.50 cal vs .54 cal

[tenngun]

In the early seventeenth century boys were competing with smoothies at over two hundred yards, and rifles were shot at three in competition.
Jagar rifles often came with folding leaf rear sights and were sighted for three hundred yard. Hunting in the alps or the mountains of Transalvania with vistas not unlike the Rockies. And hunting was done at long ranges. Many of these rifles were in that same old .54-62 range we see plains guns in.
Ball can and does kill at long range, though in Transalvania you have to use silver.
Historicly long range was done, however IMHO ml should not be pushed much beyond a hundred or maybe a hundredfifty, preferably closer.

 

[rodwha]

In the early seventeenth century boys were competing with smoothies at over two hundred yards, and rifles were shot at three in competition.
Jagar rifles often came with folding leaf rear sights and were sighted for three hundred yard. Hunting in the alps or the mountains of Transalvania with vistas not unlike the Rockies. And hunting was done at long ranges. Many of these rifles were in that same old .54-62 range we see plains guns in.
Ball can and does kill at long range, though in Transalvania you have to use silver.
Historicly long range was done, however IMHO ml should not be pushed much beyond a hundred or maybe a hundredfifty, preferably closer.

Certainly it all depends on the person, the rifle, and the conditions. But a conical, without optics, can most certainly be good to 150 yds using just point blank shooting on something large like an elk, though it was certainly within whitetail too. That’s assuming the shooter can shoot, an accurate load was found, and the rifle can handle it down range and provide an accurate enough group, which isn’t or shouldn’t be only when the stars align. 150 yds isn’t long range here.

Again, my point was that it’s a fallacy to claim a conical has a more rainbow trajectory, which seems to be smoothed over.

Quite frankly I’d i had a once in a lifetime elk hunt I wouldn’t want to constrain myself to 50 yds as some of these, “you’re not hunting until you can smell his pooh” types. That’s great for some of you, but it’s not an end al be all or you suck proposition. And that’s the problem here with some of the people and their position.

Where I’ve mostly hunted it’s private land and there are blinds you MUST sit in. You have an area. To walk around envites issues with those hunting around you, whether you’re disturbing them or putting yourself at risk. Not everyone has to hunt under the same conditions.

It truly blows my mind that there are so many who’d pooh all over you for hunting beyond 75 yds or not using a patched ball. It’s, quite frankly, piss poor in my book. But I’d not pooh on anyone who feels this is hunting for them, and I’ve felt, because of the majority of people here with what they’ve shown, that a ball isn’t more exciting, and I completely intend on trying this for the most part. Regardless, the disdain for any other way is ridiculous and petty.

 

[Sinner]

I won't get into the debate, just give my preference. I like the .54 over the .50. Why? bigger, heavier projectile. I use fffg black powder @ 90-110 grains.

 

[fleener]

I would need to go looking at my book, but I am thinking that at 150 yards with a conicial it is not at point blank shooting for hunting. Working from memory I think my .50 cal conical has more than a 18" drop from 100 to 200 yards.

I do hunt and have shot 30-50 deer with a conical out of a ML, and I do take longer shot than most hear would. I honestly cant remember how many years it has been since I have lost an animal. I think I can honestly state that I have never lost one shot with a conical .45, .50 or .54.

Fleener

 

[atllaw]

Once upon a time, when I used to sit in a deer stand from before sun up 'till after sundown, I designed my "perfect" hunting rifle in my mind. This was probably instigated by my trying to maneuver my 42 inch barreled Southern Mountain Rifle in my "facing the tree" stand...

Anyway, at that time I decided on a shorter .54 cal barrel with a fast twist to shoot those pretty Buffalo Bore bullets.

Time marches on and, while the basic premise of my "ideal" rifle hasn't changed much, (I've never got around to building it BTW) the barrel particulars have. Suffice it to say that, since I'll probably never hunt anything but our Jawja deer anymore, I'd go with a .54 roundball rifle.

If I did want to build a rifle for shooting conicals, it would be a .45 cal. But a .50 is good also!

 

[tenngun]

I won't get into the debate, just give my preference. I like the .54 over the .50. Why? bigger, heavier projectile. I use fffg black powder @ 90-110 grains.

Certainly it all depends on the person, the rifle, and the conditions. But a conical, without optics, can most certainly be good to 150 yds using just point blank shooting on something large like an elk, though it was certainly within whitetail too. That’s assuming the shooter can shoot, an accurate load was found, and the rifle can handle it down range and provide an accurate enough group, which isn’t or shouldn’t be only when the stars align. 150 yds isn’t long range here.

Again, my point was that it’s a fallacy to claim a conical has a more rainbow trajectory, which seems to be smoothed over.

Quite frankly I’d i had a once in a lifetime elk hunt I wouldn’t want to constrain myself to 50 yds as some of these, “you’re not hunting until you can smell his pooh” types. That’s great for some of you, but it’s not an end al be all or you suck proposition. And that’s the problem here with some of the people and their position.

Where I’ve mostly hunted it’s private land and there are blinds you MUST sit in. You have an area. To walk around envites issues with those hunting around you, whether you’re disturbing them or putting yourself at risk. Not everyone has to hunt under the same conditions.

It truly blows my mind that there are so many who’d pooh all over you for hunting beyond 75 yds or not using a patched ball. It’s, quite frankly, piss poor in my book. But I’d not pooh on anyone who feels this is hunting for them, and I’ve felt, because of the majority of people here with what they’ve shown, that a ball isn’t more exciting, and I completely intend on trying this for the most part. Regardless, the disdain for any other way is ridiculous and petty.

with very long range modren guns folks are taking shots at the best part of a mile. Last deer I took I was in the top of a wind fallen tree on the ground at about twenty yards. In both cases the deer didn’t know a hunter could get them. I don’t think one is ‘hunting’ and one isn’t, I don’t think one takes more skill.
I won’t urinate in anyone’s cornflakes who legally hunts.
I do THINK that traditional ml, even if much modren tech is used, is a limited gun.
Long bows killed people at three hundred yards. A man and a deer die from about the same energy. It takes a little more on the ball (pun intended) to kill an elk or moose, buff or bear. I don’t think to many long bow shooters hunt at three hundred yards.
A person who knows their gun and shooting ability and has tested out the load may push their guns far beyound what I would.
Not that it matters much for me personally as I’m shooting smoothies. A .62 ball has more then enough umph to kill a deer at three hundred yards, I sure wouldn’t try to shoot beyond fifty.

 

[rodwha]

I would need to go looking at my book, but I am thinking that at 150 yards with a conicial it is not at point blank shooting for hunting. Working from memory I think my .50 cal conical has more than a 18" drop from 100 to 200 yards.

I do hunt and have shot 30-50 deer with a conical out of a ML, and I do take longer shot than most hear would. I honestly cant remember how many years it has been since I have lost an animal. I think I can honestly state that I have never lost one shot with a conical .45, .50 or .54.

Fleener

According to the ballistics calculator’s numbers that I posted it is quite well within the point blank system for shooting to 150 yds. See a few posts back...

 

[30coupe]

Apparently the OP is not nearly as interested as all the folks who have given their input on this topic. Three posts total, and the last one was the start of this thread on Sunday. While there have certainly been some interesting points made, it seems they may be all for naught.

 

[Idaho Ron]

The best killer is the shot that is placed properly. So far, no one has mentioned trajectory. With a big, heavy bullet you are gaining nothing that will help you in a hunt. At ranges much beyond 100 yards the rainbow trajectory of your big heavy bullet means it will be almost falling down towards the target instead of at it. Unless you have precise knowledge of the range of the target and similarly precise knowledge of where that bullet is going at that exact distance you will overshoot or undershoot every time. I believe your imagination is carrying you into a realm that will make your dream hunting rifle a nitemare. I suggest you get your rifle in a .54 or .58 designed for patched round balls and enjoy.

I will say to you again. You obviously have NO experience in this. Do you honestly think that the bullet is falling on the animal instead of hitting it square on? Really? You honestly think that? I am kind of stunned that someone would actually think that. If you spent a minute with me and any one of my rifles you would see that the bullets don't fall on the game.
I am sure you believe that big bullets have no advantage, but you are 100% wrong again.

 

[Idaho Ron]

Nope. I don’t own a chronograph. But I used Hodgdon’s 2F Triple 7 data for the 350 grn Maxi and 80 grns, with the reduction general rule this should be rather close as I use both 3F Triple 7 and Olde Eynsford, which typically runs a bit faster than T7. So I’d say 1450 fps is not erroneous at all, especially considering the REAL is 30 grns lighter. If it’s off the mark a bit it’s probably a little faster. Maybe you’re right and I shouldn’t have been conservative with that number. Oh, and their data is with a 24” barrel so it could also be faster if the chosen rifle has a more typical 28-36” barrel.

I do have a Chronograph. An Ohler 35. With a 385 gr Hornady with 90 gr of Pyrodex P I get 1500 FPS. With a 460 gr bullet using 80 gr of Pyrodex P I get 1310.
Your 1450 is not out of the question at all.

 

[Idaho Ron]

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.

You're right. My paper patched loads have been replicated many times by many different rifles.

 

[rodwha]

And certainly wasn’t out of the question for Hodgdon’s that posted the velocities rather similar using similar weight conicals and bullets.

 

[Rattus58]

I will say to you again. You obviously have NO experience in this. Do you honestly think that the bullet is falling on the animal instead of hitting it square on? Really? You honestly think that? I am kind of stunned that someone would actually think that. If you spent a minute with me and any one of my rifles you would see that the bullets don't fall on the game.
I am sure you believe that big bullets have no advantage, but you are 100% wrong again.

While I don't disagree with his .54 or particularly .58 caliber suggestion, I've had the opportunity to listen to many assumptions about muzzleloaders and most of them seem to rely on a lot of theory and hype from some quarters... yet on one level, some of these points are quite accurate... only for some shots, you could insert feet in place of inches... and what I think most seem to neglect, is that rifles such as the rigby, whitworth, henry and his experiments... were putting the point of aim almost dead center to the target... the queen in fact placing a presighted shot just off center firing it off with the pull of a silk cord... 400 yards away with most likely a 530 grain bullet almost 160 years ago...

Point blank range... a measure important to one not familiar with the practiced benefits of one's own gun...

 

[crankshaft]

Did I read somewhere Hawkens were sighted at 125 yrs. ?
With prb for large game a shooter would be expected to take shots at 200 yds.?

 

[azmntman]

I could certifiably fill more tags if I had the time to work up loads like IdahoRon but I dont. Here in AZ my cf friends often kill they're bulls at 400+ yds. I use production side locks and do well, when I retire (LOLOLOL) I will be working on a lot more BP stuff when not at the pond catching catfish and drinking cold beer.

The 2 180 yd kills I made were pure luck. The bull was hit HARD low in the shoulder and went just 30 yds so I can verify these BP rifles do a great job way on out. That was a .54 with a hornady conical. I guessed and aimed 3 feet over him and WHACK. I will not do it again. Too old to track n other excuses besides ethics (meaning I am not currently capable of the shot). You that are capable keep it up!