.50 cal vs .54 cal

[rodwha]

Your information cited as a foundation is basically erroneous. Your 1450 fps for the REAL is not going to happen over 70 grains of any BP or BP sub. I'm pretty sure you have not chronographed any of the loads cited.

And even if the velocity is a bit inflated, which I don’t think so, it still shows that the REAL doesn’t have a more rainbow-like trajectory over the ball, which was the whole point, right?

 

[rodwha]

Here you can see Hodgdon’s data with 2F being the first two columns. Using the 80 charge and rounding up from the 350 grn Maxi from 1422 to 1450 fps due to the weight difference:



So according to the guys that make the powder it’s likely pretty close I’d say. Do you have printed date that shows otherwise?

 

[Bad Karma]

I’m a fan of bigger holes from bp firearms and I can shoot it well so I’d choose my .54 every time. (Perhaps not this season, I’ve got a new .58 I’m working with...) That being said, recoil from a bullet over 80 or 90 grains of powder is stout and you should shoot the rifle a lot with those loads before you hunt with it. The .50 is easier on your body for a similar heavy load which in turn promotes better field accuracy for most shooters.

 

[longcruise]

I have done considerable Chrono work with .50 call. One 28" TC and the other a 24" traditions .50. only balls out of the traditions. The traditions rb hit 1475 fps with 80 grains of Scheutzen 3f. I checked that carefully because it seemed so slow and it checked out.

The TC loaded with 80 grains of goex 2f under a 370 grain maxi hit 1215 fps.

While I have learned that all these ml guns have their own individual rules, the Hornady Data is very unlikely. Especially out of a 24" barrel.

I do have some chrono records but not for the conicals. That stuff is several computer crashes behind me.

I would run out to the range and do some additional testing but it's too cold for me and the chrony!

 

[rodwha]

Here you can see Hodgdon’s data with 2F being the first two columns. Using the 80 charge and rounding up from the 350 grn Maxi from 1422 to 1450 fps due to the weight difference:



So according to the guys that make the powder it’s likely pretty close I’d

I have done considerable Chrono work with .50 call. One 28" TC and the other a 24" traditions .50. only balls out of the traditions. The traditions rb hit 1475 fps with 80 grains of Scheutzen 3f. I checked that carefully because it seemed so slow and it checked out.

The TC loaded with 80 grains of goex 2f under a 370 grain maxi hit 1215 fps.

While I have learned that all these ml guns have their own individual rules, the Hornady Data is very unlikely. Especially out of a 24" barrel.

I do have some chrono records but not for the conicals. That stuff is several computer crashes behind me.

I would run out to the range and do some additional testing but it's too cold for me and the chrony!

No doubt, especially if you’re up north.

Schutzen and standard Goex don’t come close to the performance of Swiss, Olde Eynsford by Goex, or Triple 7. They are easily several hundred fps slower with the same powder charge, even in a pistol. Here’s chronographed tests of various powders using a ball and a NMA:





As you can see, and why I only want an energetic powder for my handguns (and rifle) since they are hunting tools as well, Swiss, Olde E, and T7 our perform and will likely produce the published results shown by Hodgdon. Also note that both Swiss and Olde E tend to run a little faster and with a lower deviation. Schutzen, standard Goex, and just about every other powder just can’t compete by volume (and also have a thicker fouling it seems).

Grafs is rebranded Schutzen by the way. So this is apples to apples.

 

[rodwha]

Here’s Mr Beliveau doing a test with Rugers with both standard Goex and Triple 7, which he reduces by ~15%, which isn’t necessary, nor is the light compression he uses on loading, which is only for cartridge loading purposes. As you can see even with a 15% reduction in powder T7 smokes Goex, and Swiss and Olde E are slightly faster than that.



So 1450 fps is indeed possible from a 24” barrel and about 70 grns of 3F with that 320 grn REAL. Of course I’d like to chronograph this for myself one day when I A) work up an accurate load with a ball and my 250 and 320 grn REALs, and B) when Santa brings me a chronograph.

I’d be skeptical if Schutzen could achieve 1450 fps with 100 grns, especially from a 24” barrel, but maybe.

 

[RHensley]

Pigs in a pin with a mouth full of corn has nothing to do with elk. If you’re set on conicals the 50 gives the best paper ballistics, the 54 works best with round ball but you have dismissed that. Muzzle loader hunting is different then high power and trying to make a old timey rifle perform like an 7 mag isn’t going to give you the satisfaction of either.

What I was trying to get at is in my opinion caliber to a point don't matter. When our old smoke poles were in use the hunter did his or her job so the rifle could do it's. I don't think in those days they too many 300 yard shots at Elk. I believe they got as close as they could and tried to put one in the brain pan. They probably used the antlers for one thing or another and eat as much of the meat as they could. then used the hide in anyway they could. You are right I don't believe the animal was in a pin with a mouth ful of corn but I do believe they were taken at a close range and at 50 yards or so my 45 round ball in the head should do the same job as a 54 through the ribs. Also most of the rifles of that time here in Tn was between 32 and 50 caliber. Or at least the ones I've seen were. People were poor and lead was high then you have to contend with carrying the weapon up and down hill and holler. Out west they may have used horse and mules but a lot of the long hunters were mostly on foot again from what I've read. These days when we get in the truck and drive (four wheeler) to within 100 yards of where we hunt the weight really doesn't matter. I have 45-50-54 caliber rifles not because I really need them but like them. Each to his or her own. When it boils down to it what matters is having fun doing what we like. Enjoy

 

[necchi]

I agree with you somewhat rodwah,, but all that paper data and U-tube evidence done by others is pretty much hooey when each individuals ability to replicate the exact circumstances of either the written or viewed content is far-far from the reality that many seek when it's applied to in the back 40.
All of a sudden things seem "different(?)"

The we get;
"I tried this,, Why didn't it work?"

Get the 54,, and be done with it.
Besides, a 54 punches a hole bigger then a 1/2"!

 

[Blind Dog]

Well Mavrick, if I were going to build a gun with fast twist for shooting conical bullets I would not go with either of those calibers. I would go with .45 caliber with a 1:30 twist.

I say that because I have a .45 caliber 1:30 twist Green Mountain barrel on a TC Renegade stock that shoots pretty well with 465 grain and 350 grain conicals.

Not a bad idea except in Colorado 45, even with a conical, isn’t legal for elk. Not that I agree with the rule but it’s there.

 

[FishDFly]

"What I was trying to get at is in my opinion caliber to a point don't matter"

Okay, why did you post????

 

[rodwha]

I agree with you somewhat rodwah,, but all that paper data and U-tube evidence done by others is pretty much hooey when each individuals ability to replicate the exact circumstances of either the written or viewed content is far-far from the reality that many seek when it's applied to in the back 40.
All of a sudden things seem "different(?)"

The we get;
"I tried this,, Why didn't it work?"

Get the 54,, and be done with it.
Besides, a 54 punches a hole bigger then a 1/2"!

IdahoRon might disagree strongly. And though I get your point and don’t disagree that we can’t necessarily replicate exactly what can be found by others, that isn’t to say it’s all hooey and doesn’t apply. Shooting at a range and shooting in the field can be very different but it can also be rather similar all depending on how you hunt. And ballistics are exactly that with a bit of tolerance. But every rifle is an individual just as every person is so nothing can be exact really. It’s like I’ve been told, chronograph your shot once and you know what it’s doing. Do it a second and third time and you’ll never be certain. Same could apply to shooting a target. One shot and you know where it’s hitting shoot a couple more and now at best all we can do is figure it will strike somewhere around here.

Regardless my point was about the rainbow trajectory.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I'm not going to double check your numbers because, I believe encouraging hunting at long ranges with a muzzle loader, rb or bullet, is not doing anyone a good service.

 

[tenngun]

I agree. Ml is a close range gun. We want to think of it as a lower power rifle, when we should think archery on steroids.

 

[rodwha]

I'm not going to double check your numbers because, I believe encouraging hunting at long ranges with a muzzle loader, rb or bullet, is not doing anyone a good service.

150 yds is hardly long range concerning conicals.

Denying truth isn’t doing anyone any service either though.

 

[rodwha]

I agree. Ml is a close range gun. We want to think of it as a lower power rifle, when we should think archery on steroids.

I don’t know of anyone who would consider a .50 cal with a 320 grn conical pushed by 70 grns of (energetic) powder as a low power round.

 

[tenngun]

Not lower power, close range the ‘lower power’ related to comparisons to modren rifles.

 

[Zonie]

"What I was trying to get at is in my opinion caliber to a point don't matter"

Okay, why did you post????

RHensley's post was saying if hunting methods similar to what was done 150 years ago were used, the caliber of the gun isn't very important.

That said, I don't think the way people word their thoughts on the forum should be questioned unless the person asking the question really wants other persons post clarified.

 

[hanshi]

I don't want to get caught up in this controversy, but here's my take on things. Hunting with a muzzleloader is a rather close range sport. Just for an explanation I'll say 100 (+or -) yards for myself; I've taken a couple of deer at that range. The whole idea is to take game as humanly as possible and that usually requires getting close. In battle, a wound is as good or better than a kill. In that case it puts a soldier out of commision and requires at least one other to attend to him. Any hunter can certainly take game the way they prefer, and that's their right. But even with these long shots, the distance should still be the closest possible range the hunter was able to get.

 

[Rattus58]

i am sure this has been debated to death but i need to buy a rifle and i want only one rifle and i want the right one from the start.

which is a better killer on targets as big as elk, 50 cal or .54 cal?

which can achieve greater speeds and which has greater kenetic impact energy?

what i want is a nice curly maple hawken but with modern twist riffling for conical bullets and to top it off i want it to be a flint lock. no modern pellet powder but traditional swiss powder.

help me on this please.

Don't know about how this has gotten debaited… but I do know that for me, the two best calibers are .45 and .580. If you were to buy just one rifle and you are thinking of round ball, I'd have to say the .54 only because you can get better long range trajectory with the .54 versus the .58. If you're like me and keep all shots within 100 yards (for me usually around 50) then my absolute choice is the .58. It can't be beat for thump, penetration (with a bigger hole left behind) on deer kine game and is much more sure for hunting. However, it is run out of steam quickly past 100 yards in my opinion compared to the .54... which is a lesser ball, but much more capable to reach further out to as much as 150 yards... (not for me... but I've heard the stories... and it does have the capability on paper).

For all around shooting, it's hard to beat the .40's for versatility in round ball twists but if you've a fast twist (1-16-1-22) the .45's give you range in caliber weights from 200 to over 500 and accuracy to go with it. 50's and sabots are versatile as well... ceptn you'll never see me with plastic in any barrel of mine... personal choices and all that...

Given the information you've provided so far, I'd go with .54.

 

[Rattus58]

Well Mavrick, if I were going to build a gun with fast twist for shooting conical bullets I would not go with either of those calibers. I would go with .45 caliber with a 1:30 twist.

I say that because I have a .45 caliber 1:30 twist Green Mountain barrel on a TC Renegade stock that shoots pretty well with 465 grain and 350 grain conicals.

I have a volunteer with 1-20 twist .451 barrel, a number of whites also with .451 bores and with just about any bullet from .450 to .458 in pure lead are very stable and accurate. 1-30 twist is an interesting twist for a bullet designed for 1-16 to 1-22 twists, but it's working for you seems... though you are using much lighter bullets than I'm shooting (470 to 550). I make my own wads soaked in beeswax and Crisco.

Aloha...