Hello Toby,
Being "right" is unimportant, a listing of my personal faults would fill several pages. Of course learning is what it is all about.
That said, it is difficult to draw a distinction between Howard Hughes, the Space Shuttle, and the 10ML-II. The 10ML-II has flown far more often, and does not leave the ground as quickly.
It is self-evident, at least to me, that there never was any claim that the 10ML-II breechplug's front portion was designed to be a "perfect seal." If it was, there would be scant reason to lubricate the breechplug at all.
It is difficult to understand how erosion could be construed as a safety issue-- just what specific wall thickness do you think is required for a 100% safety factor?
It is also difficult to understand how, through your claimed 36,000 shots fired-- an "obvious" erosion would go un-noticed by you. With your claim of "all breechplugs eroding" by 500 shots or less, well-- you must have gone through at least 72 of them, and have all these eroded breechplugs on hand by now. Do you?
Are all revolvers made today time-bombs due to the cylinder air gap? What attempted seal is there?
I have three reasonably high-mileage factory breechplugs here. One has 14 pounds of 5744 fired through it, some 2100 shots, with additional Alliant 2400, RL-7, N110, N120, and AA 2015 loads shot through it. It appears as new. The two other plugs have well over 750 rounds through them, but you cannot tell one from the other. I'll happily send along as many pictures as you would like to view of them together. Perhaps the atmosphere in northern Illinois does not allow erosion?
750 shots is more than the average muzzleloader shoots in a lifetime in a single gun, much less 2100 shots. Both Thompson and Knight currently have breechplugs with unthreaded portions to protect the threads. 120 grain loose Triple 7 loads can produce as much pressure as the middling 10ML-II loads.
Have you warned Knight and Thompson about the lack of a "seal" at the front of their breechplugs? Not even a partial seal exists.
Why, O why, would "shooters" send an ex-Savage consultant breechplugs? Do you not think that Savage examines and screws on more barrels in a month than anyone else on the planet?
As far as your statement, "there have been many, many very qualified folks come forth who totally agree with my assesment of the problem."-- do
any of these people have names?
Accurate Arms 5744 burns progressively, and cannot detonate-- what gas velocity do designate as "detonate?"
The CPSC has no authority over firearms. To say that they approached you leaves you open for tremendous embarrassment. Do these public servants of the CPSC have names, either?[:-]
To admonish all-comers dull enough to not understand the integrity of the 10ML-II in August, 2004, then to immediately do a 180 turn in a few days seems quite a quick revelation.
Is it all completely coincidental, or is your dismissal by Savage Arms and Henry Ball at the exact same time remotely related to this?
As for the theory of 5744, detonation, and the 3 hole vent-liner-- you are well aware that I was shooting the same stuff at the same time. The first 3-hole vent-liner I shot was mailed to me by you. Should I consider this reckless endangerment by your hand?
Please find me ANY reputable entity, and one at all, that can refute the following:
The Savage breech plug design is stronger than alternatives of threading to the front due to the following considerations: Threading to the front would reduce the cross sectional wall (root to root diameter of inner and outer threads) and place stress risers at the area of greatest strain. The area of elongation under stress would be very short compared to the length of the non threaded portion that absorbs the stress repeatedly over its length without exceeding the yield strength of the steel.
I have not been able to.
As a Savage 10ML-II dealer, are you accusing me personally with endangering lives? My own? My father's?
Looking forward to your reply,
Randy