• 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

L & R
Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Hi Jumpshot no need for clarification and when I was referring to you and your I was not making the reference to you but people in general :thumbsup:

Some might believe that because the caliber being the ideal caliber as far as being the most efficient still does not make it the best caliber for taking any particular game. Kind of like surveys I guess it is all how someone makes them out to be. Again, I have not read the article (if someone can post it I sure will though please) but I bet he didn't say that the 54 was the best all around caliber for any particular animal and that it was just probably the most efficient use of powder and lead and balistics. I am just guessing though.


There have been many though in my carear in the government that have touted this or that in their writings only to find out later they were full of bull or that they had an agenda to fulfill and the subject matter helped them to prove their point. You can start off with knowns and givens as fact and then take those facts and twist and adulterate them untill you get the desired outcome, seen it many times.

rabbit03 (thanks for the post)
 
Hello Billk, after John cut it down for me to the 35 1/4 inches from the 42 it started at it now balances at the front key. (Right where John is holding it in the photo) The rear sight is pretty much over the front key also on my rifle. It is a straight barrel in 1 1/8. A bit heavy for some I guess but feels just right for me. Can't remember the weight right now but I will get back to you on it when I find out.

This big rifle comes into play especially in the One Gun Aggregate at the shoots because I can shoot it well offhand or on the X Sticks. I almost prefer the XSticks to the bench because I can shoot it so well off of them. I think having the heavy barrel for the resting positions and being able to offhand it now that it has been cut down that I will win the One Gun Championship next year. A bold statement but I think I can do it now.


Big 58 (Bobbed as John calls it)

CIMG1886.jpg


rabbit03
 
rabbit03 said:
...I have not read the article (if someone can post it I sure will though please)...
Click to expand...

It's not an article. It's a point he makes when discussing the attributes of the various calibers in several of his books.
 
I always thought that my 54cal is the best and you could not beat that caliber. And now I can't wait to shoot my 58cal! :thumbsup:

The reason I chose to get a 58cal is because I live in CO and want to elk. I my 54cal would do but the 58cal would do it better. Another big reason is I am moving to Alaska in 3yrs. There are big moose and mainly large Grizzlies there.
 
He' Rabbit, The photo doesn't come through for me. Just a white field with a small red x in the corner. Can you send it again? I would like to see 'er.
Thanks,
Cooner
 
Good post Rabbit. Here's how I look at the issue, pertaining to hunting only. You could be walking around the woods with the most efficient caliber known to man, but you still need three things to happen, that has nothing to do with the effeciency of that caliber.
1. You need to find the game, or have them find you.
2. You need to have a good shot set-up.
3. You need to have good shot placement.
I believe once you have good shot placement (ie lungs, head, heart), the efficiency (or inefficiency) of your caliber of choice would make little difference, that animal is going down. I know this may be an simplification, but my point is that shot placement carries way more weight than the efficiency of the caliber used.

When it comes to taking game, I think too much emphasis is placed on caliber, and not enough on steps 1 2 and 3. I call it physics envy. Bill
 
Hi Cooner let me know if it comes through this time. If not we may have to get Davy involved or someone a weeeeeee bit more knowlegeable than me.

Photo #1
CIMG1886.jpg




photo #2
[url] http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b206/rabbit03/Hawken Big 58/CIMG1886.jpg[/url]


photo #3
[url] http://s20.photobucket.com/al...wken Big 58/?action=view&current=CIMG1886.jpg[/url]

I have attached the same photo three different ways, if yall would tell me which photo comes through (if any) so that I will know which way to post them, thanks


rabbit03 :thumbsup:

ps DANG I guess the #3 did it there is 29 photos or something like that in that one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree 100% with you Bill :thumbsup:

Those are the real important things and all the other talk about efficiency and all that is good for sitting around and jawing but it don't mean spit when you are shooting targets or game.

rabbit03
 
Photo #1 came through fine this time. Thanks Rabbit. That is a fine looking shooter. So...ya chopped 'er back a tad, huh?
 
I would think 350 is a lot of money for a used T/C but I guess a Big Bore is not your regular Hawken so that may be a fair price, "IF" the bore is good. Big IF. every used ML gun I've acquired had to be rebarreled due to rings, pits, or bulges in the bore. We all know the ML guns require prompt and proper cleaning. We all know that you should never shoot out a projectile which has become stuck part way down the bore. But from the guns I've examined it is clear that not everyone knows nor heeds those rules.
Streamlight makes an LED pen light slim enough to slide right down a bore of .40 or larger. That will permit a pretty good look. And good luck to you. :thumbsup:
 
Yep sure did. I was met with lots of opposition though by John. I finally had to wrestle him to the ground and make him holler calf before he would cut it back :bull: LOLOL Actually I had to remind him that he himself told me we might have to if it were just too heavy to offhand, which it was. But it was and still is a X Stick shootin son of a gun!

I managed to capture the Hunters Agg and the Silouette shoot this year because of his cutting it back for me, offhand has always been my strong point.

Going to build another though just like it before I cut it down and this one will be the full 42 inch and the same 1 1/8 X 58. Won't use it for anything but the X Stick match and the Light Bench Agg. Got all the parts just need to find the time to get R done. :thumbsup:

rabbit03
 
Lymans Blackpowder Handbook says:
50cal 32"barrel 100grs powder GO3F
muzzle 1978fps 1561efp @100yds 501efp

54cal 34" barrel 100grs powder GO3F
muzzle 1662fps 1347efp @100yds 515efp

58cal 32" barrel 100grs powder GO2F
muzzle 1295fps 967efp @100yds 455efp
to get the 58cal at the same energy @100yds would take 130grs of powder. With 130grs powder
muzzle 1451fps 1216efp @100yds 519efp

So yes the 54 is more efficient. Lets look at the 54 a little different.
50cal 43" barrel 100grs powder GO3F
muzzle 2095fps 1752efp @100yds 561efp

54cal 43" barrel 100grs powder GO3F
muzzle 1740fps 1477efp @100yds 549efp

It seems to me the 50cal is more efficient then either of 54 or 58cal. But were are comparing the 54 to the 58. Powder useage and Trajectory is the biggest difference and both favor the 54 and the longer barrel one has in a 54 the better it becomes.
I'm a old time 58cal junkie and I ran all the above type numbers many years ago, and I still favor the 58 over the 54, for me liking the Hawkens with 1" barrels the 58 weight and balance is better, so a little less efficientcy is much more out weighted by ease of shooting/carrying in the mountains.
 
After reading some of the posts again I guess what it would boil down to is what caliber a fellow feels that he can shoot the best. I know there have been plenty of game taken from everything from a 45 on up (Big game), there are of course exceptions to everything. I could skin an elephant with my pocket knife but it would not be my first choice! Guess I could go a squirrel hunting with Big 58 but I would rather have something a bit smaller I suppose!

So as I said before all this stuff about the efficiency of one caliber over another is for jawing over the campfire and it really doesn't have alot to do with anything at all. That is why I jumped in on this topic. :shocked2:

No disrespect intended to Fadala either, he was doing his job!

rabbit03
 
Not to beat a dead horse, really...just think it's worth mentioning that IMO a problem exists when ballistic charts show energy numbers for round balls, that were extrapolated based upon using the modern CF ballistics formula.

I don't think that numbers produced using the modern energy formula accounts for the additional effects of the large frontal area of a lead ball...not present in a slim .30cal bullet...thereby not really telling the story of the end game at the target....that end game being the intangible factor of "whompability".

I don't know how to measure it, calulate it, or even what to call it so I call it "whompability"...cause I know what that means.

It means that a big .570/280grn ball plowing into a deer at 100yards delivers more "whompability" than a smaller .530/230grn ball...and more than a .490, .440, .395, etc.
 
There you go again beatin that danged ol dead horse! (Of course I would never do that):blah:

I agree that the balistics can't be used in the roundball. The argument also is that the measured energy remaining at the 100 yd distance of the 54 is greater than that of the 58 etc and so on. What they fail to take into account is the size and weight of the bigger ball. There are no measurements that I know of that show this true difference. So there argument is based partly on, the only thing they can measure it with, just the energy left of the smaller one over the larger one and that alone is just one measurement and most likely not all that accurate when you look at the whole picture. The argument is being based on this one factor that their argument is correct, I don't think so. And being bigger and heavier may make all the difference in what you call the Whompability factor.

There are way too many other things to consider in this theory like size of animal, thickness of skin, density of bone, the % of lead in one versus the other ball, the speed of each, etc etc, not just that the 54 has more energy left at 100yds. That is why I say take anything that is written with a grain of salt and use it for a guide and not gospel because any subject matter or argument you want to come out a certain way, you can by not looking at all the other facts involved.



rabbit03
 
Good luck on the new Hawken and keep us posted on the progress. BTW, how much did that rifle weigh before you cut 'er back? I have a Hawken in .58 that has a tapered barrel from 1 1/8th to 1" in 39". It is a heavy rifle but still is very well balanced for off hand with the taper. It has been a long time since I weighed 'er but she is real heavy. With loads of 120 and better there is very little recoil. It makes a great off hand rifle as well as a X sticks buffalo rifle.
Whompability!!! Excellent choice of words.
 
Been trying to get in touch with John Hinnant to ask him what it weighed. We weighed in last time I was at his shop and it was I think around 11 lbs something and before it was cut I belive it was near 13 and change. I can tell you right now that the 6 1/2 inches we cut it back took off 1 1/2 lbs.

I will find out and post it first chance I get.

rabbit03 (whompability)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top