dmurphy317

I will try to get in touch with a Browning and Weatherby and see if they will or have the equipment to the testing... There are no proof houses in the Americas the closest one would be London, then Spain, then Honk Kong.

But each of the major manufactures have someone do the testing if a person could find one of those places, then you could probably get a test done... Cost? and do they need more than one barrel? all of that is unknown...

I know lyman did some testing for their BP books. I wonder if they are still setup to do that kind of thing and if they would be interested.

"I know lyman did some testing for their BP books. I wonder if they are still setup to do that kind of thing and if they would be interested."

Yes, Lyman did do some testing. They concluded that commonly used loads of Pyrodex and other stuff easily generate pressures in excess of 25,000 psi. This is getting into smokeless powder pressures.

"I would say that the jury isn't necessarily out but because there have probably been settlements, I figure there were some "hold harmless" agreements arising from conditions of settlement."

Yes, there have been settlements. A lawyer out of Tulsa, OK is the driving force behind these lawsuits. You can easily guess who his resident "expert"is.

We should have pooled our resources and hit all the Walmart clearance sales this year, you could have had a suite of CVA guns to test for under $300. Bobcats were going for $48, Buckhorns for $59, and I think Kodiaks for as little as $129 (though I never saw them cheaper than $159). Wolfs and Optimas were cheap in other stores also.

Within reason, I think all these guns are safe. As has been stated here many times, I think all of the manufacturers have done the public a disservice by advocating "magnum" 150 gr. pellet loads. By promoting these loads as an accepted norm, the margin for human error starts very thin from the get go. Shooter error is probably to blame for most of the reported failures (which I think is the reason why Pglasgow has proposed certain tests).

I'll tell you my personal story of near shooter error. The first day I went to shoot my Kodiak my father-in-law wanted to help out. I had measured out a couple of loads of 90 gr. 777 2f and was putting them into speed loaders. Somehow in the excitement of trying out a new gun and trying to be helpful, my f-i-l managed to pour two of the speedloaders together, 180 gr. of 777 2f!!! Luckily he soon realized his mistake. That would not have been a good way to start off my blackpowder career! That, had it resulted in gun failure would have been human error, not the guns fault as it exceeds the maximum recommended load.

Needless to say, no one touches my powder measure but me now...

This concern over barrel pressure test issues is all fine and good but hardly the job or responsibility of forum members. The way I look at this entire issue is, we all understand the mark on a BPI barrel is something placed there from the House of Ebar which sets a standard necessary by the Spanish government to ship the barrels outside the country.

We are all aware of the horror stories of barrels blowing up. The trouble with most actual incidents is, we are shown a few pictures, and told all detail have been sealed by agreement. We know that some people have made it a personal crusade to try and change the standards set. I commend them for their devotion to this cause, whether all agree with their agenda or not. I truly feel that these people are attempting to make set standards in the muzzleloading industry that would some day benefit all muzzleloader shooters.

We are also aware that there are thousands of satisfied BPI owners out there with rifles that shoot, perform and look as good (in their opinion) as any of the high dollar rifles out there.

So what it simply boils down to is a personal choice. If you feel the United States government and a business would sell a product in this country that is dangerous to the people who use it, that BPI products when used within the guidelines of manufacturer recommendations are dangerous, and that some of these substandard firearms are out there waiting for an accident to happen, DO NOT PURCHASE A BPI PRODUCT. Purchase instead a rifle with a more trusted record behind them.

If you are not convinced that the barrel pressure issues are a true concern or at least something you can live with. You want to purchase a quality rifle for less money. And you expect excellent customer service and support. And you have faith in the company and the reports of thousands of other satisfied BPI owners and shooters, the purchase what you want, trust, and is in your price range.

I think this is why forum members such as myself would like to have some truth and some answers which arefounded in science. It serves someto make this a touchy-feely issue.And that is all it is for now. Touchy,feely. I think we would all like some facts to rely on instead of relying how this person or that person feels about it. We want honest facts instead.

Above is the rest of the paragraph.It beginswith "if you feel" and ends in a lengthy negative commentary and advice on what not to buy. All I can really tell is that you (cayugad) trust other rifles more. I think thats fine, but where are the "records". I mean are we keeping track of anything but Randy Wakeman's writings? Dmurphy317's gunsmith has seen a number of ruined rifles. I wonder how many were BPI products, how many T/C's, or how many other makes? Maybe Roskoe has kept some kind of record. Cayugad, you've been muzzleloading for decades now. How many ruined rifles you've seen were BPI, how many TC, how many other makes?

We forum members are consumers, and we deserve the truth about what we are buying.

Pglasgow-

The way I see it, ourselves as a group could purchase ten rifles and have them tested in any scientificmanner we see fit. What's to say the eleventh rifleis not the one that if flawed and the one that would fail. This holds true for any company. While I also would like questions answered, I also realize it is not going to happen. A company such as BPI will do all in their power to keep the exact information we as a forumseek, out of our hands. Face it, just good business on their part. Due to this, we are faced, almost forced mind you, to accept opinion or how one feels about it, and hearsay evidence for others as to what really happened.

A good example. I was reading a post on a different forum about a Kodiak that had blow the barrel. The person claimed they had purchased the rifle, cleaned it, loaded it, and when they fired it, the barrel exploded. Well that would be something I would like to know more about. But when you ask.. what caused it? The answer is always, BPI has already settled the matter out of court and there is a hush order involved in the settlement.

My paragraph you quote and state seems negative is not really negative at all in my opinion. What I am stating is a person wanting to purchase a BPI product needs to think; would the United States government and a business really sell a product in this country they knew was dangerous? Common sense would sure tell you of course not. Anything they deem dangerous or hazardous is yanked off store shelves or removed from consumer hands so fast it makes your head spin. BPI rifles are the same. Since they are not being pulled from consumers, would you think the government considers them dangerous?

Next, when BPI rifles are used in regard to the manufacturer's guidelines, is there a danger? Probably not. After all that is what the guidelines are put there for. So the shooter can have something concrete to refer to and say, I am staying in the guidelines. I am safe.

I next ask, if you really think these BPI rifles that are out there are substandard in quality. Of course they are not. Anyone who looks at them can tell that. Anyone that reads reports of some of the members on our forum alone not to mention the hundreds of other forums out there, that the rifles coming from BPI are not substandard.

My final statement in that paragraph actually makes light of some of the ideas that BPI products are dangerous when I suggest, if all these above listed statements you believe are true then purchase something else. If all those above statements were true, who in their right mind would purchase a rifle from them. How could the company even be in business. Actually if the government knew that the rifles were substandard, I am sure BPI would not be selling them in the United States.

As for your claim that I do not trust BPI rifles... You might actually have me there. I guess there is that shadow of doubt on the product quality in theback of my mind. Would I buy another one.. no, I would not.That is by personal choice. It would have to be one of those can not pass up because of price deals to make me purchase one. Also there really is no need for me to EVER purchase another rifle.

You could have asked, would I suggest the purchase of a BPI rifle to someone else. Again, this is a personal decision I made referencepromoting the purchase of one to someone else, but the answer would be NO I would not. There are too many questions like you describe that you and I want answered out there. Even though in my heart I feel a BPI rifle is as safe as any other rifle on the market, I always have that little voice of WHAT IF in the back of my mind.

I would be devastated if a person asked my opinion on a purchase, I convinced them to make it, and the rifle failed and they got injured. For that reason alone, I choose to be selective in my promotions of rifle brands. If the person asking does not agree with my suggestions, which often as not they do, they purchase the rifle anyway. That is fine with me. They asked, and I told them what I thought. But then it was their decision based all all available information out there.

No matter what make of rifle, Iconstantly remind the buyer.. read and follow the information in your manual and understand it. If you have questions, call the company and ask them. I have called CVA a couple times on my rifle when I was not sure of something. I own one. A CVA Staghorn. I shoot it all the time. I do not load magnum charges and follow the projectile guidelines in the rifle. And I feel safe shooting it. If I did not, I would never squeeze the trigger on it. I'd take it into the back 40 and give you a barrel test likes of which you would not believe.

I will say that constantly bringing this barrel issue up and then getting into arguments over it is a waste of time IMO. I have never saw a BPI or any other make rifle barrel blown during normal use. I have seen them under other circumstances, but that has nothing to do with your question.

Are our questions going to be answered reference these barrel issues? I doubt it. No one benefits from that information but us. And in fact that kind of information might actually hurt a companies sales. Would independently testing several barrels satisfy forum members or any of the other skeptics, probably not. Those that did not believe in the barrel integrity of BPI would still scream fowl and those that did would scream, but we proved it. I still say it all boils down to what you as a consumer feels and what you are willing to accept. If the BPI rifle suits your needs, then by all means purchase it. I think you will be very pleased with the rifle. If the rifle does not satisfy your needs then look else where. But arguments only do one thing, and that's creates hard feeling. I don't have time for that.

Cayugad,
There is a lot of wisdom in what your saying and I appreciate your views and input. The testing I have done was for the most part for my own peace of mind and for my own curiosity, engineers like to see what it takes to break things. By the time i had heard of the barrel question I already had 2 or 3 BPI rifles and was using them to train my boys how to use a MLer so I had a personal stake in gaining that knowledge. After the testing that I have done so far, I have little concern for the safety of the products when, as you said, they are used according to the recommended loads. Thus far I have been cautious about who I've shared the details of my testing with and have refrained from publicly stating those details for similar reasons to your own, I don't want to feel responsible for someone elses pushing the limits and getting hurt. I suspect that is the basis behind BPI's, and the other companies,reluctance to share their level of testing with the public. I can't blame them for protecting that information.

My view of the safety question is, how much over protection is needed to give a comfortable safety margin?Is 150% enough? I seem to remember reading somewhere that someof the companies (includingAmerican companies) test to that level.What about 200% or 250% or more? The old rule of thumb was a double powder double bullet load for proofing (200%). If the gun survived without damage it was good to go. I feel that most any MLer should be able to handle that load at least once.

The problem comes in when there are loading mistakes such as short starting the projectile or loading 1 bullet and then short starting another. Those types of loading mistakes could very well damage most any manufacturers barrel even with normal powder levels. Other loading mistakes are to use smokeless powder. Low levels of smokeless don't neccessarily create pressures any higher than black powder loads (many shotgun loads are under 18,000 psi)but the burn characteristics and pressure curves are different and can result in blown out nipples or even damaged or blown barrels.

In the grand scheme of things, testing will only give a limited sample of the quality of the rifles tested and will not neccessarily give a concrete picture of the million other rifles you didn't test. It probably is a waste of time since many nay sayers would still not be convinced and the data still would not account for the rare gun that actually does have a flaw. But then again, some of us with inquiring minds would still like to know the answer.

Have a great weekend.

dmurphy - I can agree to that and your testing. I personally wonder in the cases where a rifle barrel did rupture, what really happened? That's why it is such a shame we never really get the (as Paul Harvey says,) the rest of the story.

Its one thing for the person holding the broken rifle or with injuries to say, the rifle just blew up. Or if they say, well I goofed up, double charged it or short started it. I have always wondered how many times these incidents would be attributed to operator error.

Still to live on the side of caution is good advise when dealing with these rifles, simply because there always is that one chance something could happen and you're playing with explosives in many cases.