Lyman .69 Minie bullet for the .72 Kodiak

[CWO4GUNNER]

Hi Im new here and getting back into range and target shooting which includes my Kodiak Express Double Rifle. Tired of shooting the stock 550 grain .715 round ball out of the rifled barrels. The stock size .715 balls with patch are a snug fit and require serious ramroding after just a few shots of fouling, compared to say my Traditions .50 rifle the ball is comparatively much more roomy and easy to load.

My question...Has anyone tried or heard of firing the Lyman 735 grain .69 Minie Bullet from the .72 Kodiak Rifle and had it work great ,have issues or blow-up? This Lyman Minie Bullet (like most minie balls) is designed to fit loose with a hollow base and thin skirt to expand upon firing and lock into the barrel lands and groves making it possible to have enough clearance to easily load a fouled barrel while still maintaining good accuracy. I ordered and received a box of 25 and haven't fired any yet trying to get safety info first. I notice that if I place the .69 Lyman minie ball inside the barrel in slides down effortlessly with just a little clearance, something I cant do with the stock .715 round ball (snug). If I place a patch under the Lyman .69 Minie Bullet it becomes slightly snug in the barrel and would require a ramrod but only with minimal effort unlike the stock intended .715 round ball with a patch which requires firm and semi aggressive ramrodding. My second question...What is your opinion on the theoretical use of this skirted .69 Minie bullet that is slightly smaller then my .715 bore by.025? Do you in your opinion think that with a snug patch it will expand upon firing taking any space concerns (.025) and engage the rifling's as intended with some thing crazy happening like tumbling in the barrel and having a catastrophic situation lol? If it works as I hope I plan on buying the Lyman mold blocks which cost only $63. I also like the idea of lose fitting expanding hollow base Minie bullet rather then a solid exact fit snug conical or round ball I have to force down the barrel after only 5 shots. What are your thoughts?

.72 Kodiak Express Rifle specs: Barrel is 72 caliber, tapered round
1.140" at breech to .935" at muzzle. Broached rifling .004" deep with 1-86"
twist, 6 lands measure .724" and 6 grooves measure .732". Overall length is 42
inches and total weight is 10 1/2 lbs.

 

[denster]

Have you considered wiping the barrel with a damp patch every couple of shots to remove some of the fouling?
I don't think you would have much luck with the .69minies. With that much windage in the bore I'd be concerned that they could move forward of the powder charge and become bore obstructions.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Well the manufacturer wants the rifle to shoot well, so that you the customer are happy, and you wont go around taking the product down..., word-of-mouth can be very good or very bad for a manufacturer. So..., they recommend what they think is going to be accurate. Patched round ball for accuracy tends to be pretty tight when loading in my experience.

A .690 minnie shouldn't really work well. Too much gap. You might be able to paper-patch it, using very high quality rag paper, to get it to fit. However, (iirc) the Enfields and other CW rifled muskets that used minnie balls were 1:56 or 1:60/1:66 twist...., your minnie may not stabilize even if you get a custom mold made for one in .705.

You might try to find a .700 ball and use a .20 patch. A .700 ball is more than an ounce of lead, so I doubt you need more mass in the projectile than that. A minnie will give you a significant mass increase, and you should feel more kick. Yet for hunting purposes, a looser ball and thick patch combination are often used by many BP hunters, with excellent success, and ease of loading.

LD

 

[CWO4GUNNER]

One thing I forgot to mention is 4 years ago when I bought the rifle I had a few email correspondence with Pedersoli the manufacturer. Asking them why they did not make a conical bullet that fit instead of a round ball that would tumble in flight (why there are no round footballs). Anyway after I pressed the issue they recommended the projectile mentioned above but never gave any explanation as too why only round ball was sold for the gun they had no answer other then to try this bullet (Laymen .69) which should work but no reasons as to how or why. I think there was a language blearier as I don't speak Italian. As far as bore obstructions due to .69 minie ball smaller size or looseness, like I said with a patch its snug, as snug a .50 round ball loaded in a modern hunting muzzle loader, not tight like the .715 round ball inside the .72 express. Obstructions or loose charges can be a concern in double rifles when both barrels are loaded and one is fired, the recoil causing the remaining barrel charge to dislodge its load. Why 1800 African hunters would fire the first barrel off hand, then fall to the kneeling position slamming the butt of the rifle against the ground on the way down to the kneeling position to insure the second barrel was seated if dislodged for the second shot at a charging elephant lol.

Oh Boy, look like Ill have to secure the weapon with dunnage in the back of my pickup truck and test fire with 180 grain full loads and the minie .69 with a remote firing cable while I hunch down below the bed of the truck lol. Do you think just swagging the minie bullet skirt out a little so that it is tighter would help? I just cant imagine that these elongated, grooved, and pointed minie bullets would not be a huge improvement over tumbling round ball with no center of gravity, why they were developed in the first place..Paraphrasing History date and even the new minie bullet manufacturer say the minie was specifically made as an alternative to round ball to improve accurate in slow twist rifle barrels, the large hollow base placing the center of gravity forward, causing the bullet to be inherently far more stable then a round ball, the expanding skirt making better contact with the rifling while unfouling the barrel (history fact). Thoughts?

 

[arcticap]

As far as bore obstructions due to .69 minie ball smaller size or looseness, like I said with a patch its snug, as snug a .50 round ball loaded in a modern hunting muzzle loader, not tight like the .715 round ball inside the .72 express. Obstructions or loose charges can be a concern in double rifles when both barrels are loaded and one is fired, the recoil causing the remaining barrel charge to dislodge its load.

You've identified a potential problem so there's no need to be overly concerned about blowing up your gun by trying it as long as you deal with the problem.
If all that you want to do at first is test some to see how they shoot, then plan accordingly and only load one patched minie at a time.
Then consider how to deal with the potential 2nd barrel obstruction only if they perform well enough to justify loading 2 of them.

One potential loading method to consider trying would be to load the minie in the first barrel to be fired and a tighter patched round ball in the 2nd barrel to be fired. You already know that the PRB is safe to shoot after the recoil produced by the 1st shot. Then you can also compare their accuracy results side by side.

Do you think just swagging the minie bullet skirt out a little so that it is tighter would help? I just cant imagine that these elongated, grooved, and pointed minie bullets would not be a huge improvement over tumbling round ball with no center of gravity, why they were developed in the first place

It was already mentioned about your gun's slow rifling rwist and how that might effect stabilizing the minie. A gun is only what it is. Just like with any other rifled barrel, you can't change the rate of twist. The minie might shoot admirably, but you haven't even fired one to find that out yet and you're already worried about firing the second one.
That's like putting the cart before the horse.
Shotgun shooters also fire heavy loads of loose shot and buckshot that are less than bore size and they manage to find a way to keep their loads secure enough in the breech to safely fire their second shot with confidence. They use either a paper shot cup which is akin to paper patching your minie, or they stuff a very stiff over powder card and/or wadding down on top of the shot load to keep it in place. For instance, highly compress newspaper wadding should hold the 2nd minie in place. And/or thick over powder cards much like super stiff cardboard. And/or part of a lubed vegetable fiber wad on top of it. Of course doing that can affect accuracy too, but you won't know unless you shoot samples to get a baseline accuracy result to compare it against.
That would need to be tested by firing off the 1st shot with the 2nd barrel loaded but uncapped. Then the 2nd barrel would be checked with the ramrod to see if the load had moved forward or not. If it hasn't then load up the 1st barrel again and test fire it again, and repeat that a few times until you become confident with your loading methods.

Sure, it can be attempted to expand the skirt of the minie manually by tapping it on the head while on a hard surface. I've tried that with grossly undersized air gun pellets but they didn't seem to shoot with much consistency. However minies are a much different ballgame because they have thicker skirts and are much heavier. Try it if you are eager but I would paper patch or fabric patch them first. A hard wad can even be placed underneath the patched minie's and its skirt may still expand into the rifling.
History and experience shows that conicals aren't always going to shoot better than patched balls with every rifling twist. Different loading methods and powder charges may alter the results somewhat. But what else can one do but experiment? You're in uncharted territory as to the performance of those particular minies in your individual rifle.

 

[CWO4GUNNER]

arcticap, thanks you for the compressive and wise advice, Ill definitely be taking it. The only reason I was going to cable test the gun first isn't over concern for the 2nd barrel which I would not loaded, but becasue Im not willing to risk my body if the gun would react catastrophically with the unknown chamber and barrel load variables using an untested larger heavier 735 grain, ringed, elongated bullet, expanding skirt and twice normal powder load. That way if the gun fails at the barrel wedge I wont lose my left hand, arm, or other body parts as I have heard happen.

Ok Ill do the test and record the differences between bullet types, loads, and accuracy as you wisely suggested and let you know what happens.

 

[arcticap]

Oh Boy, look like Ill have to secure the weapon with dunnage in the back of my pickup truck and test fire with 180 grain full loads and the minie .69 with a remote firing cable while I hunch down below the bed of the truck lol.

The Pedersoli manual lists the powder charges for their .72 Safari Express as being 90 - 120 grains maximum when loaded with a .715 patched round ball.

Loading 180 grains of powder would seem to be unnecessary if not excessive.
Wouldn't the felt recoil of that load or anything approaching it be extremely punishing?

 

[CWO4GUNNER]

Well yes it would be punishing to the dunnage and I would not normally load even 120 grains for shoulder fire sighting in and trying different known tested bullet weights and types, more like 60 to 85 grains. But again becasue I am going into uncharted territory here (firing a .69 minie bullet out of a .72 caliber engineered for wobbling round ball) the possibility of a catastrophic failure might happen (Murphy's Law). Anyway Id rather be safe then sorry for the 1st Cert test shot and if this safety test is going to be valid then I have to do the test like most test at or close at twice the normal operating pressure (180 to 240 grains), after which if inspection of the weapon shows no signs of failure I will considerate safe for normals loads shooting the .69 Minnie and able to recommend the bullet to others confidently with regard to safety which is most important. The idea is pretty fundamental actually.

 

[Cosmoline]

It seems to me your solution is too dramatic. If .715 is too tight, why not just cast .710" balls and use those?

There's a bag mold in that size I believe.

http://www.trackofthewolf.com/categ...bid=126&styleid=408&partnum=mold-bag-710&as=1

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I agree, you'll be close to doubling the mass of the round ball with a minnie, and a 180 grain load would not be a good idea? Your answer from Pedersoli might simply have been on the theme of Hey whya you notta giva this a try?

Who told you that a round ball from a rifled bore tumbles and is less accurate than a minnie? Round balls spin at 90 degrees from the axis that is the direction the barrel is pointed. A roundball from a plain musket doesn't spin, but from your rifle, it will be spinning. It will also have a higher velocity than the minnie using the same powder load, and may be more accurate

I was always taught that a minnie ball was developed to speed up the reloading process for a military arm while at the same time making full use of rifling to allow for increased accuracy and range over the veteran, smooth bore musket. To make the musket closer in accuracy to the patched round ball rifle...., not to surpass the patched round ball rifle.

The minnie should not be confused (although it often is) with the achievements of the Whitworth bullet and rifle. The Whitworth, not the minnie, was the much elongated bullet of its era, which had a better cross section in flight than a patched round ball or a minnie, and was the granfather of modern rifle bullets. When tested against an Enfield by the British for possible adoption by the British Army..., the Whitworth rifle and bullet out performed the Enfield firing minnie-balls 3 to 1. I think folks have confused "conical bullets" and the "minnie" design from the Civil War, and think they are identical, when there are dozens of conical bullet designs from the CW, and less than half are actually "minnies".

LD

 

[CWO4GUNNER]

Wow good info. Thanks Cosmoline for that .710 tip as I was considering the Lee .690, although I must admit the link you gave me sparked the idea that I should take a look at 12ga slugs as well lol.

Loyalist Dave, your probubly right I do have the conception that there are better bullets either conical or minie that will make my .72 Express fire more accurate and consistent. One thing I am is a very good shot and I can tell you I am not getting any consistency compared to my other .50's. As far as load I have read on this forum of custom made conical molds with grain sizes of 800 and loads of 180 with success, so I diden't think I was being too dramatic. I just don't want to spend $250 for a tailor made mold if I can get some improvement from off the shelf alternatives. If the Lyman .69 minne works Ill order the Lyman $63 mold. I may be blaming the .715 round ball prematurely but $15 worth of Lymen .69 minnie's is a cheap way to find out. And if Im wrong ill try the .710 round ball, 12ga slug, and ask the member with the custom .72 mold to sell me a dozen. Either way I think anything is worth trying at this point, but I think its the round balls, maybe Im wrong, we'll see.

 

[arcticap]

The idea is pretty fundamental actually.

It seems like you would be risking damage to your stock and welds to proof a load exceeding recommendations and that you would never fire under any normal circumstances.
It's one thing to home proof a recommended load, but another to home proof a non-recommended load.
The barrel will probably hold, but what about the stock?
And what about the 2nd barrel, would you proof both?
It sounds like you really want to proof the stock rather the barrels.

Why else would you mention only proofing one barrel?

There's math and engineering involved. The barrels were already proofed in Italy once before they were shipped. If your normal load isn't going to exceed factory pressures, then what's the point of doing it again at potentially greater than recommended pressures?

That is not fundamental actually. Home proofing is usually only done with unproofed barrels. Not because the barrels won't hold, but because the load is possibly excessive and why risk damaging the stock? The stock usually cracks before the barrels do. Who will magnaflux the barrels to determine if they are damaged? Who will measure the before and after dimensions of the bore like the proof house in Italy would do? Without those critical measurements, you're not proofing anything. You would only be risking creating damage that could be totally invisible to the naked eye.

As far as securing a minie in the breech, what about modern shotshell wads? Will the minie fit into one of those? Even modern shotgun slug barrels have a rate of twist that's about 1 in 35". But then some rifled slugs will shoot well from smoothbores out to moderate distances.

 

[CWO4GUNNER]

Don't worry about the stock I know something about physics, maybe Ill take the brake off the truck so it roles back on recoil or suspend the gun on bungees at the tail gate , kidding aside rest assured I understand what you mean but honestly its was already an elementary consideration in my head. Yes there is some math and engineering involved but its not rocket science its just a safety check after which the evaluation of this minnie will begin with my shoulder intact and therefor risking less damage. Dont worry if I see anything suspicious after the test, if so Ill take it to the CG base armory and have the barrel magnafluxed myself.

I was hoping that someone here had either already tried the Laymen.69 minnie in the Kodiak .72 or knew of someone first hand that successfully used them, speculation aside I know now that is not the case, thank you. Looks like that person will have to have me and God willing I will safely, from the point of bodily injury, get R done. Rest assured Ill post the results.

 

[AJumbo]

CWO, before you strap your expensive Kodiak to a pallet in the back of your truck, please bear in mind that proof tests are typically performed on individual barrels, not fully assembled firearms. A proof test only ensures that the barrel steel is adequately strong to hold the pressure of an overcharge; it cannot predict whether the barrel key will shear off, the forearm will crack, or even whether the solder on the ribs will hold.

My dad has Pedersoli 10 ga. shotgun, and he's fired it thousands of times using a load of 90 gr of RS Pyrodex and 1 1/4 oz. of shot. The gun is doing fine and I expect it to do fine for years to come, but I don't believe his load is pushing the envelope the way your proposed load will be.

What specific "inconsistencies" are you trying to eliminate? Are you firing both barrels when you shoot for group size, or firing "X" number of rounds from each barrel? Regulating barrels on double guns is one of the most difficult tasks faced by the historical makers of doubles, and you can bet that mass-produced pieces like the Pedersolis don't get the level of attention that Rigby and Manton lavished on their guns.

One turn in 86 inches should stabilize a round ball just fine, but I worry that it's too slow a rate of twist to work well with any conical, no matter how much powder you put behind it. Have you checked the site for other "Kodiak" threads? Someone may have already answered your question.

 

[CWO4GUNNER]

Well I can tell you that in the CG we would do allot of experimental load and weapon test using nothing but distance and or a berm. Nevertheless if Im too lazy or its too hot to be rigging up a test I my just start from 40 grains and work my way up. I figure whatever performance I am hoping for over the .715 round ball should be evident at using 60 to 80 grains. getting back into shooting black powder I just wonder how long goex is supposed to last as I still have remaining 16oz cans ffg & fffg in the refrigerator now for 13 years lol.

Anyway Ill just keep the loads consistently small until I find something off the shelf that is easy to ram and accurate at 100 Yrds round or conical. After that if I still not satisfied research custom $250 mods, but only as a last resort. If other people are getting great accuracy at 100 yrs using 700 & 800 grain bullets or smaller easy ram round balls, God willing I should be able to find my sweet spot with this gun in both easy loading and accuracy.

PS, I'm corresponding with a few mold makers that may have molds previously made for this rifle whether conical or round in the hopes of narrowing down the best possible choices based on customer feedback, complaints and recommendations. If I do decide on a custom mold I cant see reinventing the wheel using the same data if there is feedback out there on file with the mold maker for this same rifle and caliber.

 

[PapaG]

A plan I have for my Pedersoli dangerous game gun (single .72 cal) is to try the Lyman Sabot slug (12 ga) using just the shot cup part of an AA wad. I'll load card and fiber wads on top of the powder. Twist might be a little slow but it is an experiment.

Minies were designed for three purposes according to one of my Civil War books...one, to swell the base to fit the bore, two, to clean out fouling of the previous shot (the reverse grease grooves are not grease grooves at all but fouling scrapers on the original moulds), and three, to produce a longer range bullet (higher sd) for longer range accuracy. They were also easier to load. In the 72, they would be in the eight or nine hundred grain range..might as well be shooting a 600 nitro.

 

[CWO4GUNNER]

Besides the typical .715 recommended and sold for the .72, here is the minie bullet I have on hand 25 rds and they fit nice with a patch and are well below your 800 to 900 grain predication.
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Search.aspx?Search=BALL-690-MINIE

And here is the mold I for it hope to use if it works and can be regulated, to be determined.
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Search.aspx?Search=LYMAN-685-069

Below a few photos of my .72

 

[PapaG]

Not to nitpick but 730 grains ain't a lot below 800...not when you're talking about those weights.

I'd try a few.

 

[arcticap]

Besides the loading difficulty with PRB's after several shots, I wonder how well the barrels are regulated when shooting them?

 

[CWO4GUNNER]

I guess what I mean is that Im not concerned at all at 730 grains since there are some with custom conical modes based on the provided gun design data for the .72 that are 800 grains and loaded with 180 grains of powder, at least that is the unconfirmed information I have found. Im currently trying to confirmed this information by mold makers and hope to compile a list of possible last alternatives $$$. Until that road presents itself I intend to pursue all other off self possibilities and regulate each as I go. I hope to come up with a quick method of regulation that will save me time which might employ 2 bore sight lasers so that both barrel sights can be sighted in real time getting me within the ball park. This way I can find the best of all bullet worlds even the PRB.

 

[denster]

OK! Didn't realize you were going to patch the minie to take up windage. I think you will find though with the heavy bullet and heavy charge you're not going to have the gun regulate to one sight. The Kodiaks I've owned, albeit not the big one, all regulated well with round ball and the shorter lee R.E.A.L. bullets. Interesting that with the English bore guns ie: 12, 10, 8, 4 &2 the prefered projectile for dangerous game was the round ball over a heavy charge of powder.

 

[arcticap]

I didn't mention it before but the Pedersoli manual recommends using a .010 patch with the .715 ball.

 

[CWO4GUNNER]

The .715 ball is so tight that without a patch you cant gravity roll it in and out of the barrel like most .50's, it will get lodged. With a .10 patch and the barrel clean and lubed no way you can ram rod it with a fiberglass or plastic ramrod, you need steel or aluminum preferably with a handle on the end. After just 2 shots your somewhat aggravated that your literally having to place the butt on the ground and use your body weight to ram the ball down as the ram rod bows. This is 1/2 the reason that caused me to look for a minnie for all the reasons stated by PapaG "Minies were designed for three purposes according to one of my Civil War books...one, to swell the base to fit the bore, two, to clean out fouling of the previous shot (the reverse grease grooves are not grease grooves at all but fouling scrapers on the original moulds), and three, to produce a longer range bullet (higher sd) for longer range accuracy. They were also easier to load." But now that Cosmoline pointed out the existence of a .710 round ball and mold Im going to order and try some, look like Ill be molding since there they don't sell the balls alone.

Since I have retired and left VA I haven't been to a real range only twice with the locals 1 mile up the open desert using wobbly portable bench shooting at a gully with water bottle targets and steel plates twisting in the wind. I need to get back to a covered range bench 30 miles away where they have a nice 25 thru 1000 yard range with restrooms and properly sight this gun and stretch the legs on my AR/50 BMG. I like hunting and I like a a nice well managed range but I think I hate open land DIY portable shooting. Especially with distracting hikers from CA walking buy yelling we are killing the environment lol.

 

[Cosmoline]

Yeah I've noticed the Pedersoli manual specs don't always line up with reality. They do make changes in diameter, twist rate and so on between runs. The Kodiaks in particular are full of small variations. Stocks are different, too.

 

[CWO4GUNNER]

Even though I have had this rifle now since 2005 right after I retired I haven't fired it but twice mostly for demonstration in the open desert, but I realized then that there were 2 issues with the gun 1st that the .715 balls fit very tight and after a few shots almost impossible to load without a serial barrel cleaning. The 2nd issue was that the sighting system with 2 rear sights mounted on the center rib creates a huge parallax problem requiring a complicated mathematical procedure of regulating the barrels and sights IMO is a whacked system. In fact I don't even want to have a regulated double barrel at any fixed range with fixed loads and fixed sights (1 trick pony) all due to a silly barrel sight system which mount each rear sight on 2 different lines of sight creating a complicated intersecting parallax problem only a fire control computer computer can solve for different ranges and different barrels, and different loads. The exact same thing we had when I was assigned to the 6"/47 turret 3 gun system, you needed a computer and set of tables to get all three barrel shots to land on the same spot.

Therefore I have decided to bypass the parallax issue between the two barrels by eliminating the dual rear sight system that sit in the center of both barrels and replacing them with independent rear adjustable iron sight for each barrel that are perfectly inline with each barrel bore respectively. Heck I may even mount 2 small scopes. This way Ill be able to dial in each barrel independently for any range and any known load in seconds rather then pulling out a scientific calculator. Bottom line I want my version of great functionality and flexibility with the ability to quickly dial in a shot at 25 yards or 300 yards without having to chase the target to get to the "regulated distance" baloney! . What do you think, very doable, simple and strait forward right?

PS, I forgot to mention that with iron sights I will also need 2 front sights aligned with each rear barrel sight respectively. Two front and two rear independent barrel sight which would completely eliminate the need for barrel regulation and yet make each barrel able to sight in at different distances and windage fast and accurately. You have to fire each barrel independently anyway, why treat them a if your going to fire a salvo. Now I have to figure out a way to make use of the existing center sight mounts to create custom out board brackets (probubly spring metal) for all 4 sights to sit solidly independent for each barrel to breach alignment.