.45 or .50

[nchawkeye]

Killing it and finding it are two different things...

None of us can track like Natty Bumppo...A "properly" hit deer with a .54 will leave more tracking blood on the ground than a "properly" hit deer with a .45...

As I previously stated, I started with a .45, used it from 1977-1990...Finished my .54 in 1990 and I sure wouldn't go back to a .45...The .54, when using round balls is superior to the .45...

There is simply no disadvantage when hunting deer to using a .54 vs a .45...

 

[410-er]

I've killed deer with the 45,50,54,and 58.A RB from any in the heart or lungs leaves a dead deer.Distance traveled after the shot is about the same.Of the above calibers the 45 is my favorite.
Start with the 50.More shops and stores carry accesories for the 50.Learn to shoot it well. :thumbsup:

 

[coloradoclyde]

Time for me to weigh in.
everyone has valid points. I own a half dozen of both calibers and there is not a huge difference between a 45 and a 50 cal. the ones I exercise the most are the 45's. why? several reasons the 45s are more economical,easier on the shooter,for me more acurate, and better for plinking and small game. don't sell yourself short buying a gun just to use it for a couple of days a year, I try to enjoy mine all year long. if I could use a smaller caliber for deer, I would. being able to pick and place your shots is the difference between an expert and a novice (I dont pray and spray)

 

[silly goose]

I say either is a good choice. I started with a .50, and will soon have a .45. Whats not to be happy with. I know where I hunt, I know the kind of shots I take, and I know the deer will be there at the end of a short trail. Have killed more than a couple deer, none with the .45 yet, but the .50 lacks for nothing with my usage.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Reflecting a bit I would say that the caliber is not nearly as important as the the gun itself.
length, wieght, sights, and style all determine the gun you want to pick up and shoot and not put down ...thats the gun you should buy.

 

[Wes/Tex]

AMEN ! Thank you...
My reaction to my first .58cal was "This thing has "WHOMPABILITY" !!

Would add "slap-down" and "hammered" to that. Also I'd say 'thank you ' to you as well. It's hard to get that point across lots of times. Smiled to myself when the 2000 fps faze went around some years back. I like to think a slow locomotive does more than a fast Porsche! :wink: :thumbsup:

 

[Spikebuck]

without the shots being "close", without the shots being "perfect broadsides", etc, etc

I think this "flexibility" is one of the benefits of a larger caliber. Now, I would never approve of stupidly risky shots with any caliber. But as an example of an opportunity I didn't have to pass because I was carrying enough gun: one year it was the last day of what had been a very dry season deer wise. There was no more than 15 minutes of daylight left when two adult northern-sized does showed up 115 yards from me. There was wind...not a lot...but wind. I had practiced out to 125 yards, so knew what I had to do and I had a good rest. The shot went through and through the chest breaking ribs on both sides. I put venison in the freezer with the .54.

I know I wouldn't have taken that shot with a .45 caliber considering the minimal energy left at that range. I'm glad I was carrying the .54 and had 90 gr of 2F behind it to get the job done very effectively.

 

[sarcasmn]

Jake,

I am also a newer shooter. Earlier this spring I was in your shoes and trying to decide. Since hunting was my first prioraty, I chose a Lyman Deerstalker .54 percussion. I liked the smaller size for hunting and it's the one that fit best when I shouldered it.

I am used to hunting deer with a bow so any rifle was a step up. I took my first buck with that .54 about a month ago. 45 yard shot, went in about three inches back from the front leg and came out just half an inch or so behind the opposite leg. That buck took one step and dropped.

I have caught the bug and have built a Great plains flintlock in .54. That flinter is a blast to shoot at the range but for still hunting and stalking in the woods or even a tree stand it is just a little long and heavy in my opinion.

The 50 inches of rifle is a lot to negotiate in a tree stand. Also take into account that if you hunt from a tree stand you may or may not be wearing a harness.

I think the deerstalker is the perfect deer rifle and I may end up getting a flint model just to hunt with flint. Bear in mind that I also think the winchester model 94 in 30-30 is the perfect center fire deer rifle.

Go to Cabelas and shoulder a few and see how they feel. Look online for a local muzzleloading club and stop by one of their functions. It's been my experience that most are very nice folks.

Gather opinions and search the web and choose the rifle that's best for you. Nothing wrong with a .45 but these days for deer I would take the .50. they are close and there is nothing wrong with the .45 but if I had just one rifle and had to choose between .45 and .50 I would choose the .50 Easier to find the balls and supplies at local shops. Take a look at the deerstalker. Not the most PC rifle but one heck of a hunter.

 

[coloradoclyde]

I'm sure I will get corrected on this but it seems to me that muzzleloading rifles got bigger in caliber as pioneers ventured west of the mississippi. Buffallo, Bear, Elk, Moose etc.
but there was lot of deer and small calibers east of the "big muddy"

 

[excess650]

I have been looking on line and I think after Xmas I am taking a trip to Cabelas. They got Pedersoli in the Kuntucky and Blue Ridge. They both come in .45 and .50 in 1 in 48 and a .54 in a 1 in 66 wood one of these be a good one to start with. Thanks Jake

If you're thinking Cabelas in Hamburg, drive a few miles east, turn north towards Kempton, and stop in at Dixon's ML shop. You will see new production guns, contemporary customs, and originals....lots of rifles to look at and handle! They KNOW MLers, unlike the helpful folks at Cabelas.

 

[coloradoclyde]

OMG! you said the C word, I have to go and wash out my ears.

 

[gard72977]

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.

How would powder charge make a different?

 

[Alden]

If you're thinking Cabelas in Hamburg, drive a few miles east, turn north towards Kempton, and stop in at Dixon's ML shop. You will see new production guns, contemporary customs, and originals....lots of rifles to look at and handle! They KNOW MLers, unlike the helpful folks at Cabelas.

I was thinking of taking him in that direction too but he didn't answer...

 

[nchawkeye]

I'm sure I will get corrected on this but it seems to me that muzzleloading rifles got bigger in caliber as pioneers ventured west of the mississippi. Buffallo, Bear, Elk, Moose etc.
but there was lot of deer and small calibers east of the "big muddy"

Nope...Calibers started fairly large (.54-.60) as the first rifles were made by German gunsmiths and they were use to making rifles for boars...

They did get smaller around 1800, as the deer were killed out...Then as people moved west of the Mississippi and ran into grizzlies they got larger again...

As I mentioned, nothing wrong with a .45, I used one from 1975-1990 and killed a few dozen deer with it...After finishing my .54 in 1990 and killing a few dozen more with a .54 I can tell you for round balls, I prefer a .54...

 

[coloradoclyde]

So the timeline between smoothbores, large caliber rifles and smaller caliber rifles with the diminishment of deer around 1800 east of the mississippi must have been relativley close. I am not sure when german style rifles began to be produced in the colonies.

I will agree that bigger can be better on deer but I think smaller is better for a starter gun

 

[user 13289]

I chose 54 for my first deer rifle, because-even though a 45 would kill nearly every deer i've ever shot with any weapon, it wouldn't reach them all. And not that a "trophy" deer ever presented itself outside of my range, yet. The time is coming and I trust the heavier ball to be effective at a greater range, provided i do my part in knowing the best load and getting off a good shot-in that case.

Smaller bore, shorter effective range. But that one "step" between the most commonly available offerings is really only a half-step. That's how i sum it up. That there's just not much diff in .04-.05 caliber "upgrades" but that it takes .08-.10 difference in calibers to make a stink.

 

[Lonegun1894]

While I agree to a point, the main difference to me isn't so much in the bore size as it is in the weight of the projectile. I mean, .04" isn't much at all, but going from 177grs to 230grs of lead is a good jump.

 

[Walks with fire]

I agree that the larger diameter plus the weight advantage is where it's at for roundball. I don't care what the ballistic charts say about energy and wind drift; the larger ball carries better at 100 yard targets. You just have to try it to belive it. Bigger holes and more blood on the ground; what's not to like. 100 grain charges are enough and they don't kick like a mule either.

 

[coloradoclyde]

now we know why there are so many different calibers, .....something for everyone to enjoy.
pick your pleasure and let the lead fly.

 

[excess650]

So the timeline between smoothbores, large caliber rifles and smaller caliber rifles with the diminishment of deer around 1800 east of the mississippi must have been relativley close. I am not sure when german style rifles began to be produced in the colonies.

There was a Moravian settlement in what is now Lancaster sometime during the 1730s, and several of the Moravian gunsmiths were present at that time. The Bakers, and I'm presuming English, were in what is now Lancaster County and were seeking permission to set up a forge and boring mill prior to 1720. Remember that the early English guns were not small bore, and the inventory of Christian Springs ~1760 included "English rifle barrels" so they were also using imported barrels.