.58 Cal really worth the hassle over the .54 cal

[smo]

Thanks T.O. Good Luck on them Griz,I hear they are moving our direction... :shocked2: :rotf:

 

[BrownBear]

Here's an observation I've made about 54 versus 58. Like so many others I was curious about 58 even though I was happy with my various 54's. Finally found a 58 that suited me and gave it a goround. Pretty quick I was tracking down more versions of 58's and virtually quit shooting my 54's. Now we have half a dozen of each in the house, and the 54's are dust magnets.

No real sense in it from many ballistic or practical angles, but there it is. The differences may be big to some and small to others, but everyone I know and most I've read about pretty much dumped their 54's once they got a 58.

Scary thing, I next took a gander at 62 caliber a couple of years back. Now there are two in the rack. I don't shoot them more than the 58 cals yet, but who knows.

 

[ryoung14]

For hunting non-dangerous deer-sized game, I'd say no, a .58 isn't worth the hassle. The .54 is perfect and the .50 is excellent as well. Both will shoot flatter than a .58 and for us sometimes hunters who are less than expert range guessers, a flat trajectory is a plus.

OTOH, a .58 is fun to experiment with. If the "hassle" of taking on another caliber isn't really a problem, they can be quite enjoyable at the range and in the field. However, I'd stay away from max loads behind heavy conicals...at least until I knew what I was doing.

 

[Little Wattsy]

Big angry grizzlies excepted, the .54 will stop any animal on this continent. You don't need bigger. Even with a .58 that griz will end up eating you.
These days other considerations come into play. Real black powder is harder to find and getting quite expensive. Same with lead. Bigger guns kick harder.
I would opt for the .54. There are reasons why that caliber is very popular.

Most people make emotional decisions and then create the "facts" later to back them up... And thats OK.
IF we can just stick to the FACTS then we can all agree that the .54 is King for huning in the lower 48 (and beyuond) and everything else is just personal preferance and a desire to be unique. :grin:

 

[BrownBear]

... and everything else is just personal preferance and a desire to be unique. :grin:

Or a desire not to have other folks telling us what's best for us.

 

[Little Wattsy]

... and everything else is just personal preferance and a desire to be unique. :grin:

Or a desire not to have other folks telling us what's best for us.

OUCH!!! That stinks of Liberalisim.... :barf: :wink:

 

[jdkerstetter]

....The .54 is perfect and the .50 is excellent as well. Both will shoot flatter than a .58....

The .50 and .54 only have a flatter trajectory than the .58 if firing the same powder charge in each. I mean if your statement were true, that the bigger the projectile the more arch to their trajectory, then cannon balls would just roll out the end of the barrel, right? :stir:

As far as which is excellent and which is perfect, I doubt deer can tell the difference when we're talking 0.04" in either direction.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[larry wv]

I like .58s better than .54s they are no hassel at all. I will pass on good priced .54s at pawn shops...But if its a reasonably priced .58 its coming home with me. Larry

 

[Flash Pan Dan]

You know this question is like asking; “I have a hammer, do I really need a screw driver?” Not if you are only planning on pounding nails. There are things the 58 can do better than the 54 or any other caliber and visa versa.

As an example, I had a chance to hunt pronghorn so I when out and shot my 54 and 58 and with a decent load my 58 would shoot better at longer distances than my 54. No it was not more accurate but the 58 would carry the heavier ball better at longer distances with as flat a trajectory and was a little, and I mean just a little, bit better in a cross wind. But this was done with a pretty hefty charge which I could tolerate in my 58.

If I could not shoot the 58 well with a heavy charge I would have taken the 54 and reduced my maximum distant limit. Use the right tool for the right job.

 

[hanshi]

a 36 is better then a 32
a 40 is better then a 36
a 45 is better then a 40
a 50 is better then a 45
a 54 is better then a 50
a 58 is better then a 54
a 62 is better then a 58
a 69 is better then a 62
a 75 is better then a 69

this is what ive learned in my time spent in the hunting section.

-matt

Define "better".

 

[nkbj]

a 36 is better then a 32
a 40 is better then a 36
a 45 is better then a 40
a 50 is better then a 45
a 54 is better then a 50
a 58 is better then a 54
a 62 is better then a 58
a 69 is better then a 62
a 75 is better then a 69

this is what ive learned in my time spent in the hunting section.

-matt

Define "better".

For a percussion rifle it's pretty tough getting any better than a .69. :haha:

 

[hanshi]

Also, if I may; I almost laugh at talk about "flatter trajectories" in the same breath with prb. I can't shoot far enough for anything of the sort to come to the fore. I'll trust my shooting up to maybe 100 yards + or - if I have a good rest and it's a good shot I'm given. One caliber might or might not have 1" or 2" less drop at that range but my shooting does not.

 

[BrownBear]

... and everything else is just personal preferance and a desire to be unique. :grin:

Or a desire not to have other folks telling us what's best for us.

OUCH!!! That stinks of Liberalisim.... :barf: :wink:

Nah. It's called liberty.

 

[Black Jack]

Big angry grizzlies excepted, the .54 will stop any animal on this continent. You don't need bigger. Even with a .58 that griz will end up eating you.
These days other considerations come into play. Real black powder is harder to find and getting quite expensive. Same with lead. Bigger guns kick harder.
I would opt for the .54. There are reasons why that caliber is very popular.

Most people make emotional decisions and then create the "facts" later to back them up... And thats OK.
IF we can just stick to the FACTS then we can all agree that the .54 is King for huning in the lower 48 (and beyuond) and everything else is just personal preferance and a desire to be unique. :grin:

What they said. The .54 is very effective on any member of the deer family, although a .58 would not be out of the question for elk or moose. Remember, most folks out there are using .50s for deer, so the .54 is a step up from that. The .54 is more of a "standard" size in the hunting style of rifle (half stock and longrifle) and guns and components are a little more readily available. Most .58s available as production guns are the military rifled muskets of the Civil War era. The ideal solution, of course, is to eventually own and shoot both.

 

[aeatwood]

Nice looking .58 Renegade for sale now in the forum.

"Recoil is insignificant when there is a tiger on the head of your elephant" The Maharaja of Cooch Behar

 

[Matt85]

a 36 is better then a 32
a 40 is better then a 36
a 45 is better then a 40
a 50 is better then a 45
a 54 is better then a 50
a 58 is better then a 54
a 62 is better then a 58
a 69 is better then a 62
a 75 is better then a 69

this is what ive learned in my time spent in the hunting section.

-matt

Define "better".

the larger the caliber the further you can shoot, the bigger the hole, and the deeper the penetraition. this will mean less tracking of wounded animals. the 54 is "ok" but its no 58 or even better a 62.

i too used to have a different view on this but the kind folks on this forum set me strait with a vengence.

-matt

 

[hanshi]

Now this is just my thinking as it applies ONLY to me and has no bearing even on what I personally like to hunt with. The deer I killed last year, for example, dropped like a stone when hit by a .600" ball I fired. Satisfying!

IMHO a bigger hole and more "whompability" is just a bigger hole and more "whompability"; nothing more. I'm talking whitetail deer and possibly black bear and nothing along the lines of, say, elk. I've killed a whole bunch of deer with the .45, .50, .54 and .62. All dropped either in their tracks or within a few yards with only ONE shot. That leaves me with few or no conclusions about ball size. In fact the arm I hunt with is determined by rifle and not caliber; so I might hunt with a .45 on Monday and a .62 on Friday. I can't say one is "better" than another as they all do the very same thing with the very same efficiency. I don't "dislike" ANY bore size though I generally say that .45 is my favorite probably for sentimental reasons as much as anything else. Plus I love the rifles I own in that caliber.

Unless you're going for really big stuff, a discussion like this borders on sophistry; not that there's anything wrong about that. I just simply like to talk and read about guns and calibers; never met one I didn't like.

 

[Little Wattsy]

... and everything else is just personal preferance and a desire to be unique. :grin:

Or a desire not to have other folks telling us what's best for us.

OUCH!!! That stinks of Liberalisim.... :barf: :wink:

Nah. It's called liberty.

For the record I was sarcastically poking at ME with the Liberal comment, Of course you are correct about Liberty.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[oldarcher]

I shot a GRRW .58 for 20 years and never felt that I didn't have enough gun. I am now shooting a .54 Bill Large barrel and I still feel the same way. Shoot what you like, place your shot well and forget everything else you have heard.

 

[Dphar]

Any real advantage of having a .58 over the .54?
Being new I have done a ton of reading and have some questions.

Bigger is always more effective in the PRB. However, the ball size need not be more than is needed. Also as the ball gets heavier the recoil increases if a velocity for a flat trajectory is needed or if the barrel likes a lot of powder to shoot accurately. With the heavier ball recoil can be an issue. So a lightweight crescent butt 58 is not a good idea.

But if you never shoot anything larger than deer or the typical Black Bear rifles over 50-54 are not needed.

Dan