i want to buy a new rifle and can't decide on a caliber so any opinions are appreciated.i already own a .54 renegade in a caplock so this one i want to be a flintlock.this will be a big game rifle and i don't hunt birds anymore so i am not looking for a smoothbore thanks.
-
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
.58 vs .62
- Thread starter Mr Hawken
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I have GM Flint barrels in .58cal & .62cal...both are rifled because I had the GM .62cal smoothbore barrel rifled by Ed Rayl.Mr Hawken said:
With my eastern deer hunting in fairly thick woods I didn't need either of those large calibers of course, but hobbies being what they are...well, you know. :grin:
They are both outstanding, accurate rifled barrels with serious whompability...the game you most likely will be after will probably help decide which caliber to go with.
The .62cal brings more to the table of course, if you're thinking of really big game like moose or any of the large bears.
A .570" swaged ball weighing 279grns is available from Hornady and Speer...as well as cast from Eddie May in Georgia, TOW, etc.
A .600" cast ball weighing 325grns, I believe is only available as cast...again, from places like Eddie May in Georgia, TOW, etc.
My signature photo below shows the GM .58cal barrel in a Hawken stock...
Last edited by a moderator:
The drawback with big bores is an arched trajectory. You can, of course, load them up to shoot as flat as any roundball but recoil becomes pretty severe. The 100 grain load you mention will give a .58 roundball only about 1300 fps and at that speed, sight in 3" high at 50 will leave you about 3" low at 100. That is about as slow and curved as I would care to hunt with and really slower than I would like. I like to get up around 17-1800 fps which allows me to sight 2" high at 50 and center at 100. For rendezvous shoots I back off my .50 caliber to just 50 grains of powder to keep recoil levels pleasant and still get higher velocity and flatter trajectory than 100 grains in the 58. Most people who shoot the .62 are only getting about 1100 fps. If I ever felt the need to throw more lead than a .58 ball I would go with a .50 caliber conical.
05/23/08
Velocity comparisons between 100 & 120 grns Goex 2F
GM 33" .62cal/.20ga Flint ”˜Rifled’ barrel
.020" Oxyoke prelubed pillow ticking
.600"/325grn cast lead balls (Eddie May/Georgia)
Wiped the bore after every shot
Pact Pro Chronograph at 15 feet
100grns Goex 2F
Average velocity = 1270 fps
120grns Goex 2F
Average velocity = 1340 fps
Planning to chronograph the .58cal this spring/summer
Velocity comparisons between 100 & 120 grns Goex 2F
GM 33" .62cal/.20ga Flint ”˜Rifled’ barrel
.020" Oxyoke prelubed pillow ticking
.600"/325grn cast lead balls (Eddie May/Georgia)
Wiped the bore after every shot
Pact Pro Chronograph at 15 feet
100grns Goex 2F
Average velocity = 1270 fps
120grns Goex 2F
Average velocity = 1340 fps
Planning to chronograph the .58cal this spring/summer
I've never shot a .62 but I own a .58 and I love it. I would put a .58 over the .62 if cost of shooting were an issue. You start to see a jump in the cost of shooting when you get above .54 PRBs. My .50 costs .34 cents a shot compared to .44 cents for my .58 using 80gr of powder.
If money doesn't matter, bigger is always better, right? I'd recommend buying a rifle with a wide butt plate to handle added recoil like an Early Virginia or Early Lancaster style.
If money doesn't matter, bigger is always better, right? I'd recommend buying a rifle with a wide butt plate to handle added recoil like an Early Virginia or Early Lancaster style.
Guest
Since your saying it will be your big game rifle and not a target rifle I say .62 all the way. Not just because of the big honkin hole it punches through critters but that .62's are just plain lighter to carry around in the field. I use a .62 cal Sharon Hawken halfstock that weighs just under 10lbs or so and has a cresent hawken buttplate. With all my hunting close on it doesn't matter what shape the buttplate is I have more than enough padding to tame any recoil. It really is nothing and who feels the recoil anyway when hunting?
I still really miss the .62 cal fullstock TVM Leman flinter I had to sell last year.
I still really miss the .62 cal fullstock TVM Leman flinter I had to sell last year.
Since you already have a .54 and you are buying this for a hunting rifle, I would say go with the .62, simply because there's more difference between it and the .54.
Truthfully, either will be fine. I don't have a .62 rifle but do have a couple of 20-gauge smoothbores that I shoot roundball from. Sure stomps a mudhole in a deer. :grin:
Good luck with it, whatever you decide.
Spot
Truthfully, either will be fine. I don't have a .62 rifle but do have a couple of 20-gauge smoothbores that I shoot roundball from. Sure stomps a mudhole in a deer. :grin:
Good luck with it, whatever you decide.
Spot
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 319
I'm starting to feel like I'm caught up some kind of arms race or something. It seems like the bigger bore I get, the bigger I want next. I've ranged all the way up to 58, and I was barely acquainted with a couple of those before I started yearning for a 62 or a 69. Or maybe a 72 or 75. Truth be known I want them all.
I do notice that the jump in recoil and size between a 50 and a 54 or between a 54 and a 58 doesn't seem all that big. But jump two calibers- from 45 to 54 or from 50 to 58, and the difference is real impressive. Go packwards, and dropping from a 54 to a 45 makes the 45 seem absolutely puny. Drop from a 58 to a 50, and the 50 is going to feel puny too. Dropping one caliber size doesn't really feel like that much of a change.
I'm talking pure psychology here rather than performance, but if you really want to impress yourself most for the dollars you spend, jump all the way from 54 to 62. You already know that your 54 will do the job okay, but we're talking fun here. You're just going to enjoy the jump in size a lot more with the 62.
I do notice that the jump in recoil and size between a 50 and a 54 or between a 54 and a 58 doesn't seem all that big. But jump two calibers- from 45 to 54 or from 50 to 58, and the difference is real impressive. Go packwards, and dropping from a 54 to a 45 makes the 45 seem absolutely puny. Drop from a 58 to a 50, and the 50 is going to feel puny too. Dropping one caliber size doesn't really feel like that much of a change.
I'm talking pure psychology here rather than performance, but if you really want to impress yourself most for the dollars you spend, jump all the way from 54 to 62. You already know that your 54 will do the job okay, but we're talking fun here. You're just going to enjoy the jump in size a lot more with the 62.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 15,602
- Reaction score
- 19
Don't think you can go wrong with either one. I do love my .58 but I do dream of having a .62 rifled too.
I have two .58 caliber rifles and absolutely LOVE the caliber. With my hunting load, I am 3" high at 50 yards and dead on at 100. If I would have had the choice, at the time, I probably would have went for the .62. My only concern would be the increased arc of the ball for the longer shots we sometimes have out here.
Personally, I wouldn't even consider recoil as any part of a decision making process...IMO I think muzzleloader recoil in the common range of calibers we generally deal with is more between the ears than anything else. Yes, the recoil of my .58 and .62cals is more than my .40 and .45cals, but it is not an issue.
If a shooter gets himself all hunkered down over the top of a rifle on a bench so his body cannot move, recoil is more noticable...with any caliber. But if you sit upright at a bench so your body can move, recoil is not an issue.
Worse case, you can even practice with a slip-on rubber recoil pad if you want to...I've done that a couple time when sighting in a hunting load during the hot summer months when I'm only wearing a T-shirt. The cresent shape of my Hawken buttplates don't even enter into it.
Plus as others have mentioned, you don't sense recoil at all when actually taking a shot on game.
With my primary interest being hunting, I do all my practice sitting in a little chair with my left arm braced down on my side & chest, like I'd be shooting if I was sitting in a blind or stand, and shoot the whole range practice session that way...shoulder/body can move back when shooting that way and it just moves with whatever recoil there might be.
If a shooter gets himself all hunkered down over the top of a rifle on a bench so his body cannot move, recoil is more noticable...with any caliber. But if you sit upright at a bench so your body can move, recoil is not an issue.
Worse case, you can even practice with a slip-on rubber recoil pad if you want to...I've done that a couple time when sighting in a hunting load during the hot summer months when I'm only wearing a T-shirt. The cresent shape of my Hawken buttplates don't even enter into it.
Plus as others have mentioned, you don't sense recoil at all when actually taking a shot on game.
With my primary interest being hunting, I do all my practice sitting in a little chair with my left arm braced down on my side & chest, like I'd be shooting if I was sitting in a blind or stand, and shoot the whole range practice session that way...shoulder/body can move back when shooting that way and it just moves with whatever recoil there might be.
Roundball is correct about recoil. It's always more noticeable on the bench, but shoot standing and off-hand and it seems to dissapear.
I too was in anguish of going with a .62 over a .58 when I was ordering my new rifle. For me, cost became the deciding factor when ordering. I didn't want to buy a rifle I only shot right before deer season due to cost.
I too was in anguish of going with a .62 over a .58 when I was ordering my new rifle. For me, cost became the deciding factor when ordering. I didn't want to buy a rifle I only shot right before deer season due to cost.
Trench said:
On that note, I too was aware I had a pair of excellent Flintlocks that mostly lived in their cases...however, adversity is the mother of invention, and it turns out that penny apiece 9/16" marbles are simply outstanding for close range plinking in both of them.
:wink:
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,715
- Reaction score
- 525
Mr Hawken said:
How big is "big" game?
Moose, Grizz,or just deer sized critters?
My progression was 45, 50, 32, 54 and will get a .58 this year (hopefully), all left hand flint except the 32 which is right hand flint. Yeah, I know....missing .36 and 40. Had a .36 barrel but sold it several years ago to a buddy before building anything with it. Come to think of it, I have 3 old original percussion rifles I have never shot and don't quite remember the calibers. Guess I'll have to check that out better. Might be something that will fitroundball said:
Many Klatch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 3,498
- Reaction score
- 268
I had a .62 rifle. It shot a .610 ball with .015 patching. It was accurate to about 60 yards, after that I never did figure out where it went. I figured that the rainbow trajectory was more than I could deal with. With 75 grains of 3F it would seriously whomp a gong. At 25 yards I could hold about a 1-1/2" group off hand. My biggest problem was that the ramrod guides were a little too small so my ramrods were thinner than I liked and I kept breaking ramrods. I made a brass ramrod and that solved that problem, but then I had a heavy gun that had just gotten even heavier.
If you don't intend to take any game farther than 50 yards I think it is a good choice, but farther than that, I think you have your work cut out for you.
Many Klatch
If you don't intend to take any game farther than 50 yards I think it is a good choice, but farther than that, I think you have your work cut out for you.
Many Klatch
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 15,602
- Reaction score
- 19
What was the barrel length Many Klatch? I'm seriously thinking of having a 32" or 34" oct/round .62 rifled made up at some point. Your load seems on the light side to me too. Did you try higher charges at all?
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,703
- Reaction score
- 2
Trench said:
Love my .54 longrifle, but got the itch for a jaeger. Decided that bigger was even better (just the idea of a BEAR GUN made my mouth water - thanks, guys :grin: ) So being torn between a .58 and .62, I took the advice of Roundball and Birddog6 and went with the .58. Less cost to shoot. But two other things also came to mind:
Better availability - actually come across .58
roundballs in gun shops occasionally.
Recoil - I plan on shooting a lot but have
has shoulder issues in the past (gave up bow
shooting for this reason). The.58 will have
serious "whompability" but a step-down in
recoil from a .62.
Just my two cents, and yes, even though I ordered a Track of the Wolf kit with .58 barrel, have ALMOST had it sent back to exchange for a .62 just because it sounds so cool :wink:
BTW, Roundball mentioned slip-on recoil pad, have you seen the leather ones? I have one that I might use with the jaeger, and being leather, it doesn't look half-bad.
