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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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

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

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:

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