Author Topic: Trying to decide between .58 and .62 cal for the next rifle (Read 8588 times)

smokinbuck · « **Reply #25 on:** October 17, 2019, 08:42:28 PM »

Okabow,'We're way off the subject I realize but around her, even with inflated retail prices we aren't paying the kind of prices you are. Casting and cutting patches would go a long way toward cutting your cost. Cleaning with water, and a little detergent, is cheap and effective. Just saying.

MuskratMike · « **Reply #26 on:** October 18, 2019, 04:29:42 AM »

The "Muskrat" says go with the .58. A well placed ball will drop any of the big game you are planning to hunt. Cheaper to shoot yes but the flatter trajectory is your biggest asset. A .62 has a trajectory like a thrown watermelon.

alacran · « **Reply #27 on:** October 18, 2019, 12:34:57 PM »

Again it all depends on what you are planning to hunt and where. If you re going to hunt in a tree stand or ground blind where your shots are seldom over 30 yards, then a fast twist is fine. If you are going to hunt open country where your shots are going to be 80 to 175 yards then a slow twist would be preferable. To MI man a slow twist barrel allows you to stabilize a ball with with heavy charges, which give higher fps and corresponding recoil. That being said I believe the faster twist barrels are more versatile, in that you can get a lower speed load to shoot accurately as well as a higher speed load. For example I have two loads for my .54 Hawken and also for my 54 Bucks County flintlock. The Hawken shoots very well with 60 grains of 2f an also with 100 grains of 2f. The BC likes 60 and 95.
So for hunting where the likely hood of a shot of 100 is high I use the upper load.
If I' shooting targets at 50 yards or less I use the lower loads.
I have found with fast twist barrels only one load that shoots well.

WadePatton · « **Reply #28 on:** October 18, 2019, 04:55:19 PM »

G-man

Throw away all your modern ballistical math computations and hear what these fine men are saying. Yes I had a head full of that stuff too (it's no longer relevant-many reasons why, but we needn't get into that). Also note how very SLOW a 48" twist is in comparison to all that theoretical modern stuff. So much modern ballisticals nonsense must be discarded to fully understand the truth of roundballs and game.

Another way to think of it is stabilization=centrifugal forces on the ball. Slow twist means the ball MUST be driven faster (more powder) to get the same amount of stabilization(cf) as would be imparted by a "Faster" twist at a lower velocity (less powder). If you are taking great long shots then yes you may need more velocity (or learn to manage the rainbow) and can go with a slower twist, but it's going to be a thumper.

smylee grouch · « **Reply #29 on:** October 18, 2019, 05:26:18 PM »

There is a lot of math involved for sure and 99 % of the shooters will care less about it but all that math still comes into play on every shot. You can still make a good shot not knowing the math but if you do know it, whats the harm? I would still go with a 62 over a 58 if I could only have one. The small difference in cost is just that-small. Different strokes for different folks.

Daryl · « **Reply #30 on:** October 18, 2019, 07:08:20 PM »

Exactly, AND the difference in trajectory between .58 and .62 rifles is quite immaterial, even at longer round ball ranges,
let alone, under 100yards, typical of most big game hunting. The larger ball is more powerful, the smaller ball, a little less
expensive to shoot, given all store bought components.

WadePatton · « **Reply #31 on:** October 19, 2019, 01:30:57 AM »

Quote from: smylee grouch on October 18, 2019, 05:26:18 PM

There is a lot of math involved for sure and 99 % of the shooters will care less about it but all that math still comes into play on every shot. You can still make a good shot not knowing the math but if you do know it, whats the harm? I would still go with a 62 over a 58 if I could only have one. The small difference in cost is just that-small. Different strokes for different folks.

I'm talking about using energy tables and other "power rankings" that are created around long projectiles-rather than round and don't quite translate into the real observed effects and usage of round balls on game.

Yes I'd go bigger, they're so very close. But I'd never expect the 62 or 58 to do anything the other one couldn't-'ceptin on fine target work like cutting a spider or scoring the next ring.

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #32 on:** October 19, 2019, 05:05:11 PM »

I sighted in a .62 for a customer once that had a 1in 66" twist. He insisted I sight it in with 140 grains.

It really started pounding me into the dirt at about 90 grains. Lucky for me 95 grains is where it shot the best. The customer was outraged I sighted it in with such a light load and decided 140 grains was what it needed anyway...with out doing any load work I might add...…
So, I like big bores, just give me fast twist so I don't take a beatin'. Of course, If I lived out west where long shots were more normal I might change my mind.

sqrldog · « **Reply #33 on:** October 19, 2019, 05:23:29 PM »

That's why I shoot a .60 right in the middle 😉.

EC121 · « **Reply #34 on:** October 19, 2019, 07:02:28 PM »

"It really started pounding me into the dirt at about 90 grains." Being on the light side(31" barrel) my .60 acts the same. Also the .62. 90-100gr. of 2F is about all I want. For our short shots it is all that is needed.

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #35 on:** October 19, 2019, 07:10:00 PM »

Quote from: EC121 on October 19, 2019, 07:02:28 PM

"It really started pounding me into the dirt at about 90 grains." Being on the light side(31" barrel) my .60 acts the same. Also the .62. 90-100gr. of 2F is about all I want. For our short shots it is all that is needed.

Yup, this gun I sighted in had a light weight 38" barrel. Probably a 7lb or so. Nice for hunting, not so nice for a day of shooting.

I never was fond of big recoil, it doesn't bother some guys.

WadePatton · « **Reply #36 on:** October 19, 2019, 08:05:23 PM »

Quote from: Mike Brooks on October 19, 2019, 07:10:00 PM

Quote from: EC121 on October 19, 2019, 07:02:28 PM
"It really started pounding me into the dirt at about 90 grains." Being on the light side(31" barrel) my .60 acts the same. Also the .62. 90-100gr. of 2F is about all I want. For our short shots it is all that is needed.
Yup, this gun I sighted in had a light weight 38" barrel. Probably a 7lb or so. Nice for hunting, not so nice for a day of shooting. I never was fond of big recoil, it doesn't bother some guys.

I made a drag bag about 100 years ago for adding several pounds of effective weight to benched bruisers.

varsity07840 · « **Reply #37 on:** October 19, 2019, 08:39:55 PM »

Quote from: Mike Brooks on October 19, 2019, 07:10:00 PM

Quote from: EC121 on October 19, 2019, 07:02:28 PM
"It really started pounding me into the dirt at about 90 grains." Being on the light side(31" barrel) my .60 acts the same. Also the .62. 90-100gr. of 2F is about all I want. For our short shots it is all that is needed.
Yup, this gun I sighted in had a light weight 38" barrel. Probably a 7lb or so. Nice for hunting, not so nice for a day of shooting. I never was fond of big recoil, it doesn't bother some guys.

I had a Westley Richards 16 bore stalking rifle with a 30" tapered barrel that carried like an M1 carbine. It had a 1/60 twist that fortunately liked 70 gr of 2F GOEX. Any more powder would have loosened my teeth. Like you said, nice for hunting but murder off the bench.

Anonymous · « **Reply #38 on:** October 19, 2019, 10:11:31 PM »

Got a couple of Hoyt 58s with radius bottom 1-60 rifling that love 80 grains of Swiss fff under a denim patched .565 ball. Accuracy all the way up to 115 grains of powder, where I stopped for my own physical well being. Fun was pretty much gone before I got to 100 grains (guns weigh in at 8 and 8-1/2 pounds). On the flip side, with 30 grains of powder, all shots touch at 25 yards, but find that .565 lead ball a bit aggressive on tree rats, with tracking being pretty much figuring out where they land.

alacran · « **Reply #39 on:** October 20, 2019, 01:24:43 PM »

Quote from: Mike Brooks on October 19, 2019, 05:05:11 PM

I sighted in a .62 for a customer once that had a 1in 66" twist. He insisted I sight it in with 140 grains. It really started pounding me into the dirt at about 90 grains. Lucky for me 95 grains is where it shot the best. The customer was outraged I sighted it in with such a light load and decided 140 grains was what it needed anyway...with out doing any load work I might add...…
So, I like big bores, just give me fast twist so I don't take a beatin'. Of course, If I lived out west where long shots were more normal I might change my mind.

According to one of our best barrel makers (name withheld, to protect me!). If you want to shoot heavy loads for maximum accuracy in a .62 you need a 1 in 90 to a 1 in 100 twist to get the job done.

thecapgunkid · « **Reply #40 on:** October 20, 2019, 03:04:48 PM »

Mike Brooks...".58 with a 1 in 48 twist"...

Yup. I mostly stopped at .54 because of my light frame, but the power and accuracy of the .58 seems to make a great hunting gun...especially in the shorter barrel Jaegers.

R.J.Bruce · « **Reply #41 on:** October 20, 2019, 07:24:26 PM »

Doc White has been building and selling a lot of .54, .58, and .62 caliber Hawken rifles lately with 1-90 twist barrels on them.

I can't imagine the pain shooting those rifles with the heavy charges necessary to make them shoot accuratly.

smylee grouch · « **Reply #42 on:** October 20, 2019, 07:42:33 PM »

A P.A.S.T. recoil pad will help a double lot for the pain at the shoulder but if its a face slapper its going to hurt. How the stock is cut/laid out will have a lot to do with the recoil management.

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #43 on:** October 20, 2019, 11:44:52 PM »

Quote from: R.J.Bruce on October 20, 2019, 07:24:26 PM

Doc White has been building and selling a lot of .54, .58, and .62 caliber Hawken rifles lately with 1-90 twist barrels on them.

I can't imagine the pain shooting those rifles with the heavy charges necessary to make them shoot accuratly.

That would be fine in a 16lb gun.

Pukka Bundook · « **Reply #44 on:** October 21, 2019, 05:16:01 PM »

Decades ago I made up a Jim Chambers kit, (Mark Silver) in.58".
I asked Jim what charge was recommended for the .58 Don Getz barrel, and he said about 70 grains.
I tried 70 grs. and it worked so I never did fix it.
Hunted 9 or 10 years straight with that rifle and that load always worked, Very few balls recovered, and bagged a goodly amount of mule deer and whitetails.

If I was to hunt elk with it, I would up the charge a bit and see how it shot.

Craig Wilcox · « **Reply #45 on:** October 21, 2019, 05:59:40 PM »

Too bad none of us can tote a 5" 38 cal gun around. Easy 7 mile range on an elk, and any hit within 20 yards would get you some meat. Of course the projectile alone weighs about 45 lb.!

My first ML was an 1861 Springfield musket. Fired a Minie' ball with about 100 gr of ffG. Now I have decided that, after I finish this c. 1770 Lancaster, I am going to build a .62 cal Dimick. Still liking the larger caliber rifles. With appropriate powder charges, they do not punish the shoulder, yet a hit carries a lot of energy.

B.Habermehl · « **Reply #46 on:** October 29, 2019, 01:02:28 AM »

My only big bore is a .58. It only weighs six and a half pounds. I’ve always used 80 grains of fffg. And a .570 round ball. Deer find it deadly poisonous. It has harvested more big game than the rest of my armory combined. It only has a 28 inch barrel. Built as my interpretation of the Turvey rifle. Only one of the deer I harvested with it traveled 50 yards. This included a 25 yard slide down a steep hill. Being a recoil shy individual it does not bother me with this loading. I’m sure it could be something like a derailer with more powder. I highly doubt that it would make it even a bit more effective. BJH

News:

Author Topic: Trying to decide between .58 and .62 cal for the next rifle (Read 8588 times)

Anonymous