.54 or .58

[roundball]

I prefer the .54 caliber.It can do anything the .58 caliber can do with less powder and kick.I think its a lil more accurate too.I also like the much lighter carry weight of the gun.

My conclusion from your comments is that you are a die-hard .54cal man... :grin: ...but your logic implies that there is no point in having a larger caliber like the .58, and objectively speaking, that's just not the case of course.

It would be like saying a .50cal will do anything a .54cal will do...so why bother having a .54 or a .58cal?

Or, the .45cal will do everything a .50cal will do...so why bother having a .50, .54, or .58cal.

and so...based on all that, the only muzzleloader caliber anybody needs is a .32cal :grin:

Clearly the .58cal's larger frontal area of a .570 ball and it's heavier weight of 279grns will carry more energy to longer distances and have more whompability when it gets there than a smaller lighter ball will...can go after bigger game or the same game at longer distances.

And that can be said when comparing any set of two consecutive calibers...the .54 has more poop than a .45 or .50...the .58 & .62 cals have more poop than a .54cal.

It just is what it is...

 

[sharps54]

I prefer the .54 caliber.It can do anything the .58 caliber can do with less powder and kick.I think its a lil more accurate too.I also like the much lighter carry weight of the gun.

I'm confused here, in equivelent rifles, say a T/C Renegade, the .58 should weigh less then the .54 due to the larger bore size leaving less metal in the 1" barrel.

 

[rabjr]

I prefer the .54 caliber.It can do anything the .58 caliber can do with less powder and kick.I think its a lil more accurate too.I also like the much lighter carry weight of the gun.

I'm confused here, in equivelent rifles, say a T/C Renegade, the .58 should weigh less then the .54 due to the larger bore size leaving less metal in the 1" barrel.

Thats why I asked how much his weighs...I have a newly minted .58 Flint that weighs in right at 7 lbs.

 

[Swampman]

"I'm confused here, in equivelent rifles, say a T/C Renegade, the .58 should weigh less then the .54 due to the larger bore size leaving less metal in the 1" barrel."

That's one of the reasons I'm replacing my Renegade barrel with a .58. I wish the GM drop-in barrels were 4" shorter.

 

[Roy]

That's one of the reasons I'm replacing my Renegade barrel with a .58. I wish the GM drop-in barrels were 4" shorter.

Thats what hacksaws are made for. :wink:

 

[tg]

"I prefer the .54 caliber.It can do anything the .58 caliber can do "

I don't think it can shoot a .570 ball nearly as well as the .58...

 

[Sharp Shooter]

This is the same thing as 300WBY vs 300RUM or 7mm vs. 30-06. You will never get a good solid answer because everyone has there preference. That is why you get both :grin: .

 

[Sharp Shooter]

If I had to get rid of one of my barrels I would get rid of the 54cal and keep the 58cal. I just like the 58cal and it is better for me and what I hunt and plan on hunting with it.

 

[Mulebrain]

"I prefer the .54 caliber.It can do anything the .58 caliber can do "

I don't think it can shoot a .570 ball nearly as well as the .58...

As always TG very enlightening :haha:

 

[Fullstock58]

This is from Lymans Black Powder Handbook we will compare a 50-54-58cal energy @ the muzzle and 100 yards.

50cal 2065fps 1702fpemuzzle @100yds 545
54cal 1853fps 1675fpemuzzle @100yds 603
58cal 1560fps 1405fpemuzzle @100yds 567

Some people will just look at numbers and see that the 50cal is right up there with the rest of them in energy, and with common sense see that the 50cal will have better trajectory. True enough, but now comes the un-common sense part, reading between the numbers, the worst Round ball in the list is the 58cal, but it should be the best, Why? heavier weight and larger area,(WHOMPABILITY FACTOR)we know a heavier weight has the advantage of momentum and the larger area has a better wound channel, but also the larger ball will be affected less by energy, it will be deformed less then the other balls because of its larger mass. Simple physics, Try and hammer a 50/54/58cal ball into a flat piece to hold a flint, the 58 will take more hammer strokes (energy) to get it done. Thats why the 58cal normaly gets more penetration in animals, VS the other two even though it has worse energy numbers.

IMHO there are only two downsides to the 58, Vs the 54, you may use more powder with the 58 and you will have worse trajectory, but at 100yards it's not much of a problem.

My go to Elk guns are both 58cal, the only reason I went with 58cal over the 54 was two fold, one was the 58cal had much lower pressure numbers, it did not get out of the Lead Unit range (LUP) with heavy loads VS a 54cal that was in the Copper unit (CUP) range and I wanted a 1" barrel, so the 58cal was lighter then the 54cal, Hunting Elk where I hunt every ounce saved adds up.

 

[BrownBear]

I wouldn't hesitate to take elk with my 54, having seen it done twice and heard lots of other first hand accounts. Elk are pretty easy to kill with broadside lung shots, and I don't think you would see a whole lot of difference between the 54 and a 58.

There might be some edge for the 58 with angling shots or shooter error, but I don't know. I'm just not willing to take long shots, angling shots, or chancy shots, no matter what the caliber.

I'd sure opt for the 58 if I had one. Mostly I'm just collecting excuses and justifications for building a 58, though. Even if I had one I'd be confining my shots to 50 yards, or at most 75 yards, same as I'd do with a 62, 72, or even a 75. I'm just not willing to blame the caliber for my own poor shooting or to use bore hole size as an excuse for trying longer or riskier shots.

 

[Swampman]

I look at numbers and see that they aren't that great in the first place when compared to modern cartridges.

That's why I'm building a new .58. I don't think elk are easy to kill. Deer are easy to kill.

In this instance, more is better. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the .54.

 

[rabbit03]

:thumbsup:

From the charts I use and considering apples vs. apples and start out at 1500fps (what I used to calculate) the following figures are born out.

.58 @1500fps vs. .54 @1500 fps

Drop at 100 yds (58)= 6.4" - (54)= 6.6"
(USING 50YDS AT THE ZERO)

Fps\Fpe at 100 yds (58)=969\607 (54)= 953\478

Time of flight (58)= .660 sec. - (54)= .263 sec.


So according to my calculations the 58 is ahead of the 54 by a bit if your comparing apples and apples or FPS to FPS out of the muzzle. And that is the way I like to compare any two loads, not how much powder you have to dump in to equal the velocity of the other.

It gets to the target faster, retains both fps\fpe more than that of the 54, has less drop 2/10ths of an inch at 100 yds :shocked2:

And when you are considering the % more of lead being hurled down range of the 58 over the 54 the question is pretty simple for me. My money goes on the 58 hands down. Ahhhhh, WHOMPABILITY

Wonder how much powder you would have to put in a 4 bore to equal the velocity of a .32 caliber so that you could compare those two?

No matter how you run the numbers and at which velocity, the 58 will always be the big brother to the 54. Kind of like the 270 vs. the 25-06, it just does it better with more weight.

rabbit03

 

[roundball]

And...to be even more to the point...comparisons should always be of equal velocity.
If different weight projectiles are compared, and also using different velocities, the results will always be apples and oranges.

But if I drive my .570 at the same speed as a .50/.54cal, there's no questioning the outcome

 

[swifty]

Roundball-I see you like me like the flintlock.
Which 75 cal rifle are you using.Is it a custom and who built it.
I use a copy of an Alexander Henry 58 caliber but haven't settled on a hunting load yet. I plan to use it on elk that comes my way.

 

[roundball]

If you're seeing the .75cal next to my ID, the calibers shown there are just sort of a 'ladder' scheme associated with numbers of posts since joining the forum...I don't actually have a .75cal

 

[Sharp Shooter]

People need to respect that elk are harder to kill than deer. They are not that easy to kill.

You will like whatever you get. Either will do fine on elk but the 58cal will have an edge over the 54cal.

 

[tg]

"
People need to respect that elk are harder to kill than deer. They are not that easy to kill."

I am certain that those of us who have spent of lives around Elk are quite aware of the animals traits their strengths and weakness, and many long time ML Elk hunters use a .50 or .54 prb,with great results which is something that cannot be argued with useing ballistic comparisons, as in the centerfire world many use a standard .308 or .270 while others insist a 30 cal magnum is required.A lot of people kill them with a string and a stick with a sharp blade on the end.I think they are often put on a pedestal as being a super deer that you need heavy artillary to kill, I just don't see it I have seen Elk go down quick and Elk take a while to drop when hit by various projectiles same for deer, as always it ain't so much what you hit them with as where and from how far you hit them.

 

[rabjr]

I found it interesting that when I went after Antelope in Wyoming back in 88' that the caliber used by most of the guys I talked to out there for Elk was the .257 Roberts. I don't think I talked to one magnum guy.

 

[laufer]

"
People need to respect that elk are harder to kill than deer. They are not that easy to kill."

I am certain that those of us who have spent of lives around Elk are quite aware of the animals traits their strengths and weakness, and many long time ML Elk hunters use a .50 or .54 prb,with great results which is something that cannot be argued with useing ballistic comparisons, as in the centerfire world many use a standard .308 or .270 while others insist a 30 cal magnum is required.A lot of people kill them with a string and a stick with a sharp blade on the end.I think they are often put on a pedestal as being a super deer that you need heavy artillary to kill, I just don't see it I have seen Elk go down quick and Elk take a while to drop when hit by various projectiles same for deer, as always it ain't so much what you hit them with as where and from how far you hit them.

i agree. guy that hunts the same area where i hun elk uses .243 and never had lost his game. .54 or .58 is a topic of conversation and discussion mostly, elk do not know much about what we talk about here, but when hit where they need to be hit, they go down.