Which Caliber

I have a question, I want to build a period correct rifle (1800-1830). It will be a flintlock, swamped barrel, Lancaster stock,or a full stock, but I want a caliber to hunt elk. Is 54 large enough, or do I go to 62, and is it period correct doing that? I am kind of lost here. So as always all information is greatly appreciated. Gunn :surrender:

AUT PAX AUT BELLUM

I use a .54 on caribou and moose here in alaska. Read an article about a guy who shot an elephant with a .54. So I guess it depends on your arm and how much you want to carry. You can kill an elk with a .22 just remember its about shot placement then energy of the load.

Doc

I hunt Whitetail deer with a 62. big hole in, big hole out.

I have used a .53 on elk for years. 80 grains of 3F and a .520 ball will drop them within 100 yards. As Doc said shot placement is the key. I've seen guys hit elk with .58s and .62s and have them run off. A few friends of mine routinely use .50s for elk and never have them go very far. They hit them in the right place.

A .54 caliber will do the job :thumbsup: .

A 54 will certainly do the job. Lots of us up here use them. But I have to tell you a secret.

All of us are licking our lips over something bigger. One guy in our group has a 58, and we'd all have them if we could find the right guns.

And yeah, I'm thinking about a 62 for my next build. PC or not, one buddy is building a Hawken in 62. And heck, another buddy is just finishing a .72 cal swap barrel (smooth and rifled). That's really got me thinking!

If you want to stay PC, then by all means the style of rifle you pick will have a lot to do with the diameter of the hole in the end. But you won't be hurting yourself on hunts with a 54. You'll just get caught in the biggerisbetter game once you have it in your hands, tho.

gunn said:

I want a caliber to hunt elk. Is 54 large enough, or do I go to 62, and is it period correct doing that?

Click to expand...

A 54 should do the job, but as mentioned, a 58 or 60 might do a little better job. It's all a matter of what you want.

IMHO, I would suggest that an early style rifle with a wide, flat butt will be more comfortable to shoot, if you go for a larger caliber.

1800-1830, anything much larger than .54 in a longrifle would be unusual and notable, like Ashley's Hawken was notable as being exceptional.

I have several .54's and find it is a good accurate caliber with lots of punch. I have shot whitetail and had the ball pass through from stem to stern...More than enough for an elk, black bear, moose, ground squirrel

I calculated Taylor Knock out values for a 54 at 1300 fps and for elk is was rated "good" choice. At 150 yards it retains 900+ FP. Since most shots should be (IMHO) under 100 yds. that give nearly 1000 fp to work with. Lots of horse power to do a good clean kill with a well placed shot
Good Luck !

p.s. Here is a link to the traditions web page that has a ballastics write up that may be of help... http://www.traditionsfirearms.com/ownersManuals.asp

You can also compare your .54 cal. RB load to other crtridges and calibers using a " KILLING POWER" furmula that has been kicking around for years. This formula tends to give more weight to the diameter of the ball than do other formulas. Use the data for the velocity at the longest range you will shoot at an ELK , to calculate this.

KP = Velocity times Bullet weight in grains, times Caliber in hundredths of an inch, divided by 100.

For example: If a .54 cal. RB is going 1146 fps at 100 yards, the formula give a KP of ( 1146 x 230 x .54 divided by 100) 1423.32.

Compare that to a .30-06 180 grain spitzer bullet leaving the Muzzle at 2600, and still traveling 2416 at 100 yards. ( 2416 x 180 x .30 divided by 100) = 1304.64. Now, NO ONE is going to argue that that bullet will not kill an Elk at 100 yards. Your " slow- moving " .54 RB load still edges it out. :grin: :thumbsup:

Yup, bigger's got to be better, badder and more intriguing. :hmm:

You said a "Lancaster stock or a full stock". Have you considered a Hawken full stock? You would have no difficulty justifying a big bore Hawken, they are handsome rifles and very strong, and fit the period nicely. You could go quite large bore-wise with one of these and still be O.K.

Hmmm, flintlock, swamped barrel, .54 or better...
OK, maybe a bit earlier type, but have you condidered a Jaeger? Shorter, lighter, and the big bore would be correct. And as mentioned here on this forum before, forgetting all those "numbers", a bigger caliber just plain adds in that "whompability" factor!

Could you back the time frame up to 1765-1770 or so???

That Mark Silver rifle that Jim Chambers has in .62 would be the ticket....

This is what I like about this forum, just when I think I have it all figured out..... I guess it is back to the drawing board. Any books you can suggest to help with this situation? Gunn

AUT PAX AUT BELLUM