What is the 52cal? I was looking at this conical.

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/product/standard-item.jsp?_DARGS=/cabelas/en/common/catalog/item-link.jsp_A&_DAV=MainCatcat20712&id=0037634 216124a&navCount=15&podId=0037634&pare ntId=cat200005&navAction=push&catalogCode= IG&rid=&parentType=index&indexId=cat20 0005

Just a guess, but since they have the "standard" .45 and .50, I'm guessing that's a typo and it's supposed to be .54cal.

Knight Rifle makes a .52 caliber rifle is my understanding. It is/was a favorite of Jim Shocky until he made the switch to Thompson Center Arms.

They are called the Knight Extreme. Must have not gone over that well. I am pretty sure that Cabelas used to carry them. Here is a link:

http://www.etsoutdoors.com/client/details.php?pid=3166

It says it out doese the 54cal. Is that true? I dont see how.

Does anyone even make an inline 54 with a magnum barrel? Not that I have seen. Therefore, if you compare a knight extreme inline with a magnum barrel to my T/C 54 caliber renegade, I suspect that you could make the argument that the 52 would "outshoot" my renegade. But, or course, there is only one grade of dead, and my 54 is one sweet shooting gun!

txhunter58

Well, Remington did and actually I thought Knight did also at one time. But then again I ask myself what is a Magnum Barrel? All of my inlines are "magnum" capable, but all that means to me is that they can shoot more powder - not sure the results are 'magnum' results unless you compare them to really old BP sidelocks or flinters. The modern day sidelocks are awful good.

just my 2 bits

No, it is a .52. Another approach at making shooters feel that their .50's aresomehow inadequate, and that by adding another .002" to the bore diameter of a rifle it solves the problems you'vegot with your .50 !!Basically, just another marketing approach to try to sell more rifles in a saturted market - just like all the "new" breech mechanisms!!

eldequello I think hit it right on the head. After all the big name inline rifle companies has their standard rifle that sold well, they needed some way to get the sportsman's dollar. So, why not a new caliber? They make a new caliber and tell everyone how wonderful this caliber is and the extra power it produces for taking game effectively. They forget that their .50 caliber have been doing it for years. They also open up a market for their sabots, bullets, and everything else.

I do not think the public bought the hype. Sure they sold a few, and had I the chance and the price was right, I'd have one, but I am not going to spend money on something all my other rifles can do as well or better. Of course the question then is, why do you have so many rifles that are so much alike?

Yeah, like where is it written that a new rifle, caliber, bullet, sabot, etc. has to actually be better for us to buy it? Come on, now - if that were true, we'd all have a very small collection of guns, and only one can of powder and one box of bullets, right .
But - I agree with what's been said here - the .52 was probably an attempt to gain more "market share" - and it didn't fly. Look at how this is continually being done in the centerfire world. New calibers are constantly being offered - and of course, to shoot that new caliber, you need a new rifle, new dies for reloading, etc.
Over the years, some "stick" and others don't; that's the name of the game.

IM jaybe