Author Topic: .45 roundball for deer? (Read 1536 times)

rednekhuntr · « **on:** April 25, 2004, 12:28:24 PM »

I just started muzzleloading last year. My Father gave me a CVA .45 flintlock Kentucky rifle with a 1 in 66 twist. He took several whitetails with it about 25 years ago when we lived in Sask. I took a 140 lbs 6 point last year with a brodside heart shot last year, at about 45 yards. Most of what I've read says that a .45 roundball is too small for deer, but the little buck I shot last year acted just like I'd shot it with my .308. Do many of you guys have experience with a .45 flintlock? I'd like to use this rifle for a couple more years, then maybe pick up a Hawken percussion .50 'cause they're purdy. All the boys I went with last year were using inlines, and kinda poked a little fun at me, but I already go with a centrefire, bow and shotgun, so I like the idea of using a rifle that the people who settled both our countries used. Anyway just looking for a little feedback on what works for you guys. Oh, I use 70 grains of 3f, Hornady .45 roundballs, .010 pillow ticking, and have recently swiched from vaseline to crisco. Any thoughts?

Bob/FLA · « **Reply #1 on:** April 25, 2004, 02:34:12 PM »

Sounds like a deer killer to me. Good idea on getting rid of the vaseline. Never use petrolium products in the bore, it sets up in a sludge and eventually forms into a varnish that is very hard to remove.

I killed my first deer with a .410 side x side. You should have seen the looks I got when I showed up at the check station with my "toy gun", but it was the second largest deer taken that year. They weren't laughing then.

The sage advise is: It's not a matter of size, it's a matter of placement. It sounds like you picked your shot, at a reasonable distance, and your weapon did the job it was intended to do.

They're poking fun at you? Sounds like a compliment to me.

Hope you enjoy your muzzleloading experience as much as I do.
Good luck.

crow_feather · « **Reply #2 on:** April 25, 2004, 07:04:31 PM »

rednekhuntr,
Sounds like you have a winning combo. Those with inlines may snicker, and they might make fun of your rifle gun, but remind them that the style of rifle you're using lasted for over three hundred years and is still being used.

I don't know where you read that a 45 is too small for deer, but way back then, the 50 was developed for elk and such found in the mountains. Deer rifles carried in whitetail country were usually smaller than a fifty. Why waste powder and lead when you didn't have to.

C F

Good time Charlie · « **Reply #3 on:** April 26, 2004, 01:36:05 AM »

Just check the game laws where you live. Some places have a minimum size ball you can use on deer. Here you would be legal, 45 cal. is the min.
Sounds like good shooting to me. Hope you get many more with it.

Charlie

rednekhuntr · « **Reply #4 on:** April 26, 2004, 03:52:38 AM »

Thanks for the replies. What I was really amazed with was the size of the wound channel. I found the ball just under the offside skin, and it was pretty well flattened. The hole it made looked like I could park my truck in it.

Dutch/AL · « **Reply #5 on:** April 26, 2004, 04:55:53 AM »

IMO, killing a deer is as simple as putting a hole in both lungs. In fact, a deer could be killed with an arrow with nothing but a field point. The way I see it, anything else that cuts and causes hemmorage (broadheads) or causes shock (bullets) is just simply "extra insurance."

Once you put a hole in both lungs, they are dead on their feet guaranteed. When you look at it from that perspective, and that man was killing to eat with spear and bow and arrow for thousands of years, a 45 caliber round ball out of a blackpowder flinter is mighty modern and a bit of overkill.

If a selfbow shooting less than 150 feet per second can penetrate a deer completely with an arrow, why let anyone tell you that a 45 caliber blackpowder "isn't enough." IMO it's far more than enough.

Now, if a guy isn't a very good shot, and regularly shoots them in the hindquarters, then maybe he ought to opt for the 54 or 58 caliber.

WD45 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 26, 2004, 05:46:30 AM »

Put that lil round pill thru the lungs or heart and you will eat deer steak guarunteeed

I have killed more than one with the 45 RB and have not had a problem. That is the same charge I have been using for years with round and maxi which I have found very accurate in my gun

HWooldridge · « **Reply #7 on:** April 26, 2004, 08:39:21 AM »

45 is miminum legal size in Texas for deer and I have never had a problem killing one with correct placement. On broadsides, it usually punches right thru under 100 yds. Of course, most of our deer are goats compared to some of the bruisers up north. Still think 45 works well on almost anything since many of the old original rifles were 40 and used every day for meat getting.

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #8 on:** May 06, 2004, 09:01:18 AM »

From reading these forums over the course of several years - I am nearly convinced that the .45 roundball may indeed be superior.

Accounts such as yours are common among those who shoot a .45. I don't think I've ever read anyone who lamented about how far the deer run after being hit with a .45 ball.

On the other hand I personally experienced the .50 and .54 ball killing more like an arrow, where the deer would run 100+ yards before expiring. Only until recently have I started to witness results such as yours with my .54. I got a new .54 and have chronographed it as going 200 fps faster than my first .54.

Ramrod · « **Reply #9 on:** May 06, 2004, 03:08:23 PM »

Black Jaque, I think you are on to something. It is not hard to drive the little balls over 2000 feet per second, and a pure lead ball can expand to something like an inch or so on the way through a small critter like a deer. Results are a devastating wound, as long as no big bones are hit. Thats why you need the bigger bores for bigger game, like elk, where penetration is more important than wound size. ( The same old bigbore vs. smallbore centerfire argument.)

HWooldridge · « **Reply #10 on:** May 06, 2004, 03:51:07 PM »

I posted on another board that my reasoning was that the old 45-70 used 70 gr with a 500 gr bullet so a little 45 ball on top of 70 grs is bound to zip along at a good clip and my rifle shoots best with 75-85 grs of 3F. I don't have a chrony but it shoots pretty flat to 100 yds.

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #11 on:** May 07, 2004, 05:30:20 AM »

Here's something to ponder:

If you read up on the Eastern Longhunters such as Dan'l Boone's ilk, you will quickly find that they were encountering buffalo with regularity once they crossed the Appalachians. They were shooting them with their muzzle loaders.

Boone's rifle is still in existence somewhere. My understanding is that it is .45 caliber. And I've read some speculation that the rifle was likely "freshed out" a few times, which means it started out as a much smaller caliber.

Even if Boone never had his gun freshed out, it would suggest that he was shooting buffalo with a .45 ball!

Which brings up the question of why the trend towards larger calibers when the guns moved to the Rockies. It may be because of the increased ranges. The .45 may be superior inside 75 yards, but between 100 and 125 yards, the .50s and .54s may get the nod.

Also, another consideration may be the use of double balls. It's not a common practice now, but if I all I had was a .45, and I was puttin' the sneak on a buffalo bull...

HWooldridge · « **Reply #12 on:** May 07, 2004, 05:51:59 AM »

There is a very nice collection of original ML rifles in the Red McCombs Alamo Heights office building in San Antonio, Tx. Red is quite an arms collector and this is part of his collection. The walls are covered with weapons, from swords and spears to machine guns. All but one of the frontstuffers is 40 cal and the descriptions say that several were carried on the plains, so it's a safe bet that a few of them took buffalo. I also read an article on Hacker Martin some years ago and it mentioned that many of the rifles he worked on were 40 cal so that must have been a very popular caliber at one time. With both weight and lead at a premium, more shots per pound made sense to the man making a living with his rifle but I agree that as ranges increased, so apparently did the calibers.

Ramrod · « **Reply #13 on:** May 07, 2004, 12:09:07 PM »

Black Jaque, something else to ponder. It may not have been the longer range, it might have been the wind out there in the wide open spaces that started the trend toward larger balls.

Norseman · « **Reply #14 on:** May 07, 2004, 01:56:43 PM »

Since we are on .45 cal round balls: What do y'all think of the 1/48" twist with the .45 cal round ball?
Also, I'll put my 2 cents in that, if you are on the frontier (or should I say were during that time...say 1780's thru 1830's), it would be more practical to have a smaller diameter ball like the .45, since it would be lighter to carry in rifle, ball and powder, and would also take smaller game as well as deer size? They lived in the woods as we just visit! Could it be a logistics thing as well, as since they were expert woodsman and rifleman that made this more of a practical round? Kinda like when we went from the .308/30-06 in the military to the .223 in the M-16? Huuuummmm?
Anyway...what about the 1/48" twist in .45 roundball? I am interested in the Pedersoli Frontier Rifle in .45 and need inputs. Boy is this not interesting y'all?

"Keep your powder dry boys"!

The Mountain Norseman<><

Thomas Krupinski · « **Reply #15 on:** May 07, 2004, 02:03:35 PM »

That's the twist I have in my T/C Hawken Flint in 45 cal. and it seems about perfect for round ball.

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #16 on:** May 10, 2004, 05:33:50 AM »

1:48" twist is generally concidered a "compromise" twist for .50s and .54s. The larger diameter balls seem to prefer a slower twist, and smaller diameter like faster twist.

So a 1:48" twist is probably just fine for .45 roundball.

I'm sure the early frontiersmen had good sense about their pack weight - but it doesn't seem they have the fetish over it that we do now. Their rifles were heavy.

maddmaxx · « **Reply #17 on:** May 13, 2004, 06:08:26 AM »

Considering .45rb, I like it. Hoosiers can use as small as .44rb. Even w/o expansion, that's 7/16".I'd hate to have a hole like that in my lungs. I've noticed the deer around here don't go much farther than 30 yds, whether hit with a .45, .50, or arrow. But the biggest difference is in preference. The guys who started out with shotgun slugs seem to prefer larger caliber maxies when they choose a ML. The guys who stick more closely to ML's for other game prefer smaller cals. I've shot squirrels w/ 20ga slugs, .50rb. Shot placement was much more critical, so I like smaller. I also like meat; squirrel, if necessary, so gimmie a .44 or .45rb and I'll be happy.Thats really the part that counts. Happy huntin

willysjeep134 · « **Reply #18 on:** May 30, 2004, 07:53:23 PM »

I allways go for a "high lung" shot. If you shoot a little high for the heart, like a half foot below the spine. That way if you guess the range wrong and the critter is farther out the bullet will still hit the heart/lungs. I think the shock of the bullet hitting closer to the spine drops em' faster than a lower shot. Even my .44 Remington Army revolver can throw a ball over 1000 FPS, which is like a 44-40 out of a pistol, which can take a deer under the right conditions.

simonkenton · « **Reply #19 on:** May 31, 2004, 01:43:08 AM »

Black Jaque--I have not had the problem you mentioned, of deer running off after hit with the .50 round ball. I have shot 14 deer and hogs with the .50 round ball and none of them got over 50 yards, the average is 30 yards.
By the way I know the .45 rb to be quite a killer. I was having lengthy discussions on another forum, talk.blackpowdershooter.com [which is no longer in existence] with a guy who had taken 120 deer with the .45 prb.
His longest shot had been 120 yards and he told me it was a deer killer to beat the band.

AndyHass · « **Reply #20 on:** May 31, 2004, 07:02:25 AM »

Remember back in the day, they were very much more concerned about their supply of lead and powder than a deer that might have been wounded and got away because their .45 didn't get through the shoulder. We tend to be more considerate to humane harvesting of game now.
Also, at least in the east, everything was much more wooded and shots closer. This makes a BIG difference in how hard any roundball hits.
THAT BEING SAID, at close range, there is nothing wrong with a .45. At under 50-60 yards I would bet it would blow through a solid buck's shoulder every time. The tradeoff is less range. Remember, even with a muzzle velocity of 2000 fps, that roundball has a very poor ballistic coefficient and will shed that velocity (and hence energy) at an amazing rate.
.45 roundballs have probably killed millions of deer. As with any firearm, you simply need to understand and accept its limitations. If it's only sufficient with a near-perfect shot, THEN IT ISN'T SUFFICIENT and you need to pass up that shot. With living game, no matter what your skill with the rifle, you can never guarantee that it won't move and ruin your perfect aim.

willysjeep134 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 31, 2004, 03:12:29 PM »

I think SPEER is now making hard alloy round balls for tougher critters. They're supposed to hold up better going through bone. I agree with the above. If you have to shoot it in the eye from ten feet with it to make a clean kill, it might be a little too light for the game you are pursuing. But for the most part just about any black powder long arm I can think of should have adequit power to kill a deer with a shot to the chest within mabey 60 yards. If you can hit it in the chest I bet a .36 squirrle rifle could do the job, as long as you avoid the shoulder. Shooting it in the front shoulder wastes meat anyways.

roundball · « **Reply #22 on:** June 30, 2004, 02:05:22 PM »

The .45cal is excellent for deer but there are a couple of considerations that should be factored in:

1) The lighter weight 128grn does not have the mass and penetration power of a heavier, larger caliber ball, calling for patience in waiting for a good clear heart/lung shot;

2) The same lighter weight bleeds off energy pretty fast and cannot hold high energy levels at longer distances like the heavier, larger caliber balls, calling for some self control in paying attention to distances;

Ramrod · « **Reply #23 on:** June 30, 2004, 02:24:46 PM »

roundball! .45 is more than enough for deer at close range. Thats where most of them are shot. Many of the old rifles I have seen here in the east are .36 cal, .40, and .45. Alot of deer were killed by the small balls, and alot will be still, by good hunters and cool shots. In New England the smoothbore was king 200 years ago, much bigger balls, but REALLY close range.

crow_feather · « **Reply #24 on:** June 30, 2004, 05:10:17 PM »

roundball,

I want to welcome you to the forum if I haven't already.
I shoot a 58 RB over 120 grains of 2f black. Small balls will kill deer, but big balls kill em deader! Even with large bores, I believe that you have to wait for and pick your shot though. That is just being a good hunter.

C F

roundball · « **Reply #25 on:** July 01, 2004, 12:26:44 PM »

Just got myself a .58 this year...GM 1:70" drop in flint barrel for a TC Hawken...with 100grns of Goex FFg, Hornady .570, & .018" pillow ticking, it may be the most accurate barrel I have...extremely accurate...will hunt it this fall

crow_feather · « **Reply #26 on:** July 01, 2004, 01:42:17 PM »

roundball,

I have heard say that when a hunter with a .58 walks by, people will gather in his wake and discuss the grand hunter he must be, for after all, he does carry a .58.

C F