RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Phil,
In one respect you are accurate that we "test" our guns each time we fire them. However, most "proof" loads that I have seen published are based on double charge double projectile surviveability, not just normal loads. This implies that the gun has at least a2 to 1 safety margin for the recommended max load.

One poster earlier mentioned that Savage proofs theirs at 1.3 times max recommended load. That seems like a small margin of safety to me as each load can vary due to fouling, loading technique, etc. It has been said that they have tested the gun to >100,000psi. Why would they only proof to 1.3 times their load max if they have that kind of head room?

I personally own several CVA guns and initially became concerned about all the questions about their products. To date I have not found reason to suspect them of being anything but safe when used within the guidelines established by CVA both in the manuals and in recomendations I've recieved directly from them.

I do still have concerns due to the fact that 2 of the guns I have are for my 2 boys. I would like to have more concrete evidence that they are safe if for no other reason but to satisfy my desire to protect my kids. I would also want the same level of confidence no matter what company made the guns. After all, do we really know that there are more spanish barreled guns (as a percentage of guns manufactured in Spain vs elsewhere) experiencing failure or does it appear that way because there are so many more of them out there?

I have decided that I am going to do some proof testing on one of my CVA rifles. The object is to verify the strength of the gun or blow it up, whichever comes first. I do not want to get into the details at this time as the test plan is being reviewed by an experiencedgunsmithand there may/will be changes in the testing methods discussed over the next week or two. I hope to conduct the test sometime in the next month or so depending on the weather and my schedule. If there are any gunsmiths or experienced gun testers out there that would like to contribute info/ideas/data to the testing, please PM me or email me.

Thanks in advance for any help provided.

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Here is a link to a guy that ran his own test.

http://www.huntchat.com/showthread.php?s=4197163744c1ba152591e47cd18f6450& amp;threadid=37388&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

TooTall,
Thanks for the link, very interesting. It goes hand in hand with other info I've been given. Typical first thing to go is the nipple but usually only when subjected to smokeless. I've even been told, by the guy who is reviewing my test plans, that tests have been done where the barrel was filled half way with powder and the other half with PRB's and still did not blow the barrel. I've even heard of guys shooting PRB usingtypical loads of powder out of electrical conduit without rupturing it. Short starting was the most likely way of rupturing a barrel, not overloading. Of course, neither is safe and I wouldn't recommend doing either as a common practice.

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

I think the peak pressure of any load I would put in my muzzleloaders would definitely be below 13,000 psi. Which is probably a third or less than a thirdof the burst pressure of the typical Spanish barrel. I really don't know for sure. I am positive though, that the burst pressure of Spanish barrels is above the pressures one would encounter with 3 pellet loads of projectiles weighing 300 grains or less, PROVIDED, a clean bore which has been broken in and no longer offers unusual resistance to the projectile's acceleration from the bore. That said, I do not feel that a 3 pellet load is safe even though it would normally operate at pressures below the burst pressure of the barrel.

As you concerned yourself, a double loadcould occur. With children being involved you must be double careful. The breech plug in yourrifle has more purpose than just letting the fire in the breech. It also allows pressure to"blow-back"when a problem occurs and will work to prevent a blow up, provided, amodest charge was loaded. In 50 cal., 100 grains is not modest IMO it is a maximum charge and should be respected for what it is capable of doing.

That said, I don't think there is a muzzleloader out there, save maybe the savage that can stand 6 pelletsunder a single 300 grain projectile. It just isn't possible to proof the standard ML rifle to those pressures. Those kind of pressures will push a barrel into plastic deformation and will necessarily ruin the barrel even if it does not burst.

dmurphy,

There is something I would like to do something for you. I would like to design a load for your sons which I have full confidence will operate below 10,000 psi, the proof rating of your Spanish barrels. I don't want to do it half cocked. If you would PM me with details of the ranges you expect to have shooting opportunity, open or scope, where you think the recoil should be in relation to 12 ga. clay load, etc. I will provide you with a load guideline you can test for accuracy with your kids. I will post in a separate post. If they work you can stop worrying about the load itself and start concentrating on teaching your sons safe muzzleloading practices. I would very much like to help.:D

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Phil, see my PM reply.

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

How else do they test these rifles for strength -- how else do they show proof to a judge/jury when they are about to be sued for something?

We are not talking about some DNR practice range (or) sitting on a ridge while hunting here.

Boy... the thread-starter here has suddenly disappeared. How convenient! Wouldn't surprise me if he had a vendetta against Mr. Wakeman.

No I'm not suddenly "sucking-up" to Randy. But until/if he arrives here to defend himself -- Toby included, then I will defend the folks who are paid to make sure that safety/testing measures should not be confused with your range/hunting experiences.

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Who is they? Randy and Toby? If that is who you are talking about, then I say they defend themselves by saying that they stringentlyobeyed the guidelines of rifle manufacturer and powder manufacturer alike.

I would hate to have to defend myself for publicly announcing that rifles are sound well into "prohibited" loads.

Paid by who? Knight, White, NEF, T/C, Savage? Do you mean to tell me that these companies don't have in house professionals which do all of their testing under a laboratory setting? They have to ask Randy to put on full body protection and see how far their rifles can be pushed? I'm sorry, but I just think that is ludicrous. Maybe Randy takes it on himself to do this. But I have my doubts that the companies that "pay him", are actually paying him to be a test pilot. It seems much more plausible to me, that Randy is "paid" to promote the products and help with sales.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

=========================================

"They" do not have to obey the laws of the manufacturer when testing rifles.

Yes.... Toby was the ML-tech for Savage's testings. I'm sure Randy was asked to contribute on Savage's behalf in this case.

C'mon Phil..... enough already! Quit trying to weasel out. Instead... just say "I didn't know!"

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Does anyone here expect those paid for their opinion to present the [often unverified] negitive side? Lee

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

IKNOW this isn't the case. He does sell muzzleloaders but only Savages. Savage almost hired him to take Toby's old job but decided not to hire anyone for it. The only people who pay him for muzzleloading information/consultation is a Law firm.I'll let you figure that one out.

You can see what he sells on his website.

http://members.aol.com/randymagic/
http://members.aol.com/randymagic/ballltd.htm