54 cal question

[walt53]

i was wondering, they  claim it takes close to 1500lbs of energy to shoot an
alaska moose, do you gents who have been around so to speak think that  a 54 cal rb is man enough to do the job at say up to 100 yds max.
  thanks walt.

[BrownBear]

I wouldn't use it at 100 yards, but then again I might not even use one of my 58's at 100 yards.  If, and that's a big IF, I was willing to take a 100 yard shot I'd feel much better with a 62. 

Moose aren't all that hard to kill, and a 54 would certainly do the job at 100 yards.  But they can be slow to die sometimes even with the best of hits.  And in the wet country where I do most of my hunting, a moose that travels even 100 yards is likely to leave you neck deep in water to bone it out.  Even with the 62 I'd feel better with a limit of 75 yards or so.

Drier country and younger eyes?  Maybe 100.

[RwBeV]

I limit all my shots to 100 yard or less, even with my 62.  This year I shot an origanal 1816 Harper's Ferry 69cal.   I limit myself to 50 yards or so. To me its not a matter of hitting the animal its a matter of ethics I will not shoot any further than I think I can make a clean kill!! Its legal to hunt big game with a 40 cal gun here in Wyoming but after past experience I will not hunt with one for big game even Antilope.  I have shot 2 Wyoming  moose with a 62 rb with 140gr. of FFg one was about  40 yds and one was about 80, it did a fine job.  If I think I am going to have to shoot further than that out comes the Sharps or some sort of suppository gun.  That's just my opinion you have to decide if your comfortable with the range and the situation your in.

[WyoRider]

I hunt with my smokepole like a bow. A few years back i went after elk and took my hawken fifty into the medicine bow range. Timber was dense and any shot over 30 yards was pointless. if the elk took three steps into the brush it'd take a week to find it. IMHO the larger the game the closer you should be when you take the shot. it's ethical and sensible. Closer up you preserve the energy of your projectile and increase your chances of  a humane boiler shot kill.

To summ up. you can take about any big game in north america with a fifty four but do your part as an ethical hunter to get close for a precise shot that will do the job. CLOSER IS BETTER 

[Leatherbelly]

 WyoRider,
  I like your way of thinking. Welcome aboard.

[RwBeV]

Well put WyoRider

[walt53]

Thanks guys. I fully understand about ethical hunting, and like you, I would not want to wound an animal, or have to find a wounded one. Experience has shown me that most  animals will die in the worst possible place for a hunter to fetch out of the bush. 

[Ben I. Voss]

walt53, take a look at David Prices post of Jan. 4th of this year: "flintlock rifle moose" under the black powder shooting heading. That might answer your question!

[Daryl]

I'm not going to mention much about the 170yard moose, shot with a .54 except that - perfect hit- broadside, both lungs & heart, ball stopped against the off side hide, load was 100gr. stricken Pyrodex, ie: about 80gr. - TC measure with .535" pure lead ball, .018" ticking patch - moose, a big bull, took off running like they normally do when struck with a small diameter ball - dropping dead mid-stride in 40 yards. He did not make the bush.  I see more moose dropping inside 50 yards than past - I see moose not chased, lay down and die in 50 to 75 yards. If int he open, they will try to make the bush and seeming safety - THAT can be a force to keep them on their feet.  Both lungs and I doubt a moose will do 100 yards - I've not seen it, except when shot with a .300 or 7mm mag.

BTW- that RB .54 had approximately 210 - maybe 230fpe at impact - not quite the 1,500 fpe the 'books' say. The books are full of nonsense.  FPE does not kill animals. FPE does not relate well to large diameter or heavy bullets well - doesn't work much better with small ones either.  If it did, a .22-250 and .204 Ruger would be more powerful at 100 yards than a buffalo killing .45/70.  

A .54 will work- but as with any gun, you have to hit the animal in the right place.  Poor shooting on game is responsible for losing that game, not range or ball size.

Use enough gun - a .54 is enough gun, put it in the right spot and that moose or elk is dead on his feet.

I prefer bigger guns - bigger guns make bigger holes, but a smaller gun with more powder, is better than a bigger gun with a squib load. If you can' t handle the recoil of a .58 to .69 with heavy, flat shooting charge - by all means use a .54 with a descent charge on moose - say 120gr.2F. there is not much recoil in a .54. If you think that kicks - you need to shoot it more.  That's a descent load that gives a point blank range of 130 yards with no sight correction for range- easy shooting on moose,w ith a .54- if you can do it and don't get buck fever.  If that happens, you need to get out more.
 

[bob in the woods]

If you can hit them where you need to, the .54 with a decent charge is up to the job. I just  built a .62 Edward Marshall last year for my moose rifle, since I wanted  an easy handling gun for the canoe, with the power to punch through the heavy shoulder bones.[just in case ].  Actually...I just wanted the .62 and that was reason enough    The .54 has always been fine.  I shoot a .530 ball with 120 gr FFg
My friend shoots a .54 when moose hunting, and his load is only 110 gr. but frankly, I don't think the moose notice the difference.

[elk killer]

i dont know about a moose,, i do know that a elk with a .54 is quite enough gun..
provided that its hit in the right spot,,
i have never chased one after shooting it,,and never have had to go more than 50 to 75 yards,,
lungs and through the neck shots work very well..
i just use 100grains of 3 f,, and a bear grease patch