Weak vs Strong: Both Firearms Strike the Same Blow!

[RMc]

Could it be a matter of perspective?

"With a muzzle velocity of 1,275 fps, the new 180-grain ... shoots flat and packs a powerful punch... the load gives hunters the power to take down deer, bears or hogs."

https://federalpremium.com/news/news_releases.aspx?id=511&brand=5&year=2014


At first reading, I would not blame you for thinking the quote above could have been from an 1881 circular for the new 180 grain load, introduced in that year, for the 38 WCF. Paired with a Winchester 73 rifle of course!

Most rifle aficionados would be quick to paint a 38-40 rifle as marginal for deer hunting. On the other hand, todays handgun hunters consider the 10mm to be a perfectly adequate deer hunting cartridge. The reality is a 19th century 38-40 black powder cartridge rifle and a modern 10mm handgun fire the same weight and diameter bullet at about the same velocity. Both firearms strike the same blow!

[Motor]

What's the point? Yes the numbers are about the same although bullet construction can be very different.

Both are likely effective at the same range also.

I bet more whitetail deer are killed every year with 22LR than either have killed since their inception.

Motor

[GhostHawk]

I know for a fact many who jacklight deer prefer .22lr. Back when I did that kind of foolishness I did.

So I won't be taking that bet Motor.

I am not so sure I would be so quick to condemn the .38-40.

Even with holy black, put it in the right place and it will do the job.
By the same token I see the OP's point, a lot of people seem to feel that 10mm is enough gun.
And with enough skill and up close it probably is. The problem is people tend to forget about the qualifiers. Skill and distance.

[centershot]

The problem is people tend to forget about the qualifiers. Skill and distance.

Had to throw that in, eh GhostHawk? :kidding:

[dverna]

Great answer GH

[Hickory]

If you put your faith in the words of gun rag scribes, then you'll need nothing less then a 30-06 with 180 gr. bullets. But they are speaking to people who shoot about 20 rounds per year and can (maybe) hit a deer somewhere in the chest at 50 yards.

It's best to put your faith in your shooting skill and shot placement!

[GhostHawk]

Centershot jangle all you like, and LOL Yes I did sir, daddy taught me to hedge my bets. And when it comes to people, all bets are off.

TY Dverna

[Motor]

Just to be clear my post above was certainly not intended to condemn the 38-40 or the 10mm. One is neat and old and the other is neat and not so old. :)

Motor

[skeettx]

Neat is as neat does
Meat on the table
Merry Christmas
Mike

[centershot]

Just to be clear my post above was certainly not intended to condemn the 38-40 or the 10mm. One is neat and old and the other is neat and not so old. :)

Motor

Motor, your point is well taken. IMO the members here probably expend over 100 times the ammo in practice that the "average Joe" shoots in a year. A hunter, that is, one who is worthy of being called a hunter, will work within his or her limitations. Many of us use "antique arms" (for lack of a better description) for many different reasons. I enjoy hunting with a .54 cal. muzzle loader. I have other (modern) rifles but there's just something about that .54 that says "Take me, take me!" Lotsa' "old" guns out there that still bring home the venison. Skill and distance, yessir!

[35 Whelen]

Could it be a matter of perspective?

"With a muzzle velocity of 1,275 fps, the new 180-grain ... shoots flat and packs a powerful punch... the load gives hunters the power to take down deer, bears or hogs."

https://federalpremium.com/news/news_releases.aspx?id=511&brand=5&year=2014


At first reading, I would not blame you for thinking the quote above could have been from an 1881 circular for the new 180 grain load, introduced in that year, for the 38 WCF. Paired with a Winchester 73 rifle of course!

Most rifle aficionados would be quick to paint a 38-40 rifle as marginal for deer hunting. On the other hand, todays handgun hunters consider the 10mm to be a perfectly adequate deer hunting cartridge. The reality is a 19th century 38-40 black powder cartridge rifle and a modern 10mm handgun fire the same weight and diameter bullet at about the same velocity. Both firearms strike the same blow!

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/308Scout/Hunting/3%20point_zpswtji6qwy.jpg (http://s60.photobucket.com/user/308Scout/media/Hunting/3%20point_zpswtji6qwy.jpg.html)

The velocity was a little over 1300 fps, compliments of Swiss 3Fg, and the cast bullet weighed 192 grs. But it was indeed a .40 caliber cartridge fired from a 131 year old rifle.

It amuses me how some elevate handgun rounds such as the .44 Magnum and a hot loaded 45 Colt, or a 454 Casull to an almost god-like level, yet never stop to think they're similar in power to some of the old black powder rounds that many consider to be obsolete.

40 or so years in the field has taught me that all a bullet need do is poke a hole through the lungs or heart of a given game animal, and said animal will perish.

35W

[Hickory]

Just to be clear my post above was certainly not intended to condemn the 38-40 or the 10mm. One is neat and old and the other is neat and not so old. :)

Motor

Deer are fairly easy to dispatch when hit in the right spot.
I once killed a deer with a 357 loaded with 2.7 grs. of Bullseye and 158 gr. lead boolit.
As the saying goes; Deer are not bullet proof.

[Cary Gunn]

And the .38-40 slug out of an old Colt SA revolver just about precisely duplicates the stopping-power of the much-vaunted "modern police round," the .40 S&W. It's strange how "dead" didn't get any "deader" over the last century-and-a-quarter.

Happy trails,

-- Cary Gunn --

[Bigslug]

Yep. The 10mm is nothing more and nothing less than a straightwall, rimless .38-40, though both are potentially very useful things

I read Elmer Keith's Sixguns for the first time earlier this year. As relates to the topic of this thread, it's worth picking up and looking at with an eye to the whole "What's old is now new again" phenomenon. It was written in 1955 by a guy who straddled the black-to-smokeless transition, but before Magnum Mania and Weatherby Weirdness really set in. If one tempers the read with a good knowledge of what the gun and ammo market looked like from 1955 to present, one comes away with the sense that our terminal ballistic needs were largely met prior to WWII; and while we have had some real progress since then, a lot of what's come since has been false starts and the marketing division's shiny fishing lures meant to catch fishermen more than fish. . . most notably, fishermen who haven't studied history.

The 2+2 I put together during the read that kinda floored me: Keith talks about his acquaintances who sized the hollowpoint version of his .38 SWC down for use in 9mm and had good results with it. If you know your duty loads, that pretty much exactly created a 9mm version of the yet-to-arrive 158 grain .38 "FBI Load". If that had caught on, we might have been spared the "ineffective lightweight bullet" hysteria of the mid-1980's, and the perceived reason for the birth of the .40 S&W may have never been. My point being that a lot of the industry seems to thrive on folks not doing their homework.

While the guns may get stronger, the terminal needs of the targets haven't changed, nor have the limits of recoil a person can handle. As such, "The Latest Thing" is likely to be just a repackaged diameter and bullet weight from a century or more back.

[500Linebaughbuck]

Deer are fairly easy to dispatch when hit in the right spot.
I once killed a deer with a 357 loaded with 2.7 grs. of Bullseye and 158 gr. lead boolit.
As the saying goes; Deer are not bullet proof.


you mean you didn't kill him with the 300 super dooper magnum with 180gr anti armor bullets? [smilie=l: well i'll be.....:lol::lol::lol:

[Hickory]

you mean you didn't kill him with the 300 super dooper magnum with 180gr anti armor bullets? [smilie=l: well i'll be.....:lol::lol::lol:

Hard to believe isn't it!
I try not to make a practice of using target loads on deer.

[David2011]

A few years ago a buddy and I loaded some heavy bullet reduced velocity loads in .30-‘06 for “action pig shooting”. He’s an accomplished shotgunner, very quick to acquire a target. He wanted to shoot as many as possible quickly when they came to feed. The reduced loads cycled the BAR just fine and the pigs didn’t know they were shot with light loads.

[bisleyfan41]

Yep. The 10mm is nothing more and nothing less than a straightwall, rimless .38-40, though both are potentially very useful things

I read Elmer Keith's Sixguns for the first time earlier this year. As relates to the topic of this thread, it's worth picking up and looking at with an eye to the whole "What's old is now new again" phenomenon. It was written in 1955 by a guy who straddled the black-to-smokeless transition, but before Magnum Mania and Weatherby Weirdness really set in. If one tempers the read with a good knowledge of what the gun and ammo market looked like from 1955 to present, one comes away with the sense that our terminal ballistic needs were largely met prior to WWII; and while we have had some real progress since then, a lot of what's come since has been false starts and the marketing division's shiny fishing lures meant to catch fishermen more than fish. . . most notably, fishermen who haven't studied history.

The 2+2 I put together during the read that kinda floored me: Keith talks about his acquaintances who sized the hollowpoint version of his .38 SWC down for use in 9mm and had good results with it. If you know your duty loads, that pretty much exactly created a 9mm version of the yet-to-arrive 158 grain .38 "FBI Load". If that had caught on, we might have been spared the "ineffective lightweight bullet" hysteria of the mid-1980's, and the perceived reason for the birth of the .40 S&W may have never been. My point being that a lot of the industry seems to thrive on folks not doing their homework.

While the guns may get stronger, the terminal needs of the targets haven't changed, nor have the limits of recoil a person can handle. As such, "The Latest Thing" is likely to be just a repackaged diameter and bullet weight from a century or more back.

There's more truth to this than may be apparent. You could actually argue that we had our shooting bases covered in 1873 and everything since that point has been wheel reinventing. If today you had a .45-70 rifle (Marlin or single shot) and a .45 Colt Blackhawk (both 1873 births), name something you'd need to do that couldn't be covered by these two.

The .45-70, loaded properly, could take care of any game animal on this continent. It could serve well in long range competition and self defense scenarios.

The 45 Colt, again properly loaded, could take care of any handgunning need, except maybe CCW. MAYBE. It meets or exceeds the capability of almost every other handgun round introduced since it was born and every one of it's predecessors. The .25, .32s, .357s, .38s, 9mm, .40, 10mm, .41, .44s, etc. Only the monsters such as the 454, .460, .475s, and .500s are more powerful. And few people really NEED that level of performance from their handgun.

Hell, Elmer began his heavy handgun quests using the 45 Colt SAA and only went to the 44 Special after the Colts were proven too weak for his needs. Time travel back and give him a 45 Colt Blackhawk and solid head 45 Colt cases and the 44 mag might not exist today.

While I currently have neither caliber, I can see where a person so armed wouldn't need any cartridge developed since 1873.