How many animals you think....

Were wounded and lost prior to modern smokeless powder cartridges?

Was thinking about this yesterday. I bet there were a ton of animals wounded and lost due to inaccurate rifles, low energy, poor bullets, lack of practice with the weapon, etc

731,336

Same number i came up with

Simple algebra LOL

And the ones lost from primitive weapons, spears, sharp rocks, driven off cliffs........

M

I would bet it was fewer than you may think. When those weapons were being used, the people using them were doing so to keep from starving. When that is your motivator, you tend to be a lot more sure about your shot. Also, just because they were using "primitive" weapons, it doesn't mean that they didn't kill efficiently. There is a reason that elk are no longer found in the Eastern states and that whitetails populations were very low in at the turn of the century. Most game animals are not that hard to kill. I have killed deer with a cap and ball pistol.

It could well be that fewer animals were lost in "olden days".

Inaccurate rifles: Well, the Winchester 1866, Winchester 1873 and similar lever guns like the Henry chambered for black powder cartridges like the 44-40 and 45 Colt can hardly be considered inaccurate rifles within the range limit of those cartridges. And certainly the venerable Sharps and Remington Rolling Block rifles in 45-70, 45-90, 44-120, 50-90 were not inaccurate rifles. They were capable of outstanding long range accuracy.

Low energy: Those in the pistol cartridge category would be considered low energy by todays rifle standard. But they certainly have all of the energy necessary for clean 100 yard kills. The big single shot rifle cartridges had plenty enough energy for bison at 300 yards.

Poor bullets: Lead and lead alloy bullets are not poor bullets when used within their velocity limits. Those who used them likely made them work quite well. Whitetails are not that difficult to cleanly kill even with relatively small round balls. Just ask Boon and Crocket.

Lack of practice with the weapon: I suspect todays average hunter has a lot less time behind the trigger over the course of a year than did the average hunter prior to the smokeless cartridge era.

Anyway, that's my take on the subject.

I'd bet more animals have been lost since the introduction of smokeless powder...

I've seen deer killed with a 44-40. It's like a wall hits them.

With like black powder rifles they tended to get in a lot closer as well. Much more then most Texas deer hunters do today.

I would think they were pretty proficient with whatever weapon they were using due to the fact they had to be or they would have went hungry. Shots were much closer since they were actually hunting and not sitting watching a food plot in a bag(feeder) or food plot. Lot more of many of the game animals back then so they had a larger variety to choose from. Lot less pressured animals were probably easier to hunt. They were hunting to eat, usually not for the largest trophy animal out there.

I would say more are wounded today by bow hunters who never practice and just start hunting when the season opens.

A lot more where probably lost prior to Indians getting the domestic horse.

A "ton" is a rather lowball figure, don't you think? Even with modern smokeless powder, no doubt there are many tons of deer lost in my county every deer season, LOL.

This. I was on a lease one year in East Texas opening weekend of bow season rolls around,
I set up a Target on Friday and am practicing at 50 yards. These rednecks were astonished and were like I ain't shot my bow in 2 years. Never shot it that far. I guess the record should show that they really did not hunt but rode 4 wheelers all day. Think I hunted that place 2 times and heard 2 wheelers all day everyday.

I have to agree with Pitchfork on this one.
I also want to say that even though I think I am the best hunter in the woods today, I most likely would be at the bottom of the list when it came to how mountain men hunted.

I know a lot of bow hunters and none of them just start hunting right when season opens without practicing....all shoot all thru the year


with that being said, with todays compound bows.....you really don't need to practice alot to be proficient within 30 yards once you have it down



I can pick up my bow not having shot it since the previous season and have zero issue making kill shots at 20 and 30 yards

I'm currently reading an account written by a cavalry lieutenant stationed in western Nebraska during the Civil War. They routinely hunted buffalo with their Colt 1860 Armies and lost I don't know how many buff.

No doubt a sharps hunting rifle in .45-90, .50-110 , etc. made more than adequate hunting rifles, and one would assume that majority of hunting took place with them.


but also undoubtably a lot of game was shot and shot at with henry rifles, colt revolvers, .44-40's, 38-40's, etc.

The Indian War of 1864, by Eugene Ware?

Read up on how many buffalo were killed on the great plains with old Sharps rifles in just a few years.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ THIS ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ more than likely^ ^ ^

i know of more than a few animals that were wasted and never looked
for because the intended target didn't drop in it's tracks the way
they thought it should have. at least one did drop on the
spot, but the shooter didn't see it because he closed his eyes when
he pulled the trigger. when we walked out, there it lay deader than
a bag of hammers.
i'd also add that the hunters from the old days didn't spend all
their hunting time playing with their phones, and they sure weren't
"bored" while they were out in the bush. a "bored" hunter in those
days could end up as a rag covered carcass from not paying attention
to their surroundings.

Yup.

They seemed pretty effective at killing bison in the old days.

No one is arguing the effectiveness of big bore sharps rifles.


I was more mentioning common black powder cartridges loaded in both rifles and pistols, muskets and muzzleloader rifles with round balls and heavy concial balls, low poundage bows Indians had, Etc.


No one can spin a topic more off course than the THF



Let’s discuss what BDC reticles the lipan apache would have preferred or whether or not Billy Dixon would have killed that Indian at twice the distance had he had a tikka in 6.5 creedmoor...

What are you talking about? Addressed your question directly on point with a simple photo.

Sorry it was not the answer you were looking for.

Here is your original post. Nothing about Indians with bows and arrows.



The photo is in the time period asked about. The rifles back then had all the power and accuracy needed to kill efficiently and the hunters obviously knew how to use them. A deer is far easier to kill than a bison.

The casualty counts from the Civil War remain the deadliest in the history of this nation with over 600,000 killed, many with "conical balls" as you ask. The men were highly practiced and those that survived the war had good marksmanship skills with knowledge of making shots at significant distances - or quite close. Rifles only improved after the Civil War and there were many chamberings and manufacturers other than the big bores typically used for bison. btw - scopes with "knobs for twirling" and even iron sights to correct for distance and wind were in use back then, so that is not a recent invention.

As others have pointed out, deer, elk, and other game animals were extirpated by hunting from many areas prior to the turn of the century in 1900. The major decline in game animals led to the passage of laws to regulate hunting.

I'd be willing to bet a $100 that if we picked 100 men at random off the street in 1870 compared to 100 off the street at random today, the oldtimers would handily outshoot the current crop of men.

"I'd be willing to bet a $100 that if we picked 100 men at random off the street in 1870 compared to 100 off the street at random today, the oldtimers would handily outshoot the current crop of men."

Id say that in the 1870's you could pick 100 random woman off the ranches and they would out shoot us today. My mother who was born on a ranch in west Texas near Midland was the best shot I have seen in my life. It wasn't a "sport" to them, it was life and death in putting food on the table.

CWD

Very good point.

Back then cartridges were relatively expensive-you made them count. Lot more 'hunting' back then than now.

I agree with the not as many as you would think. Looking back on the old timers I knew with as a kid, some of whom started hunting in the first 20-30 years of smokeless powder, they wouldn't shoot unless it was a very much sure thing. Most of their shots were probably at what today's considered bow range and at least in our area they mostly hunted with dogs.

Hence not a lot of target practice was done.

Depends on the year. Most populations where gone or almost by 1900.

Agricultural has really propped up populations even with massive loses in habitat.

More deer in Texas now then people in 1900. Texas has had a substantial harvest of 1 mil deer a year I think for almost 20 years.

I wish we knew exact numbers of animals back then.

I would say success per shot was probably better back then because there where no laws dedicated to “fairness”. No restrictions

I think there are more whitetail deer now in the U.S than when Columbus landed.


Don't forget about screw worms, etc. that were here as well that took a toll on populations.


From my understanding there were a lot of areas that didn't have deer, and not from over hunting, the type of terrain and habitat just didn't support deer.

Yelp that why it’s so hard to say. We have almost more hunters now then there we had people in 1850.

But in same time market hunters where needed to support human populations. And those guys had zero rules. Highly effective and efficient

Two different times, the men in the past were trained from a young age on how to shoot. Get the same qualified men of both eras and then shooting the weapons of their era and you wouldn't get the same result.

There was one man with a rifle that easily killed 51 buffalo in King county about 8 years ago. Apparently he did that easily in an afternoon with one rifle, imagine what one man today could do with the herd sizes of that era with the weapons of today.

But how many hunters today actually practice a lot. A lot of guys now will wear out a barrel in a year or two, but for the vast majority a box of shells will last 3 or 4 seasons. Overall more people shot more often back in the day, maybe not at targets but many of them hunted year round.

Some guys do the same thing. Not every hunter is a 3 weekends/one buck one doe hunter.

I shot my rifle 10 times last year 7 of them were at animals 3 were to Check zero for a put of state hunt

Just take the numbers here when archery season starts and multiply.

And when an animal was wounded they would keep after it until it was dead or gone! They wouldn’t just give up and go drink a beer, they knew they either found it or didn’t eat! I’m guessing the number was a lot lower than what it is today!

It’s an interesting question.

My speculation would be that, volume-wise, there were a lot more misses and wounded animals back in olden times. No doubt the woodsmanship skills and familiarity with their weapons were superior, but two big factors offset these:

1)Volume of game and therefore, shots taken and
2)Vastly inferior weapons/ammo from both an accuracy and lethality standpoint.

The writings all the way from the Lewis and Clark Expedition journals, the mountain men, all the way up through those of Teddy Roosevelt and even Jack O’Connor are replete with accounts of missed and/or wounded game. It was simply an accepted fact of hunting. Game volumes and no/liberal bag limits meant opportunities were plentiful. Plus, almost everyone hunted - so even from simply a numbers perspective that meant a lot of missed/wounded game.

The market bison hunters were an exception. Bison were notoriously plentiful, not wary, and a herd could basically be shot out from one (or very few) positions. In addition, the market hunters for bison were deadly shots and became even moreso through the volume of shooting they did.

Today’s modern rifles, bullets, and optics are much more accurate, user-friendly and lethal. IMO this offsets a lot of the overall lack of skill and woodsmanship most of us have compared to the old-timers.

But that’s admittedly speculation/opinion.

Now how do you know that?

The famous brady buck(state record non typical) was wounded and found days later by another guy. The way I remember it is he went to the bar after and started telling folks about a giant deer he shot and wounded.

So that blows that theory

I think you have mixed several points. The stacked bison skulls is impressive, no doubt, but it doesn't attest to efficiently per se. It doesn't tell us how many animals were poorly shot and ran off or how many were simply gut shot and collected later. All the pic tells us is that a lot died as a result of the hunters, but nothing about overall efficiency.

The same goes for deer and elk being extirpated. You get a bunch of muttonheads shooting willy nilly and you can do a lot of damage to a local game population. It doesn't mean that they were good shooters or that they collected the game that they killed. It just means animals died.

Civil War deaths. Yep, over 600,000 killed. Was this due to the great shooting of the skilled gun toters of the time? Nope. Over 2/3 were killed by non-combat maladies such as disease, accidents, drowning, heat stroke, suicide, murder, execution. http://www.historynet.com/civil-war-casualties Most of the disease-related deaths were due to poor sanitary conditions and living in close proximity. Dysentery was a major killer. Then you had communicable diseases that killed as many as 40% of those who contracted it.

So for the 200K or so that were killed as a result of combat, a huge number of them didn't die from great shooting by the opposition, but because of getting wounded and dying from the infection that set in afterwards or as a result of receiving medical treatment. Being shot in the foot or arm could just as much result in death as being shot in the head. Such wounds today would often be considered minor by comparison and easily treatable, non-lethal wounds.

Never mind those that were killed directly and indirectly by bayonets, cannonfire, etc.

So the notion that because so many people died in the Civil War was because the shooters of the time were such good shots is really not supported. Surviving the Civil War didn't mean you were highly practiced and/or highly skilled as much as it just meant you were awfully darned lucky.

so explain the hog problem.

Hogs are smarter, much more prolific, more elusive, more adaptable, and don’t stand still as a group while you shoot their buddies.

Just got done reading an article about a champion black powder shooter. He would shoot a pound of powder every range trip.

Hunters of the era couldn’t afford to shoot this much. Black powder cartridges were also valuable, not just in cost but also availability. Recreational shooting was only for the affluent . Not long ago you could buy 30-30 cartridges by the singles.

I think they were better woodsman but better shooters? I would argue that point.

I would be willing to bet most shots were close range.

The blackpowder weapons of the 18th and 19th centuries were pretty accurate, but nothing compared to todays modern firearms. The military can take a kid off the street with no prior experience shooting a rifle and within 2 weeks he can be shooting in the expert class. I remember in Basic Training, young men that had never touched a rifle had qualified expert by the time they left Basic Training.

Here is some other info about the buffalo slaughters. https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/bison-skulls-pile-used-fertilizer-1870.

Ask BradyBuck on here.

Are you a liberal or what? You heard about one instance and that means that everyone that wounded an animal went to the bar. I guess that's just the way the world is now!

Don't be ridiculous. There is no reason for an ad hominem attack just because he questioned the validity of your unsupported statement. You made a rather absolutist statement that you obviously cannot support and is refuted, at least in part, by the example he gave.

Hunters in the past were not mysteriously much better than today. This notion of 'rosy retrospection' (belief that things in the past were better than they really were) is a form of nostaligic bias. It goes along with the men being more hearty, the women being more virtuous, the kids being more respectful, people being more honest, yaddy yaddy yaddy.

Human behavior really hasn't changed over time. There have always been scoundrels, cheats, poachers, and poor hunters along with all of the good people and good hunters, though whether or not you were a good hunter doesn't mean you were a good person or even ethical.

It is funny as hell somebody called out as
the dreaded "L" word just because they don't agree
with what you type.

Or is sad?

Just to get back on subject IMO there were probably
more animals not recovered after shot by percentage.

Not because of equipment or skill level but a different
concept of "ethical" and "humane" towards animals.

Probably because they didn't have wildlife innovations blood tracking light... lol.

It's even more sad that it was a joke and somehow you found it in your heart to call someone out over something that you have no clue about. I just thought it was funny on how absolutely he concluded that I was wrong (still not sure about what) because of 1 example! I don't give a darn what anyone says I guarantee if they were hunting for survival as many did way back when they would make a better effort to recover a wounded animal than 90% of hunters today! Where they go when they give up isn't really revelant as the bar was just a funny example. I've been to the bar several times after killing a deer but can't say I've been after wounding one. Sorry if I hurt someone's lil feelings. I forgot how dramatic this forum had become...now I remember why I quit getting on here!

If it was a joke then it was supposed to be funny. Got it.

I consider a primitive weapon to be a spear, a sling, or bow and arrows. folks who were limited to that technology had to be experts in survival. A lost animal meant a hungry and or starving family. From the time you could walk and every day there after by necessity you learned how to harvest game. Stealth. camo, tracking ability and knowledge of the game was what allowed you to survive. I don't think there could be too many discussions about the one that got away.

Romantic, but not wholly accurate. There were great reasons for having a varied diet and using alternative means of food procurement such as trapping and bartering. In reading ethnographies of Native Americans of the Plains and Southwest, there were always individuals who were known for their hunting prowess and those who were much less adequate in that area.

A little reading of real-time accounts of hunting in the 18th and 19th centuries shows they were not all the “steely-eyed never miss” guys many assume them to be. They missed a lot, they wounded a lot, and a conservation ethic was non-existent. They killed a lot because they shot a lot.

That’s just the way it was.

Also, the fact that hunting was a 24/7/365 endeavor with no bag limits almost certainly translates to a heckuva lot of missed and wounded game.

It was perfectly legal to have your trusty dog next to you to immediately track down the wounded animal, I'm sure that made up for a lot .

I agree. In H.H. McConnell's book, Five Years a Cavalryman, he recounts how he and several other troopers received a two day pass to hunt turkeys near Jacksboro. They traveled several miles from the post and found a nice campsite. The afternoon was spent basically drinking and talking (sounds like a modern hunting camp to me). Once it got dark they took lanterns and "hunted" turkeys by blowing them off their roosts. This was a 100% effective way to hunt turkeys and ethics didn't even cross their minds. Such methods are abhorrent to the modern hunter but were perfectly natural in 1860s Texas. This certainly doesn't make them bad guys nor good hunters.

Those darn spears and arrowheads

With no fences containing the predator(human) I bet there were fewer losses since you could track a wounded animal as long as needed with out our modern day artificial barriers.

Or mesquites trees. Could see for miles I hear.. Stars were so bright back then didn't need a billion power spotlight.

Everything was up hill and even during the summer the snow was waist deep making it easy to track.

There is nothing new under the sun.
Percentage wise (hunters in the field), it is probably the same as today.

I wonder how in the hell we ever lost a deer behind a high fence? Tracked them with dogs even.


That high fence should have made them easy to find.