Round Ball For Arizona Elk - 50 cal. or 54 cal.?

[swecology]

Hi.

I would like your opinion on this.  

I already have built a Lyman GPR 50 cal. w/ 1:60" twist.  It shoots a .490 roundball superbly with 100 grains of Goex FFg and a CCI cap.  

I am wondering though, if it would be sufficient (or too light) for Elk.  Would it be wiser to build another rifle in a 54 cal with a 1:60" twist?

 I will admit that I am looking for a reason to build another - it was a whole lot of fun.  I would probably get a kit from Track of the Wolf or another Lyman.

Your thoughts on the caliber selection for elk, and a potential supplier for the kit would be welcome

Thanks,

Matt

[roundball]

IMO, if your typical shot may have some distance to it, a .58cal round ball is really something to consider...a .570/278grn ball holds its energy a long, long way with a pretty flat trajectory using hunting loads, and seems to be an inherently accurate caliber...my first choice would be the .58cal, then a .54cal...enjoy!

[Thomas Krupinski]

Matt,

I took a decent 6x6 bull a few years ago with a 54 cal. shooting a Maxi ball.  91 yard shot in unit 6A.  Although a good double lung shot, still traveled a couple of hunderd yards.  Haven't been drawn since.

So are you looking for a bull or cow tag?  For cow I think the 50 RB would be adequate, and although the 50 RB will kill a decent size bull, the question is how far are you interested in chasing him and they can get into some really awkward places after being hit and dying.  Down they seem a whole lot larger when you way out is uphill.

A lot of your choice may depend upon the terrain that you will be hunting in, grassland with cedars and junipers or in heavy pine timber, and the range you will expect.

[KING]

I also sugest the .58 for your elk hunt.  I have seen what mine does with swiss and have no doubts in my mind that it will put an elk sized animal down a little faster.  It also is very accurate out to 125 to 140 yards...........but do not recommend any shooting beyound this distance regardless of caliber.....stay safe.King

[Graybeard]

Reckon them critters must be getting tougher. Back in the old days a mountain man with a .50 was considered mighty well armed for anything.

[filmokentucky]

Yup! And a .54 would for sure put 'em down. At 100 yards I believe my .54 Hawken will take the measure of anything walking this continent if I do my part. And I have a .50 that I have an equal amount of faith in. The rifles that got the job done on these animals in 1830 will get it done today just as effectively. No reason why not.

[handirifle]

I know he was asking about round ball, but what velocities would one expect from, say, 90gr of BP behind a ball or conical?

My thinking is, with a conical it should be at least the equivilent of the old 45-70 loads with a 400gr at about 1300.  That was lethal on nearly everything that walked.

[Thomas Krupinski]

Reckon them critters must be getting tougher. Back in the old days a mountain man with a .50 was considered mighty well armed for anything.

It's not the critters that have gotten tougher, but the hunters who are not as willing to stalk, track and pack out as far as the old timers would.  

Also back then the life expectancy was a whole lot lower and there are folks out in the field now that put in nowhere near the amount of time to developing the skills that the old timers did.  

I suspect that part of this is the result of increased human population density and demand for sport hunting opportunity in addition to a softer lifestyle.

[Keith Lewis]

So far I have only shot three elk. I usually put in for muzzleloader anterless so I have not shot a big bull. I have not had any elk fall down on a solid hit other than one that I shot in the head with a 7X57 (got drawn for rifle once). First cow was huge and I put a 348gr. Powerbelt through center of the heart sideways??(bullet turned-keyholed???) and the cow walked about 50 yards slowly walking until she finally fell over. The last cow was shot one lung and part of liver required a second shot in rib cage and she still went about 1/8 mile and was still standing when I found her. Maybe a double lung shot would have been more lethal but she was dead standing, they are tough. I personally would not hunt with only a .50 PRB. I do not think it has enough mass for good penetration if the shot hits a shoulder bone. Maybe I'm wrong but I would go with the .54 at least.

[Longcruise]

I am wondering though, if it would be sufficient (or too light) for Elk. Would it be wiser to build another rifle in a 54 cal with a 1:60" twist?

When it comes to round balls, bigger is always better and of course there's no questioning the wisdom of building another rifle :grin:

Any time elk on are the agenda I'm packing a .54.  Like roundball said, there's nothing wrong with a .58.  My next hunting rifle will be in .58 or .62 (unless I build the squirrel rifle first  :-) )

I know he was asking about round ball, but what velocities would one expect from, say, 90gr of BP behind a ball or conical?

My thinking is, with a conical it should be at least the equivilent of the old 45-70 loads with a 400gr at about 1300. That was lethal on nearly everything that walked.

And that's just about how fast it will shoot.  My .50 chronos a 370 grain maxiaball at 1320 fps with 80 grains of Goex ffg and exactly the same with pyrodex RS out of the same measure.

With the .50 you lose the sectional density that a .45 gives you but it will still do the job.  The popular notion nowadays is that the .50 cal should shoot a sabot with some sort of magical expanding bullet of 40 or so caliber.  Even the guys shooting .50 conicals seem to want some kind of lead conical with an expanding hollow point.

To each his own, but lets face it a .50 slug is already the size of an expanded modern bullet.  Why harm it's penetration charachteristics by making it expand?  If you plan to shoot conicals, get something with a big flat meplat and it will make a big hole in and out with a tragic loss of blood pressure.

Lyman has a good ml bullet mold just as described above.  You won't go wrong, but your shoulder will object!!

[handirifle]

longcruise,
Thanks, but I got used to the medium loads with the BC so this should be the same or less.  I plan on using both round ball and conicals untill I see what the do.

My personal thoughts were roundball for fun and conicals for hunting.

[Longcruise]

My personal thoughts were roundball for fun and conicals for hunting.

That will work just fine.

One last observation;  I've killed deer and elk with both round balls and conicals and the ones hit with round balls (.50 and .54 for deer and .54 for elk) all went down quicker than those hit with conicals.

[fffffg]

your talking round ball, so ill stick to that..  i ran a couple hundred pages of ballistics this spring to decide this very question..  john getz likes the .58 cal that some of his friends use in colorado i belive..  i looked at it very carefully with the programs that are free on the internet in relationship to recoil, power at 100 yards, ball drop,  and killing power.. .   using recoil to balance the data, that is about in the range of 45-70 recoil ....the bigger .62 wins hands down..  im not sure   why.. it has mostly to do with the loss of velocity in high speed round balls..  the 54 would have to be going    over 2200 feet per second with  80 foot pounds of recoil to compete with the remaining power (thornilly) of the .62 at 100 yards at 1350 ft per second (muzzel) having  a moderate recoil similar to the 45 70 using a 1250 fps 500 grain bullet.).  the reason the high recoil mounts up in the smaller caliber is becouse of the tremendous amount of powder your pushing to get the same (thornilly)energy left  at 100 yards..  i obviously used thornally stoping power to determin power. this method lake any balistics data is questionable..... but a 54 at 100 yards with 1750 feet per second )muzzel) has quite a bit less  power compared to a .62 at 100 yards with 1350 fps muzzel velocity.. ..    for instance  the .62 at 100 yards with 1350 starting velocity , uses a .61 cal,342 grain ball .085 balistic coeficient with 979 ft per second remaining,an  energy of 728, thronilly stopping power of 113,  ,wound chanel diameter of 1.493", pennetration factor of 13.13, and recoil of 21 foot pounds  13 fps in 8.5 lb gun at 100 yards.....  the .54 at 1750 fps muzzel velocity, uses a .53 cal ball 225 grain bullet, .073 balistic coeficcient, has only 1098 fps remaining at 100 yards with an energy of 603, thornilly stoping power of 75, wound channel  of 1.375, pennetration factor of 11.44, and recoil of 22 foot pounds at 13 feetpersecond, in a 8.5 pound gun... a .53 ball that has 400 feet per second more velocity at the muzzel.... the .61 ball at 1350 muzzel  only has 99 fps difference at 100 yards.....  ....  there is a tradeoff,  what you loose in the .62 is trajectory.. if you sight in the .62 at 110 yards the high point is 4 inches at 60 yards, and it shoots 4 inches low at 130 yards.. ..the .54 wil be 2 inches high at 60 yards and 4 inches low at 130 yards with a 100yard sighting..  whew, ....you can run your own programs at  http://www.beartoothbullets.com/  ... its tough at first but youll get the hang of it,,... the .58 cal rnd ball is in the middle of the above balicstics as one would assume..  has a balistic coefficent of .079 and a weight of  279..  balistics are only a glimps of the performance of bullets, as velocity varies the data effectiveness taken from modern bullets when entered into these round ball ballistics..   ive talked to lots of muzzeloaders about the .62 and its power is no bull.  one   shooter i respect told me that the .62 will blow the head clean off a eastern white tail..  he belives the velocity should be in the 1700 fps range tho..  im not in that school of thought.. another told in an article that themoose he shot with a .58 and 200 grains of powder in the butt went thru to the lungs..another acount with 120 grains (.58) powder went thrue the rib cage and lungs of a buffalow.... thats power!!!... its fun, but the bigger ball definitly retains more bullet energy than the smaller balls tho, and personally i just like big balls, big holes in the bore and big holes in the critter.. ..another way of looking at it is the .62 has 20 percent more foot pounds energy  at 100 yards with above velocities  than the 54.....  one respected shooter likes the .54, i think hes shooting paper at 300 meters and an occasional deer.. i believe the 54 would have much less retained engergy at that distance.. havnt run that balistics but its   its outside of my interests...    dave..

[RussB]

Wow 5F! Long read..........A good read, and I "think" I'm in agreement with you.

I have several Muzzleloaders, .50, .54, .58, and a .66. I have chosen the .54 (GPR Flinter) for my Elk hunting based on several things, but one is the balance and ease of carry...for me.

The .58 cal, is an 1861 Colt Special....a CW type Musket, that I love to shoot, but not carry all day when I'm hunting. It seems to me to lack the grace, the "pointability", and balance of the GPR.

The .66 is a smoothbore, and I have somewhat limited my range to 50/60 yards when using it....which works great in some places, and is not so good in others.
On the other hand, this same rifle has all those characteristics that I favor in handling, and I believe that big old round ball would knock a Freight Train down, if I could hit it.
I have made myself a promise to shoot that smoothie more, and become more proficient with it this year. I hope to use that .66 for Elk this year.

Russ

[hans g./UpS]

What barrel lengths and powder charges[including granulation]are you all referring to regards 54,58 and 62 cals? I'm using for roundball [here in the east],100gr FFg or FFFg Goex in 54cal[26"],58cal[30"];I haven't started shooting a 62cal[42"].
I understand Jim Gefroh of Ft.Collins,CO makes some "beast killers" in  flintlock 82cal rifled[8ga] for roundball.

[fffffg]

im using fadaldas book for most of the loads, the tc renegade will shoot 1748 fp with .54 round ball and 120 gr 2fg..  this big load is not recomended, i dont know why but its upping the power for comparison of power in these tests.....  its barrel lenght is 26 inches.. ........the navy arms hawken hunter will do about 1500 fps with 26 inch barrel and 135 grains ffg..  on the 62 im going by others say so and used  1350 fps and 120 grains of 2fg powder..  this is an estimate becouse there is no loading data in fadalas book for the 62.. i can say that 70 grains of 2f goex will get a 400 grain roundball out of my 16 guage smoothbore at about 1050 fps..  my new 62 being built willhave a 42 inch barrel as does my 16 guage smoothbore..   dave

[Longcruise]

I understand Jim Gefroh of Ft.Collins,CO makes some "beast killers" in flintlock 82cal rifled[8ga] for roundball.

I had a look at those last april at the state assn convention.  He builds a nice rifle and it hurts your shoulder just to look at them!! :shock:

Not my cup of tea but if they were, I'd own one of his.

[Longcruise]

im using fadaldas book for most of the loads, the tc renegade will shoot 1748 fp with .54 round ball and 120 gr 2fg..

His book is probably a fine source of info, but It's pretty hard to substantiate his numbers after you apply a chronograph to your shooting.

For example, my TC Hawken .54 would easily hit 2000 fps with 120 grains of Goex ffg.  My Lyman GPR .54 would do the same.  I have not chronographed those same loads with Swiss ffg but given my other comparisons, the swiss would probably shoote even faster.

The books invariably involve the use of one brand of powder from one given lot and whatever might be the choice of patch and lube by the shooter.

A couple of things that I've proven with a chronograph is that a tighter patch will shoot faster than a less tight one.  Easily differing by 100 fps or more.  A dry lube will shoot the same load faster than a grease lube.  More grease lube on a patch will shoot slower than less of the same lube.  A finely lapped barrel will shoot slower after lapping than it did before.

It's often concluded that a tight patch shoots faster because it lets less gass escape around the ball.  My spent patches did not bear that out.  The common thread in all of the variations in the above paragraph are the fit of the ball in the barrel and the initial resistance of the ball to the ignition of the powder.  The longer the projectile remains in place in resistance to the expanding gasses, the more efficiently the powder burns and therefore the higher the velocity at exit.

The other problem with the book values is the variation with different powders.  Here is some chrony data taken the same day, same gun, same measure, same patch, bore wiped after each shot.  All powders are surely not created equally!! :shock:

Average velocities for various powders
With charges thrown from 50 grain volumentric measure.

Graf 3f

1405
1388
1370
1391
1396
Avg  1390


Elephant 2f

1135
1208
1215
1215
1238
Avg  1201


Swiss 2f

1546
1531
1574
1558
Avg  1552


Goex 2f

1349
1362
1376
Avg  1362


Goex 3f

1469
1516
Avg  1492  These two velocities were the only ones obtainable due to bright sun and erratic chrono behaviour

[Loozinit]

SWECOLOGY,
That GPR in .50 is minimally sufficient for Elk if you do your part and get in close.  I know because I have had the same rifle since 1983 and have shot four Elk with it here in Washington State.  Having said that, a better RB would be a bigger RB.  But, you still have to get close.  I'll bet the Old Timers did (or they didn't eat).  Ballistic hair-splitting aside: bigger RB's are lots more effective than smaller ones.  The difference between a .50 and a .54 may be small but it's something.

By the way, I don't hunt Elk with that caliber any more because, as I said, it is minimally sufficient.  My survival doesn't depend on using whatever I have on hand.  Three out of the four kills were not very pretty even with good hits at 70 - 80 yards.  The fourth was a very close shot to the neck just below the skull which was intantaneous.

My last three Elk hunts were in Centerfire Rifle season with my old M99 in .300 Savage (also sufficient).  Skunked every time because of the crowds.   :oops:

[dlemaster]

SWECOLOGY
I took a large cow elk in Arizona a few years ago. I used a .60 caliber Flintlock Long rifle, round ball and 125 grains of Goex 2F. The shot was at 150 or so yards, ball entered between the next to last and the last rib on the left side (quartering away shot) the ball ended up lodged in the wall of the chest cavity next to the right front leg. At the shot she kicked her back feet into the air some and walked away, although she was obviously very sick. She walked about 80 yards and went down.
I was sure glad I used the .60. A .54 would be a minimum from my experience, for what it's worth.

Regards, Dave

[Loozinit]

Yup, what dlemaster said.  That same shot at 75-80 yards using the .60 RB probably would have flattened that cow.  My .50 is definitely not as impressive and I wouldn't even think of letting off at over 80-90 yards on an elk. (with my GPR .50)

[BS]

My buddy has shot several elk with his 54 Renagade and had great results with 120 FF and round balls.

I built a 54 cal. RB shooter to hunt elk with also......but then I got the itch for a bigger ball, so a .62 barrlel came along, but before that one was done, I found a .72 RB barrel.............Bigger is better.....

If you have a 50, make a bigger jump, than just to a 54. Go to a 58 or bigger.

Just my thoughts.

[fffffg]

dlemaster
 
  good shot.  what is recoil like in that load?  how accurate?, and what difficulties do you have on reloading for second shot?    thanks dave..

[dlemaster]

fffffg
This rifle is a real pleasure to shoot. I would say recoil is moderate, I can't remember what it weighs right off, but it's not to bad. Accuracy is very good, my Father-in-law and I both could consistently hit a paper plate at 200 yards. I have since changed the sight settings to be dead on at 100.
It is a copy of the signed Andreas Albrecht rifle, the remnants of which are pictured in "Colonial Rifles of America" Vol. 1 by George Shumway. You can view the rifle in its restored condition in "Behold the Long Rifle" I think that may be by Jim Whisker.
It is an early gun with a wide (2") flat butt plate and a 42" swamped barrel by Getz Brothers.
I have a copy of a journal from an English traveler in America in the 1760 or 1770s time period who noted about American hunters that "Some like a gun with a narrow bore due to the economy of powder and ball, while others prefer a gun with a wide bore since the wound is more certainly attended with death".  I fall into the later category. In fact my next project after finishing a copy of the "Wilson's Chiefs gun" is to make a copy of the early Jacob Dickert rifle shown in Shumway's "Colonial Rifles of America" Vol. 1, using my hand forged .58 caliber barrel and my own castings.

Regards, Dave

[filmokentucky]

I have a .62 caliber long rifle that weighs just over 7 lbs., and I regularly fire it with 100-110 grain loads of ffg and don't find the recoil to be unpleasant. It too is an early wide butt type and has quite a bit of drop.
It is a favorite gun and is very accurate with a variety of loads but the heavier charge flattens things out nicely.