Compare .50 cal and .54 cal to rifle cartridge's

[Dstoltz]

Trying to decide between .50 cal and .54 cal for Eastern Whitetails for probably next year. Every time i search threads it seems its always bigger is better/bigger they only take a few steps followed by someone saying it all depends on placement and either is completely fine. Could someone compare them to modern rifles cartridge's. example being would the .50 cal be like the .243 of rifles or would it be more in the midsize .270 range and then is the .54 the 300win mag or more of a .308.

i know powder charge/size makes the difference but didn't know if there is an easy comparison like that. Again its tying to compare not saying a .50 cal flintlock is equal to a .243 or 6.5 in power just comparing them.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Wow. I didn't know one can determine how far a deer runs once hit by the size of cartridge! Learn something every day

 

[Dstoltz]

just relaying what i have seen people post in the .50 cal vs .54 cal posts on here and yes its quiet comical but that pops up more than anything that would be helpful. Thats why i'm asking for the comparison to modern rifles on that spectrum to help understand the difference in them.

 

[Britsmoothy]

In all honesty I don't think any muzzleloader compares to a high pressure and high velocity modern rifle at all. They work very differently.

 

[tenngun]

It’s real hard. I recall a magizine on hunting back in the ‘70s that compared a .50 to a 30/30.
Your cutting a bigger hole, but much slower, so the hydraulic shock isn’t there. Soft lead deforms easily and delivers a lot of energy to the target that a modern bullet keeps on exiting.
I’ve killed elk , antalope and deer with ml. The secret is good shots at close range. Think of ml as archery on steroids.
Some boys in open country in the west take longer shots then I would, but all and all most keep long shots in the hundred yard range, and closer as often as one can.

 

[appalichian hunter]

No comparison at all, they are a bird of their own feather. Do not expect ballistic comparisons to be the same. Where you get the bigger cal. in a muzzle loading rifle equals bigger hole larger ball expansion depending on the caliber and softness of lead used to cast the ball or bullet which ever you use. Bigger ball equals bigger hole more blood lost and more bone and tissue damage, I personally like the bigger bores but have also taken a few deer with a 45 and 50 cal. rifle. Accuracy will trump ball size any day, had them drop right in their tracks and trailed a few over the years.

 

[Dstoltz]

yes i understand that. I am not looking for ballistics and other statistics as the comparison. I'm saying for deer rifles for the sake of this say the .243 is the smallest you would go for deer and the 300 win mag (overkill in my opinion but hundreds of people use them for just dropping deer) being the highest. What would the .50 and .54 compare. i ask because i see people talk about the .54 in the same 300win mag guys talk about it.
More or less is the .50 more of the .243 or is it in the .270 range. Or in different words is the .50 a caliber that will get it done with the right shot but the lowest you would go for deer or is it more of a midsized caliber

 

[Britsmoothy]

I think your over thinking it and would recommend a rifle that fits you good irrespective of the bore.

 

[Dstoltz]

It’s real hard. I recall a magizine on hunting back in the ‘70s that compared a .50 to a 30/30.
Your cutting a bigger hole, but much slower, so the hydraulic shock isn’t there. Soft lead deforms easily and delivers a lot of energy to the target that a modern bullet keeps on exiting.
I’ve killed elk , antalope and deer with ml. The secret is good shots at close range. Think of ml as archery on steroids.
Some boys in open country in the west take longer shots then I would, but all and all most keep long shots in the hundred yard range, and closer as often as one can.

thanks for at least taking a shot at it. And yeah i definitely get the shorter range and all that i've been hunting with a longbow and extremely heavy arrows the last three years so i basically equate that flintlocks.

 

[Dstoltz]

I think your over thinking it and would recommend a rifle that fits you good irrespective of the bore.

i was just curious as to how people would compare because past threads on this in the grand scheme of things don't offer a ton of useful information. Most are just bigger is better so if someone came out and gave new or different information than those past threads it could help someone new trying to find out the same thing. As opposed to .54 is the only way because its bigger when it might be on the higher end of what you would need for deer aka a magnum cartridge.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Well now. I never did believe " bigger is better " syndrome.
It's just bigger and usually more expensive!

 

[MIOutdoorsman]

From my reading, it seems that the .45 PRB is about as small as guys tend to use for deer, though I wouldn't go that small. I shoot a .54 and both of my brothers do now too, though they've both carried .50's in the woods as well, and taken deer with them. I only own one flintlock currently and I chose the .54 for reasons described above... larger hole, more blood potential, maybe a little more knock-down power. I limit my shots to within about 50 yards, and I think I would be just as lethal with a .50 at that range, but I do kinda like the extra "umph" that the .54 affords. There are larger calibers in muzzleloaders too, but I think .54 is about the sweet spot personally.

 

[Walkingeagle]

Although there is no way to actually compare anything, but just to play the game, let’s try this...
The .50 is a .30-30
The .54 is a .38-55
The .58-.62 is a .45-70
All have their limits, all will take a deer cleanly within respective ranges, all come with more weight and more recoil.
So, does it make any difference?
Walk

 

[tenngun]

More lead means more inertia.
Ball is a crappy projectile, when it goes supersonic it dumps velocity at an alarming rate.
A .50 weighed about 180 grains, a 54 about 220. Those forty grains help maintain the original velocity a little longer. So it can give a touch more umph at range.
Most early plains guns cr 1825 were in the .50 range, by ten years later about .54 became more common. They shot longer range on bigger game, but a .54 turns out two shots to an ounce of lead and I’ve often wondered if it was just accounting
White tail and Blacktail are not usually real big and a .50 or even .45 are great in most wooded ranges. A mule deer that can run bigger and shot at longer range might be a little better served with the extra energy at range of a .54
90% of the discussion is ‘the gun I use’.

 

[Nameless Hunter]

It really is an apples vs oranges comparison.
Maybe using the Taylor Knock Out calculator might shed some light on your question.
https://www.n4lcd.com/calc/
Punch in the muzzle data for your favorite modern cartridge.
Then enter the data for a .49 diameter round ball and a .53 diameter round ball.
I would suggest using 1900 fps for a .50 and 1700 fps for a .54 (just as a starting point).
The results are a bit surprising, and go against the assumptions of a lot of gun hunters who shoot "modern" cartridge rifles.

 

[mooman76]

A 30-30 takes more deer every year than any other cartridge. If you do your part the 50 is plenty big for deer. If you think you may have to take a shot at over 100y I'd go with the 54 or if you think some day you may need to go for elk or other large critters.

 

[Nuthatch]

I haven't taken anything with a muzzleloader yet. So take anything I have to say with that in-mind. But it seems more appropriate to compare muzzleloaders and centerfire handguns than to modern CF rifles. CF rifles kill by velocity. This is why a .223 is such a devastating little round for its size. But handguns punch holes, much like muzzleloaders, as I understand things. Neither really brings much velocity to the table. So perhaps we should be asking what muzzleloading calibers compare with various CF handgun cartridges.

 

[FishnRod]

Trying to decide between .50 cal and .54 cal for Eastern Whitetails for probably next year. Every time i search threads it seems its always bigger is better/bigger they only take a few steps followed by someone saying it all depends on placement and either is completely fine. Could someone compare them to modern rifles cartridge's. example being would the .50 cal be like the .243 of rifles or would it be more in the midsize .270 range and then is the .54 the 300win mag or more of a .308.

i know powder charge/size makes the difference but didn't know if there is an easy comparison like that. Again its tying to compare not saying a .50 cal flintlock is equal to a .243 or 6.5 in power just comparing them.

For me at least, it came down to what projectile I wanted to shoot. I also wanted to be able to shoot both deer and elk with the same rifle.
If you are going to shoot bullets, there is not a lot of advantage in going to 54 caliber (imho). In fact, the 50 may even have the advantage with the sheer number of different bullet weights available.
If you decide to shoot roundball, there is only one way to get a bigger bullet, that is with a bigger caliber.
I decided on the 54 caliber roundball. It works for elk, and zips thru most blacktail deer without causing undue meat damage.

 

[Zonie]

I posted this years ago and it is somewhat based on the Taylor Knock Out formula. In any case, I think it is still relevent to todays question.
---------------------


I don't recall who it was, but a long time ago someone came up with a formula for killing power which boiled down to Velocity X bullet weight X Caliber/100. This really is type of Momentum X Bullet Diameter/100. The answer is not in any real units, it is just for a comparison.
I think the originator used a unit called KP for killing power and the reason he came up with the formula was because he felt the Foot/Lb Formula placed too much emphasis on velocity (which is squared in those calculations). (for a close approximation the formula for Muzzle Energy in Foot Pounds is Velocity X Velocity X bullet weight in grains /450000.)

If I apply the KP formula with a .50 Caliber, 185 grain PRB at 1700 FPS
it works out to be .490 X 185 X 1700 /100 = 1416.1

for a .54 caliber 230 grain PRB at 1600 FPS we have
.53 X 230 X 1600 / 100 = 1950.4

for a .30-30 with a 150 grain bullet at 2320 FPS we have
.30 X 150 X 2300 / 100 = 1035.0

for a .30-06 with a 180 grain bullet at 2740 FPS we have
.30 X 180 X 2740 / 100 = 1479.6

As to why the Army kept the old .45ACP we have
.45 X 230 X 900 /100 = 931.5

A 9MM Luger = 125 X .357 X 1145 / 100 = 510.9

You can see why his idea didn't catch on with the High Power Rifle Shooters but IMHO I think some of this idea helps explain why Black Powder guns are such effective hunting tools and why your deer went down like it was hit by a freight train.


PS: Using the modern formula for energy a .223 with a 50 grain slug traveling at 3200 FPS has a energy of around 1137 Ft/Lbs.

A .490 dia ball fired at a velocity of 1570 FPS has a energy of 969 Ft/Lbs. which says the .223 has more power and some modern folks would assume it has more killing power because of this.

Using the KP method, the above .223 has a KP value of 357 while the above .490 ball has a KP of 1362 which is a lot more in line with most folks observations.

zonie

 

[FishnRod]

I posted this years ago and it is somewhat based on the Taylor Knock Out formula. In any case, I think it is still relevent to todays question.
---------------------


I don't recall who it was, but a long time ago someone came up with a formula for killing power which boiled down to Velocity X bullet weight X Caliber/100. This really is type of Momentum X Bullet Diameter/100. The answer is not in any real units, it is just for a comparison.
I think the originator used a unit called KP for killing power and the reason he came up with the formula was because he felt the Foot/Lb Formula placed too much emphasis on velocity (which is squared in those calculations). (for a close approximation the formula for Muzzle Energy in Foot Pounds is Velocity X Velocity X bullet weight in grains /450000.)

If I apply the KP formula with a .50 Caliber, 185 grain PRB at 1700 FPS
it works out to be .490 X 185 X 1700 /100 = 1416.1

for a .54 caliber 230 grain PRB at 1600 FPS we have
.53 X 230 X 1600 / 100 = 1950.4

for a .30-30 with a 150 grain bullet at 2320 FPS we have
.30 X 150 X 2300 / 100 = 1035.0

for a .30-06 with a 180 grain bullet at 2740 FPS we have
.30 X 180 X 2740 / 100 = 1479.6

As to why the Army kept the old .45ACP we have
.45 X 230 X 900 /100 = 931.5

A 9MM Luger = 125 X .357 X 1145 / 100 = 510.9

You can see why his idea didn't catch on with the High Power Rifle Shooters but IMHO I think some of this idea helps explain why Black Powder guns are such effective hunting tools and why your deer went down like it was hit by a freight train.


PS: Using the modern formula for energy a .223 with a 50 grain slug traveling at 3200 FPS has a energy of around 1137 Ft/Lbs.

A .490 dia ball fired at a velocity of 1570 FPS has a energy of 969 Ft/Lbs. which says the .223 has more power and some modern folks would assume it has more killing power because of this.

Using the KP method, the above .223 has a KP value of 357 while the above .490 ball has a KP of 1362 which is a lot more in line with most folks observations.

zonie

Zonie
Love the KP formula.
Is this in the in the charts and useful info section? If not, it should be.