What would be the most efficient cal.?

[Kermit]

Donnybrook: it's an Irish thing. An uproar; a free-for-all, after Donnybrook Fair, held annually in Donnybrook, a suburb of Dublin, Ireland, and noted for its brawls.

[swampman]

The most efficent caliber is the .54.

[jtwodogs]

By efficiency, I think I was trying  to justify, the ability to use rb, and a conical, not so much powder, to ball, to cal. So I guess I phrased my question wrong. Sorry
Jack

[Kermit]

Yessss... but "efficient" is a LOT more fun around the campfire!  

[jerry]

Yessss... but "efficient" is a LOT more fun around the campfire!    

[Three Hawks]

I'm gonna toss my hat in the ring here, too.

Unless you really enjoy getting the sh*t kicked out of you, why not .50 cal.?   With 1:48 twist as in T-C and many others, most rifles will give sufficient accuracy for informal competition and plinking without breaking the bank what with the current price of BP.  For instance at rondy I shoot 50 gr. 3F under a .490" Patched round ball, the same load I've killed deer with.  

For heavy game such as Elk, Moose, Griz, and Hogs, a Maxi or a Lee minie ball in it's several variations and weights or Lee's R.E.A.L.'s would do the job quite nicely.  

We're not shooting Cape Buffalo or Elephant here.

Three Hawks

[jtwodogs]

Yessss... but "efficient" is a LOT more fun around the campfire!    

[Gordon H.Kemp]

I'll pass on my turn! Thats a lot more punishment then I'd enjoy , even 50 years ago.

[jtwodogs]

When I refer getting the pooo kicked out of me, it was on the lines of my heavy loaded .450, dislocated shoulders are not my idea of fun I guess I would try it once, but I do believe thats all I would want of that beast.

[mark davidson]

Jack,  Sounds like you and I may well have the same "sickness."  I settled on the .62 as the best (for me) efficient caliber. Above .62, the ball weight gets so heavy that I suspect trajectory will be a very limiting factor if you want to shoot much at 100 yards or beyond. Below .62 cal. the ball weight gets too light to suit my tastes. In my early testing in the last few weeks, I find the .62 with "enough" powder to shoot for all practical purposes identically  to my .54. Recoil is a bit heavier but manageable around 140 gr. of 2F. At 180 grains it gets pretty stiff. At 200 grains it plain slaps that shoulder pretty good. At 100 grains the .62 is a powder puff. For versatility, I suggest you go with a slow round ball twist in a big enough caliber that you are not tempted to feel the need for a conical. I find the patched round ball to fulfill my need for the old world or sense of traditionalism quite well. I am new into all this but the big .62 cal. hole in the end inspires confidence especially if I want to pour in hefty charges or I can load it down and plink with it just like I could with smaller calibers. I do not think you will be disappointed with the .62 with a twist made to shoot one projectile really well.

[Bigsmoke]

Steve,
Thank you.
Once again, another common mis-conception laid to rest.
I recall our common friend Jim C. mentioning to me more than once that he kept shooting over the backs of critters on his first black powder hunt in Africa with the .69 caliber rifle.  He just "knew" that big ol' .678 RB had to drop two feet at over 100 yards, so he aimed right over the back.  Strangely enough, that was exactly where it went, right over the back.  He sent me some video footage of the hunt, and probably the most impressive scene was where he lets the PH take a shot with the rifle at a duck on a small lake.  They lazered the range at 240 yards.  Bang, good bye duck.  Not a bad shot.

[mark davidson]

Wyo, Great point and lesson in ballistics.  As with all things there is a point of diminishing returns or better yet a point at which all things being equal is offset by the recoil factor being so unequal. In terms of the original question about "efficiency" it seems that .62 is about a perfect happy medium in terms of attainable velocity to retain equal or similar trajectory while remaining at a "reasonable" recoil level.

[mark davidson]

Wyo,  Wow, what a great analogy. The 12guage shotgun thing really hit home with me.  I have come to realize what a credible contributor you are here. The fact that you are a builder and can have anything you want and chose the .62 gives me a lot of confidence that I have migrated in the right direction for a hunting gun.  Thanks again for your spot-on insight! :-)

[Riley/MN]

...  It's more then you need for deer, but so what.  LOTS of hunters go to the field every years with smooth and rifled 72s.  They are called 12 gage shotguns.  Many places require a shotgun for deer hunting, and no one seems to think a 12 is too big for deer in modern gun season.

I went on a "party hunt" here once (which is enough). We live in a shotgun only zone, but muzzleloaders are allowed. One of the guys looked at the bore of my .50 and said "Man, that is a huge hole." I told him to look at his 12 ga.

[Kermit]

All this discussion has me wondering if the Wash St F&G folks have it all upside down. On the island in Puget Sound where I live, deer hunting is "shotgun only." The conventional wisdom is that hunting with a shotgun limits range and therefore the potential for damage to residences/livestock. So now I'm wondering if a 10 ga mag firing slugs is REALLY "safer" in our rural environment.

One feller built himself a .40 flint smoothie years ago to hunt deer here. For his purposes he called it a "shotgun."