 10mm or 40 S&W.
I have seen some literature of this round being loaded to higher pressures than the original black powder specs.  If fired in a MODERN revolver or MODERN rifle, it can compete with the 45 Colt and even the 44 magnum.  You just need to have a strong, modern firearm....and the load data to point you in the right direction, which I have had a hard time finding.

[mcwoodduck]

  Hmm.  To answer your question, "Is the .38-40 an effective deer round?", the answer is No.  Yes, it will kill a deer out to 100 yards from a rifle, with a perfectly placed shot, but that does not make it an effective deer round.  It makes it a barely adequate deer round.   Even when it was first invented, it wasn't sold as a deer hunting round.  It was an all purpose, light recoiling round, for saddle rifles, that might be used for deer in a pinch, but certainly not on a primary basis.

    Think about it.  It was a bullet under .40 caliber, being propelled by only 40 grains of black powder.  True hunting rounds were using a minimum of 70 grains, and generally alot more.

Regards,
Mannyrock

As Blackwater says 38-40 is actually the one that is backwards and it is 38 grains of black pushing a .40 calier bullet.
but that really does not matter.
let's look at some of the rounds we think of a fine for hunting.
45 Colt in balck powder form is a .451 bullet weighing 225 to 250 grains being pushed by 40 grains of black powder.
44- 40 was the same only a .429 bullet weighing 200 to 240 grains.  It has taken many deer out of Winchester 73 and 92 rifles.
Up until the 44 mag (mid to late 50's)the most powder full handgun was the Walker or 3rd model Dragoon that fired a .457 round ball with 50 grains of black powder.  That is including 357 Mag (1927). 
With the 45 colt, 44-40 and the 38-40 being very close in bullet weights as well as powder charges I do not see why one would be better over the other for shots that he can make.

[SHOOTALL]

In its day it was . The 38-40 and 44-40 have killed many deer over the years fer sure. Is it a 30-30 or better nope . Will it work , well yea it has in the past why is it all of a sudden going to stop ? Like the man said the hunter/shooter has to know his weapon and round and his ablity .

[Winter Hawk]

Well, Mr. Lee's second reloading manual shows about the same velocities for the 38-40 with a 170 grain bullet as for the .30-30 with a 170 grain bullet.  With proper shot placement and keeping shots at a reasonable distance, it should kill deer without problems, IMHO.

-WH-

[eastbank]

if you can double lung hit a deer with the 38-40 you will kill it. a 180gr 38-40 bullet at 1500fps will kill as well as a 180gr bullet at 1500fps out of a 357mag. eastbank.

[Mikey]

My old Lyman manual shows the 38-40 pushing 180 gn jacketed and 172 gn cast to over 1900'/sec from a 20" bbl using 2400 and 4227 powders, and these loads would easily take a whitetail at 100 yds.  jmtcw.

[Winter Hawk]

Whoopsie, I made an error between the confuser and the manual - I looked up 32-40 rather than 38-40, so my post above is invalid.  Old timers catching up to me, I guess.

grumble grumble, bah - humbug!

-WH-

[SHOOTALL]

well a 32-40 makes a fine deer round . 

[AtlLaw]

I'da thought ol' Wishbone Hooper (Gil) woulda chimed in here.     He loves shootin' and reloadin' the 38-40!

[jedman]

   You didnt say if you were thinkin of using this in a rifle but being its the forum for rifles I will assume thats where your going with this.   I have a Alliant reloaders guide that has a load listed for the 38-40 out of a 24'' barrel, 24.0 grs of R 7 , 200 gr. Hornady FP = 1610 FPS @ 13.4 K PSI.
  That is certainly good deer medicine, and that is loaded to the lowest pressure for older / weaker guns.
The case capacity of the 38-40 is more than a 44 mag and in a modern storger action could be loaded to a bit more than under 14 K pressures.
  I agree with all the points that mcwoodduck made about its range and effectiveness, It's all in the shooters ability to hit the vitals of a deer and that round will be fine.    Jed

[Spanky]

It sure ain't gonna bounce off 'em that's for sure.
Put one through the vitals and it's meat on the pole.
Deer just ain't that hard to kill.



Spanky

[Blackhawker]

It sure ain't gonna bounce off 'em that's for sure.
Put one through the vitals and it's meat on the pole.
Deer just ain't that hard to kill.



Spanky

Spanky, you bring up a good point.  "Deer just aint that hard to kill"  
The question here is if the 38-40 is an EFFECTIVE deer round.  That all depends on what one thinks is effective, doesn't it?  No doubt, it'll get the job done.  Heck, if you place a .22 round in the deer's eye socket and through it's brain it'll go down, I'd imagine.  What gets me is the thoughts of some on what is "effective".

I shoot at a public range and I see these guys during the fall months sighting in their rifles to go deer hunting.  Yes, some are using shotguns and some reasonable rounds like the 30-30 etc. but some guys think that they need 375 H&H magnums and the like to shoot a deer at 75 yards and they will probably define that as "effective".  I can't believe some of the waste of money spent on high power ammo and extreme overkill rifles guys use to shoot a little deer.  You'd think that a T.rex was spotted and they were joining in on the hunt.  
I, myself am not a deer hunter but I have a general idea of what is effective as compared to complete overkill.  One certainly doesn't need some "super-mag" rifle to kill a little ol' deer within 100 yards.  

Getting to the point; I guess "effective" is in the mind of each. 

[Lloyd Smale]

been a ton of deer put down with them in the past. I wouldnt hesitate for a second on using one under a 100 yards on whitetail, black bear or hogs. I guess it all depends on if you are a deer shooter or a deer hunter. If you are the type that can pass on a long shot and know that shot placement is what kills not ft lbs of energy it will work. I wouldnt waste my time using one for crop damage shooting where shots are long but if i was going to take a walk in the swamp id feel well armed with one IF it was loaded properly. Dont know if id bother with factory level ammo and the bullets they load in 3840 ammo though though even at that level it would do anything a 41 mag handgun would and lots hunt deer with them.  Loaded properly it would do about anything a 41 mag lever gun would and few would argue that the 41mag levergun wouldnt work at under a 100 yards.

[SwampYankee]

  Lloyd is dead on with his reply. I have shot several deer with a 38-40 loaded around 1600 fps and it works has well has any round I have used up close. I have killed around 100 deer and used 12 different calibers that I recall. I once shoot a big doe with the 38 WCF at approx 40 yard quartering to me. Smashed the shoulder and passed through to just under the hide in front of the off side ham. My neighbor who owned a orchard and told me he had shot around 500 hundred deer in his life saw the deer hanging after I skined it and mentioned that a 30-30 wouldn't of done any more.
  Fur Fish and game sells a book 50 years a hunter and trapper about a man named Woodcock who market hunted deer and bear in Penn. He used a 1873 38 WCF with black powder loads at about 1300 fps and said it NEVER failed him and he tried many cartridges and rifles over the years. He went on to say it killed deer and bear well without excess and it wouldn't carry over the mountain to kill someone over the hill.
  We tend to over think it today. I have a friend who is from the south, he came north to CT with the Navy 50 years ago. He was invited to hunt with a local farmers son and they loaned him a 38-40 rifle. On the first drive  he shot and killed three deer with that gun and never questioned it. I wonder how he would of done if he had read gun mags before hand?

[Blackhawker]

Well, there ya have it, just as I suspected as Lloyd and Swamp have evidenced.  The round works great on deer.  When you think of it, people hunt deer with a 45 ACP and a 10mm from a pistol.  Those don't have any more energy than a 38-40 rifle, in fact I'd give the 38-40 the edge over the other two. 
Like I said in my previous post; some people just have different definitions of "effective".  Unfortunately, a lot of times it has nothing to do with reality so people spend a lot of money on overkill.

[B. Miville]

I shot a button buck once from about 15 yards with a 12 guage shotgun (this was in an area where only shotgun and muzzleloader were allowed) using one of those "hourglass" shaped sabot slugs.  It was a double lung hit that I think also clipped the heart.  That little guy dropped to the ground, worked his way back to his feet and ran for about 30 yards.  Deer are sure more tough than I think many give credit for.  BUT, I also agree there seems to be this magnum craze prevalent in the hunting community.  While deer are stout animals, like any living thing a couple blown lungs or a heart with a hole in it means it has little chance for survival short of extensive medical surgery.  It is my opnion that the general hunting community has come to view a round is not effective if it is not dropping deer at the same spot they are shot.  Almost as if a large proportion of hunters have gotten too lazy to track an animal over a few dozen yards.  Another factor in al this is that the magnum craze has also encouraged the long range shooting of animals.  While I applaude anyone with the skill to take a .300 Win Mag and drop deer at 350 yards I also think it kind of takes away from the experience.  While filling the freezer is the first purpose I also see the thrill of the hunt as a big part of it.  I respect a guy who can stalk to withing 50 yards of a weary old buck and drop him with one shot than a guy who sits on a ridge and drops his deer from 300 yards.  Both take skills, but the first are skills honed from years of woodswise learing, the other is skill learned sitting at the shooting range.  But to be fair I live in a state where clear shots over 100-150 yards are rare indeed (in fact the average shot is usually under 50 yards, all due to the thick forest cover).  In the end a clean kill is a clean kill, wether from 25 yards or 300 yards.  But when you have someone arguing you NEED a .30-06 level round to cleanly kill deer at 50 yards when people were doing it with less powerful cartridges long before rounds of that power were developed, then it shows an irrational shift in common convention.


Brian

[mcwoodduck]

I shot a button buck once from about 15 yards with a 12 guage shotgun (this was in an area where only shotgun and muzzleloader were allowed) using one of those "hourglass" shaped sabot slugs.  It was a double lung hit that I think also clipped the heart.  That little guy dropped to the ground, worked his way back to his feet and ran for about 30 yards.  Deer are sure more tough than I think many give credit for.  BUT, I also agree there seems to be this magnum craze prevalent in the hunting community.  While deer are stout animals, like any living thing a couple blown lungs or a heart with a hole in it means it has little chance for survival short of extensive medical surgery.  It is my opnion that the general hunting community has come to view a round is not effective if it is not dropping deer at the same spot they are shot.  Almost as if a large proportion of hunters have gotten too lazy to track an animal over a few dozen yards.  Another factor in al this is that the magnum craze has also encouraged the long range shooting of animals.  While I applaude anyone with the skill to take a .300 Win Mag and drop deer at 350 yards I also think it kind of takes away from the experience.  While filling the freezer is the first purpose I also see the thrill of the hunt as a big part of it.  I respect a guy who can stalk to withing 50 yards of a weary old buck and drop him with one shot than a guy who sits on a ridge and drops his deer from 300 yards.  Both take skills, but the first are skills honed from years of woodswise learing, the other is skill learned sitting at the shooting range.  But to be fair I live in a state where clear shots over 100-150 yards are rare indeed (in fact the average shot is usually under 50 yards, all due to the thick forest cover).  In the end a clean kill is a clean kill, wether from 25 yards or 300 yards.  But when you have someone arguing you NEED a .30-06 level round to cleanly kill deer at 50 yards when people were doing it with less powerful cartridges long before rounds of that power were developed, then it shows an irrational shift in common convention.


Brian

I like a challange.
I have shot a whole bunch of white tailed deer and it does not take much to get close to them.
I would walk around in the woods and find a bunch of does and stick close to them.  Every so often they would whirl around and one old nanny doe would stomp.  I would just stop back and they would let me stay with in 30 yards of them and we would wonder all over the farm waiting to see if a big buck would show up and the same nanny doe that would stomp at me would usually spin around and stomp at the buck that was headed their way giving me a heads up that something else was walking around the woods.  Other than that I would find a few game trails that intersected and find a comfortable place to sit and take a nap usually to be awoken by the little birds that eat stuff on the forrest floor flying away in front of a deer or other hunter comming down the trail.
And most of the dder I have shot are well with in 30 yards and a super high power rifle is not needed.  Up until a trip to Montana for Mule deer the longest shot I made on a deer was 75 yards with a shotgun.  After Montana it was 275+ or -yards when we tried to sneak up on a couple of bucks in a bowl and there was a herd of does around and we could not get any closer.  I was 20 yards away from the nearest does on a lava ridge.  I did take some skill to get with in shooting range of the bucks with out spooking the different groups of does that were scattered about in the area.
With that said I think we need to have a minimum.  Is the minimum the same all over, no.  In the woods of NC with the large bean fields a longer range rifle would be needed.  Where I first started hunting in up State NY with woods and small 100 to 150 yard fields.  Not as much power is needed.
I also think there are rounds called brush busters for a reason.  Not that they will sail through the brush but they put deer down quickly and allow the average hunter to find the deer he was sure he hit.  Also even with great hits some deer just get up and run.  Usually not far as long as you don't chase them.  Then they can run and disapear.  I also found that they tend to run to open fields when hit and for the most part will run 20 to 30 yards.  The pointer the bullets the farther they run in the woods.
I think 357 Magnum out of a handgun ballistics are the bare minumum.  Yes some can do it with less, but they know what they can do with the sub calibers adn are sure of thier shot.  That covers older ctgs as well as smaller out of a rifle like 25-20 and 32-20 that have taken many a deer.