Randy Wakemans Statement
 

I just finally read his statement about the mishap with the savage rifle and Toby Bridges. I think its pretty funny that when something like this happens to a gun he likes and endorses as he states in his opinion it was purposely blown up. But when this happens to another brand its totally the guns fault. He states right there in his statement he has exceeded the safe limit load many times. Boy thaths real smart. So if I load up my optima with a 150grns of loose 777 and it blows up its not my fault. You would have to be crazy to listen to this guy. He is a real piece of work. Lets hear your responses positive or negative.

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

I have to admit that I have about had it with all the run around from both sides of the safe/unsafe ML'er debate. One side complains about lack of published facts while the other side talks about legal reasons they don't publish the details of their due dilligence. It's become a never ending jumble of tit for tat BS. The topic should have died a long time ago.

One thing I haven't understood is why someone hasn't gone ahead and done some proof/destructive testing on one of the guns in question. It would not prove that all guns are safe but could go a long way toward showing the safety of a random samplefrom the manufacturer in question. After all, isn't that what most every manufacturer does when checking the safety of their products. You can't test every gun to destruction but you should be able to extrapolate a general idea about the quality of the product line. Why hasn't anyone done this?

The question should be, how do you test a random sample to verify it's strength/quality? Do you test with a standard double charge/double projectile proof load or something else? What parameters should be considered when evaluating the results of the testing?

Instead of beating a dead horse, how about being proactive and do an independent test and verify the issue with independent facts.

Anyone have any ideas.

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

There are a few differences here.

On Savage;

First, the Savage Muzzleloaders are all proof tested to 1.3X the Maximum allowed pressure.

Second, it is unclear weather Toby blew his gun on purpose or not. However he told no one (other than Savage and Henry Ball)about it till Savage fired him. He then tried to blackmail Savage and Henry ball.

Third, people have shot ramrods out of their Savage's on top of full hunting charges and not blown their guns. Most have ringed their barrels though. To this day there is one known blow up of a Savage, that of Toby Bridges. No one knows what happened and he has changed his story so many times that no one knows what the truth is except Toby.

On CVA/BPI;

First, 10,000 psi is aproxamately 1/3 the pressure of a service load. There are Pyrodex loads that exceed 25,000 PSI. You can look it up in "The CompleteBlackpowder Handbook". The 10,000 doesn't even get you in the door when shooting muzzleloaders. That's about Round ball pressure.

Second, the Maximum load according to Hodgdon is 100 gr in 50 caliber. This means 100 gr of Powder or pellets and no more. Thus the liability for promoting heavier loads than that fall squarely on the gun companys.

Third, there are folks who are getting hurt with BPI guns. A few people have been hurt on the first shot out of a new rifle. 3 pellets and a 295 gr Powerbelt seems to be a popular choice.On the flip side, I've not heard of anyone getting hurt with 100 gr loads. If you own one I'd stay at 100 gr or under. I had one for a few years that I never shot more than 100 gr. out of. The problems seem to be with 3 pellet loads and a few rifles.

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Its more than roundball pressure, and its more than enough pressure to kill deer to 150 yards, beyond that in good field conditions and in the hands of a skilled marksman. In fact, a peak pressure of 10,000 psi has the potential to produce muzzle energies in excess of1800 ft-lbs. Not with Black Powder of course, but with pyro, AP, Pinnacle, or BM3, you bet it does. Of course one must choose the proper projectile to do this, but it certainly can and _is_ done. I do it myself.

As far as putting loads with peak pressures of 25000 psi in my muzzleloaders, it will NEVER happen. The powder manufactures advise against those kind of loads. I am astonished that _ANY_ rifle manufacturer who produces rifles not made of the finest smokeless quality steel would allow 3 pellet loads under a 300 grain saboted projectile.

Not just the gun company. Yes the gun company . . .but what about the idiot who puts three of them in knowing the powder company's recommendation. Isn't that stupid?Seems to me that he is knowingly taking a risk in defiance of the powder company's recommendation, endangering his life and those nearby, putting the future security of his family in jeopardy, so on and so forth.

I, like many others, think that folks are getting hurt with every brand of gun. They are even getting hurt with Savage guns. Ask Toby. People do stupid things with Savages and BPI alike. There are a lot of BPI guns out there. I don't think the problem is as bad as Randy makes out it is.

I brokea ramrod trying to push a 295PBthrough my Sidekick's bore. A new barrel can be very rough. In fact, I chronoed the first shot at 1108 fps with 65 grains RS it now shoots the same projectile at 1420 fps. That is a 65% increase in Muzzle Energy. I figure that the first shot had twice the peak pressure than the same load now. It would bea good idea,that manualsrecommend a break in period, 100 rounds or so, of lightly loaded conicals. I figure if I had put 150 grains and the 295 PB in on that FIRST SHOT,pressures would have easily exceeded 35000 psi in my Sidekick, and guess what? Arifle I bought on Randy's advicehad the potential tohave blown up on me.

I think if we all just settle down and take stock of just how crazy and obsessed we have become to the objective of making our Muzzleloaders something, by the sheer nature of its bore size, which it can not be without taking unreasonablerisks. We can all safely shoot and hunt with our muzzle loaders, we only have to choose to do so.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Wolfhound76

The Savage: - it is my personal belief from everything I have been able to read... the gun blew up! BUT, why shouldn't it have? What was the number rounds through that barrel? What was the number of Magnum charges through that barrel? What was the number of rounds through that barrel that exceed the Savage Recommendation?

Is there such a thing as "metal fatigue?" Home many times can the metal expand and contract before it looses it's elasticity ( and I know that is the wrong word) At some point it is going to become brittle...

If shoot 10000 rounds from my 270 and 10000 round from my 300 win mag, which gun could I expect to shoot another 10000, which one should I start worring about?

The BPI/CVA thing is old... thatcompany has restrained it loads - this has been well advertised. It has been explained several times WHY! the proofmark is what it is and yes I believe it is to save BPI/CVA money so they can be more competitive in the US market, not because it is the max load. Even A&H used the same proofing for many years, but they assured Randy that they did additional testing - so they are not a target even though it is the same Spanish extruded type barrel. All Spanish barrels are now condemed by many, as if the Spanish can not produce good barrels.

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

This will be another one of "those" threads. :)

If I might interject a quote from a recent review...

"If the barrel of the Genesis is indeed the same exact "turn-in-28 inches" twist .50 caliber barrel that is found on the Traditions muzzleloading rifles, it has only been proof tested by the official Spanish Proof House with a load that generates under 10,000 p.s.i. Still, the new Remington catalog and the Remington website tout the use of magnum 150-grain charges of powder. And I know for a fact that independent testing by one shooting industry manufacturer has found that with Triple Seven, such loads can push internal barrel pressures up over 30,000 p.s.i. I'm not saying that Remington's new Genesis is dangerous with such loads, only that there is way too much unknown between the level at which the barrels have been proofed and the pressures that the recommended powder charges are known to produce. Hopefully, Remington Arms will take it on themselves to extensively pressure test the questionable Spanish made barrels. Most of us in the industry feel that other muzzleloading rifle makers using these barrels have not made an honest attempt to do so. And, if they have, they've sure kept it an industry secret."

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Honestly, I think all this started with the Modern Inline. People who hadexperience with muzzleloading prior to the push to make a muzzleloader perform in trajectory like a high powered rifle, tend to use moderate charges. Alot of them, still prefer roundball. They've not got all caught up in the hype of "magnum charges".

I don't know who the firstto offer a magnum 150 grain rifle was, maybe Knight, but from that point on, a company had to produce arms "rated" for 150 grains in order to compete in the market. I am of the opinion, save for the Savage, that no ML manufacturer, has made an honest attempt to extensively pressure test their barrels in a public fashion. I also think it would be difficult to get your hands on all their (Savage Arm's) test data.

I firmly believe that 150 grain loads are of questionable safety inANYmuzzleloader. My opinion of course. I think I would question any barrel I was encouraged to put 150 grains down, even a T/C, NEF, Knight, or White.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Amen...the truth and facts are not part of the equation...it all depends on where the biggest financial gain might come from...

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

IMO:
The whole notion of attempting to modernize...tomake rifles & components that happen to load through the muzzle perform like a .30-06 just to take advantage of previously established "Traditional Muzzleloading Seasons" is ludicrous to begin with.

IMO:
Someonewhoholds a modren plasticstocked, modern highpower scoped, modern shotgunprimer ignition, modern smokeless powder burning, modern high performance bullets, modern inline rifle with sealed ignition in their hands and claim that's "muzzleloading"...has totallyand completely, 100% missed the point of what "muzzleloading" is all about.

IMO: This is far closer to what in meant by muzzleloading:

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Did it occur to you, that A&Hmay havethe testing results andmay bemore than willing to slap Randy with an anti-defamation suit? It would not surprise me if Randy has been warned.

I wouldn't give two cents to be Randy right now. Asa muzzleloading pop-culture icon, a home boy, I am sure BPI feels it is bestnot to beat heads with him. But as time goes by, andpeople begin to feel as though the enjoyment of their Spanish made muzzleloader has been robbed by Randy and his mission, this may begin to change. Sad thing is, Randy has taken it so far, it is not really legally possible for him tobow it. But if I were him, I would be hoping that BPI offered me a "lets let bygones be bygones settlement".

All in all. Here's my sense of it all. Its all about money. There is great demand for magnum muzzleloaders. I feel that all are of questionable safety with magnum loads. But if one can remove competition by increasing the confidence in their own product, then they add value to their product by virtue of the magical qualities of consumer confidence. I don't know if Randy recieves endorsement money for the rifles he promotes, but if he does, then his analysisshould be viewed skeptically.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Roundball,

You may be correct on this. I purchased an inline to get 1:28 twist and 209 ignition. The twist for the heavy conicals I like. I have the sense that you get a sense of satisfaction from your muzzleloading experience that we can only imagine. It seems we all have different ideas of what the muzzleloading experience should be. For me, it must be done with open sights. I don't even know if I'll be hunting with the inline this year, its such an ugly rifle, really. Besides, it on its way back for service. The hawken, after 26 years, never has needed repair.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Pglasgow

I am quite sure that A&H has conducted pressure test of their own, but I at the same time I am pretty sure that they have conducted these same tests in Spain. Spain is not just selling these barrels to us Americans - they are out there in Europe also and I know for a fact they have T7 in Europe also....

And then realize there are no proof marks on GM barrels at all. It is a Spanish law that the barrels must be proofed at a minimum to get out of the country - or they would not have a proof either.

Do I feel more confident with an American barrel - yes! It is really harder to say that about some American cars vs some foreign cars.

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Hey, Roundball: Nice Buck! What bullet and sabot did you use? :D

IM jaybe :)

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

This is all that is required to tip you to buy American over a lower-priced import. Worked on me. Confidence. It's nothing physical. It is totally abstract. And it will always cost the consumer something to get. Confidence is a product in of itself. It is a feature hard working Americans are paying good money for.

But it is not by "proving" the safety of American made ML's that Randy and his supporters have added this feature. It is rather, by destroying the confidence people have in the competitors of American made ML's, that this value has been added.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

arc vs line again? Not hardly.

A&H took positive action to address RW's concerns - they understood those concerns. Many do not.

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

I see no reason for anyone to get worked up over this issue.The choice is rather simple actually. If you feel Spanish Barrels proof tested to their standard as safe, then buy that product if you so wish. Are the Spanish made rifles as accurate and work as smooth as the the American rifles? If you feel they do, save a few bucks and get a CVA or Traditions or what ever. Hunt with it, target shoot with it, enjoy it. Who cares what someone else claims. You do not believe their claim or warning, so whats the difference? As long as you are satisfied with the product that is all that's important.

I for many years drove an old rusty beat up looking chevrolet. A real nasty looking thing it was. My friends teased me without mercy about driving around in a four wheeled (we will not finish the description) thing. Yet the engine ran great, it got good mileage, I did not have to make car payments, and when some one dinged me in a parking lot, it was not the end of the world. I was satisfied with the product, it got the job done, and that was all that was important.

If the information put out by Randy Wakeman and others who share his opinion concern you, then buy American or at least something that is tested to your satisfaction. No one needs to knock a different make rifle. You simply do not promote it. If someone asks your opinion you voice that opinion to reflect your beliefs.

I think some of the warnings about judging the strength of your powder charges is good advise, but then I think that no matter what kind or make of rifle I shoot. Do I own a BPI product? Way too many of them one person around here will tell you (thank goodness I do not listen to her). Am I careful with my loads? All the time. I never get distracted when I am shooting a black powder. If I do, I check every load all over again. I have dumped more then one charge of powder on the ground because someone took my attention off of what I was doing.

Take advise on these forums with a grain of salt. That's why I like it when there are opinions totally opposite of mine. It gives the person asking a guestion the chance to judge for themelves. Which is really what this issue is all about. Read the facts or opinions, make or base your decision on that and work accordinly.

Now I need to go and check to see if the UPS man has brought my new CVA Stalker yet....:D

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

I'm just not sure RW is someone any company has to address itself to. Really, who is he, UC? What makes him an authority that a gun manufacture must address itself to? That A&H took a positive actionis indicative that they understood how RW'sactions could harm them, perhaps even put them out of business. That A&H was able to satisfy RW as to the safety of their rifles with spanish barrels, merely tells me that Traditions and CVA could do the same.

What I think Randy should do, is to discourage everyone from using charges in excess of the powder manufacture's maximum recommendations. That will save lives and limbs far better than discouraging the purchase of guns manufactured with Spanish barrels.

My biggest problem with RW's crusade is that it destroys the experience of many who deserve to enjoy and use sensibly the muzzleloader's they worked so hard to buy and grown to love. I just don't like that aspect of his method. He should rather encourage and recommend safe loads for these muzzleloaders, helping others to enjoy their muzzleloaders safely.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

cayugad

God, I am glad you are here - AMEN

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Cayugad:

sabotloader is right. God bless you. Before you posted, I thought about going into the archives and pulling out some loads you have used, sproulman, and others. All of which, are loads which are very effective deer killers, and which are safe for use in ANY modern muzzleloader, yielding pressures around or below the proofing of Spanish barrels.

Again, you say it so much better really than I ever could. God bless you cayugad.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

They could have. That's what Randy expected them to do. He expected them to behave like Austin Halleck did. They didn't. I wish I still had all the emails from CVA and Traditions he forwarded to me. They called him anti spanish, anti second amendment, and an anti gunner. He also contacted companis without spanish barrels and most of them were like Austin Halleck. Heck Randy designed AH's Accuclean breechplug. He's always had a good relationship with them. He had a good relationship with CVA and Traditions prior to this too. Onavideohe even recomends as a best buy the Winchester X-150 with moderate charges. Even when all this was going on he still gave a decent review to the CVA Optima. The best he ever got with it was 3" @ 100 yds. I don't know how many barrels that thing had. I think 3 or 4.

I can't tell you the number of times I've been talking to him on the phone and he tells me "got another email asking if my CVA/Traditions is safe with 100 gr charges. How many times can I say I don't know? I've never heard of a CVA/Traditions blowing with that charge though."

No. It makes people think about what they're doing, or at least it should.

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

No matter where a "Wakeman conflict" arises, Wolfhound to the rescue!

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Wolfhound76

This gives me no joy, but I respectfully disagree with most of what you have written.

Randy has brought most of the grief upon himself as he did with BPI, Traditions, Remington, Greybeard and many other places. He is know to follow the money. He is a very knowledgible man, but he has an agenda.

I still rely on him for information, but i do have to weigh all of that information to separate personal biases from fact

IMO!

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

This is precisely what I am talking about.So you are telling me thatRandy doesn't know whether loads which range from 8,000 to 14,000 psi (2f BP)up to 460 grain projectiles are safe in a Spanish barrel? Come now. Doesn't know because each and everybarrel is tested only 10,000 psi? What wasmy NEF barrel tested to? What was my T/C hawken barrel tested to? It would surprise me if either barrel was tested at all.

Wolfhound, I know Randy expected them to. I just don't think they owe himanything. Regarding Randy'ssupport for standards, I support that whole heartedly. I just think the governing body to set those standards should be headed by someone other than Randy. Frankly, I don't think he is qualified and I think he's too involved with "relationships" to do it right.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

As far as Savage/Toby & Randy go, partial he said she said mumbo, truth is so hidden will we ever know what really happened???? I'd just let it die. My experience with both Savage and BPI products has never suggested concerns with safety...IF COMMON SENSE is applied. I personally believeourexperience is very much a valuable commodity. I enjoy hearing other thoughts/experiences/opinions and may chose to implement them or portions of them but in the end what I have experienced isn't tossed aside b/c somebody just said so. Like mentioned above take it with a grain salt. This includes company marketing, gun writers and so on.

In terms of MLing I took it up for one reason only, to extend my hunting season. Same could be said with many other things I have done in regards to this sport, all to further my passion. I am sorry but the challenge for me comes within, not in the piece of equipment I am toting. Just my opinion.

I am a bit tiffed (for lack of a better word) that some think or make it appearsuch "max" loads are required to a kill a deer effectively at 200 yards. I think most experienced shooters will tell you taking an animal at distance is more about the hunter than the rifle or load they are using. I agree such max loads are way over marketed andIalso believe theylargely under utilized in the real world.If you buy based solely on such marketing, you may be very underwhelmed with your choice. Again common sense applies, consider the source. Will Ford say they are weaker than Chevy????

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Do you really think any ML rifle tech like Randy or Tobytest their rifle barrels & actionsbeyond the recommended grainswithout any body protection (or) a contraption that allows them to remain a safe distance away? Many use a face shield and a chestvest while testing. Was Toby hurt? Did Randy test those Savages with full body exposure?.... heck no!

So if you load up your Optima beyond the recommended loads without any protection makes youyour ownreal piece of work. Don't blame Randy when a question/opinion is raised to him later -on whether the gun was purposely blown up. He answered the question in the manner the question was raised... ie..... "Randy.... in your opinion, was the rifle barrel purposely ruptured?

Boy thats not real smart if you think otherwise!

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

Honestly, I don't see, and i think you would agree, any useful purpose in Randy orToby, deliberately loading any of their muzzleloaders, Savage or otherwise, with loads which are prohibited by the manufacturer. It is a terrible example and a complete abandonment of the responsibility both bear as respected, knowledgeable, individuals in the sport of muzzleloading.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

The first reply I read on this post made more sense than what the two guys involved ever said. dmurphy is correct only mfg testing with open results will put to rest any questions about how safe our arms are. We can even add a caviat to that if they don't test than why?

Then again why would the mfg care what us little people think[:@]

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

I don't know why I even bother. People are going to believe what they want to believe.

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

It occurs to me that our Muzzleloaders are already being tested, day in, day out. Every time we load our muzzleloader and successfully fire them we are "proofing" our barrels to that pressure. Doesn't mean the rifles are safe at that load on repeated firings, just means the barrel has withstood the pressure of that load.

To my knowledge, no BPI product has blown up using 100 grains of 2f BP or equivalent (e.g. 85 grains 2f 777). If anyone knows of such a thing happening, I would like to know of the documentation. Also, to my knowledge, all or most of the accidents occurred during the first range session with maximum 3 pellet loads, most commonly on the first shot fired. I would also like to know just how many of these incidents are documented by Randy.

I really do think that most accidents using manufacture approved loads do occur on the first shot fired and with the max allowed charge. I think a rough bore coupled with a maximum charge is responsible for highly elevatedpressures in this initial firing. I think an incident like this could happen with any new muzzleloader, made by any manufacturer, when one fires a 3 pellet load in a brand new muzzleloader. Of course this is only my opinion.

I think Randy does a disservice to hundreds of thousands of muzzleloading enthusiasts who own rifles withSpanish made barrels when he seems to be incapable of making recommendations of loads which can safely be used in them. If he were to tell me flat out, thathe"doesn't know" if they canbe used safely at all, I would consider him disingenious.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Randy Wakemans Statement
 

I think I just said that with a few less words. I am not afraid of my imports nor would I be afraid of a Savage. We the consumer just need to do our job and follow recomended loads.

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