-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
.45 or .50
- Thread starter Buckskin Jake
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
mike garner
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 0
i have no exp. with hunting with muzzleloaders yet. i have been shooting them on and off from the 1970's i have a lyman 50cal gpr and am building a 62cal jaeger and will kill some deer with them next year. but i have been hunting all my life with modern firearms and am a lifelong handloader and bullet caster for over 45 years. i have killed deer with everything from 22s up. it all comes down to shot placement. if the placement is not good there will be a bad result no matter the cal. used. if the placement is good you will have a quick kill.
galamb
58 Cal.
I absolutely agree that it's better have that extra power. And after a number of years shooting different rifles you have come to that conclusion.
But this is where I (personally) think the advice should be different.
A gentleman, who by the sound of it, has zero experience with black powder, much less a flintlock is asking essentially about their first gun.
Most of us know that to get good with one of these - good enough to humanely take a deer you need to spend alot of time at the range burning alot of charcoal.
Because of that a 50 is easier on the shoulder than a 54, and a 45 even easier.
Most of us as kids were first handed a .22 because Dad knew you would never learn to be a good shot starting out with a 300 mag - you just wouldn't shoot it enough.
And if this fella has never experienced that explosion a couple inches from your cheek (flinch until you get used to it) and that thump at the shoulder by a 54 (whoa) he may never get proficient enough, but will still go into the woods because "everyone" has told him that a 54 will take down just about anything, so he is over confident.
Now, I'm not trying to pick out/on the original poster, but without personally knowing them, their ethics or hunting style and given that they specifically asked either .45 or .50 cal I tried to answer their question.
And the answer is, with a properly placed shot a .50 will not kill a deer any "deader" than a .45.
The .45 is more pleasant to shoot, and shoots a little flatter and a well placed shot with a smaller caliber is "more effective" than a poorly placed shot with a larger caliber..
But this is where I (personally) think the advice should be different.
A gentleman, who by the sound of it, has zero experience with black powder, much less a flintlock is asking essentially about their first gun.
Most of us know that to get good with one of these - good enough to humanely take a deer you need to spend alot of time at the range burning alot of charcoal.
Because of that a 50 is easier on the shoulder than a 54, and a 45 even easier.
Most of us as kids were first handed a .22 because Dad knew you would never learn to be a good shot starting out with a 300 mag - you just wouldn't shoot it enough.
And if this fella has never experienced that explosion a couple inches from your cheek (flinch until you get used to it) and that thump at the shoulder by a 54 (whoa) he may never get proficient enough, but will still go into the woods because "everyone" has told him that a 54 will take down just about anything, so he is over confident.
Now, I'm not trying to pick out/on the original poster, but without personally knowing them, their ethics or hunting style and given that they specifically asked either .45 or .50 cal I tried to answer their question.
And the answer is, with a properly placed shot a .50 will not kill a deer any "deader" than a .45.
The .45 is more pleasant to shoot, and shoots a little flatter and a well placed shot with a smaller caliber is "more effective" than a poorly placed shot with a larger caliber..
Buckskin Jake said:
Jake, in a word, HELL yes. I didn't want to lead you, and wish I could make you a cup of coffee and walk through and show mine to you. In my opinion THEY'RE the best deals going since sliced bread...
...which actually I never buy but I can't think of anything else after someone here just used that analogy.
I discount the arguments where people back into the effectiveness of small blackpowder and even .22 LR cartridges to hunt deer -- a "magic BB" could take down an airplane in WWII but there was a reason fighters had .50 guns...
Ever been over to Hamburg before!?
The problem with a buckshot comparison is that the simultaneous impact of the shot does a lot of trauma to the nervous system. There is more going on than the single wound channel. A very rough comparison would be shooting the deer with 9 to 12 rounds of .22 Mag from an automatic weapon at about 50 yards.
LD
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 0
I think I am right with this. 1 in 48 is faster then 1 in 66 is one better then the other for round ball?
That depends but for those diameters that twist, which is faster than the other that is "1 turn in 66 inches" is how it is said, should be good for both roundball and conical bullets. The slower twist in .54 I would argue is for roundball only. This is particularly true with lighter loads in the smaller calibers -- they will work best with those twists when you do not "overbore" charge them (put more powder in them than they can use to max out the velocity). Longer conical bullets need faster twists -- the 1-in-48 is a good compromise like a 1:9 AR-15's twist is meant to be, and actually is.
You'll have to see what your individual gun "likes" as you charge, patch, and load it all but, to me, that would mean likely up to maybe 70 and 75 grains for the .45 and .50 caliber guns with roundball, respectively.
You'll have to see what your individual gun "likes" as you charge, patch, and load it all but, to me, that would mean likely up to maybe 70 and 75 grains for the .45 and .50 caliber guns with roundball, respectively.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 319
Buckskin Jake said:
It depends more on rifling depth than such a small difference in twist rate. The venerable Hawken rifles were 1:48, as were lots of the traditional rifles in that era. They sure didn't suffer from accuracy problems with round balls. Not a TC conical in sight, so no talk of the 1:48 being a "compomise" twist.
The compromise came about when TC gave their rifles really shallow rifling to better accommodate the loading of their conicals. You can still get great RB performance from a TC with shallow rifling, but you almost always have to go with a real tight patch/ball combo to do it consistently.
The down side of slow twists in my experience has been in their function with reduced loads. Most I've owned just didn't like light charges, and had to be snorted up to find accuracy. I'm talking about the 30-40 grain charges I use for small game. Give me a deep-rifled 1:48 any day over a slower twist. Powder isn't free these days, and I sure don't need to be shooting 70+ grains of powder for killing defenseless paper. :wink:
And ordinarily, twist rate is primarily influenced by the caliber / ball diameter.
For example, 1:48 twist "IS" the round ball twist for the small-ish .40cal.
The larger the caliber / ball diameter the twist rate generally / progressively gets slower
For example, 1:48 twist "IS" the round ball twist for the small-ish .40cal.
The larger the caliber / ball diameter the twist rate generally / progressively gets slower
Billnpatti
Cannon
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 7,340
- Reaction score
- 44
The slower twist rate such as 1:66 is best for round balls until you get down to the .32 and .36 calibers. They seem to like a 1:48 twist rate. I think it because they are using such smaller amounts of powder. The larger calibers use larger powder charges and the slower twist rates work best for them. Conicals require a faster 1:48 or faster to properly stabilize them. The 1:48 twist rate found in many guns is a twist rate that will work pretty well for both round balls and conicals. It has been in use for many years. I understand that the 1:48 twist rate is what the Hawken brothers used in their rifles.
If it is your first gun that is a black powder gun get the gun that will hold its' value better and be easiest to resell.
You do not even know if you like this game at this point. No sense putting allot of money into something you may not even enjoy.
You do not even know if you like this game at this point. No sense putting allot of money into something you may not even enjoy.
Billnpatti said:
Ye kinda mixed metaphors and facts in that.
Slower twists are just fine in bigger calibers. But, the downside is slower your twist the heavier the charges are needed for accuracy. My .54 Jaeger, with a 1:72" twist, won't group south of 90 or 100 grain charges. Meaning lotsa recoil and lotsa expensive powder. A 1:48" twist is very forgiving and will work just fine in that .54 with very little loss of accuracy using even heavy grizzly-worthy charges.
nchawkeye
58 Cal.
As far as one caliber being easier on the shoulder, much of that has to do with rifle design...
This rifle with 80grs FFF and a .440 patched ball kicks more than the second rifle with 80grs FFF and a .530 patched ball...
The first rifle weighs about 7 1/2 pounds, has a lot of drop and a crescent butt plate...
The second rifle weighs about 10 pounds, has a straighter stock and a flatter, wider butt plate...
You can't make a blanket statement about a rifle's recoil without discussing the design of the rifle....
This rifle with 80grs FFF and a .440 patched ball kicks more than the second rifle with 80grs FFF and a .530 patched ball...
The first rifle weighs about 7 1/2 pounds, has a lot of drop and a crescent butt plate...
The second rifle weighs about 10 pounds, has a straighter stock and a flatter, wider butt plate...
You can't make a blanket statement about a rifle's recoil without discussing the design of the rifle....
hanshi
Cannon
Actually just a general statement, here, not directed to anyone in particular.
No, as others have said. A heavier projectile will retain more energy at equivalent speeds. Understand that there is NO such thing as "overkill". My most successful rifle has been a .45 which is absolutely all one needs for whitetail under, say, 100 yards or so. Now my dedicated deer rifle is a .50. Why? Well I now live amongst bears, now, and simply feel more confident with a .50. Why not a .54? Well I have one and have killed one deer with it but it is a percussion, a wonderful one but still a percussion. I have also killed one deer with my .62 smoothbore flinter. It's a really good gun.
I don't worry about recoil; I just seem to be oblivious to it. Yep I may hurt later but not while I'm shooting. Recoil would never enter into my decision about which gun I would buy.
No, as others have said. A heavier projectile will retain more energy at equivalent speeds. Understand that there is NO such thing as "overkill". My most successful rifle has been a .45 which is absolutely all one needs for whitetail under, say, 100 yards or so. Now my dedicated deer rifle is a .50. Why? Well I now live amongst bears, now, and simply feel more confident with a .50. Why not a .54? Well I have one and have killed one deer with it but it is a percussion, a wonderful one but still a percussion. I have also killed one deer with my .62 smoothbore flinter. It's a really good gun.
I don't worry about recoil; I just seem to be oblivious to it. Yep I may hurt later but not while I'm shooting. Recoil would never enter into my decision about which gun I would buy.
Also occurs to me that with recoil at the range it can be a consideration, but for a hunting gun that is only going to be shot one or 2 times on the hunt maybe it isn't such a factor.
Of course one will have to spend some range time dialing in the rifle....
:hmm:
Of course one will have to spend some range time dialing in the rifle....
:hmm:
galamb said:
Why is this uneven comparison always dragged out in these discussions? :idunno:
If we're comparing calibers, lets always do it on an "everything else the same" basis. Not an unequal basis of good hit vs poor hit. Unless the people that always throw this statement out are saying it's not possible to be a good shot with a larger caliber. And of course we know that's :bull:
I do agree, if someone cannot for some reason shoot a larger caliber accurately, don't use it. Clearly accuracy in hunting is imperative. But let's not insinuate that larger calibers are inherently inaccurate.
galamb
58 Cal.
All I did was put myself in the place of the guy asking the question.
Years back when I got into blackpower I got the same kind of responses.
The poster specifically asked between a 45 and 50 cal and the first dozen or so answers went on about why neither was the correct choice or not sufficient.
Since he didn't ask "in general" for a recommendation you can assume that he at least did a little research and was trying to decide between the two options he asked about.
The answers he got now may be leading him to more indecision.
So I stand by my statement. If you want to shoot a 45 and take the time to learn how to shoot it to it's potential, it is more than sufficient to take down any whitetail in North America.
You don't "need" a 54 or a 58 or larger even though, yes, absolutely, they will give you more knock down power, but the 45 will kill it just as dead and it will drop in just a short a distance if you hit it correctly.
Years back when I got into blackpower I got the same kind of responses.
The poster specifically asked between a 45 and 50 cal and the first dozen or so answers went on about why neither was the correct choice or not sufficient.
Since he didn't ask "in general" for a recommendation you can assume that he at least did a little research and was trying to decide between the two options he asked about.
The answers he got now may be leading him to more indecision.
So I stand by my statement. If you want to shoot a 45 and take the time to learn how to shoot it to it's potential, it is more than sufficient to take down any whitetail in North America.
You don't "need" a 54 or a 58 or larger even though, yes, absolutely, they will give you more knock down power, but the 45 will kill it just as dead and it will drop in just a short a distance if you hit it correctly.
In other words Spike and Gal...
A bigger caliber has qualities that make it more forgiving in practical use.
Friend gave me a pic he took of a deer his buddy shot with a .50 BMG Caliber Barret Rifle. The entire right rear quarter was completely severed off and had fallen to the right and the rest of the deer had fallen over to the left.
I don't think that's quite what we're talking about here though...
A bigger caliber has qualities that make it more forgiving in practical use.
Friend gave me a pic he took of a deer his buddy shot with a .50 BMG Caliber Barret Rifle. The entire right rear quarter was completely severed off and had fallen to the right and the rest of the deer had fallen over to the left.
I don't think that's quite what we're talking about here though...
Spikebuck said:
:rotf: AMEN ! Thank you...
My personal experience is that the only people who make such claims have never hunted big game with the bigger calibers...all someone has to do is drop a deer or two right in their tracks without the shots being "close", without the shots being "perfect broadsides", etc, etc...with something like a .58 or .62cal...and they'll change their tune in a hurry thinking, wow, now THIS is a deer caliber.
My reaction to my first .58cal was "This thing has "WHOMPABILITY" !!.....and exponential step up in power over everything else smaller.
:thumbsup:
PS:
And I've never met nor is there any trend of accomplished hunters who favored the larger calibers changing their mind and going back to a little .45cal
