JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I'm pretty sure that Boone , Crockett and Carson...didn't know how many FPE it took to kill game.
However....
They did know how their rifles shot...and how to hunt.
Which seems a mite more important to me at least...than numbers on a chart.
Andy
Let us not forget the Corps of discovery! Turns out they employed an early version of a pcp air rifle to take big game. It was called the Girardoni. The more I research, the more I feel we are just re- creating the wheel, albeit with some refinement.
 
Let us not forget the Corps of discovery! Turns out they employed an early version of a pcp air rifle to take big game. It was called the Girardoni. The more I research, the more I feel we are just re- creating the wheel, albeit with some refinement.
Speaking of wheels, electric cars existed since 1834. Tesla is a newer version of it.

Porsche 1898 car. Electric motors on the wheels.

B9A70AE0-9257-4BF3-A9E0-A2663C607283.jpeg
 
@Koda, I apologize if that is how it came off. No , we are talking mostly soft lead castings and no copper jacket. My comment about not reading my posts refers to the meat target testing. If we met you you find me quite thorough when evaluating possibilities such as this.
 
Last Edited:
Let us not forget the Corps of discovery! Turns out they employed an early version of a pcp air rifle to take big game. It was called the Girardoni. The more I research, the more I feel we are just re- creating the wheel, albeit with some refinement.
Yes Lewis had an air rifle....and if you read the journals....he really liked it.

I have some doubts that others were as impressed with it as he was.

Please note that I am not disparaging Lewis or his air rifle.
I am just saying that he liked it for sure...one or two other journal keepers mentioned it as well....
And that many , many historians took that and ran with it.
( Looking at you Stephen Ambrose :mad: )

Air rifles have been around for a long time and were effective at both hunting and war.
Andy
 
Yes Lewis had an air rifle....and if you read the journals....he really liked it.

I have some doubts that others were as impressed with it as he was.

Please note that I am not disparaging Lewis or his air rifle.
I am just saying that he liked it for sure...one or two other journal keepers mentioned it as well....
And that many . many historians took that and ran with it.
( Looking at you Stephen Ambrose :mad: )

Air rifles have been around for a long time and were effective at both hunting and war.
Andy
And that folks is the grain of salt we should all take with all opinions purported to be fact. Learn from what is written or spoke and prove it to your own satisfaction.
 
@Koda, I apologize if that is how it came off. No , we are talking mostly soft lead castings and no copper jacket. My comment about not reading my posts refers to the meat target testing. If we met you you find me quite thorough when evaluating possibilities such ad this.
My apologies if I didn't see a post. I only mentioned the meat target because I figured you analyze things out thoroughly, what this whole subject is about. It would be kind of an expensive test though.
 
I have a plethora of left over frozen turkeys from the Co. I work for that were slated for employee give away, but have since passed their edible prime. Now I use them for crab bait after some ballistic testing.
 
I been deer hunting Oregon forgoing on 55 years mostly on the West side. And I'm pretty sure I have never lost a deer due to bullet performance. Mostly its been all my fault.
 
With Ambrose's Undaunted Courage.....you might find a salt shaker very handy....:eek: :D
Andy
Actually I am not sure the particular Girardoni .46 cal 22 shot repeater pcp air rifle that Lewis had on the expedition was ever used to kill anything other than trees. It sounded Like Lewis mostly used it to show the "big medicine" it possessed by being able to repeatably be fired. This was arguably done to discourage the Indians they encountered from relieving them of their scalps. While I am sure at some point in the history of this cool weapon, somebody surely took game such as deer but I have not come across proof. What is known, is the Austrian army employed it as a weapon of war for several years starting in 1790. It has been documented being effective killing men out to 150yds or so. From what I gather it fired a .46 cal round ball of 146gr at 600-700fps. It could be fired up to 20 times or so on a charge. The fpe would have been 120 or less. Now I hold the belief that most men are easier to kill than most deer. So the Girardoni might have been on the light side for taking deer. Still a fascinating weapon!

View: https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?si=ecU2oY0SPJ-yI21J
 
Last Edited:
It sounded Like Lewis mostly used it to show the "big medicine" it possessed by being able to repeatably be fired. This was arguably done to discourage the Indians they encountered from relieving them of their scalps.
That was indeed Lewis's idea behind the rifle.
I am not sure if the intended audience , so to speak , saw it that way.
Andy
 
At the risk of a huge thread drift...Sorry @osprey

Regarding Lewis , Clark and Company and hostile Indian encounters....

What saved Lewis . Clark and Company was....
Their use of Arms and "stance" , such was when confronted by the Sioux.
That particular branch / tribe of Sioux were used to having their way with the fur traders heading up the river...
Taking what they wanted from the traders at their ( Sioux ) terms and favor.

However....
When the Sioux tried that with Lewis , Clark and Company...
They found that the Expedition men were willing to fight their way up river...and more importantly ....
Seemingly willing to accept the high cost of life that would entail

That high cost of life was not acceptable to the Sioux as well as many other Plains Tribes.

Posting of guards....staying alert / situational awareness also was a help here.

The loss of horses due to theft when in Crow Country...was because the Expedition was in Crow Country...and stealing horses was what the Crow Nation , and other Plains Tribes did on a regular basis.

Again with the encounter with the Blackfoot ...a willingness to stand their ground and fight to take back the horses and guns , that were stolen , as in seemingly willing to accept the high cost of life , was too much for the Blackfoot Warriors to trade on.

Please note that I am not trying to say the Expedition men were in any way "superior" or "better" than anyone from any tribe they encountered.
I am saying that , when needed , the aggressive posture / nature of the Expedition , saved more lives than any tech item brought along.
Andy
 
Thread derail allowed on basis of interesting content! 😆. I myself in awe of the mechanical ingenuity of this early pcp repeater and you would think with todays technology we would have far surpassed the Girardoni, but we really haven't. I can see some pretty significant gains in the smaller bore pcp guns but not as much with the big bore stuff. I think if interest grows that will change.
 
The .357 mag lever gun thread had many opinions on whether it is enough for deer out to 150yds. I say it is and if it were all I had I wouldn't hesitate to use it. There are many opinions about what is minimum to cleanly take a big game animal so let's hear how many fpe you think it takes to cleanly kill?
When I was a kid, State of Washington used to say at least 1000 ft./lbs. @ 100 yards.
Any less and the round was illegal for deer hunting.
That rule has since been eliminated.
Otherwise, not to answer your question vaguely, but different animals have different amounts of "toughness" (density? lack of a better word), so there might not be a "pat" answer to your question.
However, I think the smartest move here is to lean on the side of "overkill", SLIGHTLY, in order to ensure a quick clean kill.
Sure a .357 lever carbine puts a bit of "romance" into the hunt and it's a light handy little arm, but a .30-30 or .35 Remington lever carbine is almost as light and just as handy and would put more power downrange, to ensure a quick clean kill.
Going a little more modern, there's more than a few light bolt action guns on the market, who's weight and "handiness" would rival your .357 lever gun, who's chamberings would allow for much more power within the range of the .357 and would put even more power downrange at two to three times the distance.
If you wanna hunt with a .357 lever gun, that's your choice, and I wish you much luck on your subsequent hunts, but if you have doubts, you might want to look into something a little more powerful.....there's a life lesson there, too.
 
When I was a kid, State of Washington used to say at least 1000 ft./lbs. @ 100 yards.
Any less and the round was illegal for deer hunting.
That rule has since been eliminated.
Otherwise, not to answer your question vaguely, but different animals have different amounts of "toughness" (density? lack of a better word), so there might not be a "pat" answer to your question.
However, I think the smartest move here is to lean on the side of "overkill", SLIGHTLY, in order to ensure a quick clean kill.
Sure a .357 lever carbine puts a bit of "romance" into the hunt and it's a light handy little arm, but a .30-30 or .35 Remington lever carbine is almost as light and just as handy and would put more power downrange, to ensure a quick clean kill.
Going a little more modern, there's more than a few light bolt action guns on the market, who's weight and "handiness" would rival your .357 lever gun, who's chamberings would allow for much more power within the range of the .357 and would put even more power downrange at two to three times the distance.
If you wanna hunt with a .357 lever gun, that's your choice, and I wish you much luck on your subsequent hunts, but if you have doubts, you might want to look into something a little more powerful.....there's a life lesson there, too.
I certainly respect everybody's opinion but the thing is I have very little doubt about what I am undertaking, after a life with many lessons. To be clear I do not own a .357 levergun, or intend to hunt with one in the near future. My comments in this and the other thread are just my opinion the gun is quite capable of taking deer out to 150yds in the right hands.
My experience killing 5 deer with bullets launched subsonic and averaging 750 fpe has brought me here. I intend to kill a deer in Idaho with a big bore airgun in .457 cal averaging around 400 fpe. I expect a complete pass through shot behind the shoulder and a fairly short tracking job will be the result but we shall see.
 
A heavy bullet at a modest velocity does not post high fpe numbers, because that equation can be swayed by high velocity.
What might better to explain how that heavy bullet works is to use the Taylor Knock Out factor.

Interesting formula.
According to it, the .35 Remington has more knockdown power than the NATO round given in the link's example.
In fact, it's almost equal to the old "standard elk round" of a 180 gr. .30-06.
The old 250 grain loading for the .358 Winchester blows all of those out of the water, as well.
...verrrryyy interesting.
Thanks for commenting on that, Orygun.
 
The .357 mag lever gun thread had many opinions on whether it is enough for deer out to 150yds. I say it is and if it were all I had I wouldn't hesitate to use it. There are many opinions about what is minimum to cleanly take a big game animal so let's hear how many fpe you think it takes to cleanly kill?
The instrument has yet to be invented that can measure my indifference to that question.
1709557973373.jpeg
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top