Shooting the 62 caliber

[Flinter]

I do not know why, but I am thinking about getting a .62 caliber rifle. I have done a search and read every thread on the ALR about the .62 caliber.

What is the diameter of the patch? Do you guys cut your own patches? It looks like it would difficult to load especially using a 3/8 diameter rod.

I don't really need one. Any input from people that shoot the .62 caliber rifle would be appreciated.

[smallpatch]

I"ve been shooting a .60 cal Getz in an Early Virginia for  a while.  Don't really notice a great deal of difference between my .50's and my .60.  Granted, it's a little heavier, but recoil is no more noticeable.

First 5 shots out of the barrel.

[Flinter]

Thanks roundball

I am planning on ordering a few muzzle loading thing Monday. I will order a box of .600 diameter balls and some precut patches. I guess I am going to put a couple of balls on my desk and below my computer screen just to look at em. I know this may sound strange, but I have used this method to choose which caliber I wanted.

[Flinter]

My gosh smallpatch... that is an outstanding group. Thanks for posting the target.

[BrownBear]

It's a really fun caliber, with the choice between smooth and rifled really difficult.  If your deer hunting is not at longish ranges, the possibility of using shot in a smoothbore would be really compelling.  If you have less use for shot or longer ranges, then of course the rifle makes more sense.  If you contemplate wingshooting as well with a smoothbore, then fit and stock configuration become as important as with any shotgun.

The tradeoff for longer range of course will be larger powder charges and more recoil, and you want a stock design that suits.

I'm with roundball on that 1:72 twist, or perhaps as fast as 1:48.  I have one rifle with a slower twist (1:110 IIRC) and it basically requires more than 100 grains of powder before it starts grouping decently.  It's reminiscent of a 58 or even a 54 recoil-wise with 60-80 grains, but a very dull experience due to poor grouping.  I'm trying to talk a buddy out of his 62 with a 1:48, which is astonishingly accurate with smaller charges, as well as with heavier loads for flatter trajectories at longer ranges.

[billd]

I have had several .62's.  Sold them all and miss them all. I'm building another one now.  All were rifled.  I had 2 Getz barrels (.60 caliber) 2 Rice's and a Colerain in .62.  All  were 1=66 twist and all shot better than me with 90 to 100 grains of powder. 

Bill

[Daryl]

Taylor's .62 cal Hawken is not shooting well, but the winter caught us before we could get around to shooting the 200yard round ball match.

Last group I saw out of it was quite decent at around 5" or 6" at 200yards using 120gr.2F.  The hooked plate is stopping him from feeding it more as we're both damaged in the shoulders, and that narrow, curved butt plate and Hawken stock design is difficult when recoil starts to tell.

I suggest that a .600" ball, while fine in a .62 smoothbore, is a bit small for a rifle of that same size. A .615" ball is the appropriate size for a .62 rifle, certainly no smaller than .610".  Going smaller that that makes filling the rifling with patching much more difficult and the normal run of patches from .018" to .022" won't fill properly. Too small a ball or too thin a patch with a larger ball will result in fouling buildup each shot and the necessity to wipe the bore to allow loading.  If there is blowby, the accuracy will be quite variable.

This is the second .62 he's had along with a .60 Getz barreled Jaeger. The Jaeger gets a .595" ball and the .62 should get a .615" ball - both .005"under bore size, which we hold to be a rle of thumb to start.   A 10oz denim (.0225 by my calipers) is approriate for the patch in both rifles.

 .005" undersized ball and that .0225" denim - we have not found a rifle in the last 40 years of testing, that does not like that combination. I even used it in my .50 TC - the first ML I owned.  Yes-  that was tight in the ridiculously shallow .004" deep rifling, but it shot amazingly well. A smoothly radiused crown allowed the ball and patch to flow into the bore for a wonderful fit. Yes - it was loaded with a 3/8" hickory rod - no hammer, mallet or other tool than a short starter.

[Dave K]

Roundball is right. The barrel will determine the ball dia. I have a smooth bore 62cal. with a Colerain barrel that uses a .595 ball. I had some larger ball to start, but they would just be fishing weights as they wouldn't fit this barrel.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

As much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree with Daryl.  
This little target speaks for itself.  It's five shots offhand at half of a bullseye.  The prize for this event was a Colt .36 Navy revolver (replica), that I  had donated, and won it back.  This .62 cal rifle is a Hawken with a 1 1/16" x 32" barrel.  It measured a true .620 bore.  I cannot remember who made the barrel, but it had a 1:72" twist.  It liked lots of powder, and rewarded me for many years, until I sold it in a weak moment.  Now I have neither the money, nor the rifle.
My current .62 cal rifle is also a Hawken (not for sale).  It has a Rice tapered 36" long barrel with a .620 bore and a 1:66" twist.  Currently, I'm shooting 127 grains of FFg GOEX, a .022" denim patch, and it's starting to show some promise at 200 yards...more testing come green-up.  I made two ramrods for it...one hickory and the other osage orange.  They are 1/2" tapered to 3/8" and once the ball and patch are in the bore (short started) they go down easily.  

[Flinter]

BrownBear, the 62 will definitely have riflings in it. All my deer hunting is done in the south Arkansas thickets. Most of my shots are about 30 to 40 yards. I like , "It's a really fun caliber..." That was what I was thinking.

Bill, it sounds like you enjoy the 62 caliber.

I hear what you are talking about roundball, but it not but about $20 a box.

Dave, if I could look at the ball, that may influence me in to getting a 62 caliber rifle. That may be a good thing!

[Flinter]

Daryl, man I hate to hear that about Taylor's rifle. If anyone can wring things out, I have confidence that you two can.
OK..I was wondering what happened to the 200 yard shoot.

"The hooked plate is stopping him from feeding it more..." I know the rifle is properly designed if Taylor built it. Why would the hooked breech be affected by the powder charge?

Once I get the rifle "or if" I can play with the ball diameter and patch thickness.

Taylor, that is why I hate selling some things. The money is usually blown out the window before I get home. Do you think the twist difference of 1:72" VS 1:66" has anything to do with the accuracy?

The two targets are fine or even excellent, but 5 to 6 inches at 200 yards is not bad.

[Flinter]

I have 25 or so rifled firearms, but just one smooth bore. Rifled firearms are just more interesting to me. Thanks for posting the photo. I notice your ramrods are setup with bore guides or protectors. Do you normally use these when loading?
That is good shooting with a smooth bore. Nice looking rifle too.

All my deer hunting is done in the south Arkansas thickets. Most of my shots are about 30 to 40 yards.

If you're fortunate enough to be able have multiple rifles and smoothbores, by all means get a rifled .61cal.  On the other hand, seeing your reference to shots being in the 30-40 yard range, this photo is a .62cal smoothbore accuracy at 50yds.
No bench, just sitting down in a hunting position leaning against a range post as if it was a tree...at a mere 25yds it just eats a single ragged hole in the target like most every muzzleloader does at that close range.

110grns Goex 2F
.022" Oxyoke precut/prelubed patch
Eddie May cast .600" ball

[The other DWS]

thin butted rifles with deeply crescented buttplates (typical of Hawken style rifles) can wreak havoc on tender shoulders if shot with anything other than modest recoiling loads.   The really deeply pronged buttplates with a more schuetzenish style stock were NOT intended to be fired with the butt seated into the shoulder but rather with the butt dropped down and hooked over the arm just above the bicep muscle; of course most of them were in lighter more target oriented calibers.

[Daryl]

Flinter- DWS has the reason. Slight misunderstanding is all. The hooked butt plate is hard on shoulders. It is held between the arm and shoulder so the toe is in the arm pit. If out on the arm lfurther outboard than that, even a .54 wil belt you.   Wide flat butt plates held in the shoulder pocket distributes recoil quite well.

I had a .58 Hawken, with Large barrel that wanted 140gr. 2f to shoot and it would shoot into 1 1/2" at 100 yards for 5 shots, no wiping, rest shooting.  That rifle actually hurt yet it had lots of weight - 11 pounds of it.

I hold the forend in my left hand as-if offhand shooting, then rest the back of my hand on a bag.  Held this way, bench, or rested point of impact is identical to offhand.  I do not use an arm-rst style of offhand shooting. Offhand, means shooting off the hands.  Some contests specify this. We ran into this last year at Helfly Creek to the chagin of some hip and rib resters.  They were told prior to the shoot, not to do it.  Standing shooting, can mean arm rested against the ribs, breast if so equipped  or hip.

[Flinter]

I was wondering about this roundball, and how long it would take to damage the muzzle by not using some type of protector.

DWS, the rifle I am considering is a duel barrel Hawken. I know I am going to get a .54 caliber built, but now I am thinking of getting a second barrel in .62 caliber. I realize, because of the butcher knife stock of the Hawken, it will not be shot much with heavy loads.

[Flinter]

Daryl, you described the way I normally shoot in the off hand position.

Man, a 140 grain load just sounds like that would hurt. I agree with you on the off hand shooting.
Sometimes when people come to my house to shoot they want to hold the rifle against a post. NO!
A guy was down during the Christmas holidays and we were shooting off hand a 100 yards.
After two of his shots that did not hit the paper, he said, "I'm not doing this anymore."

[The other DWS]

For most a hunting gun is one carried much and shot not so much. When hunting something that can bite or stomp you a little pain in the arm or shoulder is the price of good insurance in stopping power.
 
However when it comes to playing gun games the fun goes away quickly if the stock design does not match the recoil of the load.   Most original larger bore and heavy recoiling firearms had stock designs with wide smooth buttplates and fairly straight stocks with minimal drop.  Even the higher grade 60+ calibre French trade guns with their unique stock profiles are amazingly comfortable to shoot with heavy loads.

Also the mass weight of the arms also helped counteract the recoil.   In the case of early large bore muskets, military requirements were initially more oriented toward providing a long sturdy handle for the bayonet rather than fast accurate shooting

[bob in the woods]

Even when hunting things that can hurt ya, you still don't need to settle for pain. Stock design is the key.
My .62 Edward Marshal from Chambers is not painful with it's normal moose load of 120 g FFg
B.T.W.-  100 gr shot completely through a nice sized black bear, so it is not lacking in power!

[Daryl]

As to muzzle protection while loading, I have never used it.  My .69 shows a small groove in one rifling groove at teh muzzle which might have been caused by rod wear when examined closely.   This tiny groove does not seem to hurt it's shooting capabilities in the slightest.  This is probably due to the big ball and large powder charge it uses.  Smaller bore sizes would be more susceptable to any damage effecting them.  I do not know how many shots it's fired, but perhaps 5 or 6 thousand and a nylon rod was used for loading, perhaps 200 of them. All the rest were with a hickory rod, the one that's still in it's pipes.

I'm of the opinon that a rod that is quite large diameter in the bore, will cause less damage than a small one, due to begin less liekly to flex and rub the bore down inside. That type of damage is what happens to many modern rifle barrels, with the tiny diameter rods used.  The rod flexes due to tight cleaning patches or when loading.  Most modern rifles are damaged when cleaning. I suspect the same thing happens with muzzleloading rifles IF a steel or fiberglass cleaning rod is used. The bowing inside the barrel, rubs the edges of the lands. This type of damage was recorded when steel rods were used in the round ball and minnie firing military rifles. se; "Firearms of the American West 1805-1865". No mention of damage from hickory rods was made.

In my less than scientific experiment, a hickory rod wore the metal less than any other material, which included brass, stainless steel, tool steel, nylon and fiberglass. The hickory rod barely wore off the bluing with the nylon wearing off more blueing, but not removing steel.  All the others made measureable grooves,w ith the fiberglass rod making a deep groove similar to a fine rat tailed file. It was non-protected fiberglass - raw, which would happen when a protective coating wore off one of the comerical rods.

[Flinter]

I thought you was a young feller roundball. I guess you know the pain and other problems associated with old age.

DWS, since I am cripple, I do very little walking. I had to go back on my crutches about the middle of last December. Before that time, I would always ride the lawnmower down to the target while shooting here at the house. I have been thinking about building a trail walk. Already have the metal and everything. I can see a golf cart coming up.

Yes bob, I realize I am going the wrong way for choosing a 62 in a Hawken.

I have heard this comment before, "...many shots it's fired, but perhaps 5 or 6 thousand..." so I should not have anything to worry about. Thanks for the information Daryl.

I looked on track of the wolf web site last night, and, in the 62 caliber RB, all that were offered are cast balls. That's sad! I guess there is not much of a demand.


ETA

I found some cold formed round balls at Dixie gun works.

[Dphariss]

I do not know why, but I am thinking about getting a .62 caliber rifle. I have done a search and read every thread on the ALR about the .62 caliber.

What is the diameter of the patch? Do you guys cut your own patches? It looks like it would difficult to load especially using a 3/8 diameter rod.

I don't really need one. Any input from people that shoot the .62 caliber rifle would be appreciated.

The large bore Kentucky, over 54, is a hare's breath from a fantasy gun IMO. Not saying its impossible or that a FEW did not exist. I am saying that they would have been so rare as to be very unusual.
There is documentation dating back to at least F&I War that indicates this is true.
So I consider Kentuckys over 50 to be rare when the guns were new and over 54 to be largely a modern phenomenon. There were large bore rifles made it seems but they were special purpose rifles.
They use a lot more lead (62 uses 200 grains more than a 45 caliber) and powder and for the uses of the eastern Colonist there was no increased benefit to the increased ammunition consumption.
Dan

[Daryl]

Probably right Dan.  They weren't plentiful as either Crocket or Boone noted of John Sell of Kentucky - "Your rifles are plain, John - their only beauty is in their great power".  As close as I can remember a quote from 'The Muzzleloading Cap Lock Rifle" by Ned Roberts. There was a picture of John Sell of Kentucky, an old bony man clutching a very plain rifle of about .60 calibre, supposed to be one of his own make.

[Ravenwolf]

Hello, I recieved my Mark Silver Virginia, Chambers kit this week. Barrel and lock coming later. I was blessed to kill three deer in Md. and Pa. with my 54 cal. TVM. I am doing the 1750-1770 Pa.Md. frontier clothing etc. I love the Faber/Schreit guns and the size ball they shot. I want to go for bear, mostly deer options etc. I like the whole knockdown, blood guts glory, theme, so 62, for me hunting, one shot one kill, theme seems to be my future, and my early time period we do know BIG calipers where used. PS, WHERE are the SCHREIT build pics? Best to all and yours. Ravenwolf;

[Flinter]

Thanks roundball. I found some non cast .600 balls on the Dixie Gun Works site.

Dphariss, I drug this out a bit. Sorry about that! The .62 caliber will be a Hawken. I see that Lowell Haarer has an Iron mounted .62 caliber on his site. I have talked to him about this, and he said the rifle has a 3/8 inch dia rod. I don't know... even with a 7/16 rod it looks like the brass rod tip would be rubbing against the side of the barrel. I agree with you on the fantasy part. A  large .62 caliber diameter barrel would take away from the slim profile of the Kentucky or Pennsylvania flintlock.

Ravenwolf, it looks like we're in the same boat. Wanting a .62 caliber.

[plastikosmd]

not to change topics but why the concern about cast balls in 62? My RB bench 62 shoots .626 cast around 1 -1.25" 5 shot, 100yrd. (still workin up loads) Would I do better with a swaged ball?