• 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

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
roundball: IMO, if the ballistic coefficient which represents the aerodynamic/weight value of a roundball is used, the energy calculated at 100 yards can be correctly found.
It is not as though these ballistic coefficients are limited to pointed projectiles and a value for a lead sphere is known (it is different for each diameter of lead ball).
For instance, the BC for a .490 diameter pure lead ball is .068 while the BC for a pure lead .495 ball is .070.

zonie :)
 
I've been hunting big game using strictly .54 prb's since about 1986. I've taken quite a few deer and elk with that caliber and have been very satisfied with its performance. In fact, I don't think any other caliber would do any better.

However, the rifle I am building now is a .58, and the main reason for choosing this caliber is simply weight reduction. I'm using a 1" straight octogon barrel, like my last .54, but it weighs about a half pound lighter due to the bigger bore. A half pound means alot at the end of a long elk hunt. :) And also because I just want to have a new caliber to shoot. And I must confess I'm also curious about the .58's Whompability" factor. :grin: Bill
 
Good luck and let us know how it turns out...I'll be surprised if you're not impressed.

So far I've just used a moderate charge of 100grns Goex 3F for deer hunting here, thick woods, 40-60yd shots, and with the heavy 1" x 33" GM barrel its a powder puff to shoot. Zeroed at 50yds it drops about 3" at 100.

Since I don't cast, I don't plink around with it very often as Hornady .570s are fairly expensive, but when I do shoot a 6" steel hanger plate at 50yds, 60-70grn Goex 3F POI is so close to the 100grn POI that I don't have to change sight settings or POA...I just shoot it like it was 100grns.
 
Zonie said:
roundball: IMO, if the ballistic coefficient which represents the aerodynamic/weight value of a roundball is used, the energy calculated at 100 yards can be correctly found.
It is not as though these ballistic coefficients are limited to pointed projectiles and a value for a lead sphere is known (it is different for each diameter of lead ball).
For instance, the BC for a .490 diameter pure lead ball is .068 while the BC for a pure lead .495 ball is .070.

zonie :)
Click to expand...

And I guess that would still leave out the positive effects of the frontal area factor though wouldn't it...ie: a BC formula is driven based on more and more weight of a centerfire caliber bullet which gets heavier as it gets longer within the same caliber, but it's frontal area remains the same. To get a heavier ball in MLs we have to increase the caliber of course which also increases the frontal area.
 
Yes, Zonie's explanation about the BC of a bullet, and your talk about the frontal size of the larger carliber is what I was attempting to say in my post.

These are the differences that have to be included into any hypothosis or the end result will be wrong.

:thumbsup:

rabbit03 (Got Whompability)
 
:grin: with all this talk about .58's I can see I'm going to have to drag out the .58 and take her to the range one Saturday this month.

PS:
I lucked out on a deal for Remington .570s...stumbled across an aution and bought 18 boxes for $4.50/box of 50, delivered to my front proch.

They are those 'gold' colored Remington balls...you know, the ones that are advertised as having "the lead is covered so there's no health danger, and it eliminates leading of the bore". :shake:

Anyhow, compared to Hornady .570s, they started really hard...mic'ing them I found not only are they not .570s, they average around .578 (range .574 to .582)...and shot fine just plinking steel.

Don't know who made them for Remington but the size is wrong for the box label and there is a surprising amount of QC variance in their size for a major name like Remington to be on the box.
 
Ive been following along and trying to understand all of the information.Im still confused.
Would someone comment on the following statement:( A 58 cal has more knockdown power/While the 54 cal. has a deeper penetration).
Im not saying this statement is true, Im just trying to figure things out.
 
82 airborne said:
Ive been following along and trying to understand all of the information.Im still confused.
Would someone comment on the following statement:( A 58 cal has more knockdown power/While the 54 cal. has a deeper penetration).
Im not saying this statement is true, Im just trying to figure things out.
Click to expand...
Well I'll save you the trouble and say it isn't true :grin:...the heavier .58cal ball will have deeper penetration.

Thats a specific, desired attribute when selecting a heavier projectile...deeper penetration on bigger game...whether talking about a lead round ball or a .30-06/110grn bullet for varmints compared to a 220grn bullet for moose.
 
Well, this is good reading - I have a .58 cal barrel on the way to me right now from Mr. Taylor. My primary projectile will be Hornady round balls but I'm also looking at a bullet mould - maybe a mini or real, etc. - not sure. It's a slow twist barrel so can't be very long.

IMHO, the 58 vs 54 vs 50 vs 45 is mute if you factor in bullets. The 45 fast twist or medium twist barrel with bullets becomes all the penetration and muscle you need for any game really. It also extends the hunting distance to the limits of most people's iron sight shooting.

As to the round ball only - there is some point of balance between on-target performance and trajectory - and it just depends on what mix you desire.

The 54 does shoot a little flatter and the 58 does hit a little harder - this is just fact based on their physical properties.

Look at the 45 and 58 in comparisson to see this more clearly in an exagerated view.

From my personal point of view, if I'm wanting a round ball, I'm shooting close-in, and that means that the bigger and heavier the ball, the better in terms of performance. In other words, the trajectory issue is mute.

This is just a taste and style thing or without emotion, an application thing IMHO.

One is not better than the other - and "more efficient" is subjective to what you value or weight the most in performance.
 
[/quote]
Well I'll save you the trouble and say it isn't true :grin:...

Thats ok roundball, Ill find out for myself. :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:
 
My fullstock Percussion Hawken in 58cal with a 1" X37" barrel, Maple stock, steel parts
weight is 9.5LBS.
My fullstock flint Hawken in 58cal with a 1"X 351/4 barrel, maple stock, steel parts weights
9.0LBS.
My Lancaster flint in 58cal with a 1"X42" barel, maple stock, brass parts weights 10.5LBS

My Hawken Halfstock percussion in 50cal, 1"X32", maple stock, steel parts, weights 9.5LBS

"whompability"

Try and picture this a 3LB hammer with the same striking velocity hitting Tungsten balls from 32cal to 62cal into 10" X 10" hickory planks.
We know that the smaller balls may be driven into the wood with one blow, the bigger diameter of ball the more strikes it will take to sink it level with the wood. So we know that if you add all the strikes up the bigger balls will have needed more strikes "energy" to be sank into the wood. Now if we use the total nuber of strikes and convert that to a energy number, we would have a energy figure that would be valid to sink the tungsten ball into that piece of hickory at a single blow.

As we know the bigger the ball the more energy it takes to sink it into the wood, the same is true if we are talking about a Game Animal, the bigger the ball the more energy it takes at the point of contact to get the ball started into the game animal, thats what we refer to as "whompability".


A 50,54,58,62cal may all have the same amount of energy at the target, but the bigger diameter ball will "always" need more energy to break the skin and enter the big game animal "whompability"

A needle and a 16 penny nail, try and push them into your skin, the needle goes in rather easy and distorts the skin slightly, the 16 penney nail will take lots of pressure and will drive the skin far into the muscle, the only difference is size. Thats what happens to a game animal, the bigger the ball the more muscles you will move until penetration has occured "whompability"
 
Well I don't know about all the needles and nails :grin:...but:

If a .530/230grn ball and a .570/280grn ball are both driven into a deer, elk, moose, whatever, at the same velocity...the .570/280grn ball will penetrate further.

Or...to use your own needles and nails example, which do you think will penetrate deeper into a deer?

A Remington .30-06 Accelerator .22cal sabot/55grn bullet at 4100fps?
OR
A Remington .30-06 (.308dia) 220grn bullet at 2300fps?

Which would any hunter in the country choose for a deer and bear cartridge.....and why?
 
"Which would any hunter in the country choose for a deer and bear cartridge.....and why?"

let us not enter the realm of common sense and reality here, it is a much more interesting topic if these are left at the door (VBG)
 
I agree with Roundball. Your analogies are not good metaphors to describe penetration in living flesh and bone, '58. Once you get a frieght train going, because it weighs so much more than a car, its going to keep moving that car it hits, no matter how much the car weights, and no matter how fast that freight car is moving.

A heavy metal projectile is going to overcome any inertia cause by flesh and bone rather quickly, and just keep on going. That is why weigh or ' mass " makes much more difference to penetration than does velocity.

This is the old argument between the small bore bullet shooters, and the large bore shooters. According to the small bore guys, if your bullet isn't move at over 3000 fps, it will bounce off the side of a deer, or it " won't kill " the deer. Various versions of these claims are made in gun magazines every year. Usually, the writers have never spent any time learning how to hold and shoot a large bore rifle, and haven't a clue what they are writing about.

Those .58 caliber round balls are going through any deer you shoot out to 100 yds, and probably through most Elk you shoot within the ranges of your open sights. The .50 caliber will go completely through most deer inside 100 yds. Most of have actual experince with the .50 as a deer hunting caliber. The hole on the opposite side is larger than .60 caliber, too. The .54 is awesome as a " compromise " caliber, but it doesn't give up much to a .58. Given a choice to hunt bear, or moose, I will use my .62, just because I have it! But If I were buying a ML rifle to hunt these big animals, I would be very comfortable owning and using a .58. I might be inclined to use a conical in the gun for that bear, but I would not feel undergunned shooting moose with that round ball. :hatsoff:
 
O.S.O.K. say "From my personal point of view, if I'm wanting a round ball, I'm shooting close-in, and that means that the bigger and heavier the ball, the better in terms of performance. In other words, the trajectory issue is mute."

Excellent point O.S.O.K.. Your statement causes me to reflect on my own personal learning curve. When I first decided to take on ML hunting, I simply took my experience from high power C.F. hunting , and tried to transfer it to the ML arena. That meant I wanted a load and caliber that was the flattest shooting, with the most power available. I chose the .54 because of its "efficiency" (as shown in the data tables), and practiced every weekend until I could routinely hit a one gallon paint can at 100 yards. I didn't bother practicing at shorter ranges, since those opportunities rarely presented themselves while hunting with my .270. And to top that off, since I had nobody to tutor me, (and please don't yell at me) my favorited load was 140 grains of 3f, to get that power I knew it was putting out, measured of course, by the purple area on my shoulder. Ok, now I'm ready to get that elk.

Now fast forward to my first shot at an elk. I turn the corner in a narrow canyon and walk right into a herd of elk. Confused animals are are running back and forth in all directions. I just stand there in shock looking like this :shocked2: There is a bull less than 20 yards to my left. He trots and stops,trots and stops. I put the sights on him and BOOM, they all run away. I crack my my ramrod and stab my hand trying to reload. I spend until noon the next day trying to find a dead elk or a blood trail, or some evidence that I didn't completely miss. After recreating the shot back home, I realized I must have shot about a foot over his back.

I bring this scenario up because in my experience it is very typical. Most shots are up close and personal, 50 yards or less, where everything happens in a fast and confused manner. The idea of trajectory IS mute, as is power and caliber for the most part. But, given the choice at close ranges, I think a larger, slower roundball beats a faster lighter ball for hunting. To me, that's "effeciency". Bill
 
Needles and nails, the hole were the nail went in will have more brusing around it, why?, because the nail will have caused more damage. Bigger balls cause more damage, thats just simple physics.
 
Fullstock58 said:
Needles and nails, the hole were the nail went in will have more brusing around it, why?, because the nail will have caused more damage. Bigger balls cause more damage, thats just simple physics.
Click to expand...
No question about that at all.

If that was the point of your earlier post, I missed it.
Frankly there was really a lot of data in that post that I had trouble navigating...all the different weights of the rifles, the needles, the nails, the sledge hammers, etc, etc.

When you were making the point that the smaller ball (needle) needed less energy to penetrate, I interpreted you were inferring it would penetrate deeper than the larger ball (nail) due to encountering less resistance of muscle tissue, etc.

We're in synch... :thumbsup:
 
" The idea of trajectory IS mute,"

This is often true with ML's even with the larger bores one can usually work up a load and sightin zero at the max. range you will hunt( typicaly 75-100 yds) and hold on that spot from the Muzzle out to the max range and still fall in the kill zone.
 
Amen, Keep it simple, my eyes with open sights is limited to a little over 100 yards. The Traditional Bowhunter in me makes me put the sneak on as much as possible.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top