Looking for some experience/advice from fellow members about the advisability of hunting mule deer with a 1885 High Wall chambered in 32-40.  I can only find one bullet weight (165 gr.) advertised, but seems it may be a bit light for a buck.  TIA.

John

If you can't kill a mule deer with  a 165gr. bullet out of a. 32-40 you need to become a better hunter. 
Lee Gibbs Pres.ASSRA

The only drawback would be with factory ammunition.   It is pretty wimpy stuff, but it would probably take some looking to find some anyway.   The other problem you may have to deal with is that 32 caliber bullets are generally 0,321 inches diameter which may be too small.   As with the 38-55, many hi wall barrels are over size.  My 32-40 hi wall needs a .325 bullet if I want to hit anything with certainty.  I have 2 early 1894 Winchesters in 32 caliber.  One is a 32-40 made in 1906; the other is a 32 Special made in 1916.  Both do  fine with .321 bullets.  I had Accurate make me a mould for the hi wall.

George

Myself I would use a cast bullet if you don't live in California and I don't think it would be inhumane. 
Sometimes we forget about our past and what our forefathers used to take game with to feed themselves and there families and humanly. 
I have seen more game needlessly suffering from being shot with the various Ultra Magnums and being shot well beyond a practical and humane hunting distances and by no means being a marksman.

As I said earlier, if you can't get close enough to a mule deer to kill it cleanly with a. 32-40, you need to learn how to hunt. 
Lee Gibbs Pres.ASSRA 

P.S. I wouldn't hesitate to hunt black bear with a. 32-40.

"I also believe allot of the fault is that the current hunting magazine writers are trying to turn hunting into being the same as living a Sniper's life"

Yes siree.our range seldom sees anything but pseudo Sniper rifles during the  hunter sight in days we open to the public.they are quite accurate but those guys are convinced they need a 4k rifle with 2k nightforce with some super magnum to kill a deer.

The problem is that these days a "gun writer" has to be a pimp for the magazine's advertisers to succeed.  Plain and simple.   In the days of Keith, Hagel, Amber, O'Connor, and many others it wasn't quite that way.   Except for the Single Shot Exchange and the Black Powder Cartridge News, I gave up on slick paper gun magazines 20 years ago.   Sometimes I think today's "gun writers" got a degree in journalism and, knowing little if anything about shooting or hunting, landed jobs with shooting and hunting magazines.   Some of the things I've read go against everything I was ever taught or learned the hard way.   I wrote for the Black Powder Report from first issue to last.   They went under because none of us were "pimping" for the advertisers.

George

George Babits..yup I agree on modern gun writers.A writer  for shooting times did an article on the Winchester 52. 
He plagiarized an earlier  American Rifleman article and called a palm rest "a cool  support hand grip " or something like that.Quite an expert??
What a joke...

It would be nice if there were a magazine that had real hunting articles about hunting deer with say a 44 WCF or 32/40 or smaller game with say a 32WCF or even a Stevens 44 in say 25/20SS or even 38 special (rebored from something else).

However, while those articles would be interesting to me, I doubt they would sell.   

It seems that readers and advertisers are more interested in very high velocity, high energy cartridges like the Nosler cartridges.  I understand that magazines are really funded by advertisers like Norsler and thus the focus is to sell more product.

I've taken several mule deer at ranges out to 140 yds. using a .32-40 rifle. One an 1881 Marlin, and the other two with Ballard rifles. 
My load is a 170 gr. cast bullet leaving the muzzle at around 1400 fps. All one shot kills, and all behind the shoulder. Deer don't seem to notice it's not enough cartridge.

AMEN

Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, and I do concur that the use of fixed ammunition is recommended, but would interject the words marginally adequate, for the word plenty, for game the size of a large mule deer at two hundred yards with the 32-40 cartridge. I felt and used the 38-55 as a better choice for deer size game. Simply the choice I made, and never regretted.

Just calling out someone who makes statements about someone they have never met. I have lived in the state of Colorado for fifty years, and hunted big game for for most of them. Guided hunters on the Roan Plateau in the seventies. Finally gave up hunting when I saw what was happening, not only in Colorado, but other mountain states as well. I am not interested in what game animals you have hunted and taken with whatever firearm you chose, only in what my opinion is regarding using the 32-40 cartridge for game up to and including large mule deer. I have stated my opinion, as have you. end of discussion for me.

jgill46 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2022 at 10:11pm:

Hunting with any dash cartridge adds challenge to the hunt . Hunting with these type firearms for both Wt. and Mule deer has been my choice for the past couple of decades .While I have not used the caliber and rifle you describe , I have used the 44 - 40 the 30 - 30  the  40-60 wcf the 45-75 wcf 50-95 wcf and the 45-120 Sharps . Each one of these has a little edge in power/energy over the 32-40 except maybe the first two , I mention this because even more powerful cartridges have limitations  . Your 32-40 loaded to its potential should take any deer in North America within reasonable  range . Remember shot placement is most important with any cartridge used .  I say use the 1885 in 32-40  enjoy the hunt , you'll be glad you did .     DT

yamoon wrote on Mar 30^th, 2022 at 7:49pm:

NO

"there is a reason I never went there to hunt."                                          Please spread the word!!!

It seems to me, that honesty would be the best policy. Always is. Most people have no idea what game department wardens are up against in protecting our wildlife. It is a rather thankless job, and if one thinks about it, more often than not, questioning or challenging someone with a loaded firearm. By far, that someone is a law abiding citizen, with all good intentions. It is though, not always the case. Depending on attitude, and other factors, my sense is that most wardens/law enforcement would take into consideration intent, and the well being of their charges. Our wildlife! If the cartridge performance is questionable, why not err on the side of caution, and use one less questionable. A better choice with good Intent!!

You can have your opinion on Fish Cops, and I’ll have mine.  They don’t differ that much except in what I want to call them.   

I might also add, I’ll call them what I want from the privacy of my home.  It’s called freedom of expression.  You know, that right guaranteed by the Constitution that the police swear an oath to uphold.

How did this go from a bullet choice for the 32-40 for Mule deer hunting  , to where it is going now ? This is the one site that I enjoy because of the level of respect across the board . I sure hope it stays that way . I am sure the OP has the greatest respect for our Game Wardens as we all should and only wants to do what is right .  My two cents , about what its worth now days . ,,DT

This is COMA (Crabby Old Man Association) not the ASSRA.

Unfortunately this site is no longer the same site that it started out being back in 2004 when I few of us each gave some of our own personal money to be able to get it started. 

Reminds me of a portion of a letter from my father, on my first birthday, from somewhere in the Pacific,  "Be tolerant and understanding, patient, courteous , loyal, make yourself a gentleman, as crudeness is a sign of ignorance", end of quote. I have for 78 years tried to live up to his expectations, a lot to ask. And I certainly don't need to ask for your approval, or anyone else for that matter. only myself. I find your remarks repugnant, as you have never met me, nor made an effort to know me. Not that you need, my approval, but I might suggest you work on some of my fathers suggestions, and the clock is ticking.

ISS   I also would like to know where your other post with disparaging words regarding me disappeared to? Please respond!

What in the world are you referring to. I do not know how to delete a post, nor do I need or care to. I did though, ask where one of your posts disappeared to? YOU ARE WELCOME TO THE LAST RESPONSE.

If your launch platform is an 1885 Winchester what you need to look at is the chamber pressure potential of the rifle not the cartridge.  Factory ammo as well as published load data keeps chamber pressures quite low for the 32-40 in lew of some of the weaker actions that were chambered for the 32-40 such as the Model 44 Stevens .
The model 1885 is a far stronger action capable of much higher chamber pressures as evidenced by some much higher chamber pressure cartridges that have been factory chambered for the 1885. Modern production model 1885's can use cartridges that go as high as 60,000 psi chamber pressures.  With a vintage 1885 I would top out at about 40,000 psi in cartridges like the 30-30 or 32 special.  There is no reason why you can not safely load a vintage 1885 Win rifle chambered in 32-40 to the same pressures as the 32 special which works at nearly twice the chamber pressure as the 32-40.  With that said saying the 32-40 so loaded would be inhumane for use on deer would contradict the possible hundreds of thousands of deer humanly taken with the 32 special since its introduction. As is so often the case it is the rifle not the cartridge that sets the performance limit and the 32-40 in an 1885 Win rifle has far more potential performance than what factory ammo and most load data would indicate.

Good thing our grandfathers didn't have any power level regulations when they were hunting! They'd have had a heck of a time with numerous cartridge chamberings they took deer with then!

bullshop, I remember an article in a magazine years ago where the author stated that he doubted that a deer could tell the difference between being shot with a 30-30, 30-06, or 300 magnum.  It made me rethink the propaganda that only magnum rounds were worthy of being chambered in big game rifles.   

As a side note, my only 32-40 is a Savage 99 that I bought as a teenager in the 70’s.  I hunted with it a bit, but never got a chance to shoot a deer with it.  It was supplanted as my big game rifle in 1975 when I bought the first Ruger No.1 I ever saw.  I hunted almost exclusively with it for at least 40 years.

Agreed 100 %.    The 32-40 is one of those cartridges that successfully transitioned from black powder to smokeless powder and as such is very likely at its game performance peak with its original form of homogenous lead alloy bullets.  I shoot many such vintage cartridge arms that were originally loaded with black powder and cast lead or swaged lead bullets.  I believe that with such cartridges when loaded to original velocities that the use of pure unalloyed lead will enhance the killing effect of the vintage cartridges.  Using pure unalloyed lead in such cartridges loaded to original black powder velocities has always seemed to be a positive gain in terminal performance .   I would expect much better results with such a load over those using factory ammo loaded with jacketed bullets when used on up to deer size game.