ORIGINAL: HighDesertWolf
Randy wakeman,
simply stated they are made in the same plant that also happens to be contracted by BPI, which I cant say im completely sure about since its just hearsay I heard from a friend who shoots both A&H and CVA's. Hmmm Hearsay which is what your claims are anyway...... One thing I do know for a fact is BPI barrels and A&H barrels have the same proofing mark on them which according to you that proofing mark makes BPI guns unsafe so basically that would make A&H's unsafe too [SNIP] The reason I know your name is because I’ve read several of your posts in the past. and to tell you who I am I'm the guy who wants solid evidence from you that shows BPI guns are unsafe. I have been shooting CVA and traditions muzzle loaders for nearly 15 years and have never had any such problem you claim that BPI products have or will have because of their proofing mark......
Hello Tony,
CVA was sued out of business not all that long ago, due to the introduction of their "Apollo" model. There were so many personal injury suits appertaining to this model that they were forced into insolvency; that is a matter of the public record.
BPI (CVA / Winchester Muzzleloading / Beartooth) guns are not made in the "same" plant as Austin & Halleck barrels at all. So says CVA, so says Austin & Halleck. Who do you really think "BPI" is, anyway?
A proofing mark alone does not mean a gun is unsafe. All a proof mark means is that the barrel is certified to withstand the CIP stamping, in this case 10,000 PSI. It does mean that the House of Eibar states the barrel has been proofed to 10,000, and just like in any firearm proof loads should never be approached, much less exceeded.
Guns are not "assumed" safe prior to being sold, they must be proven safe. That is what "PROOF" is all about.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/unsafe_muzzleloaders.htm
Austin & Halleck has updated their proofs to fully twice that of Traditions and CVA (BPI) product. Further, Austin & Halleck does stateside testing in Provo, Utah, and nearby Browning Arms to augment the updated proofs.
As a machinist, you should be familiar with Lame's equation to determine tube thickness. There are only two primary values in gun barrel steel strength, yield and tensile. Dynamic yield is determined by adding the minimum yield and tensile values together, then dividing by two. Then, a 100% safety factor is added on top of the minimum wall thickness to determine minimum design wall.
The Austin & Halleck barrels have a ONE INCH octagonal section that runs half the length of the entire barrel. It is due to the tremendously thick wall that their guns can contain, and have been demonstrated to contain, pressures exceeding 29,000 PSI service loads.
The number of personal injury cases appertaining to CVA and Traditions guns is amazing, if not downright alarming. Of that, I am acutely aware.
Now, if Traditions or BPI / CVA can demonstrate to you or to any consumer that their guns have been tested and proven safe at the 25,000 PSI loads their manuals recommend, they would be saving an awful lot of court time. To date, they have not been able to show that they test beyond the proof level at all.
Thompson, Knight, Savage, Austin & Halleck all have clinical data to show that their guns are supremely safe at 20,000, 25,000, 30,000 PSI peak pressures-- and they have done so.
The multiple cases involving horrific injuries and loss of body parts that I am aware of right now are all CVA and Traditions branded product. Perhaps you think it coincidence?
