56 caliber?

[dan parrett]

I've noticed that the 56 caliber is missing from today's offerings. Was it a common caliber in the days of old? I think I recall reading about some Hawken rifles in that caliber. Just curious.

Dan

[Dphariss]

They were probably recut from 50-54.
Very few original rifles that were used to any extent have their original bore size.
"Freshing" was very common and will add 1-2 calibers per freshing from what I have been told.
So when you see an old rifle that is "X" caliber you must assume it was smaller when new if used much.
There is a 1803 Harpers Ferry in the Cody Museum that is a 58 or 59 caliber (would have to find the photo of the display) so what they are now has little to do with what they were when new. A 54 rifle or any period could easily have been a 50 or even smaller when new.

Dan

[Stonewall Creek]

most original rifles were not common size that is why most barrels were made with a mould to fit that bore.

[northmn]

They came out with a "Santa Fe" Hawken in 52 a few years ago.  Writers made it sound like a great caliber and by todays nit-picking standards on calibers one may see a need for it.  However if you think about it, the modern standardization, if you will, of calibers makes sense.  Another caliber, the 48, has been mentioned as a possible addition, but the gap between a 50 and a 45 is not that large and a 50 is not that much harder to shoot than a 45.  They take similar powder charges.  Some use 70 grains 3f in a 50 and other 70 grain in a 45.  The 52 kind of flopped for that reason also, as a 54 would not be that much if any harder to shoot than a 52, if more power is needed over a 50.  As they get bigger it may make more sense, but the extra cost to make a wider range of calibers would be passed on to us and I doubt if they are worth it.  The Sante Fe appealed to those that wanted something "different" but offered no practical advantage.  My 25 may kind of fit in that category of something not really needed, but it does offer a significant difference in performance over a 32.  Anything in between

DP

[roundball]

And as another contemporary example, to meet some sort of odd requirements in the state of Mass., T/C came out with a Renegade in a .56cal smoothbore caplock during the '70's or '80's...then after a while the Mass. law was changed, the unique requirement was dropped and T/C discontinued the .56cal S/B.

[Dphariss]

They came out with a "Santa Fe" Hawken in 52 a few years ago.  Writers made it sound like a great caliber and by todays nit-picking standards on calibers one may see a need for it.  However if you think about it, the modern standardization, if you will, of calibers makes sense.  Another caliber, the 48, has been mentioned as a possible addition, but the gap between a 50 and a 45 is not that large and a 50 is not that much harder to shoot than a 45.  They take similar powder charges.  Some use 70 grains 3f in a 50 and other 70 grain in a 45.  The 52 kind of flopped for that reason also, as a 54 would not be that much if any harder to shoot than a 52, if more power is needed over a 50.  As they get bigger it may make more sense, but the extra cost to make a wider range of calibers would be passed on to us and I doubt if they are worth it.  The Sante Fe appealed to those that wanted something "different" but offered no practical advantage.  My 25 may kind of fit in that category of something not really needed, but it does offer a significant difference in performance over a 32.  Anything in between

DP

The prototype for the Santa Fe Hawken was either 50 (the original J&S was 50) or 54 since I am sure it had a Douglas barrel. I would have to get the article out or call the guy that made it.

I have no idea why it was made as a .53 unless they wanted to use the 526 ball that Lyman had available for 28 bore shotguns.
It was mid-1970s before a .530-.535 sizes were available IIRC.
The Western Arms Hawken flopped not because of caliber but because the Italians could not/would not make it in the way that the prototype was made, stock contours etc. IE they could not make the Hawken "right". Nor does anyone else in mass production for that matter.

Dan

[northmn]

While it may have flopped because it was not built right for a Hawken, you still do not see those in between calibers like that one.  When it came out they were trying to sell it on caliber as much as anything.  Many of the Italian guns and parts back then flopped because of the dollar exchange.  You could get a good lock back then for about 2/3's the price of an American lock out of Dixie.  When our dollar devaluated against the Lira many guns went by the wayside as they became too expensive to compete.  The Pedersoli line has remained in some offerings becasue they are all to be had, but I remember when the Sharps and Winchester replicas really skyrocketed in price.  Ed Rayel makes small caliber barrels less than the 32 and may bore out one special order in a 56, 52 or whatever, but few people want to pay a custom price to get a non standard caliber.  caliber does not seem to be a driving concern in ML's as much as performance.  I could make a very good case for a 43 for target shooting.  It would save lead and handle wind better than a 40, etc.  A 45 fits the bill just fine.

DP

[Lloyd]

The dueling pistols that I am making are .56 caliber. 
Why you might ask???
Because I can easily load a .535 round ball with a fairly tight patch...

Also because the original set of Wogdon's that I am using for patterns are .56 caliber....  I have noticed that a lot of British dueling pistols were .56 and the majority ranged from .52 through .58 caliber. 

A 28 gauge works out to about a .55 caliber, and I also like a 28 gauge grouse gun.  I have an officers fusil in the works that will be a 28 gauge.

I kind of like those mid-range calibers....

Lloyd

[northmn]

The off bore sizes would be very practical and its possible that at one time the 56 may have been more so.  It kind of makes sense as the jump from 54 to 58 is a ball weight of 220 to 280 or about 60 grains. Mostly its a matter of modern efficeincy, kind of like the 16 ga shotgun, whcih is a beautiful little gauge and better than the 20 ga wannabe.  But as much as I like the 16 I can see the utility in jumping from 20 to 12.  My 28 ga would take a 530 ball without a patch, but gauges at that level vary in bore diameter.  Shotguns were made in a few jumps as in 18 ga and 14 ga (another beautiful one for doubles) A 56 cal smoothbore is roughly a 54 rifle smoothed out like Roundball mentioned in the 56 TC, 530 RB and 015 patch gives about a 56.  The standardization of calibers is probably something rather modern, but economically it makes sense for suppliers.  The niches that an inbetween caliber would fill are rather tight.  They could be interesting, as a true 56 shooting a 55 cal ball would offer a little more punch than a 54 but maybe not kick as much as a 58  

DP

[hanshi]

This is the same affliction endemic among modern cartridge shooters, ie, taking the .308 and necking up/down/in between/etc. to get something the parent cartridge didn't offer.  I think it's a great and satisfying hobby and sometimes fills a very specific need in a way "off the shelf" cannot.

It's great we have "standard" bore sizes for MLers.  Let's see: .32, .36, .40, .45, .50, .54, .58 & .62 +-.  But there's variation there, as well.  My H&A underhammer is, in truth, an over-sized .44, for instance.  As an aside, .44s were also once very common.  I think the standards cover the field just fine as regular production is concerned.  If a shooter has a need (or even desire) for something in-between, I believe it's easier for him to get exactly what he wants via a custom barrel.

[Lloyd]

I once read, (I think it might have been in one of Baird's books, or else in Buckskin Report) that .52 caliber was the optimum for a muzzleloading round... 

When you get up to the .54 , .56 and .58 you start getting more air resistance, and more drop due to gravity.

When you get to the .50 and below, you loose the ball weight necessary for good clean kills.

Also, they said that you hit the point of diminishing return on velocity when you get above a .52.

Has anyone read anything concerning this?

I once made a Jaeger in .50 caliber (I think it had a 28 inch barrel), and with 110 grains of FFFg I was getting 2100 FPS and still getting good accuracy... If I increased the charge, the group went sour.  The line of velocity was pretty flat from 90 grains up to that 110. 

[roundball]

I once read, (I think it might have been in one of Baird's books, or else in Buckskin Report) that .52 caliber was the optimum for a muzzleloading round...  

I haven't read that particular article...to add some other thoughts, I think there are variables that often don't get mentioned in articles like these, which really throw such across the board statements like these out the window so to speak...just my opinions:

Example...the article's statement:
"...When you get up to the .54 , .56 and .58 you start getting more air resistance, and more drop due to gravity..."
I think that can be said of any next larger size ball compared to the previous smaller size ball...if plotted on a curve there may be exponential degrees of difference as the ball size increases, but that doesn't mean if a .62cal/325grn ball is preferred for large bear at 25 yards, that a .52cal should be used instead...velocity, distance, type game are all wild cards that have to be factored in.  
 
Example...the article's statement:
"...When you get to the .50 and below, you loose the ball weight necessary for good clean kills..."
As that statement stands I see no truth in it...because distance and the size game are the wild cards...I've taken several eastern whitetails in the 25-50 yard range with a .45 or .50cal PRB and they were down in sight of me, usually with complete pass-throughs from heart shots.  In addition, twice while sitting for squirrels with a throttled back .45cal and just 40grns powder, killed a Doe and then a 5 pointer that happened to come meandering along looking for acorns just 20 yards in front of my boots.  Moose at 120 yards for example, would be another matter entirely of course...so a larger heavier ball to carry more energy further would be preferred.

Example...the article's statement:
"...Also, they said that you hit the point of diminishing return on velocity when you get above a .52..."
I've seen that statement a number of times...but...it always struck me as sort of a "so what" kind of a statement...it reads as if its an either/or situation implying that people should stop using more powder at that point.
But if my goal is to increase velocity by adding more powder, as long as I keep getting more velocity for every increase in powder that's fine...in other words it doesn't matter to me if each 10grn increment of powder yields a gradually declining amount of velocity increase after a certain point...ie: instead of 100fps increase I only get 90, then only 80, etc...as long as I keep getting more velocity to achieve my goal...obviously when velocity flat-lines there's no point in continuing but I've never experienced a 'flat-line' over my chronograph...ALWAYS get some sort of increase.

If I'm punching paper or groundhogs at 100yds, a .40/.45cal would be the obvious choice compared to a .62cal.
If I'm going after moose at 50-75yds, I'll grab a .58 or 62cal rifle off the rack.
I just think there are far too many variables for that article's across the board statements to stand...anyway, that's my .02 cents

[northmn]

The issue of "more air resistance" in a larger ball is so much B.S.  Actually quite the opposite is true in that a larger ball has more volume in relation to surface area.  In math and science circles it is called the scalar effect.  Its based on the effect of volume increases by the cube of the radius and frontal area by the square.  Good example is that while my 25 is about half of a 50 cal in diameter, it will have 1/4 the surface area but only 1/8 the volume.  A 25 ball weighs about 24 grains and a true 50 ball (.500)would weigh about 192 grains.  Larger ball lose velocity less rapidly due to this factor.  A 54 will downrange catch up to a 52 ball probably by 100 yards even though it may start out with less velocity.  Look at a ballistics table and you see that effect in that a 50 can start out 100 fps slower than a 45 and hit at the same speed at 100 yards or slightly more and a 54 will hit at the same speed as a 50 with 100 fps less velocity at the muzzle.  Not saying that a 52 would not be a good caliber if you owned one just that it would not do anything a 54 would not be good for or do it better except possibly have less recoil, but significant   I have heard the same argument about the 54 over the 58 but it is a matter of how they are loaded.  In a muzzleloader using roundball if you want more power you use a bigger bore.  There are no high velocity magnums in the game.

DP

[Dphariss]

While it may have flopped because it was not built right for a Hawken, you still do not see those in between calibers like that one.  When it came out they were trying to sell it on caliber as much as anything.  Many of the Italian guns and parts back then flopped because of the dollar exchange.  You could get a good lock back then for about 2/3's the price of an American lock out of Dixie.  When our dollar devaluated against the Lira many guns went by the wayside as they became too expensive to compete.  The Pedersoli line has remained in some offerings becasue they are all to be had, but I remember when the Sharps and Winchester replicas really skyrocketed in price.  Ed Rayel makes small caliber barrels less than the 32 and may bore out one special order in a 56, 52 or whatever, but few people want to pay a custom price to get a non standard caliber.  caliber does not seem to be a driving concern in ML's as much as performance.  I could make a very good case for a 43 for target shooting.  It would save lead and handle wind better than a 40, etc.  A 45 fits the bill just fine.


DP

I am pretty well informed on this project, I had a short discussion on this about 3 months ago with the guy that built the prototype, he lives 10 miles up the river. It flopped because the Italian's would not or could not make it as Western Arms wanted it made. Instead of a Hawken they wanted to make a sloppily shaped stock that resembled a plains rifle, something like the Lyman or the Browning. So the deal died at the time.

The comments about the 52 caliber being superior is just silly. If their is some magic size for a big game rifle its likely 62 or 66 or 69.
The bigger a ball gets the better its BC gets. But once the weight exceeds about 450-480 grains it get increasingly hard to get usable velocity. 1600 is needed with a ball this size to give a flat trajectory to 120-130 yards.
Once the ball size exceeds about 500 grains in weight the recoil becomes pretty severe in 9-10 pound guns so the weight increases and the rifle becomes harder to use.
But the difference in BC is relatively small between a 45 and a 54 or a 54 and a 66. So small changes in ball weight make no significant difference in the BC.

Dan

[northmn]

We really do not see many production guns up to standard.  That's why this site is so popular.  There's still some things machines don't do as well as handmade.  I looked at a modern Hawken repo in Cabelas, which did not look too bad but the two of us that looked at it could not comfrotably see the sights as it lacked proper drop.  It costs close to $1,000.

DP 

[Daryl]

Example...the article's statement:
"...When you get up to the .54 , .56 and .58 you start getting more air resistance, and more drop due to gravity..."
I think that can be said of any next larger size ball compared to the previous smaller size ball...if plotted on a curve there may be exponential degrees of difference as the ball size increases, but that doesn't mean if a .62cal/325grn ball is preferred for large bear at 25 yards, that a .52cal should be used instead...velocity, distance, type game are all wild cards that have to be factored in. 


This is quite ridiculous as anyone who knows anything about ballistics knows the larger the ball, the higher the ballistic coeficient, therefore the flatter shooting it is and the more resistant to atmospheric conditions it becomes.

As Dan noted, once you go beyond a 'given' ball weight, in order to achieve the velocity needed for a good ong point blanks range, more powder is required than is comfortable to shoot - but - even then, trajectory is still flat enough for killing any game within normal ML ranges. Yers, the smaller calibres are flatter shooting - but they lack the considerable ball weight of the 'bore' rifles (over 20) which are the ultimate in game killing guns.  The ultimate in a hunting gun is not .52 or .56, but 16 and 14 bore. With them, less elevation is required at longer ML ranges than with the smaller ones & too, they carry the necessary power to work well past the ranges smaller bores are useful to. A 16 or 14 bore is a good 200yard moose or elk killing machine - the same cannot be said for a .56 or similar calibre gun.  Most of us would not use one that far away as we are hunters, not merely shooters and shooting past about 100 to 150 yards is not necessary.

[roundball]

This is quite ridiculous

What are you referring to that is "quite ridiculous"  ?

[northmn]

Sometimes a writer will come up with some interesting theories if someone is advertising in that magazine.  I have quit reading some bowhunting magazines as they read like an ad for various equipment.  Same for some gun magazines.  While Dan has explained why the rifle never went over, and caliber has little to do with it (which makes sense on reflection) muzzle loaders are pretty straight forward in performance with roundball.  When I talk about the scalar effect consider a cube.  A 2 inch cube has  a surface area of 24 sq inches and a volume of 8 cubic inches.  A ration of 3-1 of area vs volume which is directly realted to the amount of lead vs the surface area.  A 3" cube has an area of 54 square inches and a volume of 27 cubic inches or a ratio of 2-1.  A sphere is the same, which means that there is more lead per square inch of surface area within the ball. This actually shows an increase in overcoming drag as there is more lead per square inch pushing the ball. IT also explains why bigger bores need more powder per grain of lead to get them going as they have less surface area per grain of weight for the powder to push against.  BC's were developed to explain differences in bullets and their variety of shapes and lengths.  A roundball is a roundball, you probably will not point one, flat nose it or round nose it and it only varies in length when it gets bigger in diameter. The mathematics is that simple, when they get bigger they have less surface area per mass. That's why a 52 does not have any magical properties over any other caliber.


DP

[roundball]

And the same situation applies relative to any caliber ball relative to others, no matter which one you might choose to focus on....whether trying to ID the .52 as the best choice, or a .54, etc.
The original article comment about a larger ball encountering greater air resistance is indeed a fact...as you mentioned the differences in the larger ball characteristics has an offsetting benefit.

[Daryl]

This is quite ridiculous

What are you referring to that is "quite ridiculous"  ?

The statement that is highlighted.

The larger ball is greater in diameter, but it's tremedously increased mass overcomes that greater atmospheric resistance.  As well, this is why the larger the bore, the less rifling twist is necessary for stability.  

[northmn]

Its also why bigger ball penetrate so much deeper in game.  Also, the ability of the larger ball to withstand impact energy is greater becasue of this.  Where smaller ball may flatten out like a coin on bone a larger one will retain its shape better and look more like a football.  A real good example is the performance of large shot over small shot in a shotgun.  The larger shot breaks bones and penetrates so much deeper.  A friend of mine handloaded and could only get 7 1/2 shot one year (the lead days).  He was a good longer range shot and pelted a couple of ducks that I finished off with 4's.  The 7 1/2s did not penetrate the breast bone.  I have never had that much luck with the small shot, saturate the target, theory as compared to using an appropriately heavy pellet (roundball). 

DP