Howdy! Long time lurker, first time poster here.

Below are the basics of a muzzleloader which I am on the cusp of building. Wood, lock, parts, pieces, and ideas are all laying on my workbench and ready to go, but I need to finalize their destiny by selecting a barrel. And this is where I'm left scratching my head...

I will appreciate any input from those of you with big-bore experience. Particularly as it relates to barrel selection regarding caliber, length, sloooow twist, trajectory, and terminal effectiveness.

So here are the basic parameter's I'm trying to work within:

1. Use:

This will be a dedicated big game hunting barrel. Elk and mulies primairly at all reasonable ranges near and far.

2. Caliber: .58 probably, .62 likely, .72 very unlikely but not off the table.

The smaller .58 balls are readily availiable, otherwise one must special order hand cast balls from the usual places. Or, "roll yer own" which I'm neither set up or inclined to do... yet. Deep down, I'm leaning toward a .62.

3. Projectile:

Lead Round Ball. (I have other rifles for conicals)

4. Load:

Using real black powder and PRB, the highest velocity PRB load that the rifle will accurately and safely shoot. I intend to really stoke this thing hot, but must admit that I'm a bit ignorant as to what velocities I might anticipate. Only time (and the chrony) will tell. ;)

As for the missing link:

5. Barrell:

* Octagonal-to-round profile somewhere between 26 and 30 inches long.
* Twist somewhere between 1:96 to 1:44

The idea is to minimize weight with the profile and a shorter, handier length. And with that, I must choose some sort compromise.... which I hope you all will help me do! ;)

Oh yes, and not to overlook the subject of RECOIL, :cool:. It not only will come with the territory in this case... but I'm kinda asking for it! Say, what about a muzzle brake? You know, just to take the edge off?! :D


Well, there you have it. Fire away and speak up so I can make a decision sooner rather than later. Pictures will certainly follow!

Thanks,

Tomarctus

Tom:

The barrel that you are contemplating will most certainly be of a special order nature. In looking at a Getz Barrel brochure before me, they have octagon to round barrels available in 44 inch lengths, in a swamped design. They have 58, 60, 62, and 75 calibres with twists up to 1 in 72.

They say that they will make custom barrels to your dimensions and that you can call them (570-658-7263), and they will tell you if they can do it.

Rice is another barrel maker who could possibly make a barrel to your specifications.

My advice is to get your order in now - the lead time will be looooooooong!

It may be a custom order. I've found a few octagon-to-round or swamped barrels that (more or less) mostly fit my mind's eye. There are several different makes and models at Track of the Wolf that will work as far as size and weight and shape are concerned.

HOWEVER, the one common hitch to all these is that the slowest twist appears to be 1:72. Anyway, my concern is that this may be too fast for the amount of fire I hope to put behind the ball. This is where I just don't know...

Since you don't want to get into casting, opting for the .58 cal is your best option. 1:72 is probably as slow as you want to go with the short barrel length, it's slow enough to take the heavy hunting loads but not so slow as to create issues of having to stoke it up to point of insanity in order to obtain acceptable accuracy. Forsythe used the 1:144 twist in the .62 but what's often missed is the fact that he was using hard cast balls, not the almost-pure lead used by most folks and barrels 40" and longer. Because he used alloy balls, they were lighter and less prone to casting flaws than the almost-pure balls thus they obtained higher velocity because of the lighter weight and because the castings were high quality, less twist is required to make them accurate. A great deal of folks run 1:72 twist in the .58, .62, .66 & .72 calibers and they are very much pleased with it. Another thing to keep in mind is that hard cast balls are also less susceptible to damage while loading, soft lead balls are not and any imperfection no matter how small must be compensated for by applying sufficient RPM's to the ball during it's flight.

If you were going after large dangerous game that will instantly make you re-think your exact placement on the food chain, then I would say you should be looking at building something that kills on one end and criples on the other, for what you're going to be hunting, the .58 is an excellent choice. The .54 packs a good punch and has a good trajectory while the .58 gives you the increased horsepower without crippling the trigger nut. You don't need excessive charges if you're going to be hunting within reasonable range limitations, like 125yds max when you're chunking a decent size ball. Key thing to remember is that with the .58 the ball is plowing a 0.575" diameter hole right from the start. Another important fact is that PRB's don't cut a hole like a pointed conical, they plow and tear creating a totally different mechanism of injury and they don't have to penetrate several inches before they come up to effective diameter, they are at their effective diameter at the point of impact.

With a 26" - 30" barrel length, you're not going to get optimized performance from heavier charges anyway and going with a twist slower than 1:72 is probably going to be waste of time and money because it probably won't work. With a stubby little 26" barrel, I wouldn't really hesitate to suggest you may want to go a little faster like a 1:66 twist. Take a look at my avitar, that's a 16" long .54 bore with a 1:66 twist, it runs 70gr of 3F under a PRB and it packs plenty of punch with a 0.535" ball for big game - going to 80gr charge increased the recoil, still not uncomfortable but the gains on the output end do not justify the means however, the longer the barrel, the better the performance.

There's some things to think about before getting too carried away with the project then being unhappy with the results after you have invested so much time and money. If you want my opinion, I'd suggest going with at least a 36" barrel, .58 cal with a 1:72 twist. You must maintain a reasonable balance between barrel length, caliber and usage, to be excessive on any one will serve no purpose. That's why my pistol is done the way it is, the barrel is plenty long enough to produce performance that is acceptable for big game hunting, not so long as you can't shoot it off-hand and the twist is not too slow for the length & load nor is it too fast to cause maximum load limitations. No matter what you build, you need to consider all the parameters before jumping to conclusions or going off on a tangent that may prove to be something you will not be happy with. In the octagon to round profile, you shave alot of weight off the muzzle allowing you to add several inches of length without needing a bipod and rubbing it down with viagra to keep it up. Long Hammock makes excellent quality barrels and you won't have to wait forever even for a custom order, 45 days is the average lead time depending on what he's running when you place the order. He can also do any twist you want from 1:10 to dead strait grooves with no twist at all.

BTW:
There was a typo on my initial post. It should have read: "between 36 and 30 inches long." Sorry 'bout that.

Markkw, that's exactly what i'm after ..... Balance!!! There are just enough variables at play in something like this, that meer mortals like my self have trouble keeping them striaght. Your advice is much appreciated. After sleeping on it for a night, your recommendation of a 36" 1:72 .58 cal barrel is something I'd likely be satisified with, and I may go with just that after all is said and done.

Thanks for mentioning the wound dynamics. Please understand I'm just not convinced that a .58 cal round ball is a huge improvement over the 350gr .50 cal conicals I use now in terms of trajectory and killing power. There is a leap of faith needed on my part here to step out of my realm of knowledge and experience, and for that reason I've not completely talked myself out of a .62. However, becuse of my lack of experience with big bores I am leaning heavily on your words and advice.

As I side note, what is the ballpark of round ball muzzle velocities in these calibers? I don't have a frame of reference here either.

Perhaps Forsythe and the alloy balls should be another barrel for another day... for another purpose. As tempting as the sound of a high velocity hard cast ball is, if I go that route it will demand a longer barrel still, and I'm not willing to go beyond 36" for the use of this rifle.

Thanks in advance!

If you can live without a round to octaganal barrel, the Lyman Great Plains in 54 is the ticket. 69 caliber is nice and big, but almost every longarm you find it in is really a musket. (Only front sight, no rear, not good for accuracy). The GP rifle has a 1:60 or 1:66 twist barrel, (I've heard both), and is setup for roundball. I have one and would not hesitate to use one for Elk and certainly for Mule deer.

Well, there is two types of "balance"; ballistics balancing and that of having a gun that handles well for the shooter. On both accounts, you won't be dissatisfied with a tapered octagon to round in the 36" range, even a 42" long .62 cal balances out nicely and makes for a fine shooting gun. As for the ballistic balance, a 0.570"-0.575" round ball will put you around 280gr of projectile weight (exact weight will vary with mold style, temperature of the melt/mold and the exact almost-pure alloy used). There will be variations on the velocity for your given gun & load as well since no two will ever shoot exactly the same - minor variations in the nipple/touch hole diameter, blow-by in the bore.... (I'm working from memory here so don't quote me on this) IIRC, a 130gr charge of 2F real black powder under a .58 PRB will put you around 1500-1600 fps. While the velocity is lower than say a .50 PRB coming out of the tube at 2100-2200fps, you're looking at a 100yd velocity & energy retention of about 65% with the .58 PRB because of its higher mass.

As for comparing killing power, it's hard to do because there are so many variables with conicals but what I can tell you is that people who have gone from smaller .45 & .50 bores and in-line's to a .58 or .62 constantly remark about the rapid terminal affects of the large bore round balls as compared to the smaller ones and most conicals. I built a .58 Jeager style halfstock for a fellow who up until a couple years ago was a diehard in-line shooter, after taking several hogs & deer with it using PRB's. Quote from an email he sent me, "I no longer own an in-line. Not only have I found an incredible sense of satisfaction shooting and hunting with this traditional rifle but I am very impressed with its performance in the field. The 58 caliber roundballs have proven themselves time and again producing quick clean kills and reliable 100% penetration even on a quartering shot I made on a whitetail buck in centerfire season. Unlike the 50 caliber sabots I used to hunt with, I have never had to chase any game that has been hit with the big lead balls."

Of course, no matter what, shot placement and taking shots within the effective range of both the projectile and load is paramount to success. Balls and conicals are different but keep in mind that when conicals first became popular, they were designed to produce a wound channel and track as close to that of a roundball as possible because the roundballs were the proven performance standard.

I've chosen to go with octagon-to-round for several reasons. Most notably are weight and handling (physical balance). Not only are elk and some mule deer my primary quary, but I tend to hunt quite remotely. Often I find myself carrying a particular weapon for days on end, at high elevations, in rugged country, and in all ways "roughing it". Therefore, an 9-10-11 pound gun can become quite unenjoyable and ardous. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I find barrels much beyond about 32" and/or front-heavy to become unwieldly and clumsy in several situations. So I am constrained in part by my preferences and the circumstances of it's intended use as much as the ballistic realities.

As of today, I've narrowed the playing field to a 36", 1:72 twist barrel, octagon-to-round. The major question remaining is .58 or .62? Like I said, I've not settled this in my mind just yet. But for practicality and availiability, I'm leaning toward the .58, and gaining confidence it will do anything I ask of it. However, in a .62 there is a draw of uniquenes, character, and additional whallop that is quite enchanting (if not seductive).

Commercially speaking, .62 balls are pretty scarce. As far as I know the biggest production swaged round balls are Horndady .58's. Cast roundballs seem they would be easy enough to mail order, but the only place I am aware of is Track of the Wolf. Does anyone have any other good sources for high quality round balls?

.610" ball moulds are available from Lyman, RCBS and Rapine. Casting pure lead balls is easier than casting alloy bullets in my experience. All you need is the mould with handles, a dipper, pot and campstove or hotplate. Buffalo Bullet makes a .610 ball and Dixie Gun Works has the moulds and balls.

http://www.dixiegunworks.com/advanced_search_result.php?osCsid=586123ef5273a9f3 177259c15bb900ae&keywords=Round+ball&x=10&y=6

Bye
Jack

Ummm... well... Maybe the palyin' field is more level than I expected. Thanks for the tip. Now, back to the beard scratchin'.... :cool:

Definitely oct-rnd is the way to go for a trekking, you won't be sorry for not having to lug around the additional weight.

The .62 is very effective but in a light weight rifle, it's a real kicker too....then again my light-weight Mossberg 500 12ga doesn't have any problem biting the shoulder and face that feeds it.... LOL

Okay, penny for your thoughts on my original (half serious) remark about a muzzle brake. I'm anticipating the recoil to be on par with a 12ga with a stout turkey load. BUT I'd rather have some discrete holes at the muzzle than give up an elegant but plate on the other end. Not that I have to give up either, but I'm interested in the answer.

Will any barrel makers somehow port with slots or a series of holes drilled at the muzzle? Has anyone ever experimented with this to any avail?

I cannot offer any advise one way or another about muzzle brakes but I have this link to the Pacific Arms site as a point of interest. They have muzzle brakes in their barrels and "Forsythe" rifling as well. Something to read anyway. Good luck with your project. http://www.pacificrifle.com/catalog.htm

You won't need a brake and likely it'll just be problematic collecting fouling and causing related accuracy issues because of the un-even venting.

As long as you don't go with a narrow and/or pointy buttplate, you won't have any problems. With the oct-rnd barrel profile, it'll look best to stay with a fowler style stock anyway - with the arched comb and fowler buttplate it should be comfortable shooting and keep the balance point shifted slightly rearward so it carries easy and holds well off-hand.

Since you walk for days on end while hunting, the worry about the weight of a rifle with a longer barrel could be eased somewhat by choosing a style that is historically correct for the use of a rifle sling. It wouldn't solve the problem but it sure might help out. If you hunt in an area that is open where your shots would be considered long range for roundballs, a long barrel with a slow twist is the way to go. Historically correct sights such as a tang sight for longer ranges may be useful too. Just some input from reading replies ( mostly from Markkw ) on this forum and others. If I had the $$$ right now to build my rifle I'd be a happy hunter. Hope I am not being too redundant.

bullseye, that link didn't take me anywhere. When I google Pacific Rifle, it comes up, but I get redirected to godaddy.com. Is that website now defunct?

Tomarctus: Have you given any thought to building your rifle based on an English Sporting Rifle, Large cal,tapered barrel,wide and deep butt plate. Here is an article from a fellow I built one for that went to Africa a few times with it. Should be able to just click on the link/pic and it will open full screen for you.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a149/Fisherman_48768/HuntingtheBushbackpage1.jpgAll 4 pages didn't load so if you want to read the rest email me.
John

The link to Pacific Arms did not work? That is odd because it works when I try it. Try typing it your browser window. The muzzle brake consists of holes drilled into the octagon barrel at the muzzle. I thought fouling might be a problem too and cleaning might be problematic but I have no clue really. It was stated that it reduces felt recoil and directs the smoke away from the line of sight.. I dont see how that would be all that much help since the rifle only has one barrel.

It works fine now, maybe it was something on my end. I dunno. I'd been to that site before, but had never noticed thier version. The Pacific Rifle does appear to be a fine long arm. Does anyone here shoot one? The bluegrouse site has another muzzle break version shown there... The seem like they would work, but if it's not worth the trouble or there is a loss of accuracy, forget it. Also, I didn't metion it but this project is destined to be an underhammer, by-the-way. :cool:

Still undecided on my project. Was considering a design similar to this. It has an octagon to round barrel. This design seems practical for a long range roundball rifle. Next week I will prolly change my mind again. I just dont want to spend alot of cash without weighing the options and making the best choice. The more I learn first the way the better.I think this fits the English sporting rifle style. http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/ArmiCategoria.aspx?CategoriaId=170&lang=en

The English sporting rifle design does not lend itself well to bigger calibers in a user-friendly sense. The strait comb & stock means the shooter absorbs a higher felt recoil. A crowned comb matched to the amount of drop at the heel and a wide buttplate not only distribute the recoil in a manner as to reduce the amount felt by the shooter but also shift the weight to the rear of the gun making it much easier handling. The long rifle design is muzzle heavy.

(Stay with me on this)

If you look at the American Long rifle styles, you'll find they all have a common theme with considerable drop at the heel, narrow and often pointy buttplates attached to a very thin lightweight buttstock. If you look at the deep south American "Cracker" rifles, there is a distinct difference in that the center of balance is shifted rearward, heel drop is reduced and the buttstock is slightly thicker and heavier. In somewhat of a contrast, the Cracker rifles are somewhat of a blend the Jaeger and Americal long rifle. Cracker rifles were built for use in varied conditions from open field to thick swamps and the more centralized point of balance made them well adapted to use on horseback.

If you look at the American fowlers, it's clear someone figured out that the weight has to be taken off the muzzle and put into the butt or it wasn't worth a hoot for wing shooting. If you then look at the east European styles, they have a little shorter LOP and you'll note that the heel drop is proportional to the crown in the comb, the butt is wide with a reasonable amount of convex shape.

If you look at some of the original American ML's you'll find differences from maker to maker and while the major names are quite commonly worshiped, there were hundreds of unknowns also building guns so if you want to go traditional, keep in mind that you are NOT locked-in to the limited styles of the "chosen few" and if you blend the different well known styles, you can have a very user-friendly gun. There is nothing worse than someone getting all fired up and dumping $1500+ on a custom gun and then regretting the purchase because it beats the crap out of him or it's so awkward that it's uncomfortable to handle.

Howdy! Long time lurker, first time poster here.

Below are the basics of a muzzleloader which I am on the cusp of building. Wood, lock, parts, pieces, and ideas are all laying on my workbench and ready to go, but I need to finalize their destiny by selecting a barrel. And this is where I'm left scratching my head...

I will appreciate any input from those of you with big-bore experience. Particularly as it relates to barrel selection regarding caliber, length, sloooow twist, trajectory, and terminal effectiveness.

So here are the basic parameter's I'm trying to work within:

1. Use:

This will be a dedicated big game hunting barrel. Elk and mulies primairly at all reasonable ranges near and far.

2. Caliber: .58 probably, .62 likely, .72 very unlikely but not off the table.

The smaller .58 balls are readily availiable, otherwise one must special order hand cast balls from the usual places. Or, "roll yer own" which I'm neither set up or inclined to do... yet. Deep down, I'm leaning toward a .62.

3. Projectile:

Lead Round Ball. (I have other rifles for conicals)

4. Load:

Using real black powder and PRB, the highest velocity PRB load that the rifle will accurately and safely shoot. I intend to really stoke this thing hot, but must admit that I'm a bit ignorant as to what velocities I might anticipate. Only time (and the chrony) will tell. ;)

As for the missing link:

5. Barrell:

* Octagonal-to-round profile somewhere between 26 and 30 inches long.
* Twist somewhere between 1:96 to 1:44

The idea is to minimize weight with the profile and a shorter, handier length. And with that, I must choose some sort compromise.... which I hope you all will help me do! ;)

Oh yes, and not to overlook the subject of RECOIL, :cool:. It not only will come with the territory in this case... but I'm kinda asking for it! Say, what about a muzzle brake? You know, just to take the edge off?! :D


Well, there you have it. Fire away and speak up so I can make a decision sooner rather than later. Pictures will certainly follow!

Thanks,

Tomarctus

The 50 is good for deer, the 54 near perfect for deer and will kill elk, but the 62 is better. 66 better yet. But the 66 needs to weight 9.5-10 pounds. Bigger than 66 (662 ball weighs an ounce) is not needed unless very large/dangerous game is contemplated. With Swiss powder 1650-1750 MV with a one ounce ball is easily doable with 30" barrel. Powder charge 110-140 gr FFG. Over 120 velocity gain per grain of charge weight falls off rapidly. Recoil gets bad over 120-140 even in a Manton style rifle. Which has SUPERIOR recoil characteristics to most "American" rifles and all the later American ML designs. 2.5" drop at the heel, comb near parallel to the bore. 5" x 2" buttplate. Its a GOOD design.
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/DPhariss/ML%20Guns/P1020561.jpg

Avoid 1/2 oct barrels.
I would use shallow rifling with wide grooves and narrow lands, twist for 62 and above 80 to 96 inches. It will load easier and foul less.
The pictured rifle is a 16 bore (66), weighs 10 pounds +-.

Dan

I need to jot some of this info down so I don't forget. Maybe you fellows should collaborate and write a book. I've always been particularly fond of Jaegers. They just look cool. Something like you might find hanging on the wall in a castle..I don't know how much of a difference it would make but some English sportiing rifles had recoil pads.

The stock design must fit the individual shooter and truth be known about 99% of American shooters don't own a single gun that fits them perfectly. All along, people have trained themselves the gun rather than having the gun built to fit them. The strait comb is not the best option for most people, it works because most people have trained themselves from day one of shooting to accept the design simply because "that's what a gun is supposed to look like" and while they feel like it fits them, it really doesn't and it's not as comfortable as it could be. If you go to the range and pull out a "weird" looking gun, the peer pressure will be about the same as if you show up at an 18<SUP>th</SUP> century rondy dressed like you’re going to the Miami Vice reunion.

Several years back I bought a .416 Rigby with one of those “weird” looking crowned comb stocks. The chambering is no little toy and it’ll seriously hurt you in the wrong gun and I was absolutely concerned the first time I chambered one up and was about to squeeze the trigger. What I found wasn’t what I expected! Just prior to the .416 Rigby, I acquired a Win M-70 in .375 H&H and even with me being in top condition, I could not fire more than five rounds out of the .375 without looking like George Foreman landed five good ones on my right cheek. The .416 being a whole lot more gun than the .375 was quite comfortable to shoot and so much so that even after putting about 30 rounds down range from the bench while load building, my cheek still felt fine…my shoulder was somewhat sore but not unreasonably so. Needless to say, while I very much like the .375 H&H cartridge, the M70 chambered in it was not in my custody very long after getting the .416 Rigby. A good friend of mine liked my Rigby so much, when the opportunity presented itself he purchased a .416 Remington chambered in their M700 and he absolutely hated it. The felt recoil was punishing and getting the “Foreman cheek” took only two rounds.

<O:p</O:pThere is no one thing that determines a good stock design, it’s a combination of everything and the stock must interface with the user more so than the user adapting to the stock. Stock balance and fit issues are what cause most of the problems with off-hand accuracy. The common practice is to shift weight forward onto the muzzle to increase stability yet if the stock is properly designed, the weight shift is to the rear making the shoulder the solid anchor point which reduces the amount of effort required on the support arm, the less effort required on the support arm means offhand accuracy will not suffer and shooter stress is reduced. Think about this…if the bulk of the total gun weight is located too far forward, when you put the butt on your shoulder, the bulk of the weight is now put on your support arm. Take a muzzle-heavy rifle and hold it for as long as you can on a static target and have someone time you to see just how long you can hold it on the mark before you start wavering and your accuracy will surely suffer. Do the same test with a properly fit and balanced gun with a light muzzle and you’ll find that you can easily hold zero for a considerably longer length of time without the support arm giving in to fatigue.

<O:p</O:pThe biggest mistakes people make are not shooting in under the same conditions that they will encounter when hunting. Don’t do a tee shirt in July to go buy a rifle you’ll be hunting with in November. Put on the 17 layers of clothing you’ll be wearing when hunting and see how well the rifle fits and how well you can shoot it and how long you can hold it on zero in the offhand position just as you will have to do when hunting. I don’t know about the rest of y’all but hunting in heavy timber with undergrowth means getting the rifle into the shooting position then waiting on the game to make a mistake and present you with the best shot.

<O:p</O:pIt’s up to you to determine if you want a rifle that you can shoulder and shoot a stationary target with when you’re ready to fire the shot or if you want a rifle that you can shoulder and then wait for a game animal to make the decision as to when you can fire the shot or not. A strait taper octagon or tapered octagon to round attached to the right platform will make the world of difference between a paper puncher and a hunter.
<O:p</O:p

Once a person gets an idea of what their bodily stature or weight and bone structure can handle(Example.....a 90 pound woman wouldn't enjoy shooting a 72cal. round ball gun with a long barrel) they pick the barrel in that cal. that is designed with enough barrel wall thickness to keep the breech plug in the barrel with a heavy load. That safety factor is where to begin. Looking at the barrels made by the major manufactures and what the largest cal. is in relation to the measurement across the flats of the barrel or the diameter if the barrels round tells you what is safe and what the barrel will weigh in a given length. If a person is small in stature and they want a big bore rifle the barrel will be wide so it would have to be short. If a person is large and tall they can handle more weight so they would use a longer barrel. The stock of a gun designed with a length of pull to match the shooter but also shift the weight rearward some would seem to dictate a shorter than normal length of pull. A length of pull for a rifle with a heavy barrel would be shortened as much as possible. The norm for factory rifles with the 14 inch length of pull would stress even a strong stout man larger man if the barrel weight is heavy. Most any barrel in big bore that's safe will be heavy even in the 26-28 inch. realm. A rifle that's muzzle heavy as most any will be in a large cal. the shortening of the length of pull can shift the balance and make the rifle seem less muzzle heavy. Shortening the length of the barrel if needed to adapt it to the shooters stature dicates what muzzle vel. can be achieved. That would dictate how the shooter would hunt for whatever game he's/she's after. You know..if yer small and need a shorter barreled rifle then you need to hunt well to get closer to the game. If yer a large person and can handle a long heavy barrel you can enjoy the benifits of more velosity. Everything is relative and things need to be in a proper proportion. A small person can dream of a large bore long barreled monster killer rifle but that doesn't mean they will be comfortable carrying it in the woods and trying to hold it up to fire it. I built a rifle with more than a 14 inch pull with a one inch across the flats 58 cal. barrel 36 inches long. It was built for a large man. I made a rifle for myself that had a shorter LOP and a shorter barrel. I didn't like holding that big guys rifle up very long at all. I'd recommend to a person figuring on what barrel to use to pick it from a respected barrel maker that knows what the barrel wall thickness should be for the cal. wanted and see what the diameter or distance across the flats would be. Buy the longest barrel you think you could hold up. When building the rifle adjust the length of pull to fit you with the full length of barrel on the stock. If the barrel seems too heavy shorten the length of pull an inch or so. An inch or so shorter than the measurements show you would reach with the LOP is about as short as you want to go under the LOP you are built for physically. You know....if a 13 inch pull is comfortable to you than going an inch or so under that LOP to compensate for barrel length is about as short as you would want the LOP. The LOP should be shortened a little extra to compensate for heavy winter cloths if yer going to hunt then. In a nutshell the length of pull is shortened as much as possible trying to compensate for a heavy barrel. Once that is figured than if the barrel is still too long/heavy it's time to start cutting some off an inch or two at a time untill the weight and balance is comfortable even in heavy cloths. Once the length of pull and the barrel length are adjusted to the person then(the rifle's built) powder loads would be maximized within that realm to establish what velocities could be attained. That's my take on how to figure what barrel you want. The caliber of the barrel would be dictated by what the rifle is to be used for. Muzzleloaders with a length of pull as short as 11-12 inches for an average size person aren't uncommon. You know speaking in terms of sidelock rifles that have heavy barrels. I'd say that the lightest barrel would be a fowler type and that the recommended powder charges for that kind of barrel should be adhered to.

Up to this point, one thing I've not given much thought to is ignition. In the end, the gun will like what it likes, but what is the preferred ignition? #11, #11 magnum, or Musket Cap? Are there any rules-of-thumb regarding pressure, combustioin, efficency, or velocity?

Flinters aside, what do most of you light up .62+ calibers with?

Standard #11 are usually the best option. Black powder doesn't take much to get it going and many times a magnum and musket caps will cause the load to be disrupted before the powder completely ignites causing reduction in accuracy. The same reason is why in BPCR shooting there are times you have to use an over-primer wad to buffer the primer flash. In my experience with the underhammers, using a #11 nipple with a small bore flash hole will usually produce the best results. Keep in mind that the flash goes strait into the barrel, it doesn't have to navigate 90° bends through a long flash channel like it does on a sidelock. Most of the ignition problems on a percussion sidelock are caused by fouling in the flash channel that prevents powder from the main charge from filling the flash channel and also snuff the fire from the cap. Thus the higher powered magnum and musket caps were introduced to help overcome the ingition difficulties.

Ignition with caps with the sidelocks shouldn't be a problem with proper flash channels. The factory made guns of CVA econo models gave muzzleloaders a bad name. Part of the problem with ill made channels would be the gun handler error and misunderstanding the function and proper muzzleloading maintainance. The CVA rifles of yore had bolsters that entered the side of a barrel and transversed thru the bore and were seated into the far barrel wall. The flash hole was completed by using a long drill to make the final hole in the bolster to let the flash get to the powder. In that case the oil in the barrel that was trapped behind the bolster that transversed across the bore couldn't be dried from the barrel. A person just couldn't get to it. It would seep out from befind the bolster and render the powder near the hole useless. People with those barrels that couldn't contend with the problem could be advised to wash the inside of the barrel with alcohol to slosh in behind the bolster and get the oil out. Oil in other flash channels like those of ,say, a Thompson Center Hawken or one of the Italian copies of such a rifle had to be completely eliminated to reduce the fouling in the channel that MKW mentioned. People just couldn't get used to doing proper cleaning before shooting or hunting and that resulted inmisfires. Even with a good cleaning of the oil before shooting i believe there were plenty of people that didn't get the oil from the flash channel. Didn't have pipe cleaners and didn't use an oil remover like alcohol to get all the oil from the channels. Even if the channel is wiped with something like a pipe cleaner there will still be a thin film of oil left behind. A solvent that disolves oil has to be used. That being done would get the rifle igniting just fine. Of course the habit of turning the rifle sodelock down and tapping it to settle powder into the channel at each reload was something a lot of people didn't know to do either. I instructed plenty of people new to sidelocks to properly clean and properly load to avoid the heart break of the buck of a lifetime getting away after hearing a cap snap and no fire to push a bullet his way. Properly cleaned most any old sidelock will ignite as well as an under hammer or inline rifle.Well I guess this is a long winded way of saying the choice of ignition caps isn't as important as properly cleaned and maintained guns with those flash channels. Even a rifle with the bolster where the cap is sitting on a nipple where the flash channel does actually have 90 degree angles to it can ignite just about as quick as an inline or under hammer if the channel is oil free and free of corrosion. People just must have had a hard time figuring a way to clean and maintain a flash channel. The inline rifles came along and made the rifles more foolproof so they were praised for efficiency. Muzzleloaders ust aren't as foolproof as cartridge guns and the choice of ignition caps isn't as important as proper maintainance of the flash channel and,of course the nipple. Even an under hammer can experience proplems if the nipple isn't cleaned of all oil. Oil not being compatible with blackpowder fouling. The thin film left behind in a flash channel or nipple can accumulate blackpowder fouling pretty fast and render the ignition faulty.
The question of pressures was asked about. Pressures with any caliber barrel is determined by the manufacturers maximum powder loads with different grades of powders and projectiles. The inlines nowadays are advertised as being able to handle 150 grains of powder with whatever caliber or bullet is used. Regular barrels bought to "build" have limits set by common knowledge if not by the manufacturer. It doesn't pay to buy a cheapy rifle barrel of inferior steel. If a barrel can't have it's type of steel identified as being forminable don't use it. Even the steel of well known and respected barrel makers is not of the ordanance grade steel that would be used in cartridge guns usually. Therefore care has to used in the load developement when shooting the gun. Even with a barrel of ordanance grade steel there is still a breech plug to limit load developement. Knowing the steel of a breech plug is a hadr thing to do. Making your own of steel you pick is the best way to really know about the steel in a plug. Even with an ordanance grade barrel and breech plug the construction of a muzzleloader have "threads" holding the plug and being the only guard between the shooter and the plug makes for a limitation. Anyway it's always better to buy a barrel that is of good quality and from a maker that will state the max. charges to use. Even with the knowledge of a barrel makers maximun charge there are limits a person should just generaly know about from research. The use of FFFg or FFFFg powder in a caliber that requires the use of FFg or Fg powder is an example. The use of FFFg powder in a gun that can handle that with a round ball can have disasterous results when a conical bullet with some real weight to it is used. The bursting of barrels in some of the sidelocks that were loaded with FFFg powder and a heavy conicals is an example. There are plenty of peole that did that and got away unscathed but they were lucky and maybe had better shooting methods. A dirty fouled barrel with a heavy conical rammed down on a heavy charge of a fine powder like FFFg can raise pressures substancially. The 12L14 and comparable steel used in the muzzleloader barrels have limits. The limit may be as simple as using the proper powder for the barrel and projectile. Having the knowledge that a barrel of a cetain caliber is best used with a certain grade of powder with conical or ball bullets is a good thing to know. The simple idea that under 45 cal. the rifles can handle FFFg powder and that 45 cal. is the transition point where FFFg or FFg can be used and a barrel bore larger than 45 cal. should be used with FFg powder only.Knowing a barrel bigger than 45 cal. using a ball may be safe to be fired with FFFg powder but would be stressing the steel is good info. Trying to go to maximum or beyond with whatever barrel used takes a certain amount of knowledge and sometimes a certain amount of stupidity. There's the type of powder recomended by common knowledge and an amount of powder to be used as a max with certain projectiles too. A person should be educated enough to know,say,a 69cal. barrel of good steel can fire a ball with a charge of,say,120gr. FFg powder but that that same powder charge may be pushing the limits when the barrel is loaded with a large heavy conical bullet like a minni bullet. Common knowledge about muzzleloaders will tell a person that after the caliber size of 58cal. the use of Fg powder may be a better choice to avoid pressures that are stressing the steel. Reading and learning about blackpowder and muzzleloaders and putting questions to a reliable source is a good idea. Following the general rules or "understoods" of muzzleloading may save your hide from going over the limits when shooting/loading. If you aren't sure of something and you get more than one source of answers to your questions the answers can be compared and the chaff can be separated from the wheat. Ask more than one ,supposedly, knowledgeable person your questions and then trible check that. Going to books written on the subject can be really helpful. Reading over Blackpowder Loading Manuals can give a good general understanding of the basic limits to whatever barrel or projectile caliber or grade of powder you may want to try. There are general rules to follow to be safe. The subject of pressures and powders and projectiles can go much further than the basic fundamental rules also. There's a lot to learn on the subject. If anyone tells you he knows everything on the subject you'd be well advised to check the validity of anything that person tells you. There are plenty of surprises in store for anyone studying the subject of pressures. Example: the pressures in a pistol cartridge loaded with blackpowder can be raised as much as 50% or more when going from FFg powder to FFFg powder in the case. Not in every load though. Manuals stating pressures with different loads can tell a person that. The general knowledge that FFg powder in a pistol cartridge case,of say a 45 Colt, is a basic fundamental rule of thumb and learning why can be helpful. Anyway, in a 69cal. rifle FFg powder with a ball or a conical isn't a safety concern unless the rifle barrel is made of cheapy steel or the basic load max is surpassed. The use of Fg powder may be a good recommendation. Check some loading manuals where the info is most likely valid. Don't rely on people like me or anyone on a forum on the net. "Forum talk" is one thing and "your personal safety" and the knowledege to know its protected is another. Check and double check and go to manuals of different types to get at least a basic understanding of the general fundamentals concerning pressures and limits to adhere to with whatever rifle barrel you chose.;)

Rifle, I really appreciate your straight, common sense comentary on this subject.

Don't mention it Tomarctus. Hope I added something worthwhile.
Dpharsis....that is one nice,well balanced looking beautiful rifle in that picture. Someone did a nice job on that one. The butt plate is good looking and practical. Nice symetry to that rifle. Almost looks like a Hawken with a shotgun butt plate. I bet it's a "shooter".

Rifle,

Good point on cleaning the flash channel prior to loading...sometimes we take these things for granted and don't think to mention it. Also, another good thing to point out is that bigger powder will "often" produce better results in bigger bores but there are exceptions like a .32 that liked 2F and wouldn't group for nothing with 3F and a .58 that printed excellent PRB groups with 3F but not with 2F or 1F.

It's still not uncommon, depending on the style, to build sidelock percussion rifles with either a drum or snail breech but as you stated, either one needs to be properly cleaned before and after shooting. Rarely will there ever be failure to fire issues caused by fouling with an underhammer because of the direct flash route. The majority of failure to fire issues on sidelocks no matter if drum or snail type can be significantly reduced by ensuring the flash channel is properly constructed and polished - something that isn't done on production guns. Any sharp edges or roughness in the flash channel will trap fouling no matter how much you clean between shots which is why it's best to eliminate as many problems as possible from the start.

I think what you really want is for someone to repeal the laws of physics. You want to fire a large, heavy ball at high velocity, which requires an enormous powder charge but you want mild recoil in a light weight rifle. Wake up pard, you're dreaming.
I'd not consider anything over .58 caliber for North American game and even that is excessive. For shots past 100 yards you will need to get the muzzle velocity up around 1800 fps and in a .58 that will require 150 grains or more of powder and recoil of such a load in a seven pound rifle will be brutal.
The advantage of a big bore is that it can efficiently burn more powder than can a smaller bore. But you secure that advantage only if you actually do use more powder, otherwise the bigger ball is just slower, with a more arched trajectory and more recoil.
A .54 can efficiently burn up to 140 grains of 2f and achieve 1900-2000 fps. The same load in a .58 will only do about 1500-1600 fps with a lot more drop. The same load again in a .62 will be much slower and much more curved in trajectory and still kick considerably more.
Bigger may be better up to a point but once you reach "big enough" there is very little room for improvement. Shot placement is so important that if you place the ball in the right spot it hardly matters how large, how heavy, or how fast the ball. The same is almost equally true if you fail to place the shot properly.
Vast experience of 300 years of American game taken with the round lead ball pretty conclusively demonstrates that .54 caliber is big enough, can be loaded up to shoot reasonably flat and won't loosen the fillings in ones teeth with recoil. A flat trajectory and reasonable recoil combine to make shot placement much easier than with any larger caliber. No round ball which can be fired from the shoulder is much more than a 100 yard rifle maybe 125 yards on a calm day and if you can be sure it really is not 150 yards.
I hunt the Colorado high country for deer and elk and find my little .50 caliber ball to be plenty. I have .54 and .58 calibers also but in choosing a barrel for the Bucks County longrifle I'm presently building I had no hesitation in going back to .50 caliber, nor would I hesitate to squeeze off on a 100 yard elk under favorable conditions.

Coyote Joe, please tell me more about the long rifle you're building... thanks

I think what you really want is for someone to repeal the laws of physics. You want to fire a large, heavy ball at high velocity, which requires an enormous powder charge but you want mild recoil in a light weight rifle. Wake up pard, you're dreaming.
I'd not consider anything over .58 caliber for North American game and even that is excessive. For shots past 100 yards you will need to get the muzzle velocity up around 1800 fps and in a .58 that will require 150 grains or more of powder and recoil of such a load in a seven pound rifle will be brutal.
The advantage of a big bore is that it can efficiently burn more powder than can a smaller bore. But you secure that advantage only if you actually do use more powder, otherwise the bigger ball is just slower, with a more arched trajectory and more recoil.
A .54 can efficiently burn up to 140 grains of 2f and achieve 1900-2000 fps. The same load in a .58 will only do about 1500-1600 fps with a lot more drop. The same load again in a .62 will be much slower and much more curved in trajectory and still kick considerably more.
Bigger may be better up to a point but once you reach "big enough" there is very little room for improvement. Shot placement is so important that if you place the ball in the right spot it hardly matters how large, how heavy, or how fast the ball. The same is almost equally true if you fail to place the shot properly.
Vast experience of 300 years of American game taken with the round lead ball pretty conclusively demonstrates that .54 caliber is big enough, can be loaded up to shoot reasonably flat and won't loosen the fillings in ones teeth with recoil. A flat trajectory and reasonable recoil combine to make shot placement much easier than with any larger caliber. No round ball which can be fired from the shoulder is much more than a 100 yard rifle maybe 125 yards on a calm day and if you can be sure it really is not 150 yards.
I hunt the Colorado high country for deer and elk and find my little .50 caliber ball to be plenty. I have .54 and .58 calibers also but in choosing a barrel for the Bucks County longrifle I'm presently building I had no hesitation in going back to .50 caliber, nor would I hesitate to squeeze off on a 100 yard elk under favorable conditions.

Actually my 66 is more efficient than my 54 is and requires less powder as a percentage of ball weight to get useable velocity. With 110-120gr on FFg my 30" 66 will shoot flat enough for deer sized animals to give a point blank range to 120 yards or so. 110 gr giving 1650 fps.


http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/DPhariss/ML%20Guns/16bore1650.jpg

This load is comfortable to shoot in my 10 pound rifle.
The higher velocity 50 load shown shoots flatter. But not enough to be critical to 120 yards or so.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/DPhariss/ML%20Guns/50calat1900.jpg

I have killed deer to 140 yards with a 50 cal. But my eyes were a lot younger then.

Bigger balls always make better killers, but as with most things there is a trade off. Obviously a 400 gr ball will kick more than a 200 grain ball will.
The 54 is an excellent deer caliber and is a good all around compromise. However, if it strikes heavy bone on animals larger than Mule Deer penetration can be reduced. I would also point out that unless the barrel is long a 54 is not going to gain a lot of velocity over 120 grains of powder. My 66 will not use much more than 120 grains before velocity increase vs charge weight increase state to show the extra powder is doing little aside from increasing recoil. 30 grain increase, 110 to 140 in the 66 gin 100 fps+-.
This said I have two 50 cals in production right now. I have hunted with 50-54-58 fairly extensively and if going above 54 I would skip 58 and go right to 62. I went to 66.
BUT.
The heavier balls require the stock maker to be more careful with design.
As I may have pointed out previously many "American" rifle stock designs are not suitable for larger bore sizes and with an early style rifle with a heavy buttstock or an English style buttstock are better choices.
I really like my 66 and have shot several hundred rounds through it. Though its a little hard on the lead supply compared to smaller bores.

Dan

Coyote Joe, please tell me more about the long rifle you're building... thanks
Well it has a long way to go, I only just received the wood a few days ago. My Wonderful Woman offered to buy a kit for my birthday. I anguished over style for a month or so and finally decided my notion of the best looking longrifle resembles the first one I ever built more than thirty years ago.
I got the "Andrew Verner" stock blank from Pecatonica River, inlet for a Green Mountain B weight swamped barrel. You can see a rifle very much like I have in mind on Track of The Wolf's website under kit guns. I could in fact have simply gotten their kit except that I wanted a swamped barrel rather then the straight 7/8" octagon of Track's kit. I will modify the Verner comb more along the lines of Herman Rupp but it is not my intention to produce a replica of any one particular rifle. Just within the general lines of that school with modifications to my own taste and wishes. For example, double set triggers are very rare on rifles from that school but I like them and so my rifle will have them. I chose a better grade of curly maple, not the very best but nice. I was tempted to go with a wooden patchbox cover but I already have a simple brass box on hand and it is easy to inlet, so brass it will be. I'll do a little incised carving and perhaps a bit of wire inlay. I'll probably have it finished in time for the Rendezvous season.

All I've hunted with (and harvested with) is a .50 cal conicals, so my realm of BP experience is rather limited. Needless to say, if I felt it was adequate, I wouldn't be about searching out greener pastures. Besides nostalgia can be hard to resist.

That said, the way I'm approaching this caliber conundrum is this: From my perspective, all PRB shot at maximum *realistic* velocity, have the same *practical* trajectory afield. This combined with iron sights makes for a realistic and reliable maximum distance of field accuracy (confidence) of about 160 yards on live game. Situation dependent, of course.

Sooooo, the difference between .50, .54, .58, & .62 is really a matter of RB momentum, hole size, and recoil.

Addressing the last issue, I used the Point Blank Recoil calculator to compare recoil velocity and energy for these "maximum realistic loads". For a given gun weight of 7 lbs, they were all fairly comparable and were all in the same section of the same ball park with my .50 cal with stoutly loaded 385 grain conicals and all a good bit less than 1.5oz 12ga turkey loads shot out of my shotgun. However, that's about double of my goto centerfire, but not un-managable.

Now, will that kind of pounding affect shot placement? There's a big difference between the degree of accuracy and self-control required before sending off a shot from a scatter gun vs. a rifle. I dunno here, but it's something to a least consider. And how big is "big enough"? Point taken. I have the confidence to place a shot much, much further than I feel my .50 can deliver horsepower.

And that takes me back to the notion of a larger ball and a larger, deeper hole. All else being somewhat equal.... I'm about to say to heck with it and go .62. It's smaller brother the .58 is a close second, but a .54 doesn't seem like a significant leap from a .50.

So that's the best I can articulate where I'm at today, but of course it's subject to change tomorrow :D. Your reactions are appreciated!

After reading of the heavy recoil with calibers bigger than .54 I am thinking again of backing down from.58 to.54. I'm not sure about that. Of course I considered .60 caliber first. Some of those British Baker rifles had 34 plus inch barrels but most had 30 inches and 1;120 twist in .60 and .625 caliber and rhe idea had me going for a second. These rifles were loosely copied from a German Jaeger by the way. Evidently they needed cleaned after three shots. I figure from what I've read that a .54 caliber could be fired at higher velocities and with an effective range of maybe 100 yards or so. I could supposedly shoot "flatter" and with less recoil than a .58 with a relative proportional twist rate but with less punch at the end of flight and more chance of the lighter ball being pushed by wind and with a smaller ball, imperfections are more a factor. With larger bores than .58 slow twist is more important? How is that? In a perfect world I figure it would all be relative. What if I choose a very slow twist for a .54 to make it shoot "flat" and a bit farther than it would with a standard twist rate. I read of guys using .1;100 rate for.54 caliber and swear by it out to 100 yards. That's about the limit if you go by the 700 lb. knockdown power as the rule to harvest deer humanely. Looks like I've gone in a full circle again. This is starting to get a bit over my head at this point . I keep thinking about the fact that a vast majority of deer are taken inside 100 yards anyway but I'd rather beef things up and get better performance if possible. I imagine I could deal with more fouling, recoil, and barrel length than is usual and having to weigh the balls carefully making sure they are shaped nearest possible to true spheres because of opting for an "exceedingly slow"twist rate to shoot bigger loads with more accuracy. Am I being unreasonable here now? Would the "improved" .54 be worth the trouble? I'm not going up past .54 if it is suggested I skip .58 and .60 and go directly to .66. That's way more than I need for deer realistically speaking. Not only that but I don't really need punishment from (too) much gun. Is what I'm saying making any sense at all? Don't mean to run with your thread Tom. Sorry.

It isn't necessary to go to a super-slow twist for high velocity roundball loads. I used to shoot a .54 Green Mountain barrel with a buckskin patch and 140 grains of 3f black. I don't know what the velocity was, I didn't have a chronograph back then, but the Lyman BP Handbook, first edition, lists it as 1973 fps. That load was good for 3" groups at 100 yards with iron sights. That was a 70" twist, and I don't believe there is any reason to go slower than 72" in a .54 caliber. Bigger calibers do need a slower twist rate but even for a .62 caliber I'd not go slower than 96" twist. A very slow twist may shoot heavy loads well but ONLY heavy loads, whereas a 72" twist will shoot light or heavy loads.
As to wind drift, caliber makes little difference, all round balls are subject to a lot of wind drift. For any given velocity a bigger ball will drift less but the smaller ball can be driven faster which compensates for the poorer ballistic coefficient, meaning they end up with very similar drift at 100 yards.
I no longer shoot such heavy loads as I just don't find them necessary and don't enjoy heavy recoil. A .54 ball atop 100 grains of powder will shoot flat enough to allow one sight setting out to about 125 yards. Put that ball in the chest and you have meat.

If I give up the option of shooting lighter loads it wouldnt seem to matter much for a rifle that is meant for hunting large game. Generally hunting loads are heavier. Would it not be best to shoot the roundball as fast as possible or is it possible to shoot a roundball so fast that it becomes any less lethal as a projectile? The 3''groups at 100 yards would be hard to beat for sure. A bigger ball would deliver more energy and looks alot better on a chart but I wonder at what point it's just overkill. How dead is too dead, see what I mean? How fast is too fast? How much recoil is too much and how much difference would there really be from one caliber to the next or one load compared to a heavier load. It's hard to imagine the severity of recoil unless you actually experience it first. I guess my problem is sizing everything to proper proportion. It's hard for me to visualize the entire picture with so many variables in play. I always thought that bigger balls buck the wind better because they are heavier but I never thought about the fact they suffer more resistance proportionate to size. Roundballs shed velocity so fast it seems starting out with more is better ...within limits of course. Some information like the point of diminishing returns of anything is a valuable shortcut. I wonder about the sound barrier being much of a factor. Didn't oldtimers find the right load by the "crack" sound the rifle made when fired. I recall reading something like that a long time ago. It may be an old wives tale for all I know. Maybe I'm only making things more complicated than it has to be. I'm no rocket scientist. That's why I keep asking stupid questions.

@Bullseye,

First off, the complaints about recoil on are usually caused by one of two things: 1- excessive loads; and/or; 2- poor rifle design. Pick up a T/C renegade in .54, load it with 85gr of 3F & PRB and after 2 shots you're going to be feeling the recoil in your cheek, after 6 shots you're not going to like it. The same load & caliber in my wife's halfstock cracker rifle you can shoot all day long and never feel it. If you look at the Baker rifle, despite it's ±9 pound mass, the service loads were rather light simply because the recoil was punishing. The brits, wonderful as they are, never learned a thing and followed the same strait stock pattern building the giant 4 & 2 bore singles & doubles for African hunts as well as their european sporting rifles and fowlers - any of these in larger calibers (.56+) with what we would now consider a "normal" load were well known as cheek & shoulder busters because the number of people who ended up with broken cheek and shoulder bones upon firing a heavy load. Just look at the standard British service loads for their military arms and fowling pieces and you'll see that they are considerably lighter than those used today. The right stock shape will change the amount of felt recoil considerably. You may still be absolbing 25ftlbs of recoil but the way it's transferred from the gun to your body makes the world of difference. Heel drop, comb shape, buttplate shape, cast & LOP all come into play during the energy transfer, if the stock isn't right, you can have a 3" buttplate and it's still going to hurt.

The "cleaning every three shots" is most likely referenced to the poor quality bores that are common on the production guns. Any roughness in the bore, even if you can't see it, will trap fouling. Other causes are contaminents left in the bore, lube problems, load problems and powder issues. It's impossible for anyone to say how many shots you'll get with a particular combination in any gun before fouling will become an issue because the number of variables associated with it are almost endless and even relate to the ambient atmospheric conditions. I can shoot a given load combination here in FL with the 90°F ambient temp and 70% Rh all day long without wiping the bore and send that gun to my friend in AZ where it'll foul out with one shot simply because the air temp in the mountains is 25°F with barely 10% Rh. The only thing that is certain is that a rough bore will have fouling issues, that is a given and it doesn't matter what the load or conditions are.

I'm going to agree with CoyoteJoe on the twist too. A few things you must keep in mind when deciding on twist is how much work do you want to do before shooting... When you go to a slower than standard twist, you need not use excessive powder charges but you MUST use high quality consumables. You must accurately measure your powder and when going to a different lot of powder, you must ensure that the parameters of the powder have not changed. You must sort your balls for both weight and balance. You must check your patch material for consistency in both thickness and weight.

The rifling twist puts a spin on the ball and the exact amount of spin in RPM's is directly proportional to the velocity at which the ball leaves the barrel. A PRB leaving a 1:96 twist at 1200fps will be turning at 9,000 RPM while at 1500fps it will be turning at 11,250 RPM. Likewise, the same ball leaving a 1:72 bore at 1200fps will be turning at 12,000 RPM and at 1500fps it's turning at 15,000 RPM. (Just for a little comparisson a conical bullet leaving a 1:9 twist bore at 2800fps is turning at 224,000 RPM)

Like many other things, the numbers work well for a point of reference from the engineering standpoint but mean very little beyond the paper. Spin is used to correct for the slight imperfections in a projectile. The sphere, if made completely flawless, would not need any spin at all in order to fly correctly. Since we can't make a perfect ball nor keep a perfect ball "perfect" while wrapping it in a piece of cloth and jamming it down a steel tube, we use the rifling to correct for the imperfections. A ball with too little spin won't be able to correct the imperfections and a ball with too much spin will cause the imperfections to be amplified - in either condition the results is a decrease in accuracy. You need a happy medium between ball quality and velocity or you'll spend more time in the shop than you will on the range or in the field.

Now, tied into the twist issue is the question is what's going to be your optimum load for what you are doing with the gun? Since we're talking bigger game hunting in this thread, we'll stay with that. Just about everyone is going to be using "almost pure" lead alloy for their balls no matter if casting their own or purchasing pre-cast, they're going to be soft lead. This being the case, one must understand that excessive velocity applied to the ball is going to reduce both penetration depth and terminal effectiveness of the ball. If the velocity is too high, the ball will shed weight as it deforms and in the process loosing energy and velocity as well resulting in reduced penetration depth. Penetration depth and permanent wound channel is what we're after no matter if the projo is a round ball or a bullet. The numbers on paper be they velocity, energy or trajectory mean absolutely nothing when the projectile reaches the intended target - all that counts is what happens AFTER the projo gets there. Thus, if you run a real slow twist you have two options to maintain accuracy and they are to be extremely meticulous before and when loading or increase the velocity in order to obtain the required RPM's by using excessive powder charges.

What's most often missed, and this relates to the BS about numbers on paper, is the fact that the mass of the projo is what counts more than anything. When going from say a 0.490" ball to a say a .575" ball you're only gaining 0.085" in diameter but along with it comes a disproportional weight gain and the increased mass is what's important because it's the increase in mass that's going to give the additional energy retention when the projo impacts the intended victim.

I have a link somewhere...."where" is a question unto itself....but after multiple hundreds of research hours, I turned up alot of info on "big five" cartridges and the interesting note is that Roy Weatherby actually paid an independent gun rag writer to keep his mouth shut about the results of his own personal testing for an article he was doing on African hunting. What he found is that with all it's big velocity and energy numbers on paper, the .460wtby mag pushing a 500gr bullet produced less penetration depth with the factory load than it did with a reduced velocity handload. I don't recall the exact numbers but the difference between the factory and slower handload showed something like a 40% penetration depth reduction. Now, keep in mind, that's pushing a steel jacketed non-epxanding solid projo, not a soft lead expanding projo. The softer the projo, the more it's going to deform on impact which is why it needs the additional mass to help counter the losses caused by the deformation. However, increasing velocity will only cause more deformation losses and since the mass is not increased proportionally to the velocity, the end result is a decrease in penetration depth. All things are relative to each other.

That is why you need not focus on trajectory or muzzle velocity and you need to focus on the end results of what the final outcome is going to be as it relates to what you input. If you're looking to send a 0.575" or 0.650" ball 130 yards with very little trajectory drop, you better plan on running excessive loads and forget about hunting bigger size game with it because in the process you'll also be giving up the penetration depth required to make a clean ethical kill. If you want to be more realistic, run a reasonable load with a bigger diameter projectile that doesn't beat the crap out of you and will have a nice balance between creating a suitable permanent wound channel and sufficient penetration depth for the game you intend to take with it.

Thus comes the point of happy mediums. Joe is right in that the bigger the ball, the less it will be affected by wind drift and also the less RPM's it requires to shoot accurately. The trade-off is while the bigger ball is giving you more projo and penetration depth and wound channel diameter, you're giving up trajectory in return. Thus, if you go with a say a .58, .62 or .66 with a twist somewhere between 1:72 and say 1:86 you can build a load that will give you the desired penetration depth, one that isn't going to beat the snot out of you unless you have a crappy rifle design, and one that isn't going to be overly fussy about component quality. What you give in return is dealing with the resultant trajectory arc. Thus, when you find the maximum load that gives you reliable accuracy, if it's got an 8" trajectory over 130 yards, learn to estimate your range accurately or spend a few bucks on a range finder. Point is, it's not going to do you any good to build say a .58 that has a only a 2" trajectory path over 150 yards that isn't going to produce the desired terminal results on the game you're hunting with it.

The barrel mfg I deal with has a lot of combined experience between himself and his father along with numerous other contacts in the industry. Based on actual results on the range and in the field over a century or so, there is a relative baseline established for rate of twist vs bore diameter for the most effective round ball loads.

<O:p</O:p.32 - .40 ~ 1:48<O:p</O:p
.40 - .45 ~ 1:56
.45 - .50 ~ 1:60
.54 - .58 ~ 1:66
.58 - .72 ~ 1:72 to 1:86
.62 - .72 ~ 1:72 to 1:90

You can see there is some overlapping and that's a matter of determining what you're doing with the given caliber & loading. Folks punching paper with a .40 may go for a 1:36 twist just as they may go for a 1:56 in the same caliber all depending on what they are doing with it. I'm a sucker for long range PRB shooting but it's for punching paper and knocking down steel plates because a miss isn't going to result in a wounded animal running off to suffer. In reality, back in the days before my body crapped out, I'd say that yes, if everything was right at the time I'd probably take a longer shot on game if I knew both I and the load and the rifle was up to the task. In reality, I have passed on dozens of shots even at close ranges when I didn't feel that everything was right and it didn't matter if I was carrying a flintlock or a centerfire. Even if I was in top form, I seriously doubt that I would take a shot over 150 yards on any game no matter what front stuffer I was carrying simply because of the uncontrollable variables involved like wind drift, up/down-drafts and grade (up/down-hill) issues that may not be readily visible at the time - an 8 foot vertical change between the muzzle and target at 150 yards can change your POI by 6" or more when you take sighting error into account.<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p

Thanks for elaborating. That helps put things into perspective. I am curious about the alloy percentage of different brands of roundballs. I know that some are harder than others but I don't know if it is significant enough to take into consideration. Seems like it just might be. If I were to choose a twist rate for a hunting .58 loosely based on that info, I would choose 1:79 or so. You stated that twist rates slower than 1:80 is for die-hard long (range) shooters right? 1:66 seems a bit fast for a .54 to me. Again the recommended 1:48 twist rate seems ideal for my .36 longrifle. I was lucky I guess. The comments about British stock design is interesting.

Thanks for elaborating. That helps put things into perspective. I am curious about the alloy percentage of different brands of roundballs. I know that some are harder than others but I don't know if it is significant enough to take into consideration. Seems like it just might be. If I were to choose a twist rate for a hunting .58 loosely based on that info, I would choose 1:79 or so. You stated that twist rates slower than 1:80 is for die-hard long (range) shooters right? 1:66 seems a bit fast for a .54 to me. Again the recommended 1:48 twist rate seems ideal for my .36 longrifle. I was lucky I guess. The comments about British stock design is interesting.

In 58 twists slower than 66-72 are likely a waste of time. a 72 twist will likely allow the use of all the powder the barrel length will use even in 69 caliber. There is no "long range" shooting with a round ball. Increased velocity simply makes the rifle shoot flatter to 120-130 yards. it is nearly impossible to get enough velocity for a deer sized point blank to 150 yards. Velocity at 100 yards is just too low to maintain a flat trajectory regardless of the muzzle velocity.
Get a barrel from a good barrel maker and use his recommendation for twist.
Alloy of the balls is likely all the same, pure lead. Unless you find some that are intentionally hardened or make your own. Hardened balls can be hard to load in some barrels.

Dan

I recall reading threads elsewhere about hardness of different roundball brands. The complaint was that most were too hard and not made of pure lead. It was stated here that around .62 it becomes progressively harder to load roundballs. Do you think that .58 is just too much for deer Dan?

@bullseye,

I don't know anyone who would take a shot on game with a roundball at ranges over 150 yards and most will try to keep all their shots under 100yds. The long range ball shooters are punching paper or steel plates, some friends and I had an informal match every other month in PA where we shot for group at 200, 300 & 400 yards... it's a whole lotta fun too!

The ball hardness issues arise when small casters are supplying balls using un-tested salvaged lead. Lead work softens and when you find that dead soft sheet lead in the salvage yard, it's been rolled into sheet form, the rolling process works the lead and softens it - when you melt the lead and cast it, it comes out hard because whatever the alloy is, it'll revert back to it's normal properties during the casting process. The biggest problem I've seen is with cable sheathing and X-ray lead shielding, both of these items are often made with an alloy that makes the mechanical forming process easy but once cast, the alloy drops from the mold around 12-14 Bhn, way too hard considering pure lead is 5 Bhn.

The soft lead we associate with ML's is not "pure". Casting 0.610" balls weighing about 342gr each gives you roughly 20 balls per pound. 99.99% pure lead is currently running around $37.00 per pound which means these balls would cost $1.85 each just in materials not counting production costs or labor. Thus, we use "almost pure" lead that is considerably cheaper especially when it's salvaged. With the salvaged lead also comes the issue how much of what kind of impurities is in it. Hardness testing must be done after casting and in some cases certain alloys can take upwards of 60 days after being cast to reach their full hardness. I know of one commercial caster that was using stick-on wheel weights and salvaged sheet lead for his ML balls and he never tested the hardness after casting the balls. A number of retailers were selling these un-tested large diameter cast balls and several lots came through excessively hard, 11-14 Bhn. The end result was many users who found these balls very hard to load and the whole thing sent ripples through ML community from the retailers to the barrel makers simply because the ball hardness wasn't tested after they were cast. This is also the reason I gripe on people to sort their raw lead prior to melting and then casting it into ingots and testing it after being cast before mixing it together in the pot. One bad piece of lead can ruin an entire pot full.

The secondary issues are that higher alloys don't shrink as much as "almost pure" lead so that 0.610" mold may actually be dropping alloy balls with a diameter of 0.613"-0.614", the larger diameter combined with the alloy that doesn't cush as easily means using the same patch thickness makes for a considerably tight and difficult loading condition.

You can effectively run alloy balls but both the balls and patches must be sized correctly. From a 0.490" mold, balls cast from almost pure dropped at 0.491" and balls cast from WW alloy dropped at 0.4935" While it wasn't much of a difference, it was enough to cause difficult loading with the 0.018" patch material I used with the soft lead balls. I dropped to 0.012" patch material and it worked out well. Alloy balls are also have less mass despite their larger diameter, in smaller calibers the difference doesn't mean much but in larger calibers the mass difference will likely change the POI. Additionally, the lighter harder balls will sometimes require a completely different load including powder charge volume in order to obtain acceptable accuracy.

Word to the wise...if you're buying balls, be sure to check both the diameter and hardness before you try stuffing one down the bore.

I recall reading threads elsewhere about hardness of different roundball brands. The complaint was that most were too hard and not made of pure lead. It was stated here that around .62 it becomes progressively harder to load roundballs. Do you think that .58 is just too much for deer Dan?

People kill deer with 45s all the time. Personally I think the 50 is the smallest practical caliber. Many think the 54 is an ideal deer caliber and I concur. There are who some think it is perfect for elk and larger game. I know it will work but I do not consider it the best choice.
I think the 58 offers little significant increase over the 54. Thus If I were hunting deer I would not use one, the 54 is just as good IMO.
If I were going to use the rifle on bigger animals like Elk or Moose and confined myself to a late American style rifle with a deep crescent buttplate "offhand" stock I would likely consider the 58 to be maximum due to recoil concerns.
If the shooter chooses a heavier buttstock design and it is built with minimum pitch and a buttplate like the early Kentucky (think Marshall rifle), fowler or English rifle/shotgun designs he can use a caliber that generates more recoil like a 62, 66, 69 caliber.
For large game or animals such as Grizzly Bears calibers of 66 or over are best. The 66-69 will give the best compromise between killing power and manageable recoil at 1500-1700 fps in a 9-10 pound rifle. A velocity in the 1600 fps range will produce a flat trajectory at least for the purposes of deer/moose sized animals to 120-140 yards. The large balls will produce excellent wounding capability and if the rifling is properly designed hardened balls are as easy to use as soft ones. Hardened balls will produce much better penetration and bone breaking ability in large or dangerous game. The 69 caliber PRB rifle was used by Forsythe in the 1850s-60s for Indian Elephant and other Indian game.
Larger bores such as 10 or 8 bore are really too big for most uses. The .662 RB weighs about one ounce, 437 gr in pure lead making it a 16 bore. The 10 bore ball will weigh 700 if a true 10. This requires more powder to obtain useful velocity and a heavier gun to control recoil forces. I personally would not want a 10 bore big game rifle that weighed less than about 12 pounds if I intended to shoot it very much other than at game. Since I believe in shooting my hunting rifles frequently to become accustomed to their traits light heavy recoiling rifles are not really practical.

The English always used larger caliber guns for a given game than the Americans. First the British hunter could usually afford more powder and lead and the English rifle was virtually always equipped with a fowler buttplate.
The Americans always were minimalist. The 50 caliber is VERY common in American rifles and there are several surviving Rev War rifles well under 50. The 50 would kill about anything in NA with a well placed shot. it was cheap to shoot and produced light recoil. By 1820 the American buttplate was changing into a deep crescent with relatively poor recoil characteristics. Thus bore sizes over 54 were rare. Rifles in the American west of the 1800-1870 period were generally 50-54 caliber. The trade ball used in 24 bore trade guns would fit a 54 caliber rifle so it became the "30-30" of its time.
What I am getting to here is that the calibers of American rifles were not generally arrived at by their effectiveness, but by economics.
So the 54 was not made standard because it was the *best* caliber for western game but because it would generally get the job done and if the mould was lost balls could be obtained for it at about any trading post. While the 62 or 66 would have been better for buffalo you can only kill something so dead and the ammo is HEAVY and not as easy to obtain if circumstances require buying balls.

Dan

Going back to the original post on this thread---I support the 58 caliber short 26 inch long barrel. The person who started this thread wants a small, portable shoulder cannon.

He can get plenty of Ka-Boom out of a 58 caliber and shooting 58 caliber RB's is fun, not crazy expensive and you can get them almost anywhere (online stores galore). Bigger than that and you start to have challenges. Life has so many challenges already. Why ask for another ONE? .58 is plenty of round ball.

I shoot 54 and 58 caliber Round Balls with black powder and will tell you they are fun and you can load them up to get all the RECOIL you could want. Since you are making your own rifle you can make it more like a RENEGADE instead of a Lyman Plains or Trade rifle so you can increase the felt recoil. I like the Lymans Trade Rifle. I can shoot my 54 caliber with a short barrel all day long and it has firm but not harsh recoil. It is a great woods gun. Deer or bear or mountain lion or pigs. Ka-Boom. Down.

People kill deer with 45s all the time. Personally I think the 50 is the smallest practical caliber. ------------------------- While the 62 or 66 would have been better for buffalo you can only kill something so dead

Dan


Hey, I knew we could find an area of agreement!:D

Hey, I knew we could find an area of agreement!:D

In my younger days I used to run around horse packing and hunting elk for weeks at a time in the Wilderness area immediately north of Yellowstone NP with a 50 cal flintlock and a 1860 army.
No matter what you have if you come across a big bear track the gun gets smaller.
While the 50-54-58 will kill anything in NA when used right if hunting something with large teeth and a bad attitude bigger holes are nice. In a 26" barreled rifle I would not go smaller than 58 and would likely use a 66. Its about all the recoil I want to tolerate. If you want a smasher you have to have a big ball and from a historical perspective the 58 is a medium bore outside the US. But then this is all dependent on many factors including the size and attitude of the animal being hunted.
I would not hunt for G-bear with anything smaller than a 66. Non-dangerous game is something else.
To paraphrase James Forsythe...
It is one thing when hunting animals that fly FROM you when shot and quite another when hunting those that fly AT you.

Dan

dangerous game is something else.
To paraphrase James Forsythe...
It is one thing when hunting animals that fly FROM you when shot and quite another when hunting those that fly AT you.

Dan
Pterodactyl?:) That is no doubt true. I guess if I were hunting Grizz I'd probably want a great big .72 caliber side by side double but that is a rather specialized application I never thought of as part of the original question. Now if a bear just happens along while I'm cleaning my elk, he wants the meat and no matter how hard I may have worked for it I'd give it up rather than argue with him. If I could afford a trip for Alaskan brown bear I could probable afford a specialized rifle for that hunt. For general hunting here in Colorado I feel that the usual .50 & .54 calibers are big enough. But then I also consider the 30/30 to be "big enough" whereas lots of folks would prefer a .300 mag or bigger. I totally agree with the advise to "use enough gun", I just draw the "enough" line a bit lower than some might. In 38 years of hunting several states I have lost two animals wounded, one coyote and one mule deer, both due to poor shot placement. The coyote was gut shot with a .570 round ball and the deer was head shot with a .45/70. I'll never make those mistakes again. A big ball in the gut is still a gut shot and a deer's head is a lot bigger than it's brain. I've never lost an animal that was at all well hit with any bullet, even to include the .223 and .30 carbine.

CoyoteJoe, you stated that the rifle you were building was to be a blend of styles but a Herman Rupp "liberty cap" inlay might look nice on it. I saw them somewhere online in an online catalog just cant recall where.

Don't mention it Tomarctus. Hope I added something worthwhile.
Dpharsis....that is one nice,well balanced looking beautiful rifle in that picture. Someone did a nice job on that one. The butt plate is good looking and practical. Nice symetry to that rifle. Almost looks like a Hawken with a shotgun butt plate. I bet it's a "shooter".

Its late English flintlock. Lock is cast from an original Manton rifle lock, buttplate is Manton design too. Recessed Nock breech.
First barrel was rough at the breech and gave 120 fps more than the current barrel with the same powder. The new barrel reduced the velocity but is smooth and shoots a lot better. The rougher barrel retarded the acceleration and increased the initial pressure and thus the velocity. Thats how I see it anyway. This barrel still makes just over 1600 fps with a one ounce ball.
I did move the sling swivel back to the second pipe though since the photo. Its more comfortable there.
Barrel is 1.187" tapered to 1.125" 30" including the breech. Weight is about 10 pounds by the bathroom scale.
Need to get the breech color hardened, get some decent color on the barrel get some other stuff finalized etc. But I wanted to hunt with it.

Dan

Pterodactyl?:) That is no doubt true. I guess if I were hunting Grizz I'd probably want a great big .72 caliber side by side double but that is a rather specialized application I never thought of as part of the original question. Now if a bear just happens along while I'm cleaning my elk, he wants the meat and no matter how hard I may have worked for it I'd give it up rather than argue with him. If I could afford a trip for Alaskan brown bear I could probable afford a specialized rifle for that hunt. For general hunting here in Colorado I feel that the usual .50 & .54 calibers are big enough. But then I also consider the 30/30 to be "big enough" whereas lots of folks would prefer a .300 mag or bigger. I totally agree with the advise to "use enough gun", I just draw the "enough" line a bit lower than some might. In 38 years of hunting several states I have lost two animals wounded, one coyote and one mule deer, both due to poor shot placement. The coyote was gut shot with a .570 round ball and the deer was head shot with a .45/70. I'll never make those mistakes again. A big ball in the gut is still a gut shot and a deer's head is a lot bigger than it's brain. I've never lost an animal that was at all well hit with any bullet, even to include the .223 and .30 carbine.

The question included Elk and the most mountains in Montana have g-bears.
I have no intention of letting a ****ed G-bear have my elk, deer maybe, elk nope. I am getting too old for that crap. If the *** is so acclimated to people that he will attempt to take a kill from a hunter he needs to be out the the gene pool anyway cause he will eventually get someone who is not equipped for the job.
Them and the wolves are getting to be real pests where I live anyway.

You got wolves in CO yet?? They were as far east as Western Nebraska from a report I got last spring.
Once they arrive Elk hunting will be "changed". The Elk will move. The survivors anyway.

Dan

The rifle is beautiful. I've seen diferent Manton lock part kits at The Rifle Shoppe. The one I was looking closely at was self-priming if I'm not mistaken. I assume powder was more fine grained back then. I think the caption was "the last of the Manton locks built for pure speed of ignition." Those locks would be "high tech" way back then since they were some of the last flintlocks before percussion locks took over by demand.

The rifle is beautiful. I've seen diferent Manton lock part kits at The Rifle Shoppe. The one I was looking closely at was self-priming if I'm not mistaken. I assume powder was more fine grained back then. I think the caption was "the last of the Manton locks built for pure speed of ignition." Those locks would be "high tech" way back then since they were some of the last flintlocks before percussion locks took over by demand.

This rifle has the Rifle Shoppe's Manton rifle lock. Took a long time to get the internals, but they arrived before the barrel anyway. I did end up making the tumbler and mainspring anyway.
Its reliable, pretty easy on flints and about as fast as any, but the difference between an original Manton and a well tuned small Siler is only determinable by electronic timing equipment.
Self priming is a function of vent size. Some English fowlers had pretty large vents for this reason.
This lock blocks the vent and would not self prime unless I drilled a hole in the part of the frizzen that blocks the vent and then enlarged the vent to much larger than it is now. I have no plans to do either.
They are far different in many ways from the typical export grade locks seen on American rifles.
Engraving was cast in. As were some corrosion pits.
I am thinking of ordering a set of Manton V-pan parts for a pistol lock.
The Hawken shop in St. Louis was still buying flintlock locks in the 1850s. So the Flintlock did not die quickly in the American west. In fact I have never found percussion caps in any inventory of items take to a Rendezvous in the west. So they were not a "hot" item in the 1830s anyway.

Dan

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/DPhariss/ML%20Guns/Mantonplate.jpg
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/DPhariss/ML%20Guns/Mantonlockinstalled.jpg
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/DPhariss/ML%20Guns/MasherDeer1LR.jpg

It's unrelated but I noticed that there is a new Chambers lock out now. The Dale Johnson lock I think it was called. Sounds like a winner. Just an observation that's all. The site is easy... flintlocks.com

Well, as it tuns out, I'm no further along than I was many moons ago. Muzzleloading aspirations went by the wayside and real life snuck in about 3 months ago and took control....

7445

It's the dawn of a different day! Even so, well you know... :D

Congrats!!!! You thinking about a youth rifle yet?

Hey Mark, hope things have been good for you. I can't believe how much this little girl has changed everything in the past few months. Now I wouldn't trade it for anything. Don't get me wrong, it's just tuff, but as babys go I think it's about as easy as it gets. I'm loving ever minute of it too.

She doesn't know it yet, but we're going to celebrate her birthday with a daddy-daughter turkey hunt each spring.:cool:

Since we last spoke I found out that I drew a Kansas deer ML tag for this September. So now I'm wishing I'd pulled the trigger and picked up one of Riley's barrels this past winter. I have a .50 that shoots fine, and will be good to 100 yds or so, but that's not the point, you know? :D

So I went back and re-read this thread, all the PM's, and recalled conversations to the best of my ability. When I put it together with the experience I had of shooting a dozen different ML's last week. I think I know what I want.

32", .58 cal, octagon-to-round, with a 1:72" twist.

My gut has two remaining (small) concerns:

1. The overall weight of the barrel. I think it will balance great, but I don't think I want it to weigh any more than the 32", 7/8, .50 barrel that I already have. I'm not sure how it would compare.

2. 1: 72" twist is not slow enough? I can't see ever loading over 140 grains BP in 32", but even at 120grs, I'm concerned it would be too fast.

Again, these are small concerns, and may be nothing. But I think I'm also at the point of splitting hairs. After shooting .62 and .72 cals last week, if I went that big I'd feel like I was hunting with a wrecking ball!!! ;) .58 will be more than sufficient.... if I can hit it fair, I think I can kill it with a .58.

Oh, and BTW there will be many, many youth ML's, shotguns, rifles, archery and fishin' gear to follow! I can't wait! :D

Tomarctus,
Congrats. You have lots of time to think over ideas for the girl's first ML. By the way I noticed, Jim Chambers has a new kit. The " Little Feller's Rifle ". If it were me it might take me that long to put it together. It states in the caption for youngsters 7 and up. I guess I was a late starter 'cause I didn't even have my Red Rider bb gun til I was 11. Best wishes.