.50 or .58? Mostly target, some hunting?

[tnlonghunter]

Yeah, I know.... This kind of question is really something hard to answer for someone else, but I haven't seen any threads that offer direct comparison between these two calibers. So here we go.... (Oh, and sorry in advance for the long read.)

I'm gonna be getting a kit in the next month or so. It will be a rifle, most likely in the general Lancaster school (a Haines or Dickert kit from someone most likely) or possibly "Virginia", though I'm well aware lots of the kits for these two schools are kinda generic. I'm not especially beholden to the PC/HC idea, though I tend to prefer the aesthetics of the 1750-1770s the best.

I'm debating between a .50 (probably a B weight barrel) and a .58. I (will soon) have a .54, so I'm not looking to double up on a caliber I already have. I will probably prefer a 38" barrel, though I would accept 42" if there is a convincing argument.

So, with all that said, here's what I plan to use the rifle for and where I could use some guidance (heck, even short sighted opinions are welcome ). I expect to mostly shoot off-hand targets at 50+ yards, but with an eye to longer shots (avg. 100 yards given common shooting ranges). I will do some deer hunting, though frequency will be much more heavily weighted to target shooting.

My thoughts about the pros and cons each caliber are as follows:

-.50 cal pros: lower average powder charge and ball weight (less recoil, cheaper), lighter to carry when hunting (maybe, depending on barrel profile).
-.50 cal cons: comparatively shorter effective range (this might not matter in the slightest at 100 yds for power, but what about ability to keep enough velocity to maintain tight groups?)

.58 cal pros: more kinetic energy and power should, in theory, make a better longer range rifle (a couple ranges near me have 200 to 500 yard steel gongs - could be fun to try).
.58 cal cons: more powder and lead per shot (more expensive and more recoil), heavier to carry (maybe, depending on barrel profile)

Last thoughts:
1. I've had a thing for the Free Born rifle (RCA #114) for a while, which I think is a .56 cal. I'm leaning in the direction of something approximating that, so a .58 would be closer.

2. I've never gotten the chance to shoot a .58, so this is all academic to me. My MMV

3. I shoot a .45-70 Sharps with a 525g bullet and 65g of 3f pretty routinely, so recoil and cost aren't huge turn-offs. But they should still be considered.

4. Whatever I choose, odds are I'll probably shoot no more than 200-300 shots per year.

 

[TNGhost]

If you were talking percussion and considering a rifled musket among your options, I would definitely say .58

As far as a flinter, its a tossup shooting-wise for what you plan to use it for, and the frequency with which you will shoot, and the choice would weigh more heavily on the aesthetics of the rifle and your personal tastes.

.50 is certainly more common with more information and data available, but the ,58 perhaps is more unique.

 

[mooman76]

I'd go with the 50. You are getting a 54 so you have a bigger gun for hunting covered but the 50 will do fine for deer if you do your part. 58 means more powder and lead each time you shoot. I have a 58 but also have most calibers between 32 and 58. Gets abit tedious after awhile.

 

[ord sgt]

Most of my M/L are .50 calibre flintlocks. Just a couple of them modern caplocks. Anyway, I have taken a whitetail deer with the .50. But lately, all of my shooting has been at paper targets. Seems like to me that .50 calibre is just right.

 

[Leadball loader]

The 58 will be shooting a ball in the area 57 cal and that will be close to historic calibers.
It will also be lighter in the barrel With the larger diameter bore. Would be real nice In flintlock.
That is a perfect mix in my mind.
LBL

 

[bang]

50

 

[Grenadier1758]

If you want to shoot at those long range targets in the 200 to 300 yard distances, be aware of the rainbow like trajectory of the 58. It would be easier to develop a long range target load for the 50 as opposed to the 58.

You didn't say what you intend to hunt. A 50, as has been previously mentioned, is effective on deer sized game at those distances of 50 to 125 yards.

Since you are only planning on shooting 200 to 300 rounds a year, the 50 would seem to be the better choice with less variation in ball weight and having the ability for a flat trajectory, accuracy on target would be better.

 

[oldwood]

If you're going for bear , the .58 would be adequate. For deer , .50 is flat shooting and very effective. The ball weight , 170+ gr. , gives enough power to shoot diagonally through a deer. Also , we used to shoot iron silhouettes offhand @ ranges up to 200 yds.. @ 200 there was a cub sized bear. The .50 would knock it down no matter where hit. 80 gr. fffg has little recoil in a fifty , and a light load in a .58 , employed to reduce recoil, might not be adequate for distant targets. My hunting partner of fifty years used a .58 custom rifle w/ Getz 42 " oct. to round barrel. My rifle was a 44" "C" wt.. Good thing we were young then, both rifles weighed in @ nine pounds. We went back to .50 cal. 38" straight barrels making our guns in the 5+ lb. range. Just my opinion... oldwood

 

[Treestalker]

I currently own a .58 Remington Contract Rifle (Zouave) that I cut down to 26" of barrel and re-crowned, using the military stock also cut down and refitted with a brass front sight I made from a factory underlug. It made the gun lighter up front so I can hold it ( I have arm paralysis issues) and at battle load, 60 gr 2f w/475 gr Minie (or PRB) its a cutie. If you jump up the powder charge, it goes from a butterbean to a pinto pretty fast. In a lighter rifle, I'm building a .50 cal short Virginia percussion from scratch parts. The barrel is 30" oct/round and with round ball, should be a dream to carry and shoot, even in my condition. I can hold it to my shoulder and steady it with one hand. The portly buttstock and wide plate should help with recoil. If I could only choose one, I would go with the .58, just to be different. Everybody has a .50 to sell you. Good luck in your choices, Geo.

 

[hanshi]

My .50 flintlock has a 38" barrel and is a featherweight. The .50 is a great all around caliber for both hunting AND targets. Truth be told, I actually prefer the .45 for both uses.

 

[tnlonghunter]

Lots of great info here. Thanks. With this rifle I'll be hunting whitetails, so I know they don't need a cannon ball. I'm not expecting to shoot them from more than 75-ish yards anyway. The longer range issue was more about ringing steel for fun. I don't have to make a choice right away, so keep the ideas coming.

 

[tenngun]

You say you have a .54 so your already ready to hunt any animal in North America.
in this case I would pick out the style you want and the caliber that fits it.
A SMR style would not fit a .58 well. A early American long rifle or American Jagaer style a .58 would fit well. An early plains rifle both calibers fit.
A Leman style plains gun might be a bit uncomfortable to shoot in a .58, but a early Virgina very comfortable. Chose your gun first.

 

[Capnball]

Yeah, I know.... This kind of question is really something hard to answer for someone else, but I haven't seen any threads that offer direct comparison between these two calibers. So here we go.... (Oh, and sorry in advance for the long read.)

I'm gonna be getting a kit in the next month or so. It will be a rifle, most likely in the general Lancaster school (a Haines or Dickert kit from someone most likely) or possibly "Virginia", though I'm well aware lots of the kits for these two schools are kinda generic. I'm not especially beholden to the PC/HC idea, though I tend to prefer the aesthetics of the 1750-1770s the best.

I'm debating between a .50 (probably a B weight barrel) and a .58. I (will soon) have a .54, so I'm not looking to double up on a caliber I already have. I will probably prefer a 38" barrel, though I would accept 42" if there is a convincing argument.

So, with all that said, here's what I plan to use the rifle for and where I could use some guidance (heck, even short sighted opinions are welcome ). I expect to mostly shoot off-hand targets at 50+ yards, but with an eye to longer shots (avg. 100 yards given common shooting ranges). I will do some deer hunting, though frequency will be much more heavily weighted to target shooting.

My thoughts about the pros and cons each caliber are as follows:

-.50 cal pros: lower average powder charge and ball weight (less recoil, cheaper), lighter to carry when hunting (maybe, depending on barrel profile).
-.50 cal cons: comparatively shorter effective range (this might not matter in the slightest at 100 yds for power, but what about ability to keep enough velocity to maintain tight groups?)

.58 cal pros: more kinetic energy and power should, in theory, make a better longer range rifle (a couple ranges near me have 200 to 500 yard steel gongs - could be fun to try).
.58 cal cons: more powder and lead per shot (more expensive and more recoil), heavier to carry (maybe, depending on barrel profile)

Last thoughts:
1. I've had a thing for the Free Born rifle (RCA #114) for a while, which I think is a .56 cal. I'm leaning in the direction of something approximating that, so a .58 would be closer.

2. I've never gotten the chance to shoot a .58, so this is all academic to me. My MMV

3. I shoot a .45-70 Sharps with a 525g bullet and 65g of 3f pretty routinely, so recoil and cost aren't huge turn-offs. But they should still be considered.

4. Whatever I choose, odds are I'll probably shoot no more than 200-300 shots per year.

I have both. I don't hunt but this is what I know about both calibers.
The .58 has got all kinds of knockdown power. If you're shooting minies when hunting then reside yourself to the fact you'll probably lose a quarter of your deer. Stick with round balls. I know it reduces your range but it also reduces the damage (a bit anyway) The worst thing I can say about .58 is availability. To get good quality ammo, I have to go to PA.
The .50? Gobbs of ammo choices available litterely everywhere. Better range than the .58, less collateral damage than the .58 just to name a couple things.
Neil

 

[AZbpBurner]

.50's are popular, and appeal to the 'stingier' shooter who claim they're cheaper to shoot. I have both .50 & .54, and cast all my own balls, so cost between the 2 is largely immaterial. If you worry about cost between the 2 calibers, you're likely either firing an insane quantity of PRB's every weekend or else not able to adequately afford the shooting sports & should take up knitting or orgami
Of the 2, I've found the .54 is easier to work up accurate loads for than my .50's and the powder weight range is more forgiving in the .54's. Both produce clean kills for deer, but for elk I always chose a .54.

For targets, .54 RB's are more spectacular when used against 100 yard grapefruit.

Having .54 rifles and .62 fusils, I've never really considered the .58 - just one more size to cast for.

 

[user 36911]

I'm always baffled why questions like this are asked. Personally, I make my own decisions.

 

[Bob McBride]

I’m a fan of the .58 for hunting but if you will be mostly target shooting (and you have the .54 already) I’d go with the .50. As mentioned above, a flatter trajectory will be nice on the range for different distances and .50’s can be found at most any hunting store. An informed decision is a good decision.

 

[tnlonghunter]

MtnMan, thanks. I'm sure that was helpful ... to someone. I am a completely new to the .58. That's why I asked the question.

Regarding cost - I simply tried to think through all the possible angles that might affect the choice. I would be casting balls anyway, so availability is not an issue, even if it's only a few hundred rounds a year. Clearly, that's of lesser importance in the grand scheme of things, especially in my case. The info offered by Oldwood, AZbpBurner, and CapnBall are especially helpful regarding the flight/ballistic characteristics of the two, so I'm leaning more toward the .50, but we'll see. Thanks y'all!

 

[user 36911]

MtnMan, thanks. I'm sure that was helpful ... to someone. I am a completely new to the .58. That's why I asked the question.

Regarding cost - I simply tried to think through all the possible angles that might affect the choice. I would be casting balls anyway, so availability is not an issue, even if it's only a few hundred rounds a year. Clearly, that's of lesser importance in the grand scheme of things, especially in my case. The info offered by Oldwood, AZbpBurner, and CapnBall are especially helpful regarding the flight/ballistic characteristics of the two, so I'm leaning more toward the .50, but we'll see. Thanks y'all!

You already have the perfect hunting caliber in the .54. Even if you were hunting for larger game. Since you hunt for deer you don't need a .58 for target shooting or hunting. A flatter shooting round will be more accurate for long range with primitive sights. Your choice shouldn't be between the .58 and .50. It should be for the .50 or .45. I'd pick the .45 for just target shooting.

Everybody will be more accurate with less recoil. No matter how well you think you handle recoil.

 

[tnlonghunter]

You already have the perfect hunting caliber in the .54. Even if you were hunting for larger game. Since you hunt for deer you don't need a .58 for target shooting or hunting. A flatter shooting round will be more accurate for long range with primitive sights. Your choice shouldn't be between the .58 and .50. It should be for the .50 or .45. I'd pick the .45 for just target shooting.

Everybody will be more accurate with less recoil. No matter how well you think you handle recoil.

Okay, that does make sense. Thanks!

 

[user 36911]

My gun is an Isaac Haines. It's a sweet shooting gun and has perfect balance for offhand shooting with the 38" swamped barrel. It would be a good choice.