Minimum "ETHICAL" calibre for roundball deer hunti

[quickdtoo]

Here ya go....
http://www.donstith.com/muzzle_loading_rifles.html

[filmokentucky]

Thanks. Sorry about that--I should have given the site myself. By the way, the other rifles are nothing to sneeze at, either.

[Longcruise]

I would love to know the ballistics of a .54 ball at say 100 yards with 110 grains of ffg behind it.

Here is what it would look like supposing a muzzle velocity of 1900 fps.  That's probably realistic although in using the chrono I've found a lot of variations with different brands of powder and also with the fit of the patch (the tighter the fit the more velocity).

Range  Velocity  Energy    
 yards   f.p.s.   ft-lb.  
   0     1900    1795.3    
  25     1659    1369.4    
  50     1452    1048.7    
  75     1277     810.5    
 100     1131     636.7


Here's an approx sight chart figuring the sight at .7 inch above the center of bore.


Range (yds)    25    50    75   100
Traj. (in.)       0.9   1.7   1.5   0.0

Here's how the kid's .40 cal compares

Range  Velocity  Energy
 yards   f.p.s.   ft-lb
   0     1850     706.7
  25     1544     492.3
  50     1297     347.2
  75     1104     251.8
 100      968     193.5


Range (yds)    25    50    75   100
Traj. (in.)        1.3   2.3   2.0   0.0

Experienced round ball hunters have been saying for a long time that killing animals with the RB is not all about ft. lbs. of energy.  The kid's stats pretty much prove that! :grin:

[filmokentucky]

Thanks, Longcruise. I thought the .54 was pretty good. I use a tight ball and patch combination and GOEX ffg in my Hawken. In addition to zipping right along, it is very accurate, even considering my old eyes. Too bad it's not a flintlock!

[ButlerFord45]

Folks, I thank you all for the information and opinions, and I'm not ignoring you, well yeah, I am, but with good excuse.  One of our forum regulars, MattinAk and his son Chad are visiting this weekend with the hopes of Chad getting his first deer, so wish us luck and I'll get back to the conversation Tuesday evening or Wednesday.

[riddleofsteel]

Many of the muzzleloading rifles built in Colonial times were of .32, .36, .40 and .45 As a matter of fact in looking at old collections of original arms from that period the smaller bores outnumber the larger bore rifles by quite a few. According to most of the records I have seen the settlers had no problems killing small game, deer and even people with these arms. Even up to the late 1800's the long barrel .40 muzzle loader was the darling of the long range target crowd much like the 6.5-284 and 6.5-300 Mag is today.
It is not until settlers began to move west beyond the Mississippi valley that .50, .54, .58 and .60's became popular. I used to think it was due to the fact that truley larger game was not encountered until folks went west. However, reading old accounts of hunting and trade I began to realize that woods bison, elk and large black bears were common east of the Mississipi when most of these rifle were built. Now I am now of the opinion that two influences were at play. One was the dependance on small game for food and the other was distance. Most eastern game was probably taken in dense forest where shots were considerably closer than say a bison on the plains. Also most of the predators found in the eastern forests were not prone to attack humans. It probably took only one encounter with a mountain grizzly to make a fellow wish he was packing something closer to a shoulder cannon than a target rifle.
I guess folks that lived by the rifle as our ancestors did "aimed small-missed small" as a a way of life. To them taking a white tail with a thirty or fourty caliber round ball was just another day in the woods. As for me I think I need the biggest ball I can throw.

[ButlerFord45]

Folks, Thank You.  You've been a lot of help with my indecision.
So far, it will be a 40 cal out of a 38" Colerain swamped barrel, Chambers Siler lock and trigger in  fullstock maple but that's about all I have decided on.
Thank you again.

[Birddog6]

ButlerFore45:   You have given the basic specs for a Isaac Haines rifle & that would make a awsome .40 cal rifle for ya. Extremely well balanced, shoulders & handles wonderfully.  I have built several of them & IMHO it is one of the best balanced rifle you can own.  I have 2  Haines rifles on my web site if you are not familiar with them.  If you happen to get AL way I have a Haines here in .36 caliber which would weigh about .5# more than the .40 cal, so it is real close to what you are talking about.   You are welcome to stop by & shoulder it & check it out.
 
Also since you are in KY, you are most likely within a easy drive to Cross Plains, TN (just N. of Nashville off I-65)  There you will find Tip Curtis Frontier Shop and Tip will have several precarved Haines stocks & all the parts you need to build an awesome Haines & you can lay it all right out there on the counter, pick the parts, trim, barrel, lock, wood grade, etc.  His place is a smorgasborg of ML paarts & he is a great guy & knowledgable on what he sells.  Brace yourself as his inventory will knock your socks off & you will not want to leave there, I can tell ya that !  ha ha !  I stop there about every 3 months & pick up the parts to build another rifle, I have bought parts to build well over a dozen rifles & he has always served me well.  His number is 615-654-4445 and I would call before going just to insure he will be there & not to a rondy or something.

[ButlerFord45]

Birddog6, the Haines' rifles on your website are really close to what I'd like, in fact if either of them were in 40, I'd be trying to strike up a different conversation!
I'm just learning the differences in the styles of the different areas and eras.  I do know that I much prefer the straighter stocks to the ones described as "Roman Nose", and while I don't think there is anything prettier than one of those 40+ inch barrels in a full stock, it just seems that they would be awfully unwieldy(if that is a word) and the 38" would be perfect.
I do have a question for you though, the only guns I've built were "kit" guns-some small fitting and finishing so that leaves me lacking in knowledge, do you know of a GOOD gun building book?
I fear that you may have just cost me way more money than I'd planed for, I didn't realize that there was a well stocked shop anywhere near!!!
Perhaps on your next trip up, if you'd let me know, I'd like to meet you there if possible, I'd even buy the coffee.

[filmokentucky]

Recreating the American Longrifle by Buchele et al is a good one. Track has it and probably so does Amazon.
    I have a 40 inch barrel on one of my longrifles and find it not at all unwieldy. It carries nicely--it's a swamped barrel--and holds beautifully on target. One old saw is that a long barrel is a pain in brush. The truth is you most never go into the kind of brush where this would be a problem.
If you think about it, why would you? By the time you've got some grey in your beard you've learned to avoid such nonsense. So I'd just go with the barrel length I wanted and not worry too much about it.

[Longcruise]

Butlerford45,

Here's a couple of good building references:

http://www.trackofthewolf.com/categories/partDetail.aspx?catId=4&subId=38&styleId=137&partNum=BOOK-ABPL

http://www.trackofthewolf.com/categories/partDetail.aspx?catId=4&subId=38&styleId=137&partNum=BOOK-GGC

http://www.trackofthewolf.com/categories/partDetail.aspx?catId=4&subId=38&styleId=137&partNum=BOOK-RAL

That last one is the one Filmo gave you.

Track also has full scale drawings of many rifles too.

[Dave K]

Heck, I have 3 guns with 42" barrels. I find them no harder to manuever in a thick woods than I do any other rifle. If I needed to manuever in a thick woods I would need a handgun. These guns are shorter than me, so I have no trouble carrying them in the woods at all. :wink:

[quickdtoo]

Yabut....Dave,  you bend in the middle!  :-D

[filmokentucky]

I used to bend in the middle.....but now I have more middle.

[Birddog6]

ButlerFord45:  The main difference in the 38" barrel to the 42" barrel will not be in sighting or brush handling difference, it will be in the balance & weight.  The B40 in a 38" length will weigh 4.5#.  The B40 in a 42" length is 5.1# So right away ya pick up lil over 1/2# on the longer barrel, but the main difference is in the balance.  
  I don't like allot of muzzle weight. I want the gun to balance as far back  to the triggerguard as I can get, so the weight of the rifle is on my shoulders rather than on the forearm. Some like a heavy muzzle rifle, such as a real Hawken has a heavy barrel & muzzle.  I like the looks of a Hawken rifle, but not the handling of it when I shoulder it.  But anyway, the 38" swamped barrel will balance about 2" back toward the triggerguard than the 42" swamped will, thus making the gun actually feel like 1.5-2# less weight rather than the actual .6# weight difference.  

  As for the best builders book, I suggest  Gunsmiths of Grenville County as the best one, and the next one I would get is the gun builders book by Chuck Dixon.  I have them both (and a coupple others) and like these two the best, and the most detailed & best on for me is the Grenville County one.

  Also, the way most of these places advertise what they call Kits is very misleading, IMHO....  Most of these are Builders Kits, not Assembly Kits. & there is a BIG difference.  The Lyman, CVA, etc. Assembly Kits are ones you sand, finish & assemble.  The  Builders Kits like TOW, Pecatonica, MBS, TIp Curtis, Jim Chambers Flintlocks, etc. sell are parts that are gathered for you to build the rifle with, not just assemble it...    It takes time, thinking, planing, and sometimes some headaches building one of these.  You must be handy with hand tools, not real smart but Really Determined to get it done, cause there will be some rivers to ford while building this rifle...  I have built quite a few of them now & every one is still a challenge.  Sometimes the precarved stocks are more of a challenge than the blanks, if the carver didn't do it correctly....   Precarved means preshaped, NOT finished shaped or ready for Anything, just generally roughed shaped & the barrel cchannel roughed in.  Some precarves are rougher than others.....

  Also if you decide to build a rifle, I suggest you buy ALL of the parts from one place. This way you know the parts will all go together for the rifle you are building.  You may save $50. going from here to there finding parts (50 out of 500-600)  But you will spend more than the $50. you saved on shipping costs sending back inferior parts, wrong parts, parts that don't fit, parts you thought would look right but after ya get them they don't,  etc. Believe me, it is Not worth the hassle.  That is why I was saying I like to go to Tips shop and lay the entire gun out.  I can see what I am getting, personally pick out my Lock, Barrel, Stock, Trigger, Trim, etc. from hundreds of others, and not have to accept what someone else grabbed off a shelf. (He also has In-the-White rifles built that you just finish that are quite reasonable)

  As for going by Tip's next time,  "IF"  I need something it will most likely be right about Dec 23, 24th or 26th-27th as I am not sure yet what the CHRISTmas travel plans are.  But it is unlikely I will need anything right now as far as I know I am pretty well set up on parts for the next 4 rifles, unless something comes up I missed.   I buy all my rifle parts for customers at least 6mo in advance & ones for me I have had longer at times.
   If I do go there I can meet you there, however we will have to make timing right as I am already on a 11 hr trip & don't want to dilly-dally around too awefully long.   I want to get to my destination, relax & visit & etc.  and a 3 hr stop over at Tip's on the way would make it a tough drive.  On the way back is easier for me, as if I get too tired I will just get a motel & stay the night in Nashville or Bowling Green. Allot depends on the traffic also, if it is real bad, I get a motel as I don't like racing with the rampant !  ha ha ! Email me about the 20th of Dec. and I should know by then what date I am going & if I am stopping.  If we can't meet there I could possibly meet you someplace on the way thru KY and I can show you a Haines  "In Hand" and possibly a 1770 Lancaster also with a 42" barrel if I have it done tby then.   Or possibly we can meet at  Tip's after CHRISTmas holiday & maybe meet up with PackDog or someone else there & shoot the bull.... And I would be most happy to help you pick out a suitable stock & parts, etc for a rifle.

PS:  If you are now laughing about being at Tip's for 3 hours, you just keep on a laugin'.     Cause I have no doubt in my mind I will leave there long before you are ready to go!  ha ha !    I have been there Lots of times & several times for  1/2  day  & still didn't want to leave....  ha ha !  Others that have been there will tell ya the same thing.... it's hard to leave the dang place !   :grin:

[filmokentucky]

Birddog's point about muzzle heaviness is well taken. I got around it by using a Colerain octagon to round barrel with a wedding band transition. This coupled with the tapered and flared profile gave me a rifle with a fowler's balance and a weight of just over seven pounds. The longer sighting radius is a big benefit to me given my old eyes, but this style of barrel might not be appropriate to the rifle you want.

[ButlerFord45]

I understand the "builders kits" and the differences.  I was refereing to the assembly kits just to relate my level of inexperience.  I am mechanically inclined but seriously artistically challenged.  I can build things that are technically perfect but have no esthetics at all.  I have no problems reading blueprints and tech manuals and applying them to the task at hand.  I'd just like to be a little more artsy, so if the gun doesen't turn out pretty, I'll still enjoy the shooting.
I found "Gunsmiths of Grenville County" on the Track website and will try and get it in the mail over the weekend and start reading on it.  It should give me a foundation to ask more questions.  The other suggestions that I could find look good as well and I'll probably try them later, but I've got to start somewhere.
I shoot a long heavy barreled Sharps and while it is truly sweet over sticks, it's a pain off-hand, I too prefer the balance a bit closer to me.
Birddog6, I don't want to interrupt your holiday travel plans.  I live only 1 hour and 30 minutes from Tip's shop, and less than an hour from Bowling Green so sometime when you know you're going to be there, meeting you there at your convenience should be no problem for me.
If you ever find yourself in the vicinity of Columbia, give me a shout,  we could probably find a corner you could get a little rest in.

[Birddog6]

Butlerford:  If you can follow directions & are handy with tools you can build a ML.  What I would do if I cannot do any carving or anything like that is I would buy the best piece of wood I could find.  It will be Gorgeous, believe me, and it don't need nuthing fancy, the wood will do it all. Good wood & good finish & some patience will = a beautiful gun......  

I would rather see a beautifly clean finely finish plain rifle than a poorly engraved & poorly carved rifle, ANY DAY.

Give me a email about the 20 th & I will get back with you on my plans. Lost of times we stop in Nashville for the night on the way back.  Yes, I know where Columbia is.

[Longcruise]

I shoot a long heavy barreled Sharps and while it is truly sweet over sticks, it's a pain off-hand,

Don't be concerned about your 40 call 40 inch (or longer) ml handling like the Sharps.  If your barrel contour is chose to match the barrel length it wil be a pleasure to hold! :grin:

I have a 32 inch 1885 45-70 that is probably not as heavy as your Sharps and it too is a hard carry.  Know just what you mean!

[ButlerFord45]

Thanks Longcruise, that alleviated a concern.
I've decided that this rifle will be a 38" swamped 40 cal. I believe that the tapered and flared barrels is going to help bring the CG to the rear.  But that still leaves the question of which profile: A or B, the B with more steel should contribute to better accuracy? The A with the slimer profile would be less overall weight?  Still, I'm leaning more toward the "B" profile.

[Longcruise]

You could take a look at the barrel sales page on track of the wolf.  They list the weights for each countour and caliber.  They list Colerain and Green mountain in the 38 inch swamped barrel.  You may go with a different barrel maker, but the countours are pretty standard and the weight differences should be the same.

A 38" Isaac haines would make a pretty gun.  Track has a "kit" on their site for just such a gun.

Good luck with your project.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Butlerford,

Well I didn't 'zactly read the thread, just skipped down to give my $0.02.

First - check with your state regulations, you are ethically bound to follow laws.

You're ethically bound to make clean, humane kills.  Generally that means the animal's suffering should be over within seconds.  Just about any wound channel through, heart, lung, or liver will do this.  

Barring that - there isn't any "ethical" caliber.  There's just ethical maximum distances.   You have to choose whether you're enough of a hunter to stay within the distances of a .32, .36, .40, .45, .50, or .54....

I wouldn't rely on sub-.40s to penetrate shoulder muscle and bone, but if you treat them like a bow, I'd bet they'll kill nicely.

The .40 and .45s are good deer getters.  I've never used 'em, but from what I've read, it seems that they will even outdo the .50s and .54s in terms of quick drops.  However, their downfall may be reliable penetration at distances approaching 100 yards.  Maybe someone with .45 experience can say how they perform at 100 yards.

I use a .54.  I don't worry about whether an animal is quartering away from me or only presenting it's shoulder.  I don't worry if it's at 20 or 100 yards, I know the 225 grain ball will go through any kind of armor a deer may have.  I have had deer hit in the chest with the .54 go 100+ yards.  But now I'm using softer lead to cast balls and I'm getting fewer pass-throughs and shorter tracking.

[Loozinit]

Riddleofsteel had a good point going.  I'd like to add to that subject.  The Old Guys modified the big German guns to their own needs (they were just as accurate as the long rifle).  Those being primarily:  lack of lead, lack of quality powder in the colonies, and the lack of peasant "beaters" and other servants to carry the noblemans goodies in the field.   Americans were subsistance hunters who could not afford to throw alot of lead or powder at game.   They had to hit it (somewhere) and then go get it.   The idea that every man was a marksman is a myth and I believe alot of them weren't too picky about shot placement when their childrens' bellies were rumbling.   Ethics is a modern, sporting ideal - it didn't figure in survival hunting very much.

That doesn't mean that shooters didn't take pride in marksmanship or that a quick kill wasn't preferable.   It's just that the priorities were based upon the aforementioned needs.   I think if the colonists had plenty of lead and powder they might not even have modified the Jager and the American Long Rifle might not have come into being as we know it.    

This is why they used small bore rifles - not because they killed better, but because they had to.   The only ethics that mattered was if they could keep the smokehouse full.   We have more options.   Use a minimum .50 RB on deer and get in under 75 yards.  That's what I think.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

I have a .54 TVM Early Virginia with a 42" D-weight Colerain.  It weighs 10.5 lbs.  I take it through thick brush too.  To tell the truth, some of the tagalders and aspen gets so blasted thick that I wouldn't be able to manuevre a pistol well enough to get a shot off - so what's the difference?

I really don't notice the 10.5 lbs aggravating me too much either.  Mostly it's the shooting bag and full powder horn that make my shoulder sore.  

I suppose, if I were being pursued by hostiles through thick brush, I'd be cursing the 42" bbl.  But mostly, I get to take my sweet time, and there is no noticeable drawback.

[dlemaster]

Hello All
I've been following this thread and I have some questions on some of the statements made.
First off, I don't want anyone to think that my questions or comments were meant to be flames or personal attacks. As a student of the american long rifle if I have erroneous information or conclusions I want to make the necassary adjustments to my thinking.
I served a 4 year apprenticeship with a master gunsmith who in turn had served his apprenticeship in the gun shop at Colonial Williamsburg.

1. It is my understanding that during the colonial period that for the most part the colonist had some of the finest powder of the 18th century available to them, that being made in England and shipped to the colonies.
There was a developing powder making industry here in America but the real demand for large amounts of high quality powder came with the revolution. Is this correct?
2. As to the calibers of early rifles. I have had the privilege of handling between 60 and 75 rifles of the revoluntionary War period or earlier, and to disassemble a few to study the techniques used in making them. Almost all of these rifles are of large caliber with .40 or .42 being the minimum. Some of these rifles were obviously bored out or freshed out, and some maybe more than once.
In the colonies the hunters had really big game such as Bison, elk, bear, panther, and deer to hunt. The larger species require considerable punch to make clean kills. I was taught that "Early Rifles" were generally of larger caliber to accommodate taking large game that could be dangerous and that calibers dropped as the big game disappeared and larger calibers were no longer necessary. Now let me add a couple of quotes from journals of the period and see what you think. James Smith was captured by the indians at Braddock's defeat in 1755 near where Pittsburg Pa. now is. He wrote that rifles shot balls about the size of a cranberry. So how big was a cranberry in the 18th century? I also have a quote from the journal of an English traveler in the 1760's or 1770's who noted about American rifles "Some use guns of a narrow bore due to the economy of powder and ball, while others prefer guns of a wide bore since the wound is more certainly attended with death".
Another thing to think about, the Long Hunters were professionals and they had to get the greatest return in their investment of supplies. There are two ways to do that use the "narrow bore" to conserve ammunition and count on consistently well placed shots, or use a "wide bore since the wound is more certainly attended with death". If for example the Long Hunter uses a .40 caliber and is shooting 40 grains of powder but it takes 2 shots to get the animal he has used 2 balls and 80 grains of powder, where as in the wide bore whose wound is more certainly attended with death if the Long Hunter is using a .50 caliber and 50 grains of powder he has saved both powder and lead. So what do you guys think?
Right now I feel that colonial period rifles were of a larger caliber with say .40 being about the bare minimum, but by the 1790's any thing larger than a .50 caliber rifle would have been rare. Again I would like to know what you folks think.
Sorry for the length of this post.

Regards to all, Dave

[Longcruise]

Dave, thanks for your thoughtful post.  So much of what we think is "fact" in terms of history is really only often repeated suppositions.

I'm not taking aim at any of those who posted those suppositions or even the suppositions themselves as I'm surely not qualified to sort them out :-)

I tend to agree with what you said about the calibers.  A longtime gunsmith/builder/shooter I know did a survey of actual rifles of the colonial period and found that the average bore was around .54 caliber.  Not to say everybody was packing a .54, but that was the average bore size.

A survey of round balls picked up from the ground around fort Mackinac were mostly .54 caliber.

Another theory I've heard regarding caliber is that many of the surviving guns were those that were ornate and expensive, therefore better cared for and counted among the survivors.  many were gentlemans firearms of a smaller caliber than the working rifles.  At least that's the way that theory goes.  Once again, I'm not qualified to sort it out!

It's unfortunate that much of what passes for historical fact is simply unresearched supposition.

None of the above is meant to belittle any person or their thoughts or posts.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Dlemaster,

I would defer to your expertise.  Especially on the caliber discussion.  Also don't forget moose on the list of huge game animals available to the eastern longhunter.  They're second only to bison on the continent.  

I would say that your first point on the quality of powder is valid.  From my anthropology studies I learned that contrary to intutive thinking, earlier flint projectile points are of much better quality than later projectile points.  This is because earlier peoples depended heavily on the performance of those weapons.  Later peoples hunted only to supplement their raised crops and husbanded meat, so much less effort was put into quality broadheads.    The same can be applied to other bits of technology.  In the 1700s black powder was the only powder propellent available.  So that is what they depended on when dispatching charging bear or marauding Indians - you can bet they put a level of effort into it that we don't bother with today.  

It is a common misconception to assume that just because something is of an earlier timeperiod that it is inferior.  Quite often it can be the other way around.  

I live in the heart of cranberry country, and the ones I see along the roads are consistantly about the size of a .54 ball.  However, your question of how big was a cranberry back then is a really good one.  Was that author referring to wild cranberries?  Or cultivated ones?  There can be huge variations between wild vs. cultivated fruits - just consider blueberries, or strawberries.  Are cranberries any different?

Lastly, I'd like to ask how common was the practice of double balling?  Could they have considered it more versatile to have a small bore and just double ball when pursuing larger game?

[filmokentucky]

How big was a cranberry? In 1755 he was almost certainly referring to a wild "craneberry" as they were then called. I grew up working on cranberry bogs, and can tell you that the different types grown today vary in size. It's like the term "pea rifle"--how big is a pea? This is a term for a squirrel or small bore rifle-- we all know what it means, but it doesn't give an exact bore size. Probably under .40 caliber, though.
    Another problem with old rifles is telling a rifle that has had it's bore freshed out from one that hasn't. Or that has been freshed out more than once. Or a smooth rifle--did it start out that way or was it freshed out one last time and not re-rifled because the barrel walls were deemed too thin?
I'm not sure how one would tell for certain in many cases. I'd guess that a man who made his living in the woods and travelled on foot would choose a different caliber than a man who travelled on horseback or closer to home. And the woodsman's rifle would have been used harder and more exposed to the elements, so less likely to have come down to us. What we have left today may not be all that representative of what was actually around in the good old days.

[Dave K]

If you study Kindig's books and others of the golden age, what Dave says holds true. Small (under 40) really didn't come into play until the 1800's. If you were to study these books it would be quite obvious, since the period and cal. sizes are given. No sense getting a moose cal. when all you have is squirrels.

[dlemaster]

Hello again to all
I appreciate all the comments. This has been an excellent discussion on the practical as well as theoretical use of small bores versus large bore rifles.
First let me say that I am a big bore fan. But my experience is limited to whitetail deer and one large cow elk. I have killed deer with .40, .45, .50,
.54, .58, and .60 caliber rifles. I never hunt deer now with anything less than a .50, but that's just my opinion, no more no less.

Longcruise. Interesting fact about the balls found at Fort Mackinac, I just put that in my notes. Thanks.

Black Jaque Janaviac. You have certainly brought up a good point about the quality of early points compared to later points. I have often wondered at the superb quality of Paleo and Folsom points, while Archaic and Late Woodland points are very crude.
I don't know how common double balling was, although I know it was done. I tried double balls one afternoon about 30 years ago but found that accuracy was very bad. I would only consider it if I were going to crawl into a den with a bear as was often done by the early hunters.
Your point about wild vs cultivated fruits is precisely why I posed that question. My experience with wild fruits include fox and wild grapes, wild (crab) apples, hazelnuts, persimmons, genseng, and paw paws and the considerable difference in the size of their cultivated counterparts.

Filmokentucky. Speaking of smooth rifles you maybe interested to know that Daniel Boone carried a smooth rifle or buck and ball gun at the battle of Blue Licks in 1782. It was loaded with a single large ball and several smaller balls, making it a good choice for that situation. I found this mentioned in the "Boone Papers" in the Draper Manuscripts.
You thoughts on terms such as "pea rifle" being relative is certainly well taken.

Dave K. I bought a copy of Kindig's book in 1969 and for many years it was my "Bible" concerning the Kentucky Rifle, and that's where I formed my ideas on calibers of early rifles. I have since added George Shumway's excellent 2 volume set of "Colonial Rifles of America" which helped confirm my feelings.

To all. You have given me some new things to ponder, and I thank you for that. I hope there has been an exchange of thoughts and information that we all will benefit from. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Regards, Dave