-
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
54 vs 58 chart
- Thread starter KW
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
If it's in mint condition the price is about right...I'd offer $300 and see where he goes...a new one from TC's Fox Ridge is over $500 I believe.bnb said:
Check the bore as you said...and look closely at the left side of the stock, all around the flat section of wood where the lock bolt head & washer are located.
You're looking for a hairline crack following the grain of the wood, usually running along topside of the lock bolt hole, forward towards the barrel bed just in front of the tang.
The .58cal is a powerhouse and 1:48" barrels shoot full power PRB hunting loads into 2"-3" at 100yds without any problem at all...suggest using Oxyoke wonderwads over powder for a better, more consistent seal and as a firewall to protect the patch from full power loads...the barrels themselves would do better than 2"-3" of course, but somebody has to hold and actually shoot the rifle. :grin:
Fullstock58
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2007
- Messages
- 179
- Reaction score
- 0
54 or 58 either one works, My choice would depend on what style rifle I wanted, a 58 would be a bulky lancaster style, while the 54 with a 15/16 barrel could be used and still get somewhat of a slimer profile. The other thing would be with a 58 most times barrels are shorter because of forward muzzle weight. So a 58 does limit one to a few styles that will look and feel good. Using a swamped barrel does add a few more styles for the 58.
I'm a fan of the 58, I have 3, 2 flinters and 1 percussion but in truth anything I've ever killed with the 58's a 54 would have been just as effective. My reason for building my first 58 Hawken flinter was not based on the ball size but pressure in the chamber and rifle weight, I was building a Elk rifle for the Colorado rockies, so weight was a big concern, as I hunted above timber line and getting there was a choir, I settled on a 1" AF 34" 58cal barrel, weight was one factor, but pressure was the other, as the 58 never got out of the LUP range with heavy loads (based on Lymans manual), and thats a big plus to me. One may not need real heavy loads, but it's nice to know you can if you like.
I'm a fan of the 58, I have 3, 2 flinters and 1 percussion but in truth anything I've ever killed with the 58's a 54 would have been just as effective. My reason for building my first 58 Hawken flinter was not based on the ball size but pressure in the chamber and rifle weight, I was building a Elk rifle for the Colorado rockies, so weight was a big concern, as I hunted above timber line and getting there was a choir, I settled on a 1" AF 34" 58cal barrel, weight was one factor, but pressure was the other, as the 58 never got out of the LUP range with heavy loads (based on Lymans manual), and thats a big plus to me. One may not need real heavy loads, but it's nice to know you can if you like.
Sharp Shooter
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 1
If the bore is good I would get it. See if you can get them to go down a little.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,703
- Reaction score
- 2
It was Sam Fadala's opinion (in one of the two blackpowder publications by him that I have) that helped me decide on a .54 when I was having a rifle built. Basically he said that, for hunting, the .54 was the optimum roundball caliber in balancing mass and velocity. The .58 has "whompability" but requires a significantly larger amount of powder to take advantage of its larger size.
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,538
- Reaction score
- 87
That would not be my first disagreement with Dr. Sam, and I totally disagree that you need lots more powder to take advantage of the .58's power over that of the .54. The energy produced by shooting the heavier ball is so much more than the smaller caliber, you don't need more powder to produce more power.
You have to remember that its the weight of the ball that produces the penetration, and penetration means tissue distruction. The amount of tissue damaged in the primary wound channel of a .58 round ball is substantially more than that of the .54, just based on frontal area. But factor in the pure lead ball expanding in flesh on impact, and a slower moving .58 ball will actually do more damage than that fast moving .54. The faster the ball moves, the faster it expands, and slows. With either round, the ball is going to go through a deer at any distance you should be shooting an open sighted rifle at a living animal. Niehter round has to be sent out the barrel at fast velocities. 1200 fps. at the muzzle is more than enough to kill any deer you can hunt.
Too many shooters are still thinking in terms of modern rifles, with their expanding small caliber bullets, that have to expand quickly to cause the same kind of damage that a large caliber round ball would do if it didn't expand at all. Velocity is everything for those small caliber, jacketed hollow point, or shoft point bullets to get them to expand.
With pure lead balls, slower gets it done better. That makes shooting ML rifles a totally different breed of cat, than what they have been used to with modern cartridge guns.
You have to remember that its the weight of the ball that produces the penetration, and penetration means tissue distruction. The amount of tissue damaged in the primary wound channel of a .58 round ball is substantially more than that of the .54, just based on frontal area. But factor in the pure lead ball expanding in flesh on impact, and a slower moving .58 ball will actually do more damage than that fast moving .54. The faster the ball moves, the faster it expands, and slows. With either round, the ball is going to go through a deer at any distance you should be shooting an open sighted rifle at a living animal. Niehter round has to be sent out the barrel at fast velocities. 1200 fps. at the muzzle is more than enough to kill any deer you can hunt.
Too many shooters are still thinking in terms of modern rifles, with their expanding small caliber bullets, that have to expand quickly to cause the same kind of damage that a large caliber round ball would do if it didn't expand at all. Velocity is everything for those small caliber, jacketed hollow point, or shoft point bullets to get them to expand.
With pure lead balls, slower gets it done better. That makes shooting ML rifles a totally different breed of cat, than what they have been used to with modern cartridge guns.
Not sure I agree with those comments as they're written (not your post, but his words).
Weight / mass is the key...I use the same powder charge in my .58cal that I do in the .54cal for deer hunting...100grns Goex 2F (or 90grns Goex 3F).
And while the bigger heavier ball probably runs a little slower than a 230 ball with the same powder charge in a smaller bore volume, the big .570s have blown completely through every deer I've shot with them...and 100grns 2F is just a mid-point charge for the .58cal...you could goose it up to the max and take most anything on the NA continent, whereas I wouldn't think so with the smaller, lighter .54cal.
I'm not saying a .54cal/230grn is no good for moose...just saying given a choice, I'd reach for the .58cal/279grn every time, considering it's extra power through it's larger frontal area, more weight for handling bone & penetration...and wouldn't have to use "significantly higher powder charges" than with a .54cal/230grn ball.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the comments from his book or something... :hmm:
Weight / mass is the key...I use the same powder charge in my .58cal that I do in the .54cal for deer hunting...100grns Goex 2F (or 90grns Goex 3F).
And while the bigger heavier ball probably runs a little slower than a 230 ball with the same powder charge in a smaller bore volume, the big .570s have blown completely through every deer I've shot with them...and 100grns 2F is just a mid-point charge for the .58cal...you could goose it up to the max and take most anything on the NA continent, whereas I wouldn't think so with the smaller, lighter .54cal.
I'm not saying a .54cal/230grn is no good for moose...just saying given a choice, I'd reach for the .58cal/279grn every time, considering it's extra power through it's larger frontal area, more weight for handling bone & penetration...and wouldn't have to use "significantly higher powder charges" than with a .54cal/230grn ball.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the comments from his book or something... :hmm:
cowpoke1955
58 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 2,090
- Reaction score
- 6
The .54 has always been a personal favorite. You have to admit, both will do the job well. Both will take anything in this country. If it came to a mad, charging Grizz, I'd want a 5 inch recoilless rifle :rotf: .
"...I'm not saying a .54cal/230grn is no good for moose...just saying given a choice, I'd reach for the .58cal/279grn every time, considering it's extra power through it's larger frontal area, more weight for handling bone & penetration...and wouldn't have to use "significantly higher powder charges" than with a .54cal/230grn ball..."cowpoke1955 said:
Getting close :grin:...I took a GM .62cal Flint smoothbore drop-in barrel I'd taken deer with last fall, and sent it to Ed Rayl in January to add .012" x 1:72" grooves...extremely accurate .62cal rifle...325grn patched ball is powerhouse too...looking forward to using it again this fall.
Have no need for it what-so-ever taking 50-60 yard woods shots at 150lb deer, but it's a great hobby, eh? :grin:
Sharp Shooter
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 1
Roundball you need to come to Colorado and hunt elk with that 58cal or that 62cal!
had a big bore for years for elk didn't get the elk but took a lot of deer with it. I shot the 560 maxie and used 115 of 2f. It shot into about 2" at 50 yards. I think I got 7 or 8 deer with it at 10 to 100 yards all one shot kills. Took two elk but both with 50 and 385 maxie 85 grains of 3f. wish I had the 58 back have a gph now and I doin't think that it shoots as well as it should. tom
Jumpshot
54 Cal.
roundball said:
roundball,
I've read several of Fadala's books over the years, good learning resources for idjits like myself. I don't have the experience you and Paul do, but I think I see the reasoning behind the different attitudes.
Fadala seems to place a higher priority on velocity than you guys do, and also on an intangible quality I'll call 'efficiency'. It's not that he doesn't believe a .58 will do the job, but the impression I get is that he prefers to find what he considers an optimum balance between lead and powder used, recoil produced vs. velocity obtained, and results obtained. I guess you could lump these factors together and call the whole thing 'efficiency' (I'm making this up as I go, so bear with me).
He seems to view calibers as more or less efficient, depending on the above factors. Not that the .58 should match the velocity of the .54, but with his heavier emphasis on velocity, he feels the .58 moves to slow and requires too much powder and recoil to get it moving faster, thus making it less efficient than a .54. But like I said, he places more emphasis on work required vs. velocity obtained, so it depends on your point of view.
The impression I get is that it's like using a larger caliber, say a .45/70, on whitetail. That may be more power than you need, with more powder required and recoil produced, with less velocity, than a 7mm-08, so you could say it's less efficient for the job. But it's still going result in a dead deer. I believe this is the bottom line in the discrepancy between Fadala's beliefs and yours.
I think the efficiency argument makes sense (after all, he did use a .54 to brain a buffalo), but so does the mass/weight/frontal area argument. Both will do the job, so I don't think it's wise to entirely dismiss one approach in favor of the other.
The cool thing is that we can choose which approach we prefer every time we take to the woods. That's how I see it.
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,538
- Reaction score
- 87
I like your explanation better than Sam's. You understand all the variables that should be taken into consideration in choosing a rifle caliber, and powder charge, and projectile. What can't be done for other people sight unseen, is to take into consideration their height, weight, and body build. All of those things enter into that subjective judgement about " felt recoil ". Even with the big boomers, there is not consistent agreement, as some people are not as recoil sensitive as others, the same size and shape.
I think the .54 DOES make a fine " compromise " round for most shooters. Its gets the job done, and leaves your teeth firmly fixed in your mouth! However, the .58 is obviously capable of being a more capable killing caliber, provided you can deal with the recoil of heavier loads. Sam's point about the speed at which a large ball expands when it hits a living target is interesting, as we just don't have any good way to measure such events from animal to animal Autopsy examination will show us the primary wound channel, but its really next to impossible in soft tissue to get an accurate measurement of the diameter of the bullet or ball as its expands. That's why its called " soft tissue". We can do better if the ball passes through a bone, but even there, bone is also living, and will bend or stretch before it breaks, so you again don't get a very accurate measurement, even if it is closer to true diameter than the hole through living flesh.
I think too many people watch those CSI shows where the lab people are making casts of knife wounds and coming up with an exact replica of the knife that caused the wound! Yeah, Really! That kind of cast can be done under very controlled conditions, where the body is frozen shortly after the injury is caused, or if its frozen while the injury is caused( Post mortem). But living flesh moves when objects are removed. Its next to impossible to line up the tissues to run a solid rod through the wound channel to get trajectory, not taking into consideration that most bullets will turn or veer off the line of entry as they slow, or strike bones. I have seen x-rays of .22 rimfire bullets that entered one side of the chest, and bounced around taking out both lungs, and the heart, coming to rest somewhere else. I had a murder case where a bullet entered the front right stomach at hip level, turned and traveled under the skin around his right hip, and came to rest under the skin directly opposite of the entry wound. No one is going to take a straight rod and follow that wound channel! Nor is anyone going to make a cast of that wound channel. So much for CSI techniques. Thank you Hollywood. ( Or Hollywouldn't, as its called by real CSI types.)
I don't really disagree with Dr. Sam Fadala. I just think he is not always as clear in what he is describing as I know he could be. And, like us all, he is born with certain prejudices( learns them at early age) and never questions them as he grows, until something tells him he can't be right. I have had many of those moments in my life, as has, no doubt, Dr. Sam. This subject is just not one of them, yet.
As you have described so accurately, an " efficient " load is as you describe, and takes into consideration much more than velocity, weight, and caliber. Your comment has raised this discussion several notches. BTW, I don't really disagree with Roundball, either, and most of the time I agree with Rabbit.
I think the .54 DOES make a fine " compromise " round for most shooters. Its gets the job done, and leaves your teeth firmly fixed in your mouth! However, the .58 is obviously capable of being a more capable killing caliber, provided you can deal with the recoil of heavier loads. Sam's point about the speed at which a large ball expands when it hits a living target is interesting, as we just don't have any good way to measure such events from animal to animal Autopsy examination will show us the primary wound channel, but its really next to impossible in soft tissue to get an accurate measurement of the diameter of the bullet or ball as its expands. That's why its called " soft tissue". We can do better if the ball passes through a bone, but even there, bone is also living, and will bend or stretch before it breaks, so you again don't get a very accurate measurement, even if it is closer to true diameter than the hole through living flesh.
I think too many people watch those CSI shows where the lab people are making casts of knife wounds and coming up with an exact replica of the knife that caused the wound! Yeah, Really! That kind of cast can be done under very controlled conditions, where the body is frozen shortly after the injury is caused, or if its frozen while the injury is caused( Post mortem). But living flesh moves when objects are removed. Its next to impossible to line up the tissues to run a solid rod through the wound channel to get trajectory, not taking into consideration that most bullets will turn or veer off the line of entry as they slow, or strike bones. I have seen x-rays of .22 rimfire bullets that entered one side of the chest, and bounced around taking out both lungs, and the heart, coming to rest somewhere else. I had a murder case where a bullet entered the front right stomach at hip level, turned and traveled under the skin around his right hip, and came to rest under the skin directly opposite of the entry wound. No one is going to take a straight rod and follow that wound channel! Nor is anyone going to make a cast of that wound channel. So much for CSI techniques. Thank you Hollywood. ( Or Hollywouldn't, as its called by real CSI types.)
I don't really disagree with Dr. Sam Fadala. I just think he is not always as clear in what he is describing as I know he could be. And, like us all, he is born with certain prejudices( learns them at early age) and never questions them as he grows, until something tells him he can't be right. I have had many of those moments in my life, as has, no doubt, Dr. Sam. This subject is just not one of them, yet.
As you have described so accurately, an " efficient " load is as you describe, and takes into consideration much more than velocity, weight, and caliber. Your comment has raised this discussion several notches. BTW, I don't really disagree with Roundball, either, and most of the time I agree with Rabbit.
rabbit03
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,143
- Reaction score
- 17
Well I have never read anything by this Fidala guy for that matter. I am sure he never meant to say that the .54 was the caliber to end all others. Most likely the research and the article made for some interesting reading though I bet! Fact is, if he had have come up with the .36 caliber being the most efficient that he wouldn't be recomending that one for moose!
Lots of folks write lots of things for magazines and stuff, lots of them do this for a paycheck. I am not trying to say the writings of these individuals are not worthy but it all should be and needs to be taken with a grain of salt and figure it as perhaps a guide at best and not GOSPEL! Just because something is in print does not mean it is Gospel. That means someone got what they wanted to write about printed, period.
Use what you want for a caliber that kills quickly and you can shoot acurately!
I have to disagree though with the notion that the 58 loaded heavily will cause bruising and this and that to the muscles in your arm and shoulder. As I have stated before I shoot Big 58 all day long and some times for a week or more and there is no ill affects to my body. Brain damage not included! :blah: By the way I am an average height and weight individual, 6'-185 lbs.
The .54 might be the most efficient but I would take a 58 or bigger if I had acces to it for large and or dangerous game and leave the .54 home to look pretty adn to tell everyone how efficient it was. So what! The point is he wrote an aricle about which bullet used the most efficient amount of powder and the most efficient according to weight of ball and killing power with the least amount of torutre to your body, yada yada yada. Some folks think that it's all that, it aint. It is just an article about a caliber. :blah:
rabbit03 (Big 58 has the Whompability)
ps I did read Bill Jordans' "No Second Place Winner"
Lots of folks write lots of things for magazines and stuff, lots of them do this for a paycheck. I am not trying to say the writings of these individuals are not worthy but it all should be and needs to be taken with a grain of salt and figure it as perhaps a guide at best and not GOSPEL! Just because something is in print does not mean it is Gospel. That means someone got what they wanted to write about printed, period.
Use what you want for a caliber that kills quickly and you can shoot acurately!
I have to disagree though with the notion that the 58 loaded heavily will cause bruising and this and that to the muscles in your arm and shoulder. As I have stated before I shoot Big 58 all day long and some times for a week or more and there is no ill affects to my body. Brain damage not included! :blah: By the way I am an average height and weight individual, 6'-185 lbs.
The .54 might be the most efficient but I would take a 58 or bigger if I had acces to it for large and or dangerous game and leave the .54 home to look pretty adn to tell everyone how efficient it was. So what! The point is he wrote an aricle about which bullet used the most efficient amount of powder and the most efficient according to weight of ball and killing power with the least amount of torutre to your body, yada yada yada. Some folks think that it's all that, it aint. It is just an article about a caliber. :blah:
rabbit03 (Big 58 has the Whompability)
ps I did read Bill Jordans' "No Second Place Winner"
Jumpshot
54 Cal.
No, he didn't say the .54 is the best caliber. He just thinks it represents an excellent combination of factors involved for deer hunters, although that's not to mean others aren't good. We're just articulating why other calibers are just as good, or better.
But whether you agree with his assesment of the .54 or not, he's generally regarded as much more than just a guy who wrote an article.
But whether you agree with his assesment of the .54 or not, he's generally regarded as much more than just a guy who wrote an article.
rabbit03
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,143
- Reaction score
- 17
I know he is well regarded by some or alot of folks and I was intentionally playing him down. However I have not read anything he wrote to my knowlege so I am not in position to counter anything said here about his writings.
I have been around people though who have wrote a good deal of stuff and some of them are not much more than someone out to make a statement or a to have something come out a certain way. Perhaps working for the goobernet has made my opinions of some of these writings somewhat skeptical.
I have no doubt as to the validity of his research and writings about the 54 being the most efficient use of lead and powder etc. I simply say, "So what?" It is merely an article about a caliber and nothing more. It is like the 10mm pistol bullet when it arrived on the scene. Oh hell, it was the bullet that was going to kill all of the bad guys and do the laundry for you too. They soon found out it wasn't all that. so the same thing applies, "So what?". Good article but not much use really. Just like the 54 being the most efficient roundball round, So what? Does it make people better shooters?, NO. Does it kill more deer? NO. Does it make people hit the bullseye more often? NO So the question I have is "So what?" It does make for some good reading perhaps,but folks too often make these writers out to be alot more than what they really are. I think probably the writer is just doing his job and writing a good article about a subject and some of the people who read it take it as some sort of gospel, that's more like what happens. To each his own though, whatever floats your boat. So if your interested in which caliber roundball uses the most efficient amount of powder to lead configuration then the 54 is the round for you I guess. I for one want to see the animal hit the dirt when I pull the trigger. I could care less about if I had used 10 grns more powder than actually necessary to kill the thing. I want meat in the skillet and that's it! :blah:
I killed a hog a few years back with my 50 cal at 100 yds, one shot through the heart, I cheated and knelt down to take the shot, believe me I felt bad. The hog ran about 10 yds and died in a heap. He was unable to tell me that the 50 caliber was actually less efficient than that of the 54 :hmm:
Actually I chose the 58 caliber because of several reasons. I wanted a caliber that could buck the wind better than the 50 and 54 and my old favorite the .45 caliber. I wanted a big bore but not one of a huge size either. I settled on the 58 and I have never looked back. When at the competitions the wind has less effect on the Big 58 than the other roundballs mentioned because of its size and weight. I also enjoy shooting it on the XSticks and can really load it up and trust me there aint nothing like a larger ball moving quickly down range to buck the wind. shooting competition is all about the wind game and oh yeah that damn light change too!
I needed a rifle that I could offhand to get back in the offhand game and this rifle seems to fulfill all of the requirements in that area too. I can offhand the Big 58,thanks to John L. Hinnant cutting it back to 35 1/4 inches at my request. The rifle holds like a rock now even though it is an 1 1/8 inch, with it being bored out to the .58 cal it is a pleasure to hold offhand.
I also got it for the hunting aspect also. Although I have not killed anything with it yet I know it will perform above my expectations.
Hope to have some pics of a hog maybe soon for posting on the forum that I take with the Big 58.
rabbit03
I have been around people though who have wrote a good deal of stuff and some of them are not much more than someone out to make a statement or a to have something come out a certain way. Perhaps working for the goobernet has made my opinions of some of these writings somewhat skeptical.
I have no doubt as to the validity of his research and writings about the 54 being the most efficient use of lead and powder etc. I simply say, "So what?" It is merely an article about a caliber and nothing more. It is like the 10mm pistol bullet when it arrived on the scene. Oh hell, it was the bullet that was going to kill all of the bad guys and do the laundry for you too. They soon found out it wasn't all that. so the same thing applies, "So what?". Good article but not much use really. Just like the 54 being the most efficient roundball round, So what? Does it make people better shooters?, NO. Does it kill more deer? NO. Does it make people hit the bullseye more often? NO So the question I have is "So what?" It does make for some good reading perhaps,but folks too often make these writers out to be alot more than what they really are. I think probably the writer is just doing his job and writing a good article about a subject and some of the people who read it take it as some sort of gospel, that's more like what happens. To each his own though, whatever floats your boat. So if your interested in which caliber roundball uses the most efficient amount of powder to lead configuration then the 54 is the round for you I guess. I for one want to see the animal hit the dirt when I pull the trigger. I could care less about if I had used 10 grns more powder than actually necessary to kill the thing. I want meat in the skillet and that's it! :blah:
I killed a hog a few years back with my 50 cal at 100 yds, one shot through the heart, I cheated and knelt down to take the shot, believe me I felt bad. The hog ran about 10 yds and died in a heap. He was unable to tell me that the 50 caliber was actually less efficient than that of the 54 :hmm:
Actually I chose the 58 caliber because of several reasons. I wanted a caliber that could buck the wind better than the 50 and 54 and my old favorite the .45 caliber. I wanted a big bore but not one of a huge size either. I settled on the 58 and I have never looked back. When at the competitions the wind has less effect on the Big 58 than the other roundballs mentioned because of its size and weight. I also enjoy shooting it on the XSticks and can really load it up and trust me there aint nothing like a larger ball moving quickly down range to buck the wind. shooting competition is all about the wind game and oh yeah that damn light change too!
I needed a rifle that I could offhand to get back in the offhand game and this rifle seems to fulfill all of the requirements in that area too. I can offhand the Big 58,thanks to John L. Hinnant cutting it back to 35 1/4 inches at my request. The rifle holds like a rock now even though it is an 1 1/8 inch, with it being bored out to the .58 cal it is a pleasure to hold offhand.
I also got it for the hunting aspect also. Although I have not killed anything with it yet I know it will perform above my expectations.
Hope to have some pics of a hog maybe soon for posting on the forum that I take with the Big 58.
rabbit03
Jumpshot
54 Cal.
rabbit03 said:
You and I pretty much agree on this point. I'm not defending Fadala's preferred choice. In fact, I'm one of the ones in this thread questioning it as 'ideal' (whether it may be or not is up to the individual doing the shooting). It's a couple of other people here that agree with his sentiments on that. Just wanted to clarify that.
