.58 vs .62

[roundball]

"...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..."

I've been thinking about making a slip on butt cuff as a cover, that will slide over the rubber recoil pad to cover it...lace up along the bottom, and have a row of fringe hanging down along the bottom as well.

So far 99% of my hunting with shot loads has been at still or relatively still targets like turkey or squirrels with plenty of time to get the ML mounted the way it needs to be with a cresent shaped butt stock...there's even time when getting ready for a shot at crows, or trap & skeet targets.

But going after Doves where there's a lot of surprise showups, quick mounting/snap shooting, etc, I find that I occasionally revert back to decades of shotgun shooting habits and bring the cresent butt plate up flat against my right chest wall...and I'm immediately reminded of just how much curve there is in that cresent buttplate.
:grin:

So for times like a dove shoot, a slip on recoil pad covered by a piece of fringed suede should be great, both to allow more of a normal shotgun mount...with an extra inch LOP which I can use, and have a hint of something a little traditional.

 

[pchwcf50110]

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 sympathize Brownbear. i think i read too much Sir Samuel Baker. i am currently building a 10 bore (.775")english sporting rifle. i like the .62 over the .58 and i own both. if you get a barrel with Forsyth style rifling you can shoot balls made from wheelweights with equal accuracy as pure lead assuming you cast your own. i have always found it easier to aquire WW's for little to no $$ over pure Pb. if you rely on off the shelf components then the .58 has availability going for it.

 

[Mr Hawken]

this gun would be for elk and moose. their is no more season on grizzly in alberta so it would not be used for that.i just noticed that october country has a liver eating johnston rifle in a .58 that looks pretty sharp as well as there sporting rifle but thats getting steep on price anyone have good things to say about october country rifles

 

[Dphar]

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.

If you go above 58 caliber you need a good stock design.
62 to 69 cals are real power houses and need well designed shotgun buttstocks to get best use of the rifle. Crescent buttplates are a really bad idea.
If you have a 54 I would not bother with a 58. Little power gain. 62 is a real upgrade in power.
Rifle below is a 16 bore .662 ball, and weighs a little over 10 pounds. Has a English style stock design pretty common after 1790 or so. Great recoil characteristics but its not a lot of fun off the bench. Takes 140 gr of FFG Swiss to make 1600 fps. Ball weighs an ounce in pure lead.
Its a real killer.
Dan

 

[longshot47]

Roundball-
I'm likin' that marble idea. Is 9/16's the size of standard, commonly available marbles? I'm feeding a coupla .54's [Rice] and wonder about the fit [tight?]
Longshot

 

[BillinOregon]

Dan: That is a very fine 16 bore rifle, and the stock design looks perfect. I was fortunate to handle a British large-bore percussion hunting rifle from the 1840s at a gun show a few years back, and wish I had taken measurements of the stock, as the butt was dead right. The Brits knew how to handle recoil. Did you build the 16? I know you are a fine smith. Having shot 150 grains of FFg under .72 round balls in the Pedersoli Kodiak double, I know the guns start to get a little pushy from the bench at those load levels -- but nothing like what old Samuel Baker absorbed on a regular basis.
Roundball: Your marble idea is very good!

 

[MikeC]

Roundball...The .62 target was that a smoothbore or rifled barrel using the .030 patch material? BTW what did you use for a patch that thick?

 

[roundball]

If you go above 58 caliber you need a good stock design.
62 and 69cals are real power houses and need well designed shotgun buttstocks to get best use of the rifle.
Crescent buttplates are a really bad idea.

All of us have our opinions and that's fine of course...but you made yours above sound like an an across the board statement of fact...and it needs to be corrected so its clear that its simply your personal opinion.


I have a number of Flintlocks, including a .58cal and four .62cals...I am shooting one of the .62cals every couple of weeks or so year round for one reason or another, and they are all mounted in Hawken stocks with cresent shaped brass butt plates...if shooting heavy loads out of them was a problem, believe me I'd change them but there's no problem at all.

When using any rifle with a cresent shaped butt plate...not just a .62cal...the rifle is mounted so the toe lays naturally down into the crease between the arm and body...doesn't bother a thing.

 

[Trench]

I think you're right about the cresent butt. If you use it correctly it's not a problem. I do think that butt width and overall gun weight is the key to handling recoil. The butt on my .58 is 2 1/16 in. across. Comfy. :grin:

 

[roundball]

Roundball...The .62 target was that a smoothbore or rifled barrel using the .030 patch material? BTW what did you use for a patch that thick?

That was a .GM .62cal smoothbore barrel I had Ed Rayl add rifling to. (.012" x 1:72")
I was experimenting with different patch thicknesses that day at the range to find the best combo and ended up using two .015" patches together...I have since bought a piece of material at Joanns fabric that after washing and drying is about .027"...will try that next chance I get.

The 9/16" size weighes about 65grns so being that much lighter than lead, they have to be driven with a good head of steam all the way to the target to get that kind of accuracy as they slow down quickly at distance.

 

[roundball]

If you use it correctly it's not a problem.

Correct.

PS:
Seeing your measurement comment, I realized I didn't even know what mine were...so I just measured the butt plates on a couple .62s standing in the rack and they are 1+3/4" wide across the middle, with the heel and toes tapering an eyelash thinner towards their ends...

 

[roundball]

Roundball-
I'm likin' that marble idea. Is 9/16's the size of standard, commonly available marbles? I'm feeding a coupla .54's [Rice] and wonder about the fit [tight?]
Longshot

9/16" seems to be one of the most common standard sizes in the industry, and works great in the .58 & .62, but in spite of a lot of research and Email correspondence with several marble companies, to my disappointment I've yet to find a marble that works in a .54cal...9/16" are too big for the .54

The 1/2" size can be sorted and used in a .50cal, but so far, nothing for the .54cal.
Please note, any/all parties interested in joining the research are more than welcome to do so :grin:

 

[texcl]

When I decided to have a virginia rifle built I was going to build it in a .62 D weight barrel, but then I relized I could save a pound by using a C weight rice barrel in .58, I use my rifles for hunting elk, moose, bear and of course deer so I probably wouldn't go below .58 cal. I have a .62 smoothy and do respect it's power even with mild loads, but I'm very confident I won't loose much of an edge by going with .58 so my thinking is go with whatever lights your fire, if your like me you'll end up with both eventually anyway.

 

[Headhunter]

The 58 is a Monster with the Historical reputation of lightning fast kills. The 58 just flat out works.

A Measly 100 grains of powder will give you 23+" of penetration at 50 yards and the ball carries very well for longer range shooting with 200+ yard kills common. Wind doesn't effect it much and is VERY accurate.

With the .62, bigger doesn't always mean better.

Headhunter

 

[sixgun symphony]

Recoil can be pretty stout, so avoid the crescent shaped buttstocks and go with the English style. The English style is flat and rather broad, so felt recoil is reduced.

 

[cptleo1]

When I decided to have a virginia rifle built I was going to build it in a .62 D weight barrel, but then I relized I could save a pound by using a C weight rice barrel in .58, I use my rifles for hunting elk, moose, bear and of course deer so I probably wouldn't go below .58 cal. I have a .62 smoothy and do respect it's power even with mild loads, but I'm very confident I won't loose much of an edge by going with .58 so my thinking is go with whatever lights your fire, if your like me you'll end up with both eventually anyway.

I had a .62 D weight Virginia ---- WAY to much gun

To big, to heavy in the woods

Over a rest an absolute pleasure to shoot and a tack driver - Never could find anybody to carry it for me

Your 58 should be a sweety

 

[Dphar]

Dan: That is a very fine 16 bore rifle, and the stock design looks perfect. I was fortunate to handle a British large-bore percussion hunting rifle from the 1840s at a gun show a few years back, and wish I had taken measurements of the stock, as the butt was dead right. The Brits knew how to handle recoil. Did you build the 16? I know you are a fine smith. Having shot 150 grains of FFg under .72 round balls in the Pedersoli Kodiak double, I know the guns start to get a little pushy from the bench at those load levels -- but nothing like what old Samuel Baker absorbed on a regular basis.
Roundball: Your marble idea is very good!

Yes I built it.
Its my hunting rifle and really needs to be final finished. I should not have stated shooting it till it was completely done.
The stock pattern is very similar to the Purdey plans that TOW sells. Which is identical to Manton. Lock is a Manton recessed breech made from The Rifle Shoppe castings. The breech is a Nock type I made. Lock has stiff springs, is very fast and reliable and pretty easy on flints and seldom needs knapping. If it starts to miss fire the flint is generally past usefulness. Buttplate is a Manton from TRS deep and wide.
I have only killed 2 deer with this rifle but its works very well.
This was a 90 yard shot by the laser and the deer dropped at the shot. Ball missed all major bones but passed just under the spine.

The recoil in a 10 pound gun is not noticeable when hunting or shooting offhand. But extended shooting sessions from the bench are not fun.
Neat part is it will shoot soft lead and hard lead interchangably or unpatched balls in paper cartridges to the same point at 50-80 yards.
Has a 1:80 twist, very narrow lands and .008" deep grooves.
W-W balls require a thinner patch but shoot perfectly well to 180-200 yards.
If I do my part it shoots ragged holes at 50 and will break 2"+ thick limestone at 190 with WW balls.
It would do to shoot anything in NA and was considered the minimum for dangerous game in India back in the day. Too small for African Elephant.
For its intended purpose this is one of the best rifles I have every built.

Dan

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I have two .62 caliber rifles, a 7 pound early long rifle and an eight plus pound swivel breech rifle. Recoil isn't a problem with either one even with stiff loads and they carry nicely.

A ball for a .58 caliber rifle weighs 275 grains and one for the .62 goes 325 grains. This is an 18% edge for the .62. And the .62 does make a slightly bigger hole too. In the real world and at real world hunting distances, there is no way a .58 is going to outshine a .62. I like my .58s, but I know they take second place to the .62 everytime.

 

[billd]

I have a .62 very similar to the English Sporting Rifle on Jim Chambers web site. It's a 31" swamped barrel, weighs in at 7 lbs. I shoot either 90 grains of 3F or 110 of 2F. It has a wide fowler type butt plate and recoil is very managable. I wouldn't want to go to a shoot and have to fire 50 shoots, but 15 or 20 at the range is no problem. I never even notice recoil when shooting at game. I love this gun!!!

 

[tg]

If I were to go back to rifles and wanted a "big" rifle I would go with the .58 42"-44" swamped barrel probably like my Virginia smooth rifle only rifle rifled it is plenty for N. America game and will shoot a bit flatter than the bigger bores, I would go for an early style gun I think they look and feel better in the larger bores.Everyone has a different take on what is good or not what id best or second best, these things are something each has to figure out for themselves