mnbearbaiter said:
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!
Calibers.... Remember that back in the day rifles were calibrated in balls to the pound NOT in ball diameter. The 53-54 caliber uses a 32 to the pound ball.
Caliber depends on the usage.
My 16 bore rifle shoots flatter than a 54 to 200 yards since the larger ball carries better. If I use enough powder
It also uses a lot more powder, kicks harder and makes much bigger holes in animals.
In the west ranges were far longer than in the east. The larger calibers increased the range. Also there were larger critters out here.
Why the 54? One supposition is that it used the same ball size as the 24 bore trade gun. The 1/2 ounce ball was a trade item. Kinda the 30-06 of its day. So if the mould was lost ammo could still be obtained.
Thats one explanation.
The reason the plains rifles were not usually 20 or 16 to the pound was WEIGHT. 5 pounds of lead cast into 20 gauge balls produces 100 rounds of ammo. 32 to the pound it makes 160 rounds. 50 rounds of 20 (or worse 16) to the pound balls is a lot heavier the 50 rounds of 32 or 40 to the pound. AND to get decent trajectories for the longer ranges in the west the larger bores take more powder. It takes 140 gr of FF Swiss to get a one ounce ball to 1600-1650 fps from my 30" barreled rifle. 50 caliber will do it on about 65 gr maybe less of fff. But 75-90 will make it shoot flat for deer to 130 yards or a tad farther. 90-100 in a 54 same thing.
A deer shot in the lungs, or a buffalo or an elk, will die shot with the 50-54-62 or .67. So why pack the extra powder and lead? The typical western rifle of 1830 would kill large game to about 200 yards in the hands of someone who knew how to use it. So the larger ball sizes simply were not used. Think this is a long shot? A friend who has shot and hunted with an original S Hawken rifle that was actually used "back in the day" states that it appears to be sighted for about 180 yards.
I had mentioned to him that this certain rifle had a pretty high rear sight and a low front sight and appeared by this evidence to have a long range zero. He then told me that the gun had been in his possession at one time and it was sighted so high that shooting at a deers heart at about 80 yards broke its back and this and some other shooting indicated what would be a very long range zero by modern standards.
The frontier rifleman was generally a minimalist. He was not out there to prove anything he was interested in feeding and protecting himself and doing it without having to use a packhorse just to carry the lead he was going to shoot.
HOWEVER. William Drummond Stewart claimed that his 20 more Manton killed more game on less powder and lead at the 1833(?) Rendezvous than the smaller American rifles. But maybe he was less bleary eyed than some of the trappers were??
I have hunted with rifles using .495, .535, .570 and .662 Rbs. There is a step up from the 40 to the pound .495 to the 32 to the pound 535. Not so much going to the 570 and a BIG step up going to the 16 to the pound .662 ball. BUT...
I have shot deer with the .662 making a huge hole where the heart was and the deer still ran 55 yards. If you shot a deer with the 50 and it ran about the same distance would you see any point in using the 437 gr ball in place of the 180 grain ball?
Now if shooting elk or moose or buffalo or dangerous game the .662 is a much more effective killer. When running around in "occupied Gbear habitat" its kinda nice to have. But I have and likely still will use the 50 in the same areas.
If you hunt in the east and have worries about tracking or the game getting on the wrong side of the fence then use a bigger ball. But for the HC standpoint eastern rifles over 50 caliber AS MADE were not all that common. In the west early 50 was likely pretty common, 44s to 50s were a good all around usable caliber for the time and place. But most Colonial guns have been recut. But eventually it seems the 54 became as standard as one could expect at the time. Oh yes it was the caliber for military rifles from 1803 till about 1855 so it really was the "30-06" of its time.
Bronze. I remember reading in a book published by Congress on the conduct of the war (Civil War) that the only cannon with no failure rate was the bronze guns. I think the wrought iron rifles were pretty good too. The cast iron guns were pretty scary as were some of the large naval guns. They never did get this completely resolved in ML guns. Good bronze of the
right alloy has been in use for ship and land artillery for a long time, but its a budget buster cost wise.
I would not want a bronze barrel on a rifle though.
Dan
The 1803 Harpers Ferry rifle was a .54.
