I am far better equipped to address MY motivation and matters of fact. Unless you been directly involved with more innocent people that have been injured using new chain-store cheap charlie muzzleloaders than I am, you might wish to rethink your comments.

Muzzleloading is not a sophisticated sport. Most muzzleloaders shoot no more than 7 times a year. That is shots, not range sessions. There is no governing body in muzzleloaders, there are NO standards. They are no more considered firearms by the ATF than an adult air rifle of BB gun.

Needless injury hurts this sport, and hurts this industry. The pressures created by three pellet loads are not speculative, they are fact-- recorded by Lyman Ballistic laboratories and others. You are looking at a spread in the 25,000 PSI area.

A definitive proof mark ABSOLUTELY mean that is all a barrel is proofed to-- period. That is what proof houses do. There is no such thing as a "minimum proof" or a "maximum proof"-- there is only a number. If a barrel, such as a CVA or Traditions gun says 700 kp/cm2 on it----------- that is all the proof house is attesting to, nothing further. The CIP has no standards for pellets, or for Triple 7 which has nothing to do with black powder.

What you ignorantly refer to as "mud-stirring" in putting a LOT of people in the hospital: that is a matter of fact, not speculation.

There are NO reliable pressure signs in an inline muzzleloading rifle. None-- until a barrel rings, puffs, or shrapnels.

As Chuck Hawks put it-- "I would not buy a Traditions or BPI (CVA, etc. brand) muzzleloader until or unless they are supplied with an ordinance steel barrel proofed to a MAP of at least 35,000 psi. (In other words, for a 25,000 psi [150 grain equivalent maximum powder charge] plus a 40% over pressure safety margin.) Those are the same standards (maximum recommended load plus 40%) I would apply to ANY modern rifle--why should a black powder arm be any different?

The issue is quite real, and growing. Del Ramsey, Doc White, Henry Ball, Ken Oehler, Johan Loubser-- and responsible companies like Hornady, Hodgdon, and Barnes bullets all have grave concerns about this. Can anyone dispute the knowledge and integrity of these men and these companies?

Ray Crow was mentioned, and quite incorrectly. When this issue was brought up, Austin & Halleck immediately sent a team over to their barrel supplier in Spain to get their proofs updated. They are proofed to fully double that of CVA and Traditions product. They are tested past 29,000 PSI in Provo, Utah. They are stronger than the Traditions / CVA garbage-- the basis is quite simple: the massive, generous wall thickness found on Austin & Halleck rifles.

There are two basic values used in determining barrel strength, tensile and yield. CVA and Traditions both have no clue what those values are-- and have NO testing facilities in the USA. They both HAVE FAILED to so much as state, much less prove, that their barrels are tested and proved safe with 25,000 PSI loads. They are clueless. Yet, their owner's manuals tell you to use loads that produce those pressures and more. They know not that they know not.

you think that all the injuries, all the personal injury cases in litigation right now are all user-related, I can state from a point of intimate, independent knowledge that they are NOT.

Darn right CVA and Traditions guns are blowing up with recommended loads-- and 911 is being called all the time. I absolutely find them substandard, deficiently proofed, and insufficiently tested.

So did all the judges that put CVA out of business in the first place. You tell me what has changed since then -- except that loads are getting faster and higher pressure?[:@]