.54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

After reading semisane's post in the thread about krb's I thought I'd start a new thread instead of hijacking that one. The subject says it all. Which one and why? I've been thinking about a .58 round ball barrel from g.m. afterreading aboutthe .58 big boar t/c used to make. But I think a .54 would be more practical.

Lets hear pros/cons of each and then I'll tell what I'm leaning towards and why.

Thanks,
Cory

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

I have both calibers in slow twist barrels. I agree the .54 is more practical - better long range trajectory and plenty of killing power, plus cheaper to shoot. But my-oh-my, that .58 sure is fun to shoot. If I were to have only one, it would be the .54.

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

.54 is plenty to take big game in the US.

Shot placement is what it will come down to.

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

The .58 and .62 come into play when you are talking elk, moose, grizzleys, etc...With whitetails, mule deer, black bears, etc a .54 gives you flatter trajectory and plenty of power...With a .54 and 80grs of FFF Goex you have a good flat shooting and hard hitting load...With a .58-.62 you have to add more powder to have a flatter trajectory and recoil builds pretty quickly...

When I decided to build my .54 back in the 80s, I did a ton of research, I bought a copy of the NMLRA record book the first year it was out...The largest grizzley taken at that time was with a .54 Hawken style rifle, 120grs of powder and a .530 patched ball...The shot was taken at 100 yards and the ball penetrated both lungs and was found under the hide on the off side, the bear ran about 50-60 yards and piled up...

I've killed around 30 deer with my .54 flinter I finished in 1990, it's all you need for whitetails...

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

IHAVEUSED EVERY THING FROM A 40 TO A 62CAL ANDI ENDED UP USING A 54 FOR EVERYTHING BUT TARGET AT SHORT RANGE WHICH I USE A 45 FOR. I have take boar deerelk and a bear that weighed in at 680 field dressed with one shot and round ball with a 54cal, my best one is a copy[ I bought the plans from a musiem in St Louis ,MO]I made my self with a 35.5 inch barrel, it shoots best with 535 PRB and 130 gr of RS; I have shoot 19 inch strings at Friendship with it and taken deer and bear at 175 yds. It has a 1-80 twist.
Due to the fact they do not make a barrel that has the right twist to shoot a heavy load a 58 will never be any good for long range and even if they did the recoil that would be developed if you pushed a 360 gr ball to 2000 fps would be noticable. Lee

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

I have a 54cal and a 58cal. I really like my 58cal but the 54cal is great to. You might have to get both!

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

Half of my smokepoles are .54s, the other half are .50s, if I bought a .58 it would be strictly for fun.

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

A .54 caliber for the most part will handle all your hunting needs, they are accurate, and ball is cheaper. The .58 caliber though has a real charm. When you shoot it, its a whole new experience. Without doubt you are not over gunned hunting with it. It will take out about anything you want from a squirrel to a moose... If I only had one rifle, it would be a .54 caliber. I like the .58 caliber though. It is accurate, and with 110 grains of 2f powder and that 284 grain ball in there, you better know that anything you shoot is in for a real bad day...

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

From the posts here and what I've read elsewhere, it looks like a .54 is plenty. I'm leaning toward the .58 though for no particular reason. It will be strictly a prb shooter and it can't hurt to throw a bigger ball.

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions on the matter.

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

After reading how much pwoder some of you guys are shooting I have come to the conclusion I am overloading my 54. I been shooting 90 T7 and 100 gr of Pyro. It groups well but it doesnt sound like I need that much juice...lol.

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

The amount of powder I use is determined by a couple factors..
what kind of animal am I hunting
what kind of shots would I encounter
what do I want the projectile to do ... such as pass through or hit body and expand
what kind of projectile I am shooting
but the most important is what is the most accurate in the rifle.

If 90 grains is a accurate load, and my shots are only 25 yards, I am still going to use the more powerful 90 grains then say a 70 grain charge. But if a lesser charge is more accurate, and I am not shooting over 50 yards at a thin skinned animal, then the lesser charge might be just fine although I would probably be loaded with the stronger charge.

I know what 80 grains of Pyrodex RS and a .54 caliber ball can do on multiple animals. But if I were hunting with my .58 for instance, it really shoots good with 60 grains of 2f, but with 110 grains it shoots great too and I know that with that powder charge I am really going to lay a world of smack on what I hunt. I am a firm believer that for the most part, when hunting, more powder is better (except in the case of powerbelts). But target shooting, the smaller charges are just as accurate, saves powder, saves my shoulder, and often times is still a good hunting load.

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

I shoot 100gr FFG and a roundball in my 54cal and 120gr FFG and a roundball in my 58cal. Anything within 120gr is fine. I like a little more nock down.

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

Thats kind of the way I was thinking. I havent got to shoot anything with this 54 yet but Im guessin it will get a quick response if I make contact....:D

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

Round balls have their own rules...

We really can't look at foot pounds of energy like we do with modern centerfire ballistics...They aren't very efficient and they kill due to a large frontal mass and weight...When flying through the air they lose velocity faster than a conical because of their low ballistic coefficient (they are short) and, being round with that large frontal mass they slow down much quicker than an elongated bullet...Another characteristic of them, the faster you push them, the faster they slow down...So you start to reach a point where more powder doesn't equate to more killing power, especially out at 100 yards or so...I guess what I'm saying, they don't "cut" through the air, they "push" air in front of them, like a Mack truck vs a small sports car...

Being made of pure lead and being bore size, with a large frontal mass, they do expand easily, even at lower velocities...Since they are bore size, they don't have to expand that much to kill, not like a saboted pistol bullet...Most .50 caliber inlines use a .45 caliber bullet, as we know they don't all expand efficiently when they hit game...This is one advantage of a round ball...

When I built my .54 flinter, I started using 120grs of Goex FF, after a few years, I moved down to 100grs and then settled on 80grs of FFF...One advantage using less powder does is it reduces bore fouling...When you shoot black powder about 60% is left in the bore...One reason guys complain of fouling is they use too much powder, not a big deal when deer hunting, but it is a pain when target shooting or hunting squirrels when several shots may be taken during a hunt...

I've always looked at traditional muzzleloaders as a fairly close range weapon, with most shots taken inside of 100-125 yards...With open sights, that's about as far as most need to be shooting anyway...

I can't tell any difference on how quick a deer falls whether using 120grs of FF, or 80grs of FFF in my .54...I also don't see much difference in penetration...It's almost like too much powder upsets the ball too much, so it sheads weight, which reduces mass, which reduces penetration, much like a PowerBelt...

When I used a .45 flinter, my deer load was 75grs of FFF Goex...That ball weighs about 128grs, but it would bust through both shoulder blades and end up under the hide on the off side...The .54 with it's 220gr ball will usually pass through, unless they are really close, then it seems to flatten out so much that it also ends up under the hide on the off side...

Now, my .54 has a 38 inch long barrel, with guns like a T/C Hawken or Renegade, about 80-85grs is all that's going to be burned before you run out of barrel anyway...

I've actually thought about dropping my powder charge down to 60-70grs of FFF and see how effective it will kill deer and see how it affects penetration...Years ago I talked with a guy that has built muzzleloaders since the 60s, he has collected many originals and has several old hunting bags with non-adjustable powder measures...He said he had never seen a powder measure that held over 50 grains of powder...Now, they may have double charged for deer and single charged for small game...He had killed several deer with a .45 and 50-60grs of powder...

Just some rambling observations...

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

I suspect your comparison of balls to Powerbelts (a`laGander's experiments) is valid.

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

Thanks NC! You make some good points as usual. The only FFF powder I have is Pyro P though. I havent tried it but may just to see how it groups. I always laughed when I seen people shooting those 150 gr mag charges.....and wondered if they were even able to burn half of it.

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

Shoot, i started a small smoldering fire the other day with my great plains rifle and 90g ffg goex. Good thing i wasnt shooting 150g!

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

well for now I think I am leaning toward the .58 cal since it will be strictly for prb. I think you can't go wrong withthe bigger round ball. In the future if I decide I do want a .54 I think I'll get a whole rifle instead of another barrel, maybe a lyman gpr.

As a follow up/spin off, has anyone else heard that green mtn is going to stop producing the IBS for t/c renegades and hawkens? Any truth to this?

Thanks for your help.

Cory

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

I have not heard this, but they have been selling off a lot of stock. Especially the flintlock ones. I sure hope this does not happen. It really makes the Renegade and Hawkins such a versatile and unique rifle.

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

my .54 cal T/C Hawken Renegade was the most accurate black powder rifle I ever owned, until I bought my Encore. Have yet to have any match it though w/iron sights. >530 patch ball with 120 grains- awesome knock down power!

Still own a .58 cal Enfield, three band. Have had it from the 70's. Great gun also. Supposedly they were used during the Civil War by snipers. One of the qualifications for sniper, according to a couple of books I read way back when, they had to hit a man sized silhouete at 500 yds.!! What is sweet about this gun was it shot best with just 80gr powder under a conical bullet. Quick, smooth loading. Draw back though- HEAVY & LONG. Not an all day carrying weapon.

RE: .54 vs .58 roundball barrel
 

The few civil war replicas rifle I had a chance to shoot, (and one original Springfield for 1800's) had a strange sighting system as it was explained to me. The men were told to aim for the belt buckle of the enemy troops and the gun was setup to shoot very high. The belt buckle sight would normally put them in the chest area as it was explained to me by some reenactors. And when the troops were long distance, then all they had to do was aim for the head and the bullet drop would then again, place the Minnie in the chest area.

Most of the guns to my understanding were set to shoot 60-70 grains of powder for their best accuracy. This was done for a couple reasons.. that much powder they found was plenty of powder, gave all the power they needed, saved on powder volumes used in battle, and produced the least fowling. When in the battle field, fowling could be the difference between life and death. They needed a slip fit projectile that did not fowl the barrel out. The Minnie ball solved that problem real well. Also with the extreme weight of the projectile, any thing in the body was an almost sure guarantee that the solider struck was out of the battle and with the medical facilities they had was probably out of the war.

Enfields, Springfields, Zouave, Sharps, Whiteworth, Gibbs, and some of the older rifles muskets and muskets were deadly in the right hands as the overall numbers of dead and wounded for major battles was a sad testament to.

I personally have always been interested in the .69 caliber rifled musket. I believe they were the 1842 model. They were originally a smoothbore but some of the muskets were rifled with a very slow twist that allowed them to throw that .69 caliber (12 gauge) ball down range with some excellent accuracy. Getting hit with anything from that would not have been a good experience. I think that would be a fun rifle to shoot.