• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

?'s on best caliber, somethin i read

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Guest
:yakyak: I read somewhere that the best muzzleloader caliber is the might 54 over all others for downrange trajectory and such, is this true? The article said that the big boys of 58-62cal just dont have it at the longer ranges(100yds), like the 54 does! The article claimed that the 54 retained alot more energy and trajectory, not to mention a little less recoil than the big boomers! Suppose nobody knows of a dead elk that wants to add his 2cents do they :surrender:
 
-----my 58 roundball 70 gr 3 f at 50 yrds right on
--at 100 yards 80 gr 3f is right on-----42 in gr mtn--barrel----- :idunno:
 
I really like .54s they are my favorite but if I lived where i could hunt elk or moose i would probably go with .58 or even .62 but in my part of the world a whitetail deer is as big as it gets an my .54s seem to be gettin er done. 100 grns goex ff pushin a self molded.527 roundball.
 
I love the .54 :thumbsup:
Who ever wrote the article you read must be a wise man, a Gentelmen and a True Scholor,, :grin: :bow:
 
It depends on what you plan on shooting. For east of the mississippi and south of maine I personally prefer the "smaller" 45 caliber as it does well on White tail deer, rabbits and even squirel.For Elk or Moose the larger calibers are certainly more appropiate.
 
You know, in the early 1800's the mountain men went west with 32cals! They found the game too big and ornery(elk, moose, and grizzly :surrender: ), and wanted somethin bigger! The 50cal was huge by their standards then, but now we dont even recommend anything less than a 54cal for elk or larger in our world! Shot placement is key, and defense from Grizz' is basically obsolete! The article was based more of the lob factor of larger PRB's i think, to me bigger is only better to a certain point!
 
There is no ONE perfect caliber, for MLERS or for cartridge guns. Guns are tools. Would you ask if there is one perfect size Screw-driver? OR HAMMER??

Tools are made for the work they are needed to do. If you want to shoot small game, like squirrels, rabbits, and varmints to coyote size, a .32 or .36 caliber will serve you well. But plenty of shooters are equally comfortable using their .40 and .45 caliber rifles for those game animals.

Hunting regulations often limit the size caliber you can use to kill deer, but many deer have been killed with those same small caliber rifles. The Whitetail is the most widely available Big Game species to hunt in the United States. Only Turkey, and wild boar are spreading fast enough that they have become equally popular hunting game in many areas of the country, from coast to coast.

If you are in the west, shooting whitetails, antelope, Mule Deer and Elk, a .54 shines. But, again, a lot of those animals have been killed with lesser calibers. When you get into bear country, a .54 gives you some peace of mind, but no more so than carrying a .58, .62,.65,.59, or .75 caliber Mler. Generally speaking, you don't get a lot of shots at any game in wooded areas at 100 yard, or more, compared to what happens in mountain country, or on the high plains.

So, what you hunt, and where you hunt is going to determine what the " Best" choice of caliber gun you use.

Not much different than how you choose a screwdriver, is it??? :shocked2: :rotf: :surrender: :hmm: :thumbsup:
 
I don't think that could have been said better paul. Where I use to work we always had people looking for the rifle that did it all and it doesn't exist. Sure some work across the board well enough, but there is always something that suits the job better.
 
I have shot elk with both a .58 and .53. Most dropped in their tracks with either caliber. I can't tell you how well they do at 100 yards because 75 yards is longest shot I have taken on elk. I would expect that the .58 had more energy at that distance simply because it was bigger ball that retains energy better. Both calibers will do a through and through on an elk at that range.

I use my .53 in longer range competition, 100 to 200 yards. It shoots flatter than the .58 and still has enough power to knock over large bear silhouettes at 200 yards.
 
The guy referred to The Law of Diminishing Returns(more isnt always better)! His comparison of that knowledge and thinking when related to the muzzleloading world was that you are basically using the same powder charge across the board, but a heavier projectile in larger calibers! The heavier projectiles seemed to peter out at the extended ranges, where the lighter ones excelled(54)! The comparison also shot down the 50cal pretty hard, saying that it did lack something like 300 ft/lbs compared to the 54! As you can tell im not biased based on my initial post asking if anyone knew an elk that would speak up!
 
IMO, limiting the discussion to roundballs only, if there is any long range advantage of the .54 over the .58 or .62 it is because usually the .54 will be shot with a higher initial (muzzle) velocity than the larger caliber guns.

If both the .54 and .62 caliber roundball is shot at the same velocity the .62 will have the edge in both trajectory and velocity at 100 yards.

My roundball ballistics calculator says that if both the .54 and the .62 caliber balls are fired at 1600 fps and the guns are are zeroed at 75 yards, at 100 yards the .54 cal roundball will be traveling at 979 fps and will have a drop of -3.8 inches, while the .62 will be traveling at 1017 fps and will have a drop of -3.1 inches.

Of course to achieve the same velocity the .62 will require more powder than a .54 will use.
At the 1600 fps mentioned above the .54 would need a powder charge of about 105 grains of 2Fg while the .62 would need over 130 grains of 2Fg powder.
 
Im new here and not wanting to start a tiff, but i dont see how thats possible :idunno: My way of thinking is that the larger/heavier the ball, the more drag and the quicker itll lose downrange kinetic energy! Now i know that the Mountain Men didnt ever do these fancy configurations, they just knew that a bigger ball meant a bigger hole in an animal! My reasoning tells me that there has to be a line where a spherical objects size starts to work against it, i mean hell, a MLB pitcher can throw a baseball faster/further than they could throw a softball!
 
The thing that slows down the ball is the air that it is passing thru.

The area of the hole that is being punched thru the wind is directly related to the diameter of the ball and is calculated by the old pi R square formula.

The weight of the ball is directly related to the volume of the ball. In the case of a sphere it is equal to 4 times pi times the radius CUBED with the answer divided by 6. (cubed means the radius is multiplied times itself and the answer is again multiplied by the radius).

Because the volume increases by the cube of the radius it increases much faster than the area of the ball does.

The bottom line is that as the ball size increases its weight goes up much faster than the area of a hole in the air which the ball passes thru. Because the volume of the ball increases very rapidly as the ball gets bigger, its kinetic energy also increases at any given velocity faster than its wind resistance does.
 
Also the frictional force excerted by the air on the ball is proportional to the velocity squared! So while the larger balls have more energy for the same speed due to heavier mass, the air resistance on the larger balls will be smaller due to the fact that the larger balls will be moving slower for reasonalble charges. :hmm:
 
If I may put some numbers on the post I made about area and volume, a .620 diameter ball (.3019 sq. in.) pokes a hole thru the air that is 153.76 percent larger than the hole a .500 diameter ball pokes (.1963 sq. in.).

The .620 diameter ball (357.5 gr) has a weight that is 190.67 percent larger than the weight of a .500 diameter ball (187.5 gr).
 
And from my perspective as a hunter, there's also the affect of the various projectiles once they arrive on target. Landing at the same velocity, the bigger heavier balls like 58, 62, 69, 72 and 75 caliber are just going to move a whale of a lot more flesh. If they started at the same MV as a 54, they will in fact arrive going faster than the smaller ball and potentially do even more damage.

Now comes the reality. I have in fact pushed 58 and 62 cal balls to the same velocities I push a 54 cal ball, and another law of physics comes into play: For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction. The heavier ball pushed by a heavier charge adds up to a whole lot more geewhiz coming back at your shoulder.

Put it all in a box and shake it real good, and this is what I come up with: I'm not going to push the bigger balls as fast as I do a 54. I get as good or better trajectories and performance on game if they start a little slower.

Light off one of those real hot charges in a larger caliber, and you'll do the same, or else take a real good look at the gun weight and stock design before you decide to do it on a regular basis!! :rotf:

Bottom line, the 54 is indeed a great elk caliber. But labeling it "best" is like saying Fords or Chevys are the best. That's in the eye of the beholder.
 
It sounds like a horse a piece! If bigger is/was better, why didnt the Hawken Bros. just go straight to the 62cal? I mean, they were dealin with Grizz' back then, why just go from the 32cal infantry rounds to a 50cal! There were even Hawkens in the 30cal range but damn it was a Hawken right? If i was a trapper in the 1830s id tote at least a 58cal, thats just me though!
 
As to exactly why the Mountain Men liked the .54 over larger calibers is anybodies guess.

If I were to make a guess it would come down to what caliber gives the best whompability while burning the least powder and using the least lead?
This powder and lead issue was very important because there were no stores out where these guys worked.
Adding Brown Bear's very correct comment about recoil to the lead/powder question and I personally think the .54 wins over the larger bores.
 
Back
Top