It was the full cock notch that went. Do you think Pedersoli would still furnish a replacement if I've already started working on the defective one? I'm still planning on completing the repair, just curious.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Kodiak .72 loads
- Thread starter Rum River
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
windwalker_au
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,105
- Reaction score
- 6
cable said:
Last edited by a moderator:
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
Not to argue with you, but I think it is questionable to believe that the quality of the black powder was as consistent, or as powerful as the powders made today. I have always hesitated to use old loading data for that reason. That was the reason for my caution about the loads.
When someone starts recommending loads over 100 grains in anything, the first thing I grab is the chart I made for the Davenport Formula,( 11.5 grains per cubic inch of bore), and then look to see if the writer has given the barrel lengh on his cannon. If the bore is larger than 75 caliber, I pull the pocket computer and simply run the formula to find the highest EFFICIENT load that can be fired shooting PRB in that bore, in that barrel length. As I have explained many times, the Davenport Formula does not purport to be a MAXIMUM load the barrel can withstand( Proof load) , or the maximum amount of powder you can put in a barrel of a given length.
For instance, with a .72 caliber bore, and a 32 inch barrel, the maximum powder charge is just under 150 grains. If someone talks about using 165 or more grains, I ask them what they are trying to do. These are substantial loads, in any caliber, and if the gun is stocked wrong, or has a narrow buttplate, you are going to feel the recoil. :shocked2:
I fired a .50-140-550 Sharps rifle off-hand one day- twice!-- out of curiousity, and to test my Push-pull technique for Controlling Heavy Recoil. ( see my article on this subject under Member Resources, at the top of the index page here.) When a friend offered me a chance to shoot his new, 8 gauge shotgun, shooting 8 drams of powder( 220 grains) and 4 oz. of shot, I again used my technique and handled the recoil well enough to break the clay target, and not my shoulder.
So, its not like I have NO experience shooting heavy loads. I do. I have been shooting big bores all my life. However, when I began to shoot a lot of BP rifle and shotgun loads, I found that more powder was not the best answer. It took me a long time to figure that out. Like most people who have had a steady diet of Magnumitis, I just didn't want to believe that More powder, a bigger ball or bullet, etc. was not better for all things. Fortunately, for my real education, a friend of mine dragged me out to registered trap shoots, every weekend about the same time I was doing a lot of shooting of MLers, and I learned that recoil is cumulative- something I rarely noticed because I just didn't shoot that much ammo in a given day with my MLers, either with a rifle or shotgun. A 10-bird shotgun match was a big deal at my club. Registered Trap matches involved 100- 16 yard targets, and 100-200 targets shot from your handicap distance. And, if you want to shoot the doubles program, you can shoot another 50 or 100 targets there! All in one day. By comparison, our club matches never involved more than 20 shots, with perhaps a side match after everyone had shot the main match, that might get you shooting 5 more shots. If you shot both the rifle and shotgun matches, you fired no more than 35 rounds in a day.That is a huge difference from the 250 to 400 targets fired at a registered trap match( [plus any warmup targets fired).
My friend convinced me to load light 2 3/4 dram equiv. powder charges with the required 1 1/8 oz shot charges, to reduce the recoil over the course of the day, and also to produce very fine patterns using #8 shot loads. I found that in competition, while other shooters were missing targets on the last field, I was breaking mine, without many misses. I had literally outlasted them by using the lighter loads. My scores and averages rose as a result of the switch from 3 dram to light 2 3/4 dram loads, I gained another target or two on my average by getting shooting glasses, and my scores on doubles trap went up from around 30/50 to 45/50. Nothing to win matches, but I was on the move when I stopped shooting registered trap altogether.
In the same vein, I have tried to convince members on this board that heavy loads are not necessary, nor desireable. On the Smoothbore forum above, we have a heated discussion about what kind of steel makes the best barrels. Barrel makers using 1100, or 1200 series steel that are not certified Gun Quality barrels are taking a risk that some future user of that barrel does not so over load the gun that it ruptures in some way. I am not worried about the metal failing, as some of the members here are, because all the barrels that have failed are the result of operator error, or negligence in constructing. The reason companies will no longer make a 13/16" diameter Octagon barrel for the .45 or .50 calibers is because people tend to cut their dovetail slots for hangers, or sights or both, too deep, weakening a very thin wall, which then fails. I truly believe that if people give themselves enough extra steel in their barrels, even the non-certified steel barrels are not going to fail catastrophically. But, you certainly would not want any shooter to use smokeless powders in these soft steel barrels.
I also find that shooters who insist on heavy loads have never done comparative penetration testing, and they also don't understand how soft lead works when it hits flesh. I see way too many shooters looking to shoot heavy conical bullets in their .45, and .50 caliber rifles to hunt DEER!, when the soft, lead RB is the best choice for killing that animal. Everyone is always wanting a load that will let them kill a deer in its tracks out at 150 yards, when the vast majority of deer killed in this country are shot at ranges under 50 yards. I learned this first hand, and as a deer checker for 2 consecutive years back in the 1960s, when we were collecting Data including the distance from the hunter to the deer when the shot was fired, the weight, age, and sex, of the deer killed, and even how far the deer traveled after it was hit. We also recorded how many shots were fired at all deer, and at the deer killed, and then examined the carcass to note where the shots hit, and came out, if they didn't stay in the body. Back then, only about 200 deer were killed in that county, the first year; but the next year, the total jumped up to almost 300 deer. Today that same county is killing about 1,000 deer annually.
So, for the new folks to hunting with BP rifles, ask older shooter what loads they shoot, and why they shoot them. Then do some real range testing with your gun, along with penetration testing. Make up your own mind, based on your testing and experiments. If you want to rattle the teeth out of your face, have at it. But don't be doing so because of some false belief that the ball will bounce off a deer if you aren't stuffing another 100 grains of powder down that barrel for deer hunting.The reason we old guys use PRB loads for hunting deer has much more to do with performance, than with history, or tradition, or nostalgia. :hmm: :thumbsup:
When someone starts recommending loads over 100 grains in anything, the first thing I grab is the chart I made for the Davenport Formula,( 11.5 grains per cubic inch of bore), and then look to see if the writer has given the barrel lengh on his cannon. If the bore is larger than 75 caliber, I pull the pocket computer and simply run the formula to find the highest EFFICIENT load that can be fired shooting PRB in that bore, in that barrel length. As I have explained many times, the Davenport Formula does not purport to be a MAXIMUM load the barrel can withstand( Proof load) , or the maximum amount of powder you can put in a barrel of a given length.
For instance, with a .72 caliber bore, and a 32 inch barrel, the maximum powder charge is just under 150 grains. If someone talks about using 165 or more grains, I ask them what they are trying to do. These are substantial loads, in any caliber, and if the gun is stocked wrong, or has a narrow buttplate, you are going to feel the recoil. :shocked2:
I fired a .50-140-550 Sharps rifle off-hand one day- twice!-- out of curiousity, and to test my Push-pull technique for Controlling Heavy Recoil. ( see my article on this subject under Member Resources, at the top of the index page here.) When a friend offered me a chance to shoot his new, 8 gauge shotgun, shooting 8 drams of powder( 220 grains) and 4 oz. of shot, I again used my technique and handled the recoil well enough to break the clay target, and not my shoulder.
So, its not like I have NO experience shooting heavy loads. I do. I have been shooting big bores all my life. However, when I began to shoot a lot of BP rifle and shotgun loads, I found that more powder was not the best answer. It took me a long time to figure that out. Like most people who have had a steady diet of Magnumitis, I just didn't want to believe that More powder, a bigger ball or bullet, etc. was not better for all things. Fortunately, for my real education, a friend of mine dragged me out to registered trap shoots, every weekend about the same time I was doing a lot of shooting of MLers, and I learned that recoil is cumulative- something I rarely noticed because I just didn't shoot that much ammo in a given day with my MLers, either with a rifle or shotgun. A 10-bird shotgun match was a big deal at my club. Registered Trap matches involved 100- 16 yard targets, and 100-200 targets shot from your handicap distance. And, if you want to shoot the doubles program, you can shoot another 50 or 100 targets there! All in one day. By comparison, our club matches never involved more than 20 shots, with perhaps a side match after everyone had shot the main match, that might get you shooting 5 more shots. If you shot both the rifle and shotgun matches, you fired no more than 35 rounds in a day.That is a huge difference from the 250 to 400 targets fired at a registered trap match( [plus any warmup targets fired).
My friend convinced me to load light 2 3/4 dram equiv. powder charges with the required 1 1/8 oz shot charges, to reduce the recoil over the course of the day, and also to produce very fine patterns using #8 shot loads. I found that in competition, while other shooters were missing targets on the last field, I was breaking mine, without many misses. I had literally outlasted them by using the lighter loads. My scores and averages rose as a result of the switch from 3 dram to light 2 3/4 dram loads, I gained another target or two on my average by getting shooting glasses, and my scores on doubles trap went up from around 30/50 to 45/50. Nothing to win matches, but I was on the move when I stopped shooting registered trap altogether.
In the same vein, I have tried to convince members on this board that heavy loads are not necessary, nor desireable. On the Smoothbore forum above, we have a heated discussion about what kind of steel makes the best barrels. Barrel makers using 1100, or 1200 series steel that are not certified Gun Quality barrels are taking a risk that some future user of that barrel does not so over load the gun that it ruptures in some way. I am not worried about the metal failing, as some of the members here are, because all the barrels that have failed are the result of operator error, or negligence in constructing. The reason companies will no longer make a 13/16" diameter Octagon barrel for the .45 or .50 calibers is because people tend to cut their dovetail slots for hangers, or sights or both, too deep, weakening a very thin wall, which then fails. I truly believe that if people give themselves enough extra steel in their barrels, even the non-certified steel barrels are not going to fail catastrophically. But, you certainly would not want any shooter to use smokeless powders in these soft steel barrels.
I also find that shooters who insist on heavy loads have never done comparative penetration testing, and they also don't understand how soft lead works when it hits flesh. I see way too many shooters looking to shoot heavy conical bullets in their .45, and .50 caliber rifles to hunt DEER!, when the soft, lead RB is the best choice for killing that animal. Everyone is always wanting a load that will let them kill a deer in its tracks out at 150 yards, when the vast majority of deer killed in this country are shot at ranges under 50 yards. I learned this first hand, and as a deer checker for 2 consecutive years back in the 1960s, when we were collecting Data including the distance from the hunter to the deer when the shot was fired, the weight, age, and sex, of the deer killed, and even how far the deer traveled after it was hit. We also recorded how many shots were fired at all deer, and at the deer killed, and then examined the carcass to note where the shots hit, and came out, if they didn't stay in the body. Back then, only about 200 deer were killed in that county, the first year; but the next year, the total jumped up to almost 300 deer. Today that same county is killing about 1,000 deer annually.
So, for the new folks to hunting with BP rifles, ask older shooter what loads they shoot, and why they shoot them. Then do some real range testing with your gun, along with penetration testing. Make up your own mind, based on your testing and experiments. If you want to rattle the teeth out of your face, have at it. But don't be doing so because of some false belief that the ball will bounce off a deer if you aren't stuffing another 100 grains of powder down that barrel for deer hunting.The reason we old guys use PRB loads for hunting deer has much more to do with performance, than with history, or tradition, or nostalgia. :hmm: :thumbsup:
Christiaan
40 Cal.
- Joined
- May 13, 2007
- Messages
- 294
- Reaction score
- 0
They sure would. They are really great on customer satisfaction in my experience. Even send it priority post. If you don't get a fast answer send me an email and I will see what I can do for you.Rum River said:
Christiaan
Absolutely they should replace it, and that's the sort of malfunction they want to know about. It's a high end firearm and under no circumstances should a sear be cracking off. In fact I would wonder if the defective one was even tempered. The risks are too great and if I were you I'd get a replacement. I believe they list a US designated repair shop so maybe you can talk to them. Or to whoever you bought it from.
Christian,
I would think 130-145 behind a 770 conical would build a lot more pressure than 165 behind a PRB. I will most likey settle at 125 FFG Swiss or so which should be fine for hogs, bear, you name it.
I made a statement that I used 165 and get crucified by someone who has no idea how I got there. I'll tell you some folks have used as much as 210 grains BP or 185 777 with no ill effects. My 165 grain load really does not kick that badly and the gun shoots accurately, but I will most likely settle at 125 or so. Anyhow, I'm not unsafe at any speed. Well, have a nice day Mr. Paul V. I just don't care to respond to that stuff.
I emailed you some time ago about acquiring a 770 mold. How can I get some info on cost, availability, etc.
Thanks,
PJB
I would think 130-145 behind a 770 conical would build a lot more pressure than 165 behind a PRB. I will most likey settle at 125 FFG Swiss or so which should be fine for hogs, bear, you name it.
I made a statement that I used 165 and get crucified by someone who has no idea how I got there. I'll tell you some folks have used as much as 210 grains BP or 185 777 with no ill effects. My 165 grain load really does not kick that badly and the gun shoots accurately, but I will most likely settle at 125 or so. Anyhow, I'm not unsafe at any speed. Well, have a nice day Mr. Paul V. I just don't care to respond to that stuff.
I emailed you some time ago about acquiring a 770 mold. How can I get some info on cost, availability, etc.
Thanks,
PJB
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
PJB: Have you checked out the manufacturer's list of recommended MAXIMUM powder charges for that gun? The MAX load is 110 grains.
Now that I know from the Manufacturer's spec. that the barrel is 28 9/16" long, The Davenport formula for the Maximum efficient powder charge with a PRB is 133.73 grains for that barrel length. You can add more powder than that, but the additional powder yields less velocity for each grain of increase, than lesser powder charges do. The gun is rated at weighing only 4.2 lbs!, which is a very light double rifle, to say the least. You are going to feel the recoil of even the maximum charge recommended by the company, much less your load.
I can only imagine the amount of pressure that will be generated if you do find a mold to shoot 770 GRAIN bullets from that rifle, with anywhere near that amount of powder. An 11 gauge round ball( 751) is going to weigh about 1 1/2 oz.( 636 grains). That 770 grain conical will be 1 3/4 oz. of lead, with an unknown length of bearing surface rubbing against the lands and grooves of the bore.
Its quite one thing to shoot a thick walled octagon shaped barrel with heavy loads. Its quite another to shoot a thin walled round barrel with these heavy loads and expect the gun to stay together very long. I have a serious doubt that the Pedersoli company would endorse the powder charges you are using in its gun, regardless of the accuracy claims you have found.
I really don't want to be standing anywhere near you when you shoot those kinds of loads out of that gun. Please be kind enough to others to warn them before you fire.
Now that I know from the Manufacturer's spec. that the barrel is 28 9/16" long, The Davenport formula for the Maximum efficient powder charge with a PRB is 133.73 grains for that barrel length. You can add more powder than that, but the additional powder yields less velocity for each grain of increase, than lesser powder charges do. The gun is rated at weighing only 4.2 lbs!, which is a very light double rifle, to say the least. You are going to feel the recoil of even the maximum charge recommended by the company, much less your load.
I can only imagine the amount of pressure that will be generated if you do find a mold to shoot 770 GRAIN bullets from that rifle, with anywhere near that amount of powder. An 11 gauge round ball( 751) is going to weigh about 1 1/2 oz.( 636 grains). That 770 grain conical will be 1 3/4 oz. of lead, with an unknown length of bearing surface rubbing against the lands and grooves of the bore.
Its quite one thing to shoot a thick walled octagon shaped barrel with heavy loads. Its quite another to shoot a thin walled round barrel with these heavy loads and expect the gun to stay together very long. I have a serious doubt that the Pedersoli company would endorse the powder charges you are using in its gun, regardless of the accuracy claims you have found.
I really don't want to be standing anywhere near you when you shoot those kinds of loads out of that gun. Please be kind enough to others to warn them before you fire.
The rifle has a 25 9/16 bbl and weighs about 10 lbs. I asked the question - why should I use more powder than will burn in the bbl? One individual, that has done a lot of testing (600 rounds by his account), has used 185 grains of H777 and 200 FFg. I also hear/read that a number of guys in South Africa have used loads in excess of 150-185 grains with 770 conicals. Granted, they are not using Swiss, but those are pretty stout loads. The barrels on these things are very stout and are beefed up by the breech. As I said, I will most likely stay with 125 or so. The manufacturer has really low balled recommended max loads for this weapon.
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 423
I think it weighs 4.2 kilos, Paul.
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
That chart is very difficult to read. I hope you are right. The only Kodiak gun I have handled seemed to weigh more like 9 or 10 lbs, and I thought that was a fairly light weight gun for the loads to be used.
windwalker_au
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,105
- Reaction score
- 6
paulvallandigham said:
paul that 110grn max load for the .72 is rong the max load is 120 the 110 is for the .58 see chart.
bernie :thumbsup:
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
Okay: I read it wrong. I said above that the chart is hard to read because the printing is so small. So, its 120 grains( 4 1/4 drams) . That is a lot less than 165( 6 drams) and way less than some load using more than 200 grains! And, coincidentally, it is about the maximum ACCURATE load to use in a barrel that will only burn 133 grains of powder( 10% less than max.Eff. Load).
Thanks for reading that fine print for me.
Just so people understand my perspective, long before I ever went deer hunting, I was an official deer checker here in Illinois, back in 1968, and 1969. I got the part time job through a small office at the University of Illinois. I checked in deer killed in Monroe County, Illinois, which is on the Mississippi River, South of St. Louis. The first year, less than 300 deer were killed. The next year, between 300 and 400 deer were killed. In each case the deer were checked, and records made of shot fired, hits, location of wound, direction of wounds, etc. I looked at a lot of deer killed with 12 deer slugs. At the time, only the Foster style slugs were being made and used. Think of a lead Badminton Birdie. :rotf: That weighs and ounce or an ounce and 1/8th. I have a very good idea how well heavy slugs out of a .72 caliber gun penetrate deer.
Thanks for reading that fine print for me.
Just so people understand my perspective, long before I ever went deer hunting, I was an official deer checker here in Illinois, back in 1968, and 1969. I got the part time job through a small office at the University of Illinois. I checked in deer killed in Monroe County, Illinois, which is on the Mississippi River, South of St. Louis. The first year, less than 300 deer were killed. The next year, between 300 and 400 deer were killed. In each case the deer were checked, and records made of shot fired, hits, location of wound, direction of wounds, etc. I looked at a lot of deer killed with 12 deer slugs. At the time, only the Foster style slugs were being made and used. Think of a lead Badminton Birdie. :rotf: That weighs and ounce or an ounce and 1/8th. I have a very good idea how well heavy slugs out of a .72 caliber gun penetrate deer.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2004
- Messages
- 906
- Reaction score
- 1
Mr. windwalker_au,
In addition, have no idea where Mr. P came up with the weight of "4.2 lbs".
Pedersoli lists the weight as 4.7Kg or 10.36 lb.
Best Wishes
In addition, have no idea where Mr. P came up with the weight of "4.2 lbs".
Pedersoli lists the weight as 4.7Kg or 10.36 lb.
Best Wishes
