to 58 or not to 58, that is the question

[rusty]

I just recently acquired a 58 and I use 70 grains of 3F and a 570 round ball

 

[Pukka Bundook]

I should have said above, but my .58 was a Jim Chambers "Mark Silver" kit. (Colonial Virginia style)
42" Don Getz swamped barrel w. round bottomed rifling.
Bore still shines like glass.

 

[Josephg]

Got a email this week that my 58 Hawken is done and to come pick it up. Will be my first .58. A long time collected assemblage of parts I knew I'd never make into a rifle went to a local smith. Lot of load information in this thread. Lot of good things said about the .58. When I started collecting parts figured .58 was an appropriate caliber for a Hawken whether it kicks more or not. Hope I like it..... oh hell yes I'll like it!

 

[Greg Blackburn]

Always liked the lines of a Hawken 58, but learned once passed a 45 call recoil was brutal with that style of butt, the next rifles I had where all built with shotgun butts, and where never unpleasant to fire, 50,58,8bore and they could shove you around a bit

I have decided that the only two TC Hawken's I want to keep are my .45 and .50 Silver Elite.....I want Renegades in the other calibers.

 

[toot]

just remember if you hunt, the animal cannot tell the difference of what size projectile just hit him!

 

[Art Caputo]

The most noticeable difference I have observed when range shooting with the 58 cal compared to shooting my smaller caliber roundball loads is when shooting half-inch thick steel plates at 50 and 100 yards. With center hits on the plate, the difference in plate movement and impact sound is VERY pronounced compared to my .40-50 calls.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

When I went to the .58 Colonial Virginia rifle, and 70 grains of 2F, I found that killing power was never a problem.
With my old .54, (Hawken style caplock) I used 60 grains for target and 120 of 2F for hunting, and it too was no problem.
That the .58 could get the job done with less powder took a bit of getting used to, but this charge was recommended to me by Jim Chambers, and as it worked, I never fixed it.

 

[Cowboy]

Have my share of .58’s. Usual military musket’s.

Pedersoli 1861 Springfield
Zoli Zouave
Euro Arms Zouave
Zoli 1803 Harpers Ferry

and also a couple of Hawken rifles in .58

Sharon Hawken.
barrel is 32” , twist 1:72. 1 1/8” at the breech tapered to 1” at the muzzle.
Lock and trigger’s are L&R.
It likes a .570 ball, 85gr. Goex 3f, .018 patch lubed with Hermit BP lube. Clover leaf shot groups benched out to 100 yds.

Guthrie Hawken.
barrel is Douglas 33 1/4” ,twist 1:56. 1 1/8” at the breech tapered to 1” at the muzzle.
Lock is a Bob Roller, trigger’s are Cherry Corners .
Likes a .575 ball, 90 gr. Goex 3f, .018 patch lubed with Hermit BP lube. Can also touch holes out to 100 yds benched.

Respectfully, Cowboy

 

[Pukka Bundook]

I note the guard-dog protecting your fine rifles, Cowboy!

 

[Cowboy]

I note the guard-dog protecting your fine rifles, Cowboy!

That’s my attack wolf and beer fetcher!

 

[Pukka Bundook]

I hope you keep it muzzled when in public.....

 

[MSW]

.58 ... gotta get me one of those ...

 

[Cowboy]

.58 ... gotta get me one of those ...

what?
An Attack Wolf that fetches Beer?
Or
A .58 Hawken?

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I have read that curved buttplates kick more than flat buttplates.

Not if you mount them correctly. They go in the notch between your deltoid and your bicep, not against your shoulder.
Dan

 

[Greg Blackburn]

Not if you mount them correctly. They go in the notch between your deltoid and your bicep, not against your shoulder.
Dan

So really, they go against your arm?

 

[Grenadier1758]

Yes, the crescent buttplate goes into your arm. You also stand a bit more facing away from the target with the rifle across the chest. This allows you to place the supporting arm and elbow on the body for a more secure offhand position.

 

[Art Caputo]

I have found that it isn’t so much the crescent shape of the butt plate as much as it is the narrow width that is generally part of the design. This results in less surface area for the distribution of recoil. My Sharps and Hawken, are both quite miserable with stiff charges regardless of how they are mounted. My understanding is that the design was originally intended to provide a more secure fixture of the butt to shoulder/upper arm, and particularly effective when shooting from horse back.

 

[Cowboy]

My understanding is that the design was originally intended to provide a more secure fixture of the butt to shoulder/upper arm, and particularly effective when shooting from horse back.

Very interesting.
I’ve never heard of that before? It does make total sense to me though.

Respectfully, Cowboy

 

[firestick]

I have now owned rifles in .45, .50 and .58. My preference is the .58. No matter what it hits with ball or bullet it makes a most definite "plop", "smack", "ding", "ka-chunk", "thunk", "crack" etc whether it is flesh, rock, wood, water, steel. Trajectory is very reasonable to work with at any reasonable distance I choose to shoot at. Recoil is nothing compared to my past modern elk rifles even with 100 grains of powder and a cast bullet of 400grains+. Crescent but plates seem to fit me and distribute the recoil better as it fits around the shoulder area and not over it with limited engagement of the shoulder contact area. I have ALWAYS mounted a rifle more on my arm shoulder junction than directly on the shoulder. When a .58 launchs its projectile I know it will reach the vitals at any angle from deer to elk to even a moose.

 

[joesmoe3]

I'm a fan of .58 - when results matter, I don't shoot enough to have results - so certainly defer to the wonderful people here who know their firearms and capabilities.

As a child, chip on my shoulder from being on the side that lost the War Between the States, I always wanted something with at least an emotional tie to that period. So Chiappa "1862 Richmond" fit that bill. At the North South Skirmish Assn, just seemed I needed a "better" barrell, so put a .577 barrel on, and found a guy Ed Heathwaite who sells sized bullets, and got that rifle where I could hit something from the bench -- not so much offhand.
So started looking around, and found older Thompson Center firearms - before the fire then sale to Smith & Wesson. Picked up a Firehawk and Scout in .58. Both had issues, and I was so pleased to find that S&W still honored the T/C warranty - both firearms were returned to me 'good as new', and shoot well.

I don't shoot enough that, like the military in 1960 - Mcnamara looking at huge savings moving from 7.62x51 to 5.56x45 with billions of rounds - a difference in caliber makes an appreciable difference in the wallet.

I do, in shooting in general, favor less recoil, so I do favor the lighter projectiles.

And I have to admit, I am still fascinated by the seeming contradiction in twist rates. My rebarreled 1862 Richmond is 1 in 72". It is axiomatic in modern firearms that as bullet mass increases, one must have a more aggressive trist rate.

So how is it, that muzzleloaders shoot well with such stretched out rifling ?