homers brother

A few years ago, a friend of mine came into possession of his grandfather's M1892 Winchester in .44 WCF. Although I recall it being in pretty poor shape from years banging around on the family's ranch, it came with a cigar box of photos of his grandfather, father, great uncles, and uncles hunting with that and similar rifles. Coyotes. Pronghorns. Lots and lots of Deer. A few elk. A moose. As well as what looked like were probably sage grouse and various edible and non-edible rodents. The older photos included exclusively lever-action rifles, and the majority of them M92s. The later ones included a smattering of M94s (probably in .30 WCF) military-surplus Springfields, Krags, a SMLE, and some I couldn't identify - all with open sights. The newer photos didn't tend to indicate that the hunters were any more or less successful than they were decades before. His grandfather always held that M92.

Today, most of us would probably cringe at the thought of hunting deer with a .44-40, but any of us who've been brought up in hunting families probably have a box of those old photos lying around somewhere showing someone who did. Of course, we don't know the stories of the animals hit and lost. But the fact remains that our predecessors did a whole lot of hunting with nothing more than an open-sighted rifle chambered for those weak antique cartridges: the .44-40, .38-40, .30-30, .32 Special, .38-55, .35 Rem. Even some of the hotter numbers of the day are frowned upon today: the .30-40, .303 Brit, and even the .30-06 garners its share of criticism.

Have big game animals gotten tougher? Or are we just getting soft? We need more "power," whether it be velocity or magnification. We need "pass-throughs" (apparently shock alone isn't enough to kill these uber-beasts afield today). We need 500-yard capability (uber-beasts having senses to defeat even the best stalk).

It's that time of year at the gun counter when dads are looking for junior's first deer rifle. And the conversations I overhear are fairly predictable. Store person suggests something like a .243, 7mm-08, or .308. Dad insists its "not big enough" though junior is barely as tall as the .300 WSM X-Bolt that dad has his eyes on for him. Dad says his is a .30-378 and "it's definitely too big" for junior.

And I think of my friend's M92 Winchester, that box of old photos, and I just smile.

jerry d

Good post HB, I guess some of cartridge choice has to do where you hunt and how you hunt. Last year I left the '06 & 243 in the safe and hunted w/ the 336 in .35Rem. Killed 2 deer just as dead as the latter 2... imagine that!

Ridge Runner

when I started deer hunting in 1970, there were only a few rifles used then, they were 30-30's and 32 WS, everyone else used they're shotgun with slugs, 1973 I mowed grass and bought a used 94, which I used until I graduated high school.
then the gun bug bit me!!
RR

homers brother

As a kid, I could quote the velocity and energy numbers from the Remington catalog for each cartridge and - in that numbers would never lie - convince myself of how marginal or superior one cartridge was in comparison to another. I really, REALLY wanted a 7mm RM at the time, but could only afford the .243. Reality is a hard lesson, but a good teacher.

One of the most enjoyable deer hunts I've had involved a M94 Trapper in .44 Magnum - and flew in the face of all those numbers I'd quote as a kid. Never should have come out the way it did, but landed venison in the freezer nonetheless. I've hunted with bows, with .45 percussion and .54 flintlock muzzleloaders, as well as with a half dozen modern (well, maybe the .30-06 isn't "modern" anymore) cartridges. Outcome the same. Memories made.

One of the few remaining rifles on my bucket list is a Remington 600 in .35 Remington. I may have to start looking at 336s.

Thanks for reminiscing with me.

Sheridan

No one hunted in my immediate family, but there was one family who lived near us who did.

I was too young to get a hunting license (by myself) at that time, so I started trapping muskrats (mink were already trapped out in my area) with the youngest boy in their family.

At that time, most hunters had a bow (recurve with broad heads - no mechanical releases), a .22 LR, a 12 gauge shotgun (buck shot or "pumpkin balls") a .30-30 or a .30-06 (if you were lucky).

Some families would have a cabinet with guns they brought back from World War II or Korea.

You would even see deer on hoods of cars and everyone had one hanging from a tree in their yard.



Now YOU know what YOUR parents meant by ; "the good ole' days !".


Times have changed....................that's for sure !

Ridge Runner

they hang from the tree in my yard every year, only reason I don't put one on the hood is because a dodge 3500 would just look weird like that!
RR

flags

Nothing at all wrong with the "old" calibers. I've used the 30-30, 30-40 Krag, 30-06, 45-70, 6,5x54 MS, 9,3x62 and the 375 H&H. All of them are over 100 years old and they work just as well know as they did then. The game isn't any tougher but the guys that market new fangled cartridges won't admit that.

Put a bullet from any of the above rounds into the chest cavity of any deer, elk, bear etc... and you can get the skinning knife ready.

redgreen

I have used the 44 40. At 100 yards or less, it will flatten deer and bear.They penetrate exceedingly well and plain work. Super close quarters cartridge. We have gotten lazy in our old age and don't feel like belly crawling in a stubble field to get close enough to plant something with some of the great oldies.