.62 caliber info

those of you who have a .62 cal barrel can you fill me in on the benefits of a larger caliber. Do you sacrifice accuracy for knock down power.
ive read somewhere that larger calibers are not as affected by wind but lose velocity faster than the smaller ones...
Im just wondering if my desire to own a .62 caliber rifle is not the best plan... I would like to be able to get decent groups at 100 yards or more and i wonder if the caliber i really want wont be able to produce those types of results...
also wanting this larger caliber has limited me on the types of schools available in that caliber. So far ive found early virginia, christian springs, and jaeger...
I wonder if i should not limit myself by wanting to go big...
what are your guys thoughts on .62 caliber rifles? I really look forward to hearing your replys as they will help me make my final decision on my build...

I know some folks who have .62 rifles but most settle on a .58 if going for a "big" gun, the bigger the ball the more of a rainbow trajectory one will have at the longer ranges, I would go with a .58 if I needed a realy big rifle for hunting very large game myself, but there is probably really no downside to the .62,if one can master the judgement of distance and use of open sights over various ranges with the big ball, one needs a rifle style made to take some harsh recoil if going that direction

Recoil is the issue.if you can handle recoil, no problemo.

I think it pretty much depends on what you want to do with it...what you're trying to accomplish.

Re-enacting?...don't know anything about that;

Target shooting/Plinking?...recoil and cost probably need to be considered;

Hunting?...devastating on big game and if rifled certainly accurate to 100yds;
My current .62cal is a smoothbore Virginia and it's extremely versatile for hunting...a favorite of mine.

Built and shot 2 deer with a edward marshall replica .62 Track kit. 1st doe was 75 yds plus , minus, ball ended up inside far side of hide,dropped and didn't move. 2nd was 40 yds, went through, and didn;t move either. 80 grns 3f under wonder wad, .600 rnd ball wrapped in .010 patch.wouldnt use anything else, works well, and larger bores are correct for pre 1790.

Did they quit making .62 rilfes in 1791? I am just curious as to the dating of the larger bore rifles in the 18th century. I am a neophyte of sorts when it comes to the history of the guns from "back then".

Talking to clay at colonial willamsburgh when he was running the gunmakers shop he said that in all the examples available to him for research, (alot of guns} most not all,but a VAST MAJORITY were or LARGE CALIBER.. I believe he said most were 58 or larger. don't quote me , but I know he said large. and I believe .58 was the #.. If you ever get to williamsburgh and the gunmakers shop is open check it out, or if you cac make it to Fort fred, or better yet dixons ask the experts. they won't steer you wrong.. :v

PS calibers weren't as specific as today.. barrels were hammered over a mandrel, and there were variations in bore dia..

Flinter 32" rifled .62 GM barrel on TC Renegade. Recoil not a problem.

You want one, go for it. I really like the .62 and after what I've seen with the .62 smoothbore, I just know I'm going love everything about the .62 rifle I have on order. For normal ranges on deer I don't think theres much to worry about rainbow trajectory. If you intend to shoot past 100 yards then that may become an issue but chances are your not. My avg range for deer here is 40ish yards and my eyes say 75 yards should be max for me so I think I'm looking at a very nice 75 yard deer buster and if its anything like my smoothbore I'll be able to load it anywhere from 75gr to 100gr to get the job done. Put 80gr behind that big ball and thumps deer very nicely. You want a .62 get one, you want a .58 get that too! :thumbsup:

I've had a .62 percussion longrifle since 1982, it has taken moose with ease.
It is a little difficult to shoot target with all day.
If you sight it in for seventy five yards, it will handle any reasonable hunting distance.
All day shooting guns are .36 to .45 caliber.
Old Ford

I have both .58 and .62 flinters. The .62 is almost 8#, so relatively light. What helps with recoil is a stock with little drop and a wide, flat buttplate. My normal load for both is 100gr ffg under a PRB. The .62 is about 3" high at 55 yards and maybe an inch or 2 low at 100 yards with that load, and will stay on a coffee cup when I do my part. While the .62 does recoil a bit more than the .58, it doesn't become noticeable until about 120gr, and 140gr is tolerable for a few shots to sight in.

My preference would be to only take shots at game inside 70 yards or so, but its nice to see how the rifle groups (and where) at my self imposed limit of 100 yards.

Yeah, the .58 is more comfortable to shoot (270gr vs 330gr ball)and it should get the job done hunting anything that doesn't try to eat you.

also wanting this larger caliber has limited me on the types of schools available in that caliber. So far ive found early virginia, christian springs, and jaeger...

Click to expand...

English Sporting Rifle is another option.

If you're talking 100 yards and beyond, trajectory is going to get pretty loopy unless you whistle the ball pretty good. And even then small mistakes in range estimation will become an issue past 100. How much whistle on a ball for 100+ yard shooting? I happily use mine to 100 yards with 100 grains of powder much like Excess650 describes. With the same high point at 50 like his (3" or so), we're talking 140 grains in mine to make it right on at 100 and 6-8" low at 125.

No skinny or hooked butt for that load!

If I was planning to shoot past 100 regularly, I'd be more inclined to a 58, and if it was elk and smaller I'd go with a 54. You can get a right flat trajectory out of a 54 without beating yourself to death in the process.

And of course, 62 will flat knock the snot out of things however far you hit them with a lot less powder. It's just the long range that's going to be punching your shoulder so hard.

ryzman said:

those of you who have a .62 cal barrel can you fill me in on the benefits of a larger caliber. Do you sacrifice accuracy for knock down power.
ive read somewhere that larger calibers are not as affected by wind but lose velocity faster than the smaller ones...
Im just wondering if my desire to own a .62 caliber rifle is not the best plan... I would like to be able to get decent groups at 100 yards or more and i wonder if the caliber i really want wont be able to produce those types of results...
also wanting this larger caliber has limited me on the types of schools available in that caliber. So far ive found early virginia, christian springs, and jaeger...
I wonder if i should not limit myself by wanting to go big...
what are your guys thoughts on .62 caliber rifles? I really look forward to hearing your replys as they will help me make my final decision on my build...

Click to expand...

A 62 needs to be stocked like a Manton or Purdey sporting rifle. The basic buttstock design was used from the 1720s or so to the mid-19th century. If you have need of the power, Moose, Elk, large bear its viable option.
Alternatively as an early American rifle with similar comb line (parallel or near parallel to the bore) and buttplate width. Most American rifles are not suitable for this caliber.
A Jaeger is another option. But remember many of these were not shot with heavy powder charges as may be needed if a flat trajectory is desired.
The 62 may like a lot of powder to shoot well, some do. Recoil WILL be a factor with a 350+- ball.
The English design is the best idea.
A Hawken, for example, is a poor idea over 54 caliber.
Remember that American rifles were not often over 54 caliber and most were likely under 50 regardless of what people might want to believe today. This is evident from the stock designs especially in many post 1780 guns.
I do not consider a Kentucky of 62 caliber to be HC, its possible but its atypical and would be very uncommon. One of the advantages of the rifle was it was more economical to shoot than a fowler or trade gun. This is documented to the 1750-60s. A 20 bore rifle uses as much lead as a 20 bore trade gun.
I like big bore rifles but they need a lot of care in stocking compared to a 54 caliber.
Dan

Ryzman: I'm not sure it is correct to assume larger round balls lose energy faster; the larger the ball, the higher the ballistic coefficient. For example, according to the old Lyman BP Handbook, a .350 round ball has a BC of .049; a .535 a BC of .075; and a .735 a BC of .104. These are all relatively poor BCs compared to conicals, but the large ball should in fact retain a bit more speed and thus energy than the smaller one; the trouble is you can't comfortably get the really big ones going nearly as fast as the little fellas.
I think Bill and Dan are right to suggest you consider something descended from the English sporting rifles. The Brits really did -- and do -- know how to stock a gun to absorb and distribute recoil. I'm having a percussion .72 built on the ESR pattern with Oregon Barrel Works Forsythe-rifled 1:104 barrel, and it will be for use in Africa assuming I am lucky enough to go back. If I had it to do over, I probably would have specified flint.
There's a Colorado builder named Jim Gefroh who has built 8-bore flinters and taken African dangerous game with them, but how they mesh with the historical record I could not say.

I use a TC Renegade flinter in .62. I have a GM rifled barrel and a GM smoothbore barrel. I have no issues with accuracy out to 100 yards. I've have never really tried any shooting past that however I may have to try it based on this conversation just to see what she will do. I personally enjoy the .62 for deer and turkey. I do a lot of target practice with it as well however recoil does not really bother me as it does some.

The large bore thing is interesting, I think someone averaged all the guns in the RCA books and came up with .49 or there abouts for 18th century guns many probably pre federal period, might be a clash of the experts

BillinOregon said:

I'm not sure it is correct to assume larger round balls lose energy faster; the larger the ball, the higher the ballistic coefficient. For example, according to the old Lyman BP Handbook, a .350 round ball has a BC of .049; a .535 a BC of .075; and a .735 a BC of .104. These are all relatively poor BCs compared to conicals, but the large ball should in fact retain a bit more speed and thus energy than the smaller one;

Click to expand...

Correct.

Simple analogy to remember is the little kid barely able to roll a bowling ball down the lane to the pins...but if it makes it and gets there it still plows right on into/through the pins due to it's weight.

By contrast, throw a ping pong or tennis ball at the pins at fast as you can.

tg said:

The large bore thing is interesting, I think someone averaged all the guns in the RCA books and came up with .49 or there abouts for 18th century guns many probably pre federal period, might be a clash of the experts

Click to expand...

You must remember that many of these guns have been "freshed" in all likelyhood. So a rifle that is now 50-54-58 could have started at 44-48-50.
Read the accounts of the time, the surviving guns are extremely unlikely to be their original bore size.

These are rifles and smooth rifles (all rifle stocked guns no fowlers) that are still are or originally were flintlock.


Including smooth rifles tends to skew the results a little larger since some of these may have been bored smooth at some later period.


From "The Kentucky Rifle a True American Heritage" and "Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1750-1850"

We have a description of the rifle that JJ Henry acquired after losing his rifle crossing a river in 1775, it used a 48 caliber ball and from his comments I infer it was larger than the one he lost.
Col Hanger (British Army rev-war) states that he saw many hundreds of American rifles while serving in America and never saw one over 36 to the pound this would be about .505 ball size.
44-50 caliber is a practical bore size for hunting in the east to this day.

Dan