I've already mentioned it. Until I see testing on Bergara barrels from an independent party that show the barrels blowing with recommended loads. I'll continue to blame owners for the barrels blowing.

It's so easy to blow a barrel by doing the wrong thing. I see guys who use more than the recommended load of BH 209. Which is 120gr. I see guys using 150gr of T7 with hot primers. They have to be getting horrible crud rings. It would be easy for them to assume the bullet is seated on the powder when in fact it's on the crud ring. The barrel blows, and they didn't think they did anything wrong. It easy to double load if you aren't paying attention. Easy to do at a range when friends are with you talking to you. There's so many ways to get it wrong, and the victim may not even be aware he did anything wrong.

You also have smokeless powder in the scene now. They read guys using smokeless powder in muzzleloaders, and if they are new they might think it's alright to use. We know what happens when they try. You also have guys who know what they're doing (sort of) who think a duplex load of smokeless and BP is ok. Again we know what happens when that's tried. Don't anybody try that if you're reading this.

So, how do I prove the barrel are safe when they're fine with proper loads. Someone would have to progressively increase the load in testing until the barrel blew. Then see how far past that is to recommended loads. I can't do that, but someone could do that. Frankly, I believe CVA does that, and they know what it takes to blow it up, but that's speculation.

So, we're at a standstill. I can't prove the barrels are safe other than the number of barrels in use without problems, and my own observations. Your proof is nothing more than the law suits from people who have blown up the barrels. I don't see proof that the barrels were at fault other than the owners in the law suits. Are they lying, or not aware they're at fault?

CVA paying off is not proof. That's normal practice to stay out of court, and the publicity it brings. It's not a sign of guilt. Don't you think CVA would cure the problem if there was one? It's a lot easier than paying off law suits.

So, that's my stand. Prove to me the barrels are at fault, and i'll shut up. If you can't then i'll continue to think it's owner error. In court it's the prosecutors place to prove guilt. You're the prosecutor in this discussion. It's your place to prove guilt on the barrels. CVA payoffs is not proof.

btw I'm not the only one who feels this way, so stop saying everybody but me feels this way.