big bore

[hanshi]

A .58 for that little thing! Come on, now; it can't weight much more than half a ton.

 

[George T.]

I got the fever and bought a 58. Now don't get me wrong but the energy tables show that the 54 does better especially past 50 yards. I enjoy shooting both but the 58 does have a stiffer recoil when both are in the 110 grain range. I hope to try both on a large hog soon!
Geo. T.

 

[roundball]

"...the energy tables show that the 54 does better especially past 50 yards..."

I haven't looked at a lot of them but I don't recall seeing that particular energy table.
What energy table is it that shows a .54cal and a .58cal lead ball with the same muzzle velocity, resulting in the .54cal having greater energy past 50yds?
:hmm:

 

[Bob J]

"...the energy tables show that the 54 does better especially past 50 yards..."

I haven't looked at a lot of them but I don't recall seeing that particular energy table.
What energy table is it that shows a .54cal and a .58cal lead ball with the same muzzle velocity, resulting in the .54cal having greater energy past 50yds?
:hmm:

The larger .58 ball will not be travelling at the same velocity as the lighter .54 - both were loaded with 110 grains of powder, so the .54 will have a higher velocity.

 

[roundball]

He referred to an energy table...not the 110grns he decided to use in each caliber.
If its based on using the same powder charge in two different size caliber bores, with different volume space, and subsequent different pressure levels, then its a meaningless apples & oranges comparison.
Send them both on their way at the same MV then compare the energy...hands down the .58cal is superior, which is why it would be chosen for various assignments over a .50/.54cal in the first place.

 

[Lonegun1894]

Any chart that doesn't start both PRBs at the same velocity is comparing apples to oranges and trying to skew the results in favor of one or the other. I'm not trying to agrue as .54 is my favorite caliber, so I wish these results were correct, but this just isn't realistic if we want true results. If it was, we would all be shooting .32s with about 200grs of powder in an attempt to get the velocities up to make up for projectile size and weight.

Regardless of what we use, we have three things working for us. Size (diameter), weight, and velocity. Size and weight remain the same during flight, while we start losing velocity as soon as the gasses stop acting on the rear of our projectile to accelerate it, which happens at the muzzle usually. This leaves us depending on the size and weight, which means that a larger and heavier projectile, as long as we can shoot it well enough to control it, will always beat the smaller and lighter projectile. This is always going to be true as it is basic physics. The only time the opposite will be true is when you are trying to minimize damage to the target, such as when a trapper wants to put down a trapped animal while doing as little fur damage as possible.

 

[BrownBear]

He referred to an energy table...not the 110grns he decided to use in each caliber.
If its based on using the same powder charge in two different size caliber bores, with different volume space, and subsequent different pressure levels, then its a meaningless apples & oranges comparison.
Send them both on their way at the same MV then compare the energy...hands down the .58cal is superior, which is why it would be chosen for various assignments over a .50/.54cal in the first place.

Ayup. That's like comparing modern calibers based on powder charge alone. Never seen that before either.