[planetmobius]

I've recently considered the purchase of a Kodiak Express Double Rifle in .72 cal. In researching this weapon, I discovered that the factory recomended maximum load for the round ball is 120 grains. According to my Lymann charts, this should produce just under 1100 fps. Now, in some of the blogs, I read about guys using up to 140 grains in this rifle to produce 1400 fps. Whether or not these stats are correct, from a safety standpoint, is exceeding factory recommended loads a common practice. Is it reasonably safe or do I follow suit at my own peril? Just wondering how the rest of you guys approach this.

[ArmedBear]

You don't need a lot of velocity when you have a heavy bullet. The .45-70 black powder cartridge with about 70 grains of BP behind a ~500 grain bullet was and is a highly effective load on North American Bison. At least as of last week.

A double rifle is not a long-range weapon anyway. What you want is a wallop, and a 538 grain .710 ball will pack a wallop at 1000 fps.

[mykeal]

You do it at your own risk. It is not a common practice in my experience.

Do other people do it? Yes, but rationalizing it as acceptable because other people do it is the excuse we used to use when we were children. Now most of us know better.

[planetmobius]

Thanks, but what exactly is the wallop/foot pounds conversion ratio? Mykeal, thanks for the kindergarden lesson but I was attempting no rationalization. Actually in the circle of black powder shooter that I know (considerable number) the practice is actually quite common. There is a rather prevalent view that frequently, the listed maximum loads are actually arbitrary number well below the weapon actual capabilities published for liability reasons. The world is not always so simple, I load my TC contender and Blackhawk 45LC well above normal pressures, as is done by many. I was hoping someone had more sopecific experience with the Kodiak .72.

[Pancho]

Planetmobius, If you do buy the Kodiak would you check to see if you have a part number for the rear sights. I'd like to put a set on my CVA express

[ArmedBear]

The world is not always so simple

Right, and you need to tell yourself that, too.

With modern hunting bullets, people think about bullet weight, velocity and energy in a certain way, related to how they are designed to work. By and large, a hunting rifle bullet comes out of the muzzle around 3000 fps, give or take a couple hundred. It's small -- .30" is pretty small compared to an elk -- but designed to expand when it hits the target. The idea is for it to have enough velocity and energy to penetrate a bit, then expand so they do enough damage to the lungs, heart, or whatever, to bring down an animal.

Fast, small bullets shoot a lot flatter than slow, big ones. Therefore, the design philosophy of modern cartridges favors small calibers going fast, with bullets that expand when they hit; note that the newest rounds tend to offer the standard bullet weights in smaller calibers like the .260, or higher velocity like the .300 WSM. Flat shooting is the goal. Bullet effectiveness on game was fine in the mid 19th century; trajectory was rainbow-like, though.

A .72 caliber round ball, or for that matter, an old lead round nose .45-70 or flat-nose .44-40, work very differently from a modern bullet. They're designed to be big and heavy enough to bring down the game without having to expand like a good modern .270 has to. Buffalo hunters could bring down their large quarry at hundreds of yards with a good deal less than 1000 ft-lb of energy left in the bullet. Their challenge was actually hitting the things, with a round where bullet drop can be measured in feet, not inches, past 150 yards.

With a big round ball, you don't need extra energy that's dissipated when the bullet expands. It's big enough to do its job before it leaves the muzzle. And the momentum of the heavy bullet, without the energy dissipation from expansion, makes it go farther inside your target.

Here's a thread I started regarding my experience with this: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=320573

I had a long discussion of this stuff with guys in Montana who regularly hunt Elk and Buffalo with old black powder rifles. MV is seldom if ever above 1300 fps, and they have freezers full of meat.

Now do I have a mathematical formula for "wollop"? Unfortunately, I don't. But I do know that the numbers you look for in a modern centerfire ballistics chart, and the rules of thumb for energy vs. class of game, do not apply to slow, heavy, large caliber black powder round.

Of course, SOME numbers must be relevant, but I can't say exactly what they are, except to say that the gun, without overloading, should bring down a buffalo at express rifle ranges.

If you want a centerfire rifle, go buy one. This isn't one. It's something different entirely. It doesn't need overstuffing.

[Ed/Pa]

Having shoy many BP rifles, I will only say it is bad practice to exceed Max. loads. The max load (and somewhat under) of the a .72 cal wepon is more than enough to down many a critter at reasonable range. On paper ,you dont need any more powder than that required to deliver the projectile to the target. As stated....it is energy delivered from that massive piece of lead than FPS when hunting. If you deceide to exceed the Max, then your own your own. It takes an awful lot to blow a barrel on most BP rifles, that's not to say it cant be done. The real question is , by exceeding the max , what is gained..an extra 1 or 2 hundred FPS? For what purpose?

[Eric F]

Somthing every one might have over looked is this. I have read on this board i think some time ago that a bp double rifle runs the risk of unseating the bullet in the unfired barrel. this is why they recomend such a light charge. I wish sombody made a single .72.

[ArmedBear]

That would be interesting to test. Wouldn't be hard to test, anyway.

That said, 120 grains isn't a particularly light load. And these barrel walls may not be all that thick, either. Notice the extra steel at the chamber end.

http://www.davidepedersoli.com/img/ArmsPreview/L.245-72.jpg

[mykeal]

Armed Bear: Excellent post. You drove the tack clean through.

[ArmedBear]

Thanks mykeal. You learn a lot over whiskey in Montana when the only thing between you and the cold is a layer of canvas, a wood stove, and some knowledgeable black powder cartridge fanatics.:)

Two more points...

1. This is not proven, but some say that a bullet has to be going SLOWLY enough to have maximum effect. With a non-expanding bullet, slower might actually mean more effective. I can't say, and I don't know if it's substantiated. It is something to think about, though.

2. Buffalo hunters in the 1870s had to make a profit. It wasn't as easy as it sounds, either. Ammunition was probably the most expensive thing they bought. One-shot kills were necessary to make a good living; more shots meant lost money. So not only did the old slow and heavy ammo kill buffalo, most of the time, it killed buffalo in one shot -- and one-shot kills are what you want from an express rifle.

[Stoney]

planetmobius
I have a .72 caliber Kodiak Express Rifle. My standard charge for roundball is between 80 and 100 grains of Goex FF or FFF. The 100 grain load feels like shooting a 12 guage magnum. I have shot 120 grains, but felt like I was just waisting powder,as the recoil was not much different between the 100 and 120 grain charge in this very heavy rifle.

I had a custom mold made to cast conical bullets and am still experimenting with loads. Here is a pic of the conical bullet I cast, it is next to a .58 caliber REAL bullet cast for my 1861 Springfield.

Pancho, I can see no part number on the rear sights.


http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c119/pstone001/100_2458.jpg

[ArmedBear]

BTW, Quigley Down Under notwithstanding, the .45-70 was the most popular cartridge of its family, even for very large game, during the black powder era. The .45-90 worked all right, but offered only limited improvement in return for a good amount of extra powder. Larger cases (up to .45-120) were tried, but accuracy is reportedly poor, and velocity unimpressive, for all the extra expense, blast, and recoil.

[tkendrick]

I used to have a reference book that went to a lot of detail that showed a rapidly diminishing return of velocity for charge in certain calibers.

IIRC for every bore/bullet weight combo there is a point at which the amount of powder charged will no longer increase velocity. This maximum charge is generally well past the "sweet spot" charge for most muzzle-loaders.

My experience is that while the gun may be able to handle overcharges, they are a waste of powder.

[planetmobius]

Armed Bear, your points are well taken but when you say that people tend to think about bullet weight, velocity and energy in certain ways, I would have to say that you are guilty of the same thing but in a black powder orientation. While a front stuffer has many charictaristics that differ from modern center fires, they do operate on may of the same principals. If you plotted the performance, whether velocity, penetration, trajectory, energy or whatever on a bell graph and included both muzzle loaders and center fires, would would see a distinct overlap since many of the early BP cartridge guns had very little over the front loaders besides being in a more convenient package. Now, if you plotted a single gun (like the Kodiak .72) you could probably produce loads that go clean through any game animal and others that leave a nasty bruise and drop to the ground, depending on the range.

The fact is that shooters have been trying to improve the performance of their guns since their inception. Your old work horse 45-70 was a perfectly good killing instrument there is no doubt. But it was not the end-all because somewhere down the line, someone questioned it and decided to come up with the 45-90. If the 50-70 was perfect, why the 50-100 or 50-120? Why create an inline gun that handles 150 grains of pyrodex? Why do reloaders strive to create new and better loads in the same firearm? My question regarding putting a bit more powder behind or getting a bit more velocity out of a projectile is no revelation.

Now, your comparison between muzzle loaders and center fire magnums is also valid, but you are dealing with two so different ends of the balistic spectrum that I think we have ventured into the realm of apples and oranges. Also, I think that you addressed only half of the issue. While increased velocity and energy transmitted to the target may be desireable under ceertain conditions, this is not the only advantage or purpose. When I bought my 300 WM, it did not mean that I was unhappy with the effectiveness of my .308. Quite the contrary, I was happy with it and am confident that I could kill anthing that walked or crawled with it. But with the 300, I am able to take that perfectly acceptable .308 performance and project it much further down range. When I bought my Ruger #1 in 45-70 it did not mean that I had to be happy with factory loads. I have some handloads that come darn close to .458 balistics and are clearly safe in this weapon.

And so was the meat of my question regarding the Kodiak .72. If I can eek out a couple hundred additonal feet per second, don't I then project 100 yard balistics to 130 yards or whatever? Isn't this some type of improvement? Shouldn't I explore this to understand the capabilities or the weapon rather than relying on some general notion of what muzzle loaders are meant to do? Now there are probably a few double rifle purists that are screaming about the fact that a double is not a long range gun. I know this but have to add that this varries drastically between gun and gun and shooter and shooter. Again the world is not so simple and I don't really have to tell myself this too often, it is obvious. I have a good friend who I have been shootering muzzle loaders with for over 30 years. He has an old CVA double in .50. This gun is equipped with two rear folding sights (as is the Kodiak) and can shoot both barrels relatively accurately out ot 300 yards. Incidentally, he regulary exceeds the factory reccomended maximum loads in his gun.

I do not know if the Kodiak has the barrel length to make any increases effective or not. I am not that far in my studies with this particular weapon. My original question was about the safety of such an endeavor.

ArmedBear, your stories about bison hunting are very interesting but did not really address my question and are neither here nor there. You seemed to assume my purpose and then tell me why I did need not do it. I suspect that you and Mykeal are fairly old school purists when it comes to this issue. That is OK but it prevents you from thinking outside of those purist parameters. I myself, am purist enought to own a dozen or so traditional style muzzle loaders but not enough to avoid experimentation.

You guys should resign yourself to the idea that its perfectly legitimate to think outside of the box. Some questions may have no pragmatic application at all but be purely accademic. Even these eventually add to our pool of knowlege.

Stoney, I believe that you are my answer man. That projectile you showed me has the hair on my head standing up. I need to know more about the results you get with it.

[mykeal]

Planetmobius,

Lots of words, very little reasoning. In short: the "human spirit's quest" for something better is sufficient reason to violate the rules of safety and overload your weapons.

The question in your first post was, is this common practice?
from a safety standpoint, is exceeding factory recommended loads a common practice. Is it reasonably safe or do I follow suit at my own peril? Just wondering how the rest of you guys approach this.


The answer was no, it's not a common practice, nor is it reasonably safe, in our opinion (which is what you asked for). But wait, that wasn't really the question at all - in your next post we find that it's actually a very common practice in your circle of friends:
Actually in the circle of black powder shooter that I know (considerable number) the practice is actually quite common...I load my TC contender and Blackhawk 45LC well above normal pressures, as is done by many.

No, what you were really after was some societal justification for your rather adolescent (not kindergarten, they're not that stupid yet) "gotta make more noise and smoke" practice of overloading. In getting right down to it, you wanted this forum to tell you that it was OK to overload your Kodiak because we do it all the time:
I was hoping someone had more sopecific experience with the Kodiak .72.

And then we get this multiparagraph speech about the quest of something better.

"Better" in our world is consistently reducing the size of our groups, getting closer to the animal (well INSIDE our demonstrated maximum range) for a sure, quick one shot kill and never wounding or causing unnecessary pain. It's not pushing our weapons beyond their, and our, limits.

[ArmedBear]

.50-120 wasn't better, as it turns out. That's the point. .50-90 and .45-70 turned out to work as well as any of the other rounds tried, and better than most.

Sounds like you just want to put more powder in the gun than 120 grains, regardless of whether that makes sense to do. Go ahead, just don't do it next to me.

120 grains will not just bruise an animal at 50 yards. That's not a light load. Never was.

That gun AFAIK is regulated to 75 yards. It's made for shooting 100 yards or shorter distances. Generally a LOT shorter.

I'm still trying to figure out why you bought it, actually. Clearly, you didn't actually want it; you wanted something different.

Here: http://www.weatherby.com/products/products.asp?prd=Rifles&prd_type=1&prd_sub_type=1

[planetmobius]

Really, is there any point that does not escape you two brilliant purveyors of firearm wisdom. If the 50-120 was no improvement, you only know this because someone else chose to build it. I think if your attitudes were the norm, we would all be chiping tools from flint and desperately attempting to stave off the bronze age. Mykeal, your ability to reach deep into my psyche and distill motives and agendas that even I was unaware of is astounding. The FBI profiler unit needs guys like you. Put in an application.

As for me, I'm leaving this stream, so you can have the last tantrum. I recently found a beautiful Thompson Center in .32 and plan to work up a nice bunny load for next week. Armed Bear, this is your cue to lecture me on killing buffalo with the 45-70.