Kodiak Express Double Rifle

[Marc Adamchek]

Gentlemen - Well I ran the numbers last night and they pretty much ran away. Forced to think in realistic terms it looks like I won't be able to get my dream 18th century double rifle for some time. Now I'm looking at the Kodiak to fix my jones for the time being. Questions to those who own/have owned these guns: (1) Is the general workmanship acceptable? (2) What calibre would you reccomend? (3)How hard is it to regulate the barrels, that is, if it is even POSSIBLE to? That's about it, I guess. Oh yeah, I could ask the overall (4) Would you reccomend this gun? All answers are greatly appreciated. Many Thanks - Marc

 

[ebiggs1]

Our Cabela’s is closeting out all their side locks and one was a Pedersoli double rifle in .72 cal. I got to handle it some. It was nice and made pretty good to marginal. It is quit heavy. This one was cap locks. You may see if your Cabela’s is also closing out theirs, as the price was $200 off. I have the 12-ga-shotgun version and it is nice and handles well. They look similar and may be made on the same gun.

 

[David W.]

Our Cabela’s is closeting out all their side locks and one was a Pedersoli double rifle in .72 cal. I got to handle it some. It was nice and made pretty good to marginal. It is quit heavy. This one was cap locks. You may see if your Cabela’s is also closing out theirs, as the price was $200 off. I have the 12-ga-shotgun version and it is nice and handles well. They look similar and may be made on the same gun.

I purchased a Trail Guns Armoury .58 way back in the middle seventies. I am not sure if it was a Pedersoli at that time, but I had no trouble at all regulating the barrels. I am not even sure if it is the same rifle. Do they still have two rear sights?

 

[JayDee Flohr]

I've had a .50 for about 13 years. It has always been a very good weapon. Mine has a slower twist, 1-44, than current ones though. Use the rear sight for the right barrel and the front for the left.
I wish they offered it in flint!

 

[Bob J]

The .58 I had showed very good workmanship for a production rifle. I was able to find a load that worked well in both barrels (100 grains 2f Goex, wonder-lubed pillow ticking, .570 balls). I recommend the Kodiak. BTW, have been seeing a .72 at the gun show and it looks like it would be a BLAST! The owner is asking $900.00 for this like-new rifle with about 200 balls.

 

[David W.]

The .58 I had showed very good workmanship for a production rifle. I was able to find a load that worked well in both barrels (100 grains 2f Goex, wonder-lubed pillow ticking, .570 balls). I recommend the Kodiak. BTW, have been seeing a .72 at the gun show and it looks like it would be a BLAST! The owner is asking $900.00 for this like-new rifle with about 200 balls.

Blast is an understatement. My .58 kicks like a Missouri mule if I loaded her with a conical and 140 fr. FFg.

 

[oletymepreacher]

Mine regulated well out of the box, both barrels printing within 1" at 75 yards. I use one sight for 50 yard dead center, other sight for longer(100 yard) sight in. Mine is .72, using Lyman .715 round ball blocks. 90 gr. FF is a good load in it, killing a buffalo at a measured 100 yards. Since then it is not heavy.

 

[paulvallandigham]

If you reduce that load by 50 grains, do you think it might not kick like that mule???? :shocked2: I don't know who told you to use that much powder, but he was doing you know favors. :rotf: :surrender:

You don't give the weight of your conical, but my data shows them running from 315 grains on up to 570 grains. That is a lot of mass to be moving out of any barrel. I don't know what you are hunting that you need to use conicals on a regular basis, but any Round Ball for a .58 cal. rifle will put most any animal that roams N. America down it the shooter does his part. Use the lighter conicals, and cut back on that powder charge. Are you trying to destroy the gun??? Or just blow a nipple out and back into your forehead??? :shocked2: :nono: :thumbsup:

 

[MercerLake]

:v I have a .72 Kodiak and it shoots great with Prb, I did change the sights to a lower profile front and rear. The rear is now a fixed non-adustable open "U" notch, took a bit of fussing to get filed for a 75 yd zero. Both barrels appear to cross slightly at that distance. I use it for bear in the berry patches and moose hunting.
Years ago I had a .54 Kodiak and the barrels were not aligned vertically and I didn't want to deal with different powder charges in the barrels to correct or use the folding sights to correct for that as I believe the whole purpose of the double is for two quick shot capability if necessary. I sold the 54 with full notice to the buyer of the problem with that particular gun.
They are much heavier than any Enlish double that I have ever laid hands on. The .72 has a very large breach section as they built it to fit onto a 10 gauge frame. Mine fits fine on my 10ga sxs which gives me spares if ever needed while on an extended hunt. I do take both as I like hunting grouse while in the moose woods in northern Alberta. Never have neede a spare part yet in many years of hunting. They are built well and very stout. :v

 

[TFoley]

They are much heavier than any Enlish double that I have ever laid hands on. hunting. They are built well and very stout. :v

Sir - they are built precisely the same as any other period double rifle - do not confuse a gun like this with a shotgun. I have .65cal BP double rifle made by Rodda of Calcutta in 1878 that weighs in at just under eleven pounds - about five or six pounds more than any contemporary SxS shotgun.

tac

 

[David W.]

If you reduce that load by 50 grains, do you think it might not kick like that mule???? :shocked2: I don't know who told you to use that much powder, but he was doing you know favors. :rotf: :surrender:

You don't give the weight of your conical, but my data shows them running from 315 grains on up to 570 grains. That is a lot of mass to be moving out of any barrel. I don't know what you are hunting that you need to use conicals on a regular basis, but any Round Ball for a .58 cal. rifle will put most any animal that roams N. America down it the shooter does his part. Use the lighter conicals, and cut back on that powder charge. Are you trying to destroy the gun??? Or just blow a nipple out and back into your forehead??? :shocked2: :nono: :thumbsup:

I was shooting a 570 grain REAL bullet. This is not the typical load to use if I were shooting deer. I purchased this rifle to go on safari in Zimbabwi. I spoke to the man who designed it and that is what he was using. There was also an instruction sheet with loads and bullet suggestions on it. 140 gr. FFg and a REAL bullet was the maximum load. I was to meet the team in New York, but I later decided not to go.

 

[David W.]

If you reduce that load by 50 grains, do you think it might not kick like that mule???? :shocked2: I don't know who told you to use that much powder, but he was doing you know favors. :rotf: :surrender:

You don't give the weight of your conical, but my data shows them running from 315 grains on up to 570 grains. That is a lot of mass to be moving out of any barrel. I don't know what you are hunting that you need to use conicals on a regular basis, but any Round Ball for a .58 cal. rifle will put most any animal that roams N. America down it the shooter does his part. Use the lighter conicals, and cut back on that powder charge. Are you trying to destroy the gun??? Or just blow a nipple out and back into your forehead??? :shocked2: :nono: :thumbsup:

I was shooting a 570 grain REAL bullet. This is not the typical load to use if I were shooting deer. I purchased this rifle to go on safari in Zimbabwi. I spoke to the man who designed it and that is what he was using. There was also an instruction sheet with loads and bullet suggestions on it. 140 gr. FFg and a REAL bullet was the maximum load. I was to meet the team in New York, but I later decided not to go.

 

[David W.]

I do not know how that got double posted.

 

[David W.]

The Kodiak was designed expressly for hunting large African game and is capible of very heavy loads. It was made by Trail Guns Armoury and now owned by Pedesoli. I do not know the current quality standards of this rifle.

 

[Lorne Johnson]

Hi Mark!

I've only handled the Pedersoli Kodiak. It is certainly a well amde production gun. The wood is walnut, but quite plain.

Recent and current production are regulated at the factory, and the "two sights" are for 50 and 100 yards-not left and right barrel. I believe that some older Kodiaks did have a sight for each barrel.

The Pedersoli dealer in Massachusetts, Richard Beauchamp of www.flintlocksetc.com has used them to take game including bear (possibly Kodiak bear to make the gun live up to it's name). He has been very helpful to me.

I go back and forth about getting one. If I did I would go for the 58 caliber as it is lighter and will shoot roundball (1:48 twist). The fifty I hefted would be a tough carry.

 

[David W.]

Hi Mark!

I've only handled the Pedersoli Kodiak. It is certainly a well amde production gun. The wood is walnut, but quite plain.

Recent and current production are regulated at the factory, and the "two sights" are for 50 and 100 yards-not left and right barrel. I believe that some older Kodiaks did have a sight for each barrel.

The Pedersoli dealer in Massachusetts, Richard Beauchamp of www.flintlocksetc.com has used them to take game including bear (possibly Kodiak bear to make the gun live up to it's name). He has been very helpful to me.

I go back and forth about getting one. If I did I would go for the 58 caliber as it is lighter and will shoot roundball (1:48 twist). The fifty I hefted would be a tough carry.

Where do you obtain that information, one sight for 50 and the other for 100? The barrels are not regulated and therefore impossible to make your claim. If the barrels WERE regulated, the price tag would be akin to a drilling rifle, or there would be two front sights and the rear sights would be fixed, not adjustable. Are you telling me that they have found a way to regulate barrels and keep the price tag at a mere $1000? Which barrel is for the shorter range? At any rate, regulated barrels are set to converge at a set distance for both barrels and not as you state. More poppy cock!

 

[JayDee Flohr]

The barrels are regulated to 75 yards. that being the case it works best to use one sight for each barrel. The projectiles haven't crossed yet at 50 yds and at 100 they have crossed and are getting further apart with each yard over 75.

 

[David W.]

The barrels are regulated to 75 yards. that being the case it works best to use one sight for each barrel. The projectiles haven't crossed yet at 50 yds and at 100 they have crossed and are getting further apart with each yard over 75.

So they have found a way to regulate barrels and keep the cost at a reasonable rate. We learn something new every day! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

 

[JayDee Flohr]

We learn something new every day!

I wish some people would
:rotf:

 

[David W.]

We learn something new every day!

I wish some people would
:rotf:

I am still confused here. The barrels are set to converge at 75 yards. However, one barrel is for 100 yards and the other for 50 yards. There is one front sight and two rear sights. Pease, please explaing this to me so I can understand.

How is it that I set my sights for 50 yards for BOTH barrels and can still hit center with BOTH barrels at 100 yards? I need an explaination on that too.