Dangerous Guns?

[Gatofeo]

"The problem with muzzleloaders is the larger room for operator error. Don't properly seat that projectile or shot column on the powder or wad, and see what happens! Doesn't matter who makes the gun or rifle! (That's just one example - so it's tough to know why a barrel might fail or bulge in some cases.) ..."
-- LOYALIST DAVE

Truer words were never spoken! Everyone should read Loyalist Dave's post of Aug. 21, print it out, carry it in their wallet, and the next time some joker talks about using 150 grains of FFG in his smokepole, hand it to him.
There is entirely too much Magnumizing going on with black powder guns today.
Case in point: the .45-70 rifle. In the old days, a 405 gr. lead bullet at 1.300 fps took moose, deer, bear and even the big bears.
Today, the way people talk, you'd think it was nothing more than a squirrel load. The very same mindset accompanies black powder today.
How the heck did Mountain Men take elk, moose and grizzly with a patched, lead ball of .50 to .58 caliber?
Has game become tougher?
Show up at an elk camp with a Hawken pattern .50-caliber rifle, using a lead ball over 80 grs. of FFG, and all the "modern" hunters will tell you it's no good for elk.
I knew an old guy in the St. Joe River drainage of Idaho who got his elk every year with just such a rifle and load.
The trick? He was a marksman and didn't depend on power to replace proper bullet placement.
He stalked close, instead of taking impossibly long shots with the latest Wunderbullet over the latest Wunderpowder.
Throw more and more powder down your barrel if you must, but please let others at the range know what you're doing so we can take cover.
I used to think that Congress had the highest per-capita rate of idiots. Now I believe that shooting ranges have exceeded that rate.

 

[4v50 Gary]

What Gatofeo says is right on the mark. It's not the size of the bullet or the powder behind it that counts inasmuch as it is where one puts the bullet that counts.

 

[Drgong]

Gatofeo - have to agree as someone who never shot blackpowder, but knows historical loads that these "magnum" loads are crazy.

 

[frontiergander]

those dangerous CVAs were made in 1995 and 1996. They have a breech plug issue.

My guess is, You are reading Randy Wakemans stuff?

Ask him about Toby Bridges Savage muzzleloader and i bet you'd get a real hateful email from him as he is a bit testy when you mentions problems with products who pay his bills.

CVA will NOT give out barrel pressure #'s as a lot of stupid people out there would then have info to go off of and start working up small # Smokeless loads that either meet their tested pressures, or fall under their pressure chart.

 

[kentucky bucky]

No gun is "idiot proof". With normal BP loads, they are safe as long as the gun is in good shape . How many have blown up using normal loads? I've not heard about it.

 

[scrat]

Gastafeo is right but its not just there either. Its not just in black powder. I shoot a lot of other guns too and reload for other cartridges. What amazes me is how so many people are maxing out loads for their guns. Just the other day someone was posting asking people about max loads for their 9mm. It just does not make sense. People forget. its about starting low and working up a load to get a desired results not shooting the most you can without having the gun explode. Im going to copy and paste what i wrote in the reloading pages.

here is the link.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=387393

what i wrote.

I have been looking at this post all day. however i have not read it and really dont care to. I will just post one thing.

id love to post my results but at the same time i fringe when ever i hear go with max loads or higher. You need to work up a load. Not to see how hot you can get it. To see what is right for the bullet you are using giving you the best results at a target at a given range. With that i have some loads that are at or near max. Then i have a lot others that are not. Most pistol loads are standard what gives me the most accuracy. I just dont see how making a load at max or over max loads. If all im going to do is go to the range and shoot at paper targets at 15 yards or at steel targets at around 25 yards.

Any how thats my take

Maybe it makes a difference on how fast you put a hole in a piece of paper. Now when shooting distance rifle its important to work up a load but at the same way your not trying to max out the bullet. Im trying to hit a target at a given spot with a given bullet. This may take a few different powders to achieve my desired results. not maxing out. If i have to max out i may be using the wrong powder.

__________________

 

[unspellable]

Pressure

A barrel has three pressure limits. Maximum working pressure, maximum design pressure, which if sound engineering practices are followed, will be twice the maximum working pressure. Proof pressure will be 130% of maximum working pressure.

Since the design pressure is twice the maximum working pressure we already know a sound barrel will take the working load. The purpose of proof firing is to reveal any hidden flaws in a given barrel. It's meant to be a non-destructive test (At least for a good barrel.) so the pressure is not run up to the maximum design pressure.

All this said, there is a problem with the marked proof pressure on BP barrels from Europe. As mentioned above, 700 kp/cm2 translates to around 10,000 psi. Now it's not much of trick to get 24,000 psi with a black powder load, so something doesn't jibe. I'm not sure just what doesn't jibe, as I've never heard of anyone blowing up a modern BP firearm by the simple expedient of over loading it. (All bets are off with air space between charge and bullet, barrel obstructions, bad breech plugsm, etc.)

 

[Drgong]

I sent a email to CVA, still awaiting the responses to what they are proofed to.

 

[alsaqr]

Have found alot of info claiming the rifles were very unsafe to shoot? Anything to worry about here?

First, there are all kinds of claims by mostly one man. That man has been kicked off most of the muzzleloader web sites. He has never shown a picture of a post 1999 CVA inline gun that was destroyed using BP or a BP substitute.

Second, some of the first CVA inlines had some blow up problems related to the breech plug. The current crop of CVA inlines are just as strong as any other inline guns.

Third, few, if any, US makers proof test their BP guns.

 

[scrat]

I wonder why the guy still has a web site to this. you figure CVA should sue the heck out of him. i know i would.

 

[mykeal]

To sue him would give him some publicity, which is really all he craves and the reason he still maintains his web site. He's probably getting off on this thread right now.

The real reason is that in order to win anything from him they'd have to be able to show that he had caused them some damage, and I don't believe they can do that because he hasn't done any. Everyone who comes across him pretty quickly recognizes what he is.

 

[frontiergander]

hes a trash talker too on powerbelt bullets.

Follow the recommended loads on the sheet that comes with them and they are excellent bullets.

Magnum loads are made to sound like gods gift to muzzle loading. Truth is, most rifles dont shoot worth a damn with 3 pellets.

 

[scrat]

powerbelt bullets are friggen awesome. they are just tooo darn expensive

 

[frontiergander]

I dont mind the cost for hunting. If i shot a lot during the off season, oh shucks i do shoot a lot in the off season lol.

I shoot whats accurate and dependable. To heck with the cost.

Look at prices we pay for gas! At least the bullet will put food on the table LOL.

I get them anywhere from $13-17 at a local store.

 

[valkyriemc]

CVA Barrel discussion

I have five muzzle loaders, one being a cheapo .50 cal CVA Apollo that I bought years ago in Virginia Beach. I sent in the waranty card like I usually do and a some years ago received a notice to stop shooting the rifle until I received a new barrel. I called them and read the serial number to them over the phone and they sent me a similar looking barrel which I installed. In the instructions they said to throw the old barrel out, which I eventually did....And they never mentioned what the problem was. Its a cheap rifle with a cheap scope, but it served me well. Its killed more deer than my Knight, or the three other rifles (side locks) that I've used over the years. (It really knocked the stuffin out of the last deer I killed down in Jarvisburg, NC.) It will always print less than 1.5 inches @ 100 yards and prefered .45 cal Hornady XTPs with sabots over 100 grains of FF or two 50 grain pellets.
Currently I've deceided to take up the fight again re the three pellet .50 cal. Knight versus sub 1.5 accuracy @100 yds. All I know its its starting to cost me some serious jack. My next try will be the Barnes TMZ saboted rounds, probably in the two hudred plus catagorie. I thought I would quickly see really decent accuracy with the three pellet pyrodex charge in the expensive Knight, but switching bullets vs changing the powder charge has tested time and money...

 

[frontiergander]

they told you to throw the barrel out because it was more than likely the barrel with the serial number that ended in 95 or 96. Those were the years they had breech plug issues.

 

[TEDDY]

safety

Gatofeo:I laughed when I read your post,how right you are.I was thinking of the ouldtimers who servived on 25/20,32/20.44/40 ect.and of course on muzzle loaders.I was a machinist and am trying to think of how thin a barrel would have to be to blow at 10,000lbs.my I model smith in 32 long doesnot and its far thinner than any muzzle loader.look at shotguns the hold 15,000 and are next to paper thin.