50 or 54

[Stumpkiller]

That, and if you rework the statistics so both balls have a muzzle velocity of 1,750 fps (which is about where most hunting loads occur) you'll burn a bit more powder but end up with much more energy downrange. A good investment of 2¢ more powder per shot. :winking: Driven at the same speed the smaller ball does not have a flatter trajectory. They have identical ballistic coefficients and sectional densities (or, is the larger ball a better sectional density. :hmm: )

It's not that I have a "big .54", it's that guy with the "little .50" who's undergunned for whitetail. :rotf: The .54 is a medium bore. :grin:

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Stumpy, I'm not trying to argue this as my whole point is that the difference ain't worth arguing. I chose 120 grains of powder as an example for both bores because that is about all most hunters ever care to shoot and in fact few would exceed 100 grains, myself included. About the same comparison would hold true with lighter or heavier loads untill you exceed 140 grains, where the .50 begins to fade in efficiency. The .54 can burn up to 160 grains well and that is the advantage of big bores, they can burn more powder efficiently. But most people load big bores LIGHTER than .50's simply because recoil becomes excessive and they figure "what the heck, that big ball will do a lot of damage anyhow".
Few ML hunters load for a certain velocity but if that were the goal, one would need at least 20-25 grains more powder in a .54 to match the speed of a .50. The increased powder charge plus the 40 grains more ball weight will increase recoil substanctially. It is not the cost of powder that concerns me but the cost in "flinchiness". :grin:
If you load your .62 with 200 grains of powder and can drive tacks with that load you've got a better elk rifle than my "little .50" and you're a better man than I am for sure. :bow:

 

[Stumpkiller]

No worries, and I'm in agreement. Just throwing thoughts out for discussion.

I shoot moderate loads in my .54 and my .50

Power cannot make up for ball placement. Currently I'm shooting 78 gr 3F in my .54, which is about equivalent to 88 or 90 gr 2F. Powderful enough for any whitetail at the ranges I can hit them.

 

[chix]

Ya know there are LIES, and then there are horrible BIG LIES, and then there are STATISTICS haha.
Keep your powder dry...that's #1

 

[roundball]

:hmm: another Seinfeld fan?

 

[tg]

"They have identical ballistic coefficients and sectional densities"

Hey watch the language, this is a family oriented forum, some kids may read whatever you wrote there....

 

[oomcurt]

I think you have something there..."flinchiness". Now this may be comparing apples to oranges....but while everyone is different in regard to recoil sensitivity...I really think for the most part recoil sensitivity can be overcome. Here's why I say that. Back in the late 70's early 80's I had a 300 Win Mag. A friend of mine had a 375 H&H Mag. Both rifles were Win Model 70's. The 375 to me was a pleasure to shoot...recoil...yeah it had plenty but it to me was more of a slow push. My 300...egads it slammed back with a vengenance. Still, I was able to get good enough with it to use it for a hunting rifle. Now we come to the .54 in bp. I have it in a T/C Renegade. With 90 grains of 2f I feel little recoil in my shoulder...where I do feel it is in my cheek bone. I have been thinking of working the stock down in that area. Would I consider loading it to the limit? Sure I would ****provided**** that the load gave me good accuracy. I am by no means a wealthy person but I firmly believe if one wishes to use a 54 or larger caliber for hunting one really ought to use hunting loads in it when target shooting. I know a lot of folks disagree with that...it is just my opinion. People say that is wasting powder. Is it? Not if the main reason you bought it is for hunting. Regarding target shooting...yes, I feel it is vital to become a good hunter. Do I get a kick out of punching paper? Not really. I do it because it improves my marksmanship. Do I try to get 3 inch groups at 100 yards? Nope. I do try to stay within a six inch circle though.

 

[LarryB]

Flinch I have to agree to use the 50 if you make a better shot with it due to recoil. That also applies to Elk, Take the 50 there also, They both will work. Shot placement is the most importent factor in a quick clean kill.

 

[sidelock]

Unless you plan to hit em in the BUTT instead of where you should. I'v never had a problem with my .50, and I have "harvested" many over the last 30 yrs ---- but I have always hit e'm in the right place. :thumbsup:

 

[m-g willy]

Well now, just a thought for all those who think the 50 is the one to pick if'n you plan on good shot placement for hunting.
Why not just go with a 32 cal.
A well placed shot through the lungs with a .32 will bring down anything that walks the earth!
Just don't bounce it off the ribs on the way to the heart,lung area.
And as for me ,I'm not that good ,so I use the 54cal. when it comes to round ball rifles :winking:


Willy

 

[Jäger]

The current Lyman BP Handbook shows for 32" barrels, .50 cal, .490" ball, 120 gr.3f, 2045 fps and 1644 ft.lb at the muzzle, with 525 ft.lb remaining at 100 yards.
.54 cal, .535" ball, 120 gr.3f, 1735 fps and 1538 ft.lb at the muzzle, with 580 ft.lb at 100 yds.
As you see, the .50 has about 7% more energy at the muzzle and the .54 has about 10% more remaining at 100 yards. Hardly anything to get worked up over and certainly nothing to lead one to imagine that "the greater mass of the .54 will help to compensate for imperfect shot placement".
But people will insist on believing that their "big .54" can work wonders.

I wholeheartedly agree that shot placement is everything.

However, I don't think that muzzle energy gives the most accurate overview of the performance potential of projectiles - particularly those in the low velocity black powder game. Switching briefly to the BP cartridge rifles, many of those chamberings that appear positively meek when their muzzle energy is viewed kill with immediate and resounding authority, even when compared to modern centerfires.

So perhaps momentum is a better measurement of potential for these type of projectiles - or even some measurement we aren't using. God knows we have Taylor Knock Out values and all sorts of other measures in an attempt to come to grips with this question.

I am not a roundball hunter and I understand this is the subject at hand. But I can tell you that, without question, when conicals enter the picture the .54's flatten out elk and moose much faster than the .50's do in "traditional muzzleloaders".

If you can't shoot it accurately, then you shouldn't be hunting with it, no matter what size of hole in the end of the barrel. But I don't find a "heavily loaded" .54 with a conical bullet to be all that obnoxious for hunting. There are 12 gauge goose loads that bite much, much worse and you fire a lot more than one of those during a day of hunting.

 

[Zonie]

I have always felt that momentum times the projectile diameter (weight in grains times velocity times ball/bullet diameter) gives a good measure for comparison of the killing power of hunting guns.
The resulting answer in my opinion, gives a needed input (ball/bullet diameter) which reflects the potential wound channel size thus it reflects the damage done to the animal.

Regardless of the numbers though, nothing is as important as the shots placement. Another way of saying all the power in the world won't make up for inaccurate shooting.

 

[tanda]

I ordered a 54, and got before x-mas and jesse shot it over vacation and first 3 shots at 30 yd
grooped about 1".So not to bad, wiil work good for deer or bear or any thing.The rifle is a lyman trade rifle and looks like a well built
firearm (looks & construction).Not to add to the argument but in my past experences with centerfire rifles and archery,with the same amount of powder(or draw weight)the heaver the pojectile the more effictent.slower speed but more penatration.dont know how much difference cal.(.49 to .53)will change penatration but from 177gr to 224gr will make quite a difference even at slower speeds.
thanks for all the replys

 

[Swampman]

I think you will be pleased. I've owned a lot of .54s and I'm getting a .58 for my 50th birthday. :hatsoff:

Size matters!

 

[CoyoteJoe]

And as for me ,I'm not that good ,so I use the 54cal. when it comes to round ball rifles :winking:


Willy

Well that was my point, a slightly bigger ball does not in any way "make up" for poor, or not-so-good, or even "slightly imperfect" shot placement.
Now of course, you do have to have adequate penetration and increased penetration will make possible good shot placement from angles other than perfect broadside.
Sticking with the question of .50 or .54 round balls I still doubt one could tell the difference in actual use, unless one were trying to ram a .54 ball down a .50 bore. Coned muzzle? :grin:

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I think you will be pleased. I've owned a lot of .54s and I'm getting a .58 for my 50th birthday. :hatsoff:

Size matters!

You're not yet fifty? Dang Swampman, I'd of thought you were a crusty old codger like me, why you're just a pup!

 

Shooting patched round balls for hunting Whitetailed deer at 50 to 100 yards the difference between a 50 and 54 is of little signifigance. At the range I'm talking of, there will be minimal difference in regards to exrernal ballistics. In regards to internal ballistics the 54 will have only a minor advantage over the 50 due to the permanant wound channel. The bottom line is this, proper shot placement is everything.

 

[chadh1]

I don't know if it is still true but there was at least one state that required at least a .54 cal. This is why companies came out with the .54 Dearhunter rifle. I believe that state was Pennsylvania. They are one of the states with the strictest muzzleloading hunt laws. :hmm: If I am wrong, let me know. :bow:

 

According to the Pennsylvania hunting regulation booklet for the year of 2005 the citeria for the use of muzzleloader reads as followed: (Flintlock Muzzleloader Season: Flintlock ignition, single barrel long gun, 44 cal or larger, using single projection ammunition. Iron, open "V" notch sights only. Fiber optic inserts permitted.) For the October Anterless Muzzleoader Season: (Any muzzleoader long gun with flintlock, percussion, or in-line ignition, 44 cal or larger. Scope sights permitted, but users must have a muuzzleoading stamp). In New York State and I quote: (Muzzleoding Firearm- Is a firearm loaded through the muzzle, shooting a single projectile and having a minimum bore of .44 inch). Being a certified NYS Hunter Safety Instructor for several years now I try to keep abreast of hunting regs across this great nation of ours. To the best of my knowledge, there is no state in this union that requires a minimum of .54 cal for muzzleoading hunting. You can defend your case of the 54 over the 50 but you're not going to be able to use the minimum bore size regulated through state game agencies.

 

[chix]

If we were talking about scoped in-line rifles, the .50 guys would have the upper hand, but we are talking round balls. They only reason I could see for choosing a smaller round ball over a larger round ball might be trajectory, but since were talking about ranges limited to iron sight distances (100 yards or a little more) trajectory is really not an issue. I guess I would hunt with a .50 if nothing bigger was available haha. A friend of mine tried to finish off a mortally wounded mule deer doe with his .36 Colt Army. The ball bounched off the deer's forehead and hit him in the shin..... he did say it hurt though....nuf said?