.54 or .58?

[bigsky]

I'd like to get opinions on what caliber to use for a rifle build.  I'm putting together parts for a halfstock Hawken that I will use for hunting here in Montana (whitetails, muleys, and elk).  I would also use the rifle for recreational shooting (probably more than hunting).  I've had a .54 before and thought it was the perfect caliber for my needs at the time, but wonder if I should consider something a little bigger considering that I might need it to bring down an elk.  I would like to hear the pros and cons of each regarding such things as recoil, cost to shoot, trajectory, accuracy, etc, etc.
Thanks in advance,
Kevin

[Greg S Day]

It's obvious.         62 cal. ! ! !

Sorry, I'm biased.  I'm ready to start my elk rifle in the next week or so.  Got all the parts.  Fred Miller is working on the wood right now.

.62 cal swamped Getz in an early Lancaster style stock.

Seems like elk medicine to me.

A good friend did put a nice whoppin' on a big bull with his .58 though.

Greg

[frontier gander]

i have both the 54 and 58.  i havent been able to shoot the right size ball yet in the 58 but it sure is purdy.  I took my elk in november with the 54 and can tell you, that elk didnt stance a chance!

Its up to you!

[Jerry V Lape]

Deer and elk don't need anything bigger than a .54.  However, in a discussion with a Montana grizzly over who's elk it is, the .58 might be a better argument.  I have been contemplating a 16gauge or 14gauge rifle myself.  But I wouldn't expect to use it all that much as a target rifle.  I have a .54 for that and have another .54 under construction. 

[BrownBear]

The 54 will be plenty for elk, but a 58 is sure fun to shoot too.  It may boil down to rifle and handling details more than "effectiveness" though. 

You're looking at a minimum of a 1" barrel on a 58, and maybe 1 1/8".  If you're thinking of a longish barrel the overall weight of the rifle is going to mount fast, as is muzzle-heavy handling.  A 54 cal based on a 15/16" barrel is going to be lighter overall and less muzzle-heavy with a barrel the same length as a 58.  I've got a GRRW 58 cal with a 36" barrel tapering from 1 1/8" to 1".  It's a delight to shoot being very muzzle-heavy, but a lug to carry at 12 pounds.  In contrast my 54 cal Lyman GPR with its 32" straight 15/16" barrel is just barely muzzle-heavy, but a delight to carry at around 8 pounds. 

[Dphariss]

I'd like to get opinions on what caliber to use for a rifle build.  I'm putting together parts for a halfstock Hawken that I will use for hunting here in Montana (whitetails, muleys, and elk).  I would also use the rifle for recreational shooting (probably more than hunting).  I've had a .54 before and thought it was the perfect caliber for my needs at the time, but wonder if I should consider something a little bigger considering that I might need it to bring down an elk.  I would like to hear the pros and cons of each regarding such things as recoil, cost to shoot, trajectory, accuracy, etc, etc.
Thanks in advance,
Kevin

Unless you go to 62 or bigger I can't see going bigger than 54. I had one when a I first came to MT and would not bother with another. There is more difference in game shooting between 50 and 54 than 54 and 58.
For Elk bigger is always better, but a 58 is not that much bigger. Its a baby step the 62 is a full step, though I have never owned one. Shooting Mule deer tha 50-54-58 are all about the same in killing with proper shot placement.
But you probably do not want a Hawken style rifle in a 62 (20 bore). Recoil is going to be somewhat abusive.
English sporting rifle, what the HS Hawken evolved from, is a better choice for "bore" rifles.
I live in Big Timber and have an English style     16 bore (.662 ball) flintlock you can shoot if you want. Its a quantum leap over 54-58 and is perfectly "HC" for the American west. It has really captured my heart as a hunting rifle.
If you want a Hawken just make a 54 there was a reason why they settled on this bore size. Its about all the "American" stock design will tolerate comfortably and it works pretty well though I consider it light for elk if a big bone is struck.
I have a couple of Badger 54 barrels on order and will make a couple of Carson or Bridger Hawkens when they come in. If the economy does not kill the orders.

Dan

[axelp]

I have the Jim Chambers english sporting rifle 31" .58 cal swamped barrel from Rice,  and the gun is very easy to carry.

Axe

[Mike R]

for the bigger is better folks the .62 will be the choice, but realistically either the .54 or .58 will work fine. I sold my .58 Hawken years ago--got tired of feeding it the prodigious amounts of powder needed to get that large ball rolling.  The .54 can attain a better trajectory with less powder and still retain sufficient energy at proper range--but you will be told by others that you NEED that .58 [0r .62].  I am impressed by how tough elk are, but do not regret the loss of my .58 [as a caliber, but I miss the rifle--one I built myself from components].  The hole diameter is a key factor in game killing--and the .570 ball only shades the .535 by a hair in diameter...

[Daryl]

bigsky - my advice follows others - if building a Hawken - stick with .54 as tops. I had one on .58 and it was murder on the shoulder/arm with that ridiculous butt late.  Go with an early-style Penn, Jaeger or English gun for .58's and larger.  My .58 refused to shoot well enough for me at 100 yards with less than 140gr. 2f with a 285gr. .575" ball. That was a bit too much fun for me.

 My much later .69 English cap-lock rifle with 165gr. of powder and 480gr. ball didn't/doesn't hurt - but the Hawken sure did.  .54 will handle your hunting for you. A tapered barrel will go a long way towards making a nice handling rifle.

[roundball]

I'd like to get opinions on what caliber to use for a rifle build.  I'm putting together parts for a halfstock Hawken that I will use for hunting here in Montana (whitetails, muleys, and elk).  I would also use the rifle for recreational shooting (probably more than hunting).  I've had a .54 before and thought it was the perfect caliber for my needs at the time, but wonder if I should consider something a little bigger considering that I might need it to bring down an elk.  I would like to hear the pros and cons of each regarding such things as recoil, cost to shoot, trajectory, accuracy, etc, etc.
Thanks in advance,
Kevin

I have several halfstock Hawken Flintlocks (T/C)...three of them have 33" rifled barrels in .54/.58/.62cals...and all the Hawkens have brass cresent shaped buttplates.

They are all very accurate solid performers, and the .58cal impresses me the most with a balance of serious "whompability", velocity, trajectory, frontal area/hole size, weight/penetration, etc...recoil has never been an issue with any of them

[Daryl]

Kevin was talking about building a Hawken from parts - we assume original style parts.   

[bs2]

On a Hawken , look for a butt plate with less curve in it, and wide is good.

The Track shows a Kit Carson Hawken that might be a good one in a .58

http://www.trackofthewolf.com/(S(mfv1dc55w1gnz4ysl35s4g45))/categories/partList.aspx?catID=13&subID=80&styleID=310

[roundball]

Kevin was talking about building a Hawken from parts - we assume original style parts.   

Thanks...but his question was about "caliber".

[Candle Snuffer]

Sticking with the .54 is not a bad idea.  It will drop Elk as others have said.  If, as you say you will be using this Hawken mostly for recreational shooting then the .54 is more economical.

Hawkens are historically heavy rifles - made for taking heavy charges - and delivering the goods at the business end,,, that is if we're talking of making an
historical replica.  You're looking easily at a 10+ pound rifle with thick barrel wall, so if weight is a consideration this is what you're in for at the very least. 

If you're wanting to reduce weight then you're looking at making a replica of a replica Lyman Great Plains and it's not going to be as rewarding as making a true Hawken replica...  Therefore, it really comes down to what you feel you want out of this rifle you're going to build?  Caliber's are solved.  We know that .54 on up is going to drop Elk.

I would suggest doing some "Hawken" research.  Articles, books, museums.  You may just find that you can answer your own question.  Good luck with whatever you decide.

[Dphariss]

If you build a 54 with a 1" barrel and keep it to 32-34 inches it will be under 10 pounds. With 1 1/8 tapered to 1 x 32 it should not be too bad either.
My FS with 1 x 38" 54 weighs about 10.
Much under 9-10 the buttplate will start to hurt.
Dan

[bigsky]

Thanks for all of the advise ... keep it coming. 

I've been researching J&S Hawken and S. Hawken rifles for a few years now and have a couple that I'd like to build eventually, including a mid 1840s fancy grade Tristam Campbell influenced J&S half-stock, and a later S. Hawken half-stock in the style of the Carson gun that Don Stith sells a parts kit for.  The gun I am planning first and acquiring parts for now will be an early-mid 1850s S. Hawken half-stock in the style of the Bridger Hawken.  All will use tapered 1 1/8" to 1" barrels between (34-36" for the J&S and 32" for the Carson and Bridger).  I figured that .54 would be the most historically correct recalling that the average bores of originals were somewhere around .53 caliber.  I may make the Carson rifle a big bore .62 buffler gun.

Part of my question regarding .54 vs .58 actually hinged around the availability of Colerain tapered barrels from TOW.  Right now .54 barrels are on back-order but .58 barrels are available.

Thanks again,
Kevin

[Chuck Burrows]

FWIW - the half ounce ball (aka .54 Caliber ) was one of the the most widely used calibers during the western fur trade - while elk may be a bit "tougher" than back then I've taken 25 with a .54........
Larger calibers can be "nice", but........

FYI - the original  "Bridger" S. Hawken (i.e. the one in Montana circa 1850's-which I have had the pleaure of studying first hand some time ago) is .50 caliber

[northmn]

I have shot both the 58 and 54 in recreational shooting.  Basically I think the 54 is a better target gun as it seems to be a recoil threshold as a couple of pointed out.  When you get over 54 they start to kick.  I have a 54 Southern rifle with a 1"-7/8 inch tapered barrel that is a joy to hold and one I shot very well.  It was also jinxed when I went hunting with it.  Currently am building an English style 58, but used the bigger bore more for weight reduction.  I do disagree about the differences however.  As the bore increases in size you get a greater weight gain in the ball.  50-54 is about a 40 grain increase and 54-58 about a 60 grain increase.  One reason bigger bores tend to perform better for hunting in that they penetrate better.  Depends on your hunting conditions and opportunities.  A lot of elk have been dropped with 54's

DP

[BrownBear]

All will use tapered 1 1/8" to 1" barrels between (34-36" for the J&S and 32" for the Carson and Bridger).  I figured that .54 would be the most historically correct recalling that the average bores of originals were somewhere around .53 caliber.  I may make the Carson rifle a big bore .62 buffler gun.

I really like your thinking and the styles.  I can give you a useful # for your thinking if you plan on carrying the rifle much.  My GRRW 58 cal Hawken has a 36" barrel tapered 1 1/8" to 1" and overal weight is a little over 12 pounds, even with a really sleek maple stock.  I'd expect you to add a pound or so to that in 54 caliber, though you could know real close if you just compared barrel weights from the specs. 

I bet it will be a dandy looker and shooter, but for a field rifle I'd also follow the historically accurate practice of balancing it across a saddle on your hunts rather than across your shoulder.

[Daryl]

BBear - my GRRW Hawken had a 34" barrel, 1 1/8" across the stock - very heavy, and yet it still beat me up. That hooked, rounded butt plate really dug in and did a number on me, but then, I shot it a lot with copious amounts of testing off the bench and field postions - with RB's and modified minnies from 480gr. to 600gr. Perhaps it was the slugs that 'wrecked' me.  My modern gun, a .458 2", was actually easier to shoot & it developed 56 pounds recoil, same as a .458 magnum.

[BrownBear]

I'm betting it had a lot to do with those heavy slugs.  I've only used RB's in mine, but with charges up to 140 grains of 2f it's never come close to hurting.   It's no pussy cat, mind you, but perhaps due to the cast off in my rifle and positioning of the butt on my arm, it's really not uncomfortable at all.  But I probably only shoot one round from the bench for every 1000 offhand.  Come to think of it, LOP might be a question too, because mine is a little longer than usual and "fits" my 6'4" frame better than any other hooked butt I've shot.

I'm sure with you on the heavy recoil.  I'm not particularly bothered by it, but some guns and stock styles just hurt more than others.  I still miss the 458 2" I built back in the 70's on a lefty Carl Gustav action- feel like a fool for letting it go.  But I've got an original 450 Alaskan built on an M-71 Winchester that's fairly light, but really enjoyable for me to shoot.  It too is a little long, and though I can seldom keep my front foot on the ground when I light it off, it doesn't hurt.  Folks not as tall who shoot it usually only do so once, then complain for the next ninety-leven years about the recoil.  In truth it doesn't bight me nearly as much as my 458 Winchester. 

Then there's my "carry" 375 H&H.  It's really sweet for packing all day long at 7# including the scope, compared to my 9.5# "hunting" 375.  But lordy, you sure don't want to shoot it from a bench.  Oversize butt, straight stock, recoil pad and all, it has given me double vision with just three shots with 300 grain factory loads from the bench.  When I'm sighting it in or testing loads, I stand fully upright and rest it over the cab of my truck.  Rock and Roll Time!!!!

[acorn20]

Back when I got into muzzleloading shooting I shot everything from a .45 caliber to a .62 caliber before choosing .54 caliber for my caliber of choice.  I had a custom Hawken rifle built with a Douglas barrel 1 1/8" across the flats.  It can get a little heavy after a day's worth of hunting but I've actually knocked deer off their feet with that caliber.  The deer load for that gun is 115 grains of 2F with no noticable recoil.  Since then I've had several flintlocks made in the same caliber and have never regreted it. 

Somewhere, in some book, I once read where the load for a .54 caliber was a grain a yard.  You know, that's not far from the truth if your punching paper.  When I shot competively, I would shoot 25 grains of powder at 25 yards and so on.  There was always a guy on the line that felt he had to shoot 110 grains at 25 yards for accuracy.  When he shot, we usually had to wait until the backboards stopped reverberating before we could touch off our shot. 

For what it's worth, that's my two cents.

Dan

[Daryl]

I sight my guns for THE load. That is the load that gives the best accuracy at ALL ranges, not what shoots at each range. I guess I just can't be bothered with reducing the load for this shot, then having to incease the powder charge for the next shot, etc.  I shoot what's best. The long range load shoots just fine at close range - better in fact, than the squib loads in most cases. When we shoot paper- not very often at rondy, we shoot 5 shots at 25, 5 at 50 and finish with 5 at 75 yards.  I guess one could adjust the measure each time, but now I don't carry an adjustable measure - just a stricken load and it throws THE load.

I do admit to using a reduced load in the .69 for close, inside 50 yard shots. A mere 82gr. 3F did the trick for that shooting, but accuracy was leaving by 50 yards - still OK for steel targets, but not for bullseye. At 75 yards, it would do OK with 125gr. 2F, but why not just use THE load - a full 165gr. 2F - What fun!

[bs2]

I have the Jim Chambers english sporting rifle 31" .58 cal swamped barrel from Rice,  and the gun is very easy to carry.

Axe

Always thought I wanted a Hawken, till I seen an English Sporter.
Specs on the Chambers ES:

# Drop At Heel: 2 3/4"
# Butt Width: 2 1/8"
# Drop At Comb: 1 1/2"
# Butt Height: 4 15/16"
# Weight i 54 cal.: approx. 7 3/4 lbs.

Just look at the size of the butt plate 2.1/8x 4.15/16

and in a .58 too boot!

[Dphariss]

Thanks for all of the advise ... keep it coming. 

I've been researching J&S Hawken and S. Hawken rifles for a few years now and have a couple that I'd like to build eventually, including a mid 1840s fancy grade Tristam Campbell influenced J&S half-stock, and a later S. Hawken half-stock in the style of the Carson gun that Don Stith sells a parts kit for.  The gun I am planning first and acquiring parts for now will be an early-mid 1850s S. Hawken half-stock in the style of the Bridger Hawken.  All will use tapered 1 1/8" to 1" barrels between (34-36" for the J&S and 32" for the Carson and Bridger).  I figured that .54 would be the most historically correct recalling that the average bores of originals were somewhere around .53 caliber.  I may make the Carson rifle a big bore .62 buffler gun.

Part of my question regarding .54 vs .58 actually hinged around the availability of Colerain tapered barrels from TOW.  Right now .54 barrels are on back-order but .58 barrels are available.

Thanks again,
Kevin

The Museum at Cody has a number of Hawkens on display for very ornate to plain. If you like Hawken's or want to build one you should make the trip. If you time it right you might find a BP match of some sort out at the Cody shooting complex, about a mile north of the river bridge on the west side.
You can check dates at the SPG website or the Wyoming Schuetzen Union site.

Dan