The NEF sidekick, CVA Kodiak, Winchester Apex 209 and CVA Optima are all decent yet 'inexpensive' muzzleloaders. I'd stay away from magnum charges and huge bullets, though(if you're ever tempted ).I'mwith Catus on his post: the CVAs and Sidekicks are about equal MLs. My experience differs from the 'Sidekick kicks their ass' comment.

I agree with the list above in regards to a good cheap ML'er. Although I think the Apex is of a bit higher quality than some of the others on the list.

6 of the 7 ML'ers I have are BPI products. I have no concerns over the quality of the spanish barrels on any of them. Why, because I did some testing to verify. I am the one who tried to blow up a Bobcat barrel to see what it would take. It takes more than I had the heart to put it through. I still use it for a fun plinker gun. Right now I am looking for an inline barrel to do some testing with. If any of you know where I can get a Hunterbolt/Magbolt or Optima barrel for cheap, I would appreciate a PM.

A gunsmith friendhas told me more than once that it is difficult to "blow up" a ML'er barrel unless you short start a projectile or load with smokeless. He's told me stories of nipples blown out (using smokeless) but no damage to the barrel. He's told me of loading a barrel 50% with powder 50% with PRB's and no damage to the barrel. He even told me of some guys that were using 100gr of BP and a PRB loaded into a piece of 1/2" electrical conduit pipe and it didn't "blow up" even after many shots. He has been working on BP guns for many years and has seen split barrels and the like but they all were the result of incorrect loading such as stated earlier.

Think about it. 150 years ago the barrels were made of cast iron or low quality (by todays standards) steel. Many of the mountain men would load heavy loads for bear, loads that we would call magnum or hotter today. I read somewhere where some would load 150gr or more of BP and double balls when they really wanted to hit something hard. The quality of the steel used in todays firearms far exceeds what was available back then yet we are still using loads that are similar to what they would use. This tells me that the amount of powder a ML'er can efficiently use hasn't changed all that much but we can safely say the quality of the barrels has improved. This means that the safety factor has also improved over the older barrels. What it doesn't mean, though, is that you can make mistakes in loading (short starting, etc.) and expect the barrel to survive. It doesn't matter what make of barrel it is, it can be "blown up" if it is loaded incorrectly. That includes the Savage.

I do not recommend that anyone exceed the max loads established by the manufacturer and do not recommend doing any proof testing unless you have taken the time and steps to do it in a safe manner.

That's my 2 and 1/2 cents, take from it what you will.

"Think about it. 150 years ago the barrels were made of cast iron or low quality (by todays standards) steel. Many of the mountain men would load heavy loads for bear, loads that we would call magnum or hotter today"

Exactly! I have a book and the guy was doing testings on the hawken rifles and he was using more charge than todays 150 grain mag load. Im looking at it now and he was shooting a .53 hawken, prb, 187grains ffg powder. I personally have used more than 150 grains powder in my winchester just to see how it shot and i stopped at 170 grains pyrodex RS. I even have a video of Roger Raglin saying he is shooting a " i forget what bullet weight"700ish grain slug with 200 grains of pyrodex. He was hunting cape buffalo.

F.G.,

I would point out that your "experiment" with 170 grains loose Pyro and an unknown projectile weight differs completely from the experiments to which i referred. Unless you worked out means to discharge the rifle so that you and others could not be harmed.

A am sure that Roger was not using a .50 cal rifle. How much pressure for a given powder charge and bullet weight depends on the bore diameter.

. . . .

David,

Your gunsmith friend has a wealth of knowledge. Seems it takes a barrel obstruction to burst a barrel (short start condition). I would think a ramrod could too, but your post causes me to question that. I would be interested in knowing if those that burst were known to be short started before discharging, i.e. , the bullet/ball lodged tight in fouling while being loaded with the operator aware.

"Think about it. 150 years ago the barrels were made of cast iron or low quality (by todays standards) steel. Many of the mountain men would load heavy loads for bear, loads that we would call magnum or hotter today"

I've read books that also state this, but in addition to better barrels we'd also have to assume that the quality of powder is much purer (or better) than it was a 150yrs ago. I'd say just based on this assumption that our mag load of 150 would prolly be just about equal to the heavy loads the mountain men used. Not to mention that most mountain men prolly used guns that .54 caliber and above which can handle heavier loads and keep lower pressure in their barrels with heavier bulletsthan a .45 or.50 caliber(which are the two most popular inline calibers). stick to the manufacturers specs. be safe. Those are my thoughts.

Frontier Gander,
For most BP guns, the practical limit of 2F powder that they can ignite with normal weight projectiles (under 500 or so grains) is around 130 +/- grains. Anything beyond thisends up adding weight to the overall load and not really contributing much to the velocity or pressure of the shot. Pelletized powders however can burn completely under such conditions most of the time. Also finer granule powders (3F, 4F) burn quicker due to the Higher weightfrom better compaction and increased surface area that is exposed to the flame for a given volume of powder. It's kind of like a jar of sand vs a jar of pebbles, The sand weighs more because you can fit more in the jar with less air space between the granules. I'm sure most everyone knows this but I thought it might help explain the differences in powder for those who may be new to the sport.

Pglasgow,
I will see if I can get that information if he knows for certain. Do note however that the comment was difficult, not impossible to blow one up. There is always the possibility of an unseen structural flaw as well as other unknown problems that can cause a bad day while shooting.

Indy,
I agree pretty much with your comments, especially the last one. The 53 cal mentioned in the above comment using 187gr of powder would be very close to equal with a 50cal and 150gr of powder, I base that on the 20% difference in the max listedload for my 54 and 50 of the same make and model. The difference in the powder strength howevermay not be as big as some would think. The mid 19th century has been claimed to be the hayday of BP development and the powder from that era was some of the best that has been produced up till now. I wouldexpect thatmodern powders are more consistent on a lot to lot basis but I doubt there was that much difference in strength on average. I could be wrong on this but that is the impression I've gotten from what I've read or learned from talking to more experienced and learned ML shooters.

For the record, all my comments are based on my own experiences and discussions with others and only constitute one mans opinion. I do not consider myself to be an all knowing BP guru, just someone with an interest in a fun and interesting sport called muzzleloading.

It's too bad we have taken this "Good Cheap ML" topic so far off topic. If folks want to continue this train of thought maybe someone could start a different thread. My appologies to the original poster for this diversion.