A difference in terminal performance between 54 -62 caliber?

[Sparkitoff]

I've got several .54 caliber rifles, a .58 Zouave and a .62 smoothbore. I know my ballistics with these:
.54 230 grain 1654 fps (average of 4 rifles) (ball)
.58 555 grain 1120 fps (conical)
.62 338 grain 1488 fps (ball)

All of the .54's are sighted in dead-on at 100-yards and so is the .58. Out to 125-yards I know where to hold to hit. The .62 being smoothbore is sighted-in at 50-yards. It may be accurate "enough" past that distance but I won't shoot game further.

Taking the trajectory out of the equation - has anyone seen real proof of an advantage of one over the other? Does anyone have a story or theory that would point to one "out-doing" the other(s)?

My immediate thoughts are to send off two or three of the .54's and replace with one .62. This would be for hunting. Most often this is antelope, deer, hog, elk. In Texas I frequently encounter Aoudad, Nilgai and all kinds of other critters. I so shoot out to 100-yards but self-restrain after that distance.

I have been 100% one-shot lethality with my .54's on all the game mentioned. Sometimes I get a pass-through and sometimes I don't. The .62 has only accounted for 3 head of big-game but the distance was closer and the results mimicked the .54 performance. I've shot just one deer with the .58 because it is not quite as accurate and I have few musket caps. Examing that deer you wouldn't know which rifle I shot it with, the damage mirrored what the others tend to do. So maybe I am trying to improve something that doesn't need improvement. Thoughts?

 

[Rifleman1776]

Spark.....you have a lot more game shooting experience than most of us here. Any of those will put meat in the pot. Your post reminds me of the old ml adage "beware the man with only one gun". Pick the one you like the best and use that. Keep hunting and post lots of pictures.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

I used a .62 smoothbore for many years for deer hunting. Never failed to pass through and I never had a deer run on me. They were usually knocked to there feet or often spun around onto the ground. All shots at less than 50 yards. I was shooting 60gr 2f bare ball. FPS was something around 900-950.
That being said, for deer hunting now I'd go with a flintlock .58 round ball with a 1 in 48 twist and keep my shots inside of 75 yards.
I live in the Midwest. We don't have to shoot far. Westerners generally want a slower twist, larger powder load and tend to shoot farther.

 

[Black Hand]

If you pull the trigger, the ball goes where you aimed and the animal falls over dead - what's the difference which you use?

 

[tenngun]

Looking at the Lyman’s black powder handbook I note the lighter minie projectile do preform similar to bigger ball. The 260 grain .58 ball looses a little at a hundred yards compared to the .45 265 grain Minnie but not much.
Lyman’s didn’t do a .62 but I bet down range it would be close to the .58 315 minne, say around 600 ft lbs at a hundred yards if fired in the 1400FPS range. A Ball is going to loose a little compared to even a light Minnie but that’s a big hunk of lead at a aprox 800 FPS at that range.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Taking the trajectory out of the equation - has anyone seen real proof of an advantage of one over the other? Does anyone have a story or theory that would point to one "out-doing" the other(s)?

My immediate thoughts are to send off two or three of the .54's and replace with one .62. This would be for hunting. Most often this is antelope, deer, hog, elk. In Texas I frequently encounter Aoudad, Nilgai and all kinds of other critters. I so shoot out to 100-yards but self-restrain after that distance.

I have been 100% one-shot lethality with my .54's on all the game mentioned. Sometimes I get a pass-through and sometimes I don't. The .62 has only accounted for 3 head of big-game but the distance was closer and the results mimicked the .54 performance. I've shot just one deer with the .58 because it is not quite as accurate and I have few musket caps. Examing that deer you wouldn't know which rifle I shot it with, the damage mirrored what the others tend to do. So maybe I am trying to improve something that doesn't need improvement. Thoughts?

James Forsyth would agree with the idea of going to a bigger round ball Rifle than the .54. Only he would tell you to dump the .58 and go with a .62 rifle. So would Sir Samuel White Baker, OR to start using a patched round ball in the .58.

It is found, that with any form more pointed than a hemisphere, the shock given to an animal is much less, although the actual diameter, and consequently the striking area, of the ball be the same. ......It was from observing constant instances of such wounds that I first began to doubt the advantages of the pointed form [conical bullets] of sporting projectiles; I have seen such a ball [conical bullet] strike a tiger between the eyes, and cut a groove over the top of its head, making its exit at the nape of the neck, with no other effect but that of temporarily stunning him. James Forsyth The Sporting Rifle and Its Projectiles 1867

I do not approve of the sharp-pointed cone [for large game]; it does not produce sufficient concussion, but enters the animal more like the thrust of a sword than the blow of a bullet; there is not sufficient shock; there is much difference the blow or a hammer and the thrust of a dagger, as in the shock of the blunt bullet [round ball] and the perforation of the sharp cone [Minie ball] Sir Samuel White Baker The Rifle and Hound in Ceylon 1854

Then you have the idea of distances where one engages large game, even dangerous, in forest areas. It should be noted that the "jungle" of India is much more akin to a forest area than the jungle of the Amazon, for example.

Most men who have shot much in the forests of India will agree that it is only on the open plain that such long shots [more than 100 yards out to 200 yards] even as this will be likely to present themselves. In the jungle at least one-half [of large game harvested] are under 50 yards, three-fourths are under 75, and all, with scarcely an exception, under 100; this is to say, these are the distances at which animals are usually killed in jungle shooting, and I imagine that the case is very much the same in other forest countries. James Forsyth

I like these two authors, who had the advantage of caplock rifles and the choice between conical, patched round ball, and belted round ball. They both came to the same conclusion, more than a decade apart, that long, conical tipped bullets did not have the same effect on large game as did the round sphere. And this may be why the first cartridge rounds for both "large dangerous game" and many of the military rifles, started out with rounded tips that mimic the impact of the "hemisphere" mentioned above. Round noses are still popular enough designs today to remain available to the sportsman.

The last quote I add as even though Forsyth was half of a world away, he was observing a century and a half ago, the same general distances when harvesting cervids as we do today in the woods of North America. So shooting at 100 yards or less is a good thing. Now when it comes to Nilgai and other "exotic" large game, for the folks that don't know, the location of the vital organs is a bit different than the large game of North America, and the upper bone of the forelegs acts as more of a shield on the vital areas than on deer, elk, or moose. The shoulder-shot-placement is often considered the better choice on Nilgai, and if one applies that to North American cervids, the results should be quite acceptable as well, regardless of the caliber used.

LD

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

Deer are really easy to kill. I've seen them killed with a .22lr.

 

[waarp8nt]

It sounds like you already have the important stuff figured out; Shot placement, heavy projectile of sufficient velocity to pass through the animal. BTW, I like your hunting ethics (limiting distances).

Are you wanting the new .62 to be rifled?

 

[Sparkitoff]

If I get a .62 I would like a rifle with a barrel around 38" or less strictly for hunting.

 

[BrownBear]

Aside from guessing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, you need someone who has shot a lot of bigger animals with both 54 and 62.

I have a number of buds who were long-time 54 moose shooters with complete satisfaction, long as they were using wheelweight balls. One of them moved up to 62 caliber, and over a span of years they've all converted. Still using wheel weight balls for T&T penetration in their 62's, but none seem to be shooting any more or less moose. I've quizzed them about it, and they like the 62's because the moose always seem to drop faster, sometimes even in their tracks. Moose always wanted to travel a bit when shot with 54's. That can be a big factor shooting moose around water, when a few steps can mean standing up to your neck in a beaver pond to dress and quarter.

Their word certainly, but none of these guys are prone to fluff and puff on web sites. Just common sense getterdone hunters who'd rather shoot than type.

 

[Treestalker]

A friend of mine from central Texas shot a Nilgai with a .338 and it ran. He shot it 3 more times (running) before it dropped. I would build a .62 rifle and try it. Another friend here in Arkansas uses a .58 custom half stock on deer, he says it just jerks the world out from under them.

 

[hanshi]

I've shot deer with a .54 rifle and a .62 smoothbore and could tell no difference. They both dropped them in their tracks.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

I've shot deer with a .54 rifle and a .62 smoothbore and could tell no difference. They both dropped them in their tracks.

It's really uncanny, but you really resemble Tom Selleck.

 

[Zonie]

A .62 diameter roundball is 15 percent larger than a .54 diameter roundball therefore, it will kill things 15 percent deader.

That's what my calculator says.

(Just kiddin' folks. No need to send me any PT's asking me if I've lost my mind. )

 

[shane a gress]

It's really uncanny, but you really resemble Tom Selleck.

Glad I'm not the only one.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

A .62 diameter roundball is 15 percent larger than a .54 diameter roundball therefore, it will kill things 15 percent deader.

That's what my calculator says.

(Just kiddin' folks. No need to send me any PT's asking me if I've lost my mind. )

15% deader...do you mind if I use that?

 

[tenngun]

Most fusils are .62, so if you got one you could shoot the same ball in rifle and smoothie.... strike that, I just got s .54 smoothie barrel

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Keeping initial velocity differences aside for the moment, The retained energy and ability of a round ball to over come air resistance, is directly proportional to it's size. I noticed years ago, using the "down range" figures from Lyman's 1st Edition book, that 50 caliber balls at 100 yds still had about 50% of their initial velocity. 58 caliber round balls at 100 yards still had about 58% of their initial velocity, even up to 75 caliber round balls retaining about 75% of their initial velocity. These are + or - about 7 or 8 percent due to the increased resistance when sonic speeds are encountered so it is a rough approximation, but the numerical trend is there.

Then we have the weight of the firearm to be considered. For the most part, a 54 caliber can be made in the same or even lighter weight than a 50 caliber. But not so in rifles when we bump up to 58 or 62 caliber rifles in the standard Octagon shape. A 62 Octagon barrel requires significantly more weight and heft for carrying around. Not necessarily so for the usual tapered barrels of muskets and smooth bores.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

Barrel weight and caliber are unrelated. You can make any profile you want to get the weight you want.

 

[Coot]

Some barrel makers use the same exterior profile & dimensions for more than one caliber. If the same exterior dimensions are used to make both .50 & .54 caliber barrels by simply boring the .54 out larger than the .50, then that makers .54 barrel will weigh less than their .50. If getting a true custom barrel, then one could have say a .32 barrel made to weigh 15 pounds by having a very thick wall or bring the weightdown to say 4 pounds by having a much thinner wall. At a certain point, the barrel wall thickness cannot be made thinner & remain safe to shoot & at that point, the barrels will become heavier as the caliber increases due to the additional metal needed to surround the larger bore.