What Caliber

[nkbj]

Presuming 1" across the flats on a 38" long barrel, what caliber and rifling do you think would be the most consistently accurate with round ball?
Bigger the better? Or somewhere between 50 and 54?

 

[Josh Smith]

Man, that really depends on speed.

How fast can you drive a .54 caliber ball with a 1:72 twist?

You want to get the ball on target quickly before gravity can act on it much, and before wind can blow it much off course. The heavier the weight, the less it would be deflected by the patch, as well -- and unless it's perfectly centered, the patch will deflect it some... just a bit, not as you'd notice maybe, but in theory...

Actually, I think the whole thing would be theoretical unless you were talking about a perfect vacuum and no gravity. Then there may be some minuscule variables with which to deal.

Josh

 

[nkbj]

Josh, maybe you're thinking down the same trail I'm on. It would almost seem to be a question of what's the biggest that you can load heaviest in a 1" barrel because you can choose your rifling and adjust the patch / ball combination.
My 44" old Dixie .50 cal is a muzzleloading varminter. Flat, fast and accurate. Much larger in diameter and the available velocity falls off drastically while the ball also becomes less susceptible to being blown side ways. The more rainbow there is in the trajectory then the greater the point of impact shifts due to shot to shot variations. Trade offs back and forth, ying and yang. I've come to suspect the "best" is in there somewhere between .50 and .54. Been about forty years now of orbing critters and still don't know for sure.

 

[ebiggs1]

54

 

[David W.]

Presuming 1" across the flats on a 38" long barrel, what caliber and rifling do you think would be the most consistently accurate with round ball?
Bigger the better? Or somewhere between 50 and 54?

It depends on your intended purpose. For target, many like the .40. For hunting deer or larger game, the bigger the better.

Yes, I know there will be someone chiming in to say that their .40 is PLENTY enough for a humane kill on deer, but I disagree, even for close shots. It also depends on what minimum caliber your state allows, which throws personal opinions out the window anyway.

 

[BrownBear]

The differences I've seen appear to relate more to who made the barrel and how, and how it's been taken care of. The 40 is a popular # for target shooters because it hits a nice combo of ball weight, limited recoil, trajectory and velocity. But I don't think there's anything under the sun to make a 40 more "accurate" than a comparable 36 or 45.

For example I've got a 58 that will give most other calibers a run for their money. But it's got to be pushed along by 120 grains of 2f to reach that level of performance. I'm just not man enough to shoot 40 or 50 shots a day with it, and before long it's one of the most inaccurate guns on the planet. :rotf:

 

[jerrywh]

I don't think the caliber maker much difference. you just have to learn the gun you have. One thing you might consider is a small caliber will not do very good at long gong heavy targets. For example a 40 caliber will have a herd time nocking down a bear siloette at 150 yards or more. A 54 caliber will do good at most any range but you need to work on the load.

 

[Tom Compton]

I've used .40s and .50s for different hunting senarios and target shooting.

.40s are fine for paper to 100 yards if wind is minimal or consistent. Also good for hunting and small game to 50 yards or so. Saw a good .40 shooting 75 gr FF take down some 100 yard buffaloes but saw some just turn.

.50 is good all around. Had Douglas cut a 1" .50 with a 1/56 twist some years ago. The 1/66 twist I had been using needed at least 90 gr FF to get started to group good. Just a lot of powder, noise and abuse (to the folks on either side). Using 60 gr FF the 1/56 twist stabilized the .495 ball with the same RPS as the 1/66 with 90 gr.

Now starting to use .54 mostly for hunting but will be available to shoot shilouettes if I decide to.

If I were to have to have just one it would.be a .50.

 

[CrackStock]

I like what .40 Flint says for the most part, but will say that almost any caliber is capable of being made accurate with load work and attention to the process.

For a 38 inch barrel that is 1 inch across the flats, I would not want any bore size smaller than a .50cal. as it would be quite heavy to hold for any length of time.
(Larger caliber means more material removed to get that bore and translates to less barrel weight)

A .54 might be the ticket for those dimensions.

My friend Mike Nesbitt would likely lead you to a .52. He endorses that particular bore size as being under appreciated with great accuracy reputation.

I strongly suggest holding a rifle in your preferred configuration before buying - unless you rival Hercules in strength.

CS

 

[hanshi]

I agree, .54 is about right.

 

[Hamourkiller]

I have found the .58 caliber to have the best of all Roundball worlds. It has mass, it has a big diameter, and speed with a reasonable powder charge.

The 58 with 1x72 rifling is my go to roundball caliber.

I am not saying the 54 or 62 calibers are not great in their own right, they are. Just the 58 is better for my needs.

 

[rabjr]

.58!

 

[Bill Hall]

Like other have said, one caliber isn't technically more accurate than another, so here's something else to consider. A 1" x 38" barrel in .50 caliber will weigh about 6.65 pounds, versus the same size barrel in .58 will weigh about 5.88 pounds. If you plan on shooting offhand alot, that extra weight of the front-heavy .50 might could cause enough muscle fatigue to affect accuracy. Fit, balance, and weight have a big effect on accuracy. Bill

 

[Bill Hall]

Brown Bear, just curious, what barrel and twist do you have on that .58? I'm playing around with my GM 1:70 .58, and so far I haven't loaded more than 90 grains goex ffg. Accuracy is great, but I wonder what upping it a little will do. It's a light rifle, and a kicker at 90 grains, so I haven't ventured past that load for fear I might start flinching, or end up on my back :rotf: . Just wondering, Bill.

 

[rabjr]

You didn't ask me but I'm gonna tell ya anyway! :blah:

Mine .58 at 34" is 1-72 and weighs 7 lb 4 oz. Is deadly accurate with 90gr (3F)and I find it very managable, even in summer with a T-shirt on it never bothered me. Recoil does begin to become noticably bothersome at 100gr (3f). Accuracy has been the same as 90 gr but rougher on the arm so I see no reason to go above 90.

 

[MikeChapin]

Many target shooters prefer the .40. A 1" barrel that is 38" long would make for a very heavy rifle. If you are stout enough to hold it up for 20 or so shots it might be what you want.

I would prefer either a .54 or .58 in that size of barrel. The weight would still be a little heavy but it would hang well for offhand shooting. I have a .53 with a 1"x32" barrel that is my best shooter. It is my only rifle that I know where it shoots at 200 yards. It comes in at 9 1/2 pounds. It is no problem to shoot all day.

I also have a .58 Hawken that has a 1"x36" barrel. The rifle shoots better than I can. The weight comes in at 10 1/2 pounds. It can get a little heavy towards the end of the day and I really have to concentrate on not dropping the barrel.

 

[Ken Cormier]

I like 50 cal for a all around weapon. With a 36 cal for small game :2

 

[Pete Gaimari]

I like the .54.