.62 caliber info

Dan, thank you for posting that chart. I had not seen it before. And you're right, freshing was a common practice so no telling just how small some of those bores might have started out.

Ryzman,

I built this 62 cal, D weight, in a Beck style pre-carve. It's got a nice wide butt plate, and it is a nice shooting gun. Recoil is fine at my 100 grain FF target load. The 120 grain hunting load slaps a little, but it's for hunting.

I shot all through the summer with 120 loads geting ready for elk. Never regretted it when I had the chance!

I've killed a couple whitetails with this gun and 2 elk and I can tell you it puts a hurtin' on the big critters. No elk have ever talked back to us!



I sighted in dead on at 75 yds. and it was 3 or 4" low at 100. Basically minute of elk from 25 to maybe 120.

I love my Beck, but some of those early Virginnys look pretty sweet too.

Bottom line (recoil wise)you'll not be building a 458 Win. mag of a flintlock. You'll be building a 06 with 220 grain slugs. If you follow me??

Most of what these gents have told you is right on the money.

I say, if you want a 62, build one. Accuracy is great. Whompability (Roundball's term) is Excellent!

Life is short!

Greg

Gregory, that's a great looking rifle! (nice elk, too) now you've got me thinking ...

:hmm:

No question a .62cal "brings it"...mine is a 38" swamped D-weight on an Early Virginia with is wide butt and I can shoot it all I want with my mid-range charge of 100grns Goex 2F I use for close whitetails.

Great hunting photo there too...
:thumbsup:

We also cannot assume that all existing guns were freshed to the rather large cals, considering breech sizes, groove depth and muzzle wall thickness must be a factor in this process and the observations of one British officer hardly sets things in stone about the ball size,at the time a large ball was equated with a superior weapon some propeganda mat have been at work.There are always more than one possible answere some just like to present their own.

Marc, lets just say its going to blow your socks off when its finally unveiled. :grin:

:rotf: Nice move Marc deleting your post as I was answering you. :haha:

Swampy, when I realized I'd written a "reply" instead of a PM I hurried and wiped it out. Figured it didn't really belong in a public forum.

I'll bet I won't be the only one going sockless for awhile!

Waiting for that is what ya call "exquisite torture"!

I'm not really up to date on American long rifles and calibers, but the 62 was considered a medium caliber as far as English sporting rifles are concerned. England had a huge influence in the America's, so there would certainly be more than a few English sporting rifles around. Down here in Africa, it is becoming a very popular hunting caliber. A 1:66 29" ball barrel, with around 100gr FFg, gives you 'point and shoot' trajectories out to about 100-110 yards and us being the lazy sort; no need to track after the animal, unless you really duffed the shot.

Yes, they do recoil a bit more than a 50, but not so you'll notice. If you really want to go first class, get one of Jason's Forsyth rifled barrels over at Rice. These guys can take much larger loads; give you a 3" point blank range out to around 125 yards and if you aim for the top of the back, you're still on at 150 yards. The slower, shallow twist reduces recoil quite a lot and built on a traditional English sporting rifle profile; are a joy to shoot. Also, the 62 is about equal to any sized game you choose to point your muzzle at: short of Cape buff, Rhino and Elephant. The guys up in Canada love them for the big stuff.

Best of all, you can shoot light loads in a 62 ball rifle and still retain accuracy for the shorter range work. But,if you need to stretch things a bit and go after a big critter, you're suitably gunned.

Always good to see you here, Glen!
Agree that at least a few English sporting rifles must have filtered into the Colonies during the second half of the 18th century. Our colonial gentry were always attuned to the latest from "back home" in England, an not just fashion trends. That said, I can't recall seeing a Purdy or Manton with 18th century Colonial provenance.
Dan P.? Anyone?

Dan,
From the book "The Pennsylvania-Kentucky Rifle, A Lancaster Legend" we have the following flintlock rifles:
H. DeHuff 45" barrel .60 caliber octagon and rifled

J. Graeff 41-5/8" .58 caliber octagon and rifled

Isaac Haines 44" barrel .58 caliber octagon and rifled

J P Beck 46-7/8" .47 caliber octagon and rifled

J P Beck 45" .55 caliber octagon (worn or bored smooth,but built as a rifle with patchbox, cheekpiece and rear sight)

A. Abrecht 42-3/8" .55 caliber octagon and rifled

Joel Feree 43-3/8" .52 caliber octagon and rifled

George Fainot 39" .52 caliber octagon to round, rifled, patchbox/cheekpiece/rear sight

Peter gonter jr 42-3/4" .49 caliber octagon and rifled

Dickert and Gill 45-1/8" .54 caliber octagon and rifled

John Guest 35-3/4" .52 caliber octagon and rifled

Nicholas Beyer 42-1/2" .50 caliber octagon and rifled

Christopher Gumph 41-3/4" .52 caliber octagon and rifled

Christopher Gumph 45-3/4" .60 caliber octagon and rifled

George Gumph 45" .50 caliber octagon and rifled

Jacob Gumph 44" .48 caliber octagon and rifled

Abraham Schweitzer 44" .43 caliber octagon with no rifling visible patchbox/cheekpiece/rear sight

Abraham Schweitzer 43-3/8" .53 caliber octagon (rifling shot out)

Melchior Fordney 41" .50 caliber octagon and rifled

Henry Gibbs sr 39-5/8" .50 caliber octagon and rifled

These are all of the flintlock rifles in the book other than some Jaegers. There seems to be more .52 caliber and larger than smaller despite some of these 'smiths being "late Lancaster". While none of these are .62cal its surprising how many are larger than .50cal.

A couple of Kentucky rifles, literally Kentucky, were by brothers Michael and Conrad Humble. They are .56 x 45-1/4" and .58 x 47-1/4", both rifled, octagon.

ryzman, I had a .62 rifle, it was dead on at 25 and 50 yards and I never could figure out where it hit at 100 yards. The rainbow trajectory really had me befuddled. I finally switched to a .54, or smoothbores when shooting.

The .62 was fun, really messed up the gongs, but at 100 yards I was missing too many targets.

Many Klatch

For longer range shooting, you really want 1500 fps, and a bit more if you can get it.

I'm having Steve Zihn build me a .62 Rigby style '
cussin' gun, but it is still over a year out in the queue. He is putting on a 2-leaf ghost ring sight, specified for 75 and 150 yards. With a hunting load of 120-150 FF, that should give me a point-blank range of 175. The .62 in fact shoots flatter than the smaller bores at the same velocity. You just pay for it with more recoil. I'm spec'ing my gun out to weigh 9 lbs. I probably should have gone swamped, but I specified straight taper 34". With an English sporter stock cut to my dimensions, I don't anticipate recoil will be a problem.

I have a 16-bore (.66) Christian Springs w/ a 38" swamped Forsythe-rifled Ed Rayl barrel, and it is a tack driver. I didn't order it, I bought it from the man who did. Steve sighted it in for 75 yards w/ 150 gr FF, and it does alert you to the fact that you have pulled the trigger. But it doesn't "hurt". I have no problems shooting it 20-30 shots in a day practicing, and my shoulder is not sore the next day.

I have a .72 Pedersoli Gibbs African that is comfortable to shoot w/ 120gr FFg and a 540 gr. .710" PRB. 20-40 shots a day and my shoulder does not hurt - not even the next day. The trajectory past 75 yards does get a bit loopy, but that is because I do not like shooting the 140-160 gr. of FF it would take to flatten it out. The accuracy (and power) are certainly there. It is WAY cool for knocking down dead trees. :grin:
The British tended to 10-8 bores in Africa, and 16-14 bores in India. A Forsythe rifled PRB gun in those ranges will handle ANYTHING they are likely to meet. I love my 16-bore, but a 20-bore will do the same for North America.
http://i1219.photobucket.com/albums/dd439/alan_atwood1/cs08.jpg

Good report AlanA, based on experience rather than speculation. Sharing the land with really big bears, my 58's "feel" like small bores, and I'm dinking around with bigger holes. It just doesn't suit the terrain to have a loopy trajectory though.

I can't shake the notion either that having a bigger bore and compensating for recoil with lighter charges will cost me something if I ever need to launch a ball in anger. If two holes in deer, elk and moose are good, then two holes in a 1,000-1,500 pound bear ought to be good as well. To assure it, that probably adds up to alloy balls at suitable velocities.

Heck no I haven't shot one of those bears, and I hope never to do so. Not many guys have. But there are lessons to be learned about bores, alloys, stock design and velocity from those English guys that shot lots of big toothy stuff with their muzzleloaders.

I have been looking for the article for a while, but a while back Ross Seyfried wrote about shooting an elk w/ a .66 and 130 gr of powder, and he said he had never seen ANYTHING hit one so hard, not even a .340 Weatherby.

One other thing. I have a rebuilt shoulder - they operated to fix a torn rotator cuff, and took out the bone spurs that probably caused it. I CANNOT shoot heavy suppository guns - a .30-06 with 150 grain bullets was about all I could handle. I can shoot BIG muzzleloaders, with much less discomfort as long as they are stocked well.

Thin-stocked curved buttplates w/ a lot of drop are at their best in .40-45 caliber, and are uncomfortable for me to shoot in .50 with over 80gr or so of powder. I think a big factor in the stock design for them was to allow shooting around a tree and exposing no more than an ear and an eye.

The pinnacle of HC/PC sporting killing power for muzzle loading arms was the large bore Forsyth style barrels and English sporter stocks.

I know Ned Roberts seemed to prefer cloth-patched picket bullets, but I would rather use the same weight of bullet as a round ball with the same range of powder charges as he used for bear. (or hogs, in my case) A 250-300 gr bullet and 80-90 gr of powder will get the job done, I just prefer RB's to pickets. SO much easier to load and get good accuracy from.

If you really needthe power a .62 is all you need in N. America. October Country's light sporting rifle in 62 will take 200 gr. powder and push the ball at 2000fps at the muzzle,at 100yds. its still at 1300fps and 1284 ft.lb.energy. Of course as others have mentioned it has forsyth rifling(1 turn in 104") and the stock is designed to handle the recoil. Thats Go-for-it kind of shooting, like the first time you touch off a .458 winmag.

Here is what the .62 rifle I built has done so far.. http://www.roystroh.com/custommuzzleloaders104.html

I have a .62 fullstock Hawken, percussion, that weighs a few ounces under ten pounds. Recoil is no problem with the 110 grains of FFg I have been using. Took a doe at sixty yards the first week of January. Carried the rifle on a south Texas hunt for deer and exotics. Walked about a hundred miles (it seemed that far) and found out the rifle was way to heavy to carry around all day. It will be staying in deer stands from now on. Have not got enough practice in with my .20 gauge fowler to consider deer hunting with it yet but maybe by next season.