MO Archer

Lets just send my BPI barrel to Mythbusters to have it tested while I try to get this whole thing with my stock fixed.

alsaqr

"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."



My feelings exactly.i will not buy another CVA as i personally do not trust them. My two CVA guns are restricted as to loads. i did see a blown up CVA on thei internet some time ago. Think it was a Pro Hunter. Wish that i had saved it. This one had been examined by a metallurgist and found to be flawed.

cayugad

A Pro Hunter is a Thompson Center, unless someone else makes one. Now I did see a Knight that was blown up on the Internet. The person used smokeless powder to try and shoot. That's operator error. I do wonder how many of the BPI incidents could be attributed to that same operator error. And of course were shown a couple BPI rifles with barrels split like a banana peel.

Someone a while back said a statement to the effect, perhaps the reason the BPI rifles are more prone to being damaged is because of the people that purchase them. Meaning new to the sport shooters buy CVA. And that might be very true. I do not have statistic to back it up.

Face it, my first inline rifle was a CVA. I bought it because of price.I knew nothing other then it was a magnum and could shoot 150 grains of powder. It would tend to make sence that if inexperienced people entering the muzzleloader field select on price, and then load them improperly, there are bound to be more accidents with them, and new shooters are far more prone to making simple but sometimes costly mistakes. That statement has really sparked some thought with me that who ever made.

Frontier Gander.. did you expect the rifle to shoot that high?

Pglasgow

It takes a remarkable amount of pressure to split a rifle so evenly. Were it a flaw in the barrel (defect of construction or material), the rupure could only have occurred along the flaw as the type of pressures required could not be developed just becausethe flaw wouldfail before all other parts of the barrel and at lowerpressure.

But totally off the subject of CVA, T/C, knight, etc. I think alot of people never consider the relative safety of the load itself. The operating pressure of any allowed load is well below the bursting limits of all barrel designs. No one is riding the edgeof bursting pressure with an approved load when the rifle is loaded properly and discharges properly. Also, we all know that the operating pressure of unapproved loads of smokeless can burst a barrel. But if one is loading approved loads, the questionis, "will the barrel become obstructed? Creating, in essence, a pipe bomb"

If something happens to obstruct the barrel, allowing pressures to climb well above operating pressures of the load, then I think how much yield one has in the breech makes the difference between a bursting barrel and one that weathers the storm.Take for example. Say I load 70 grains 777 and a 500 BS conical. I'm gonna get somewhere in the neigborhood of 2100 ft-lbs at the muzzle. I can get similar muzzle energy by loading 100 grains of 777 and a 300 grain saboted projectile. Of interest these two loads will have peak pressures which are remarkably similar.

But which is the safer load? I would contend that the conical load is much safer even though its operating pressure is in the neighborhood of the other, perhaps even higher. I'm not particularly concerned about operating pressure, I will limit my inlines, even the sidekick which I no longer have, to no more than 2100 ft lbs at the muzzle. What concerns me, is what happens when and if I make an error in loading. By having 30 percent less powder in the breech, I think I allow myself more safety. This is my opinion and I haven't backed it up by discharging obstructedbarrels and such, but it makes perfect sense that an obstructed barrel with 100 grains of powder in the breechis more hazardous than one with 70 grains of powder, all other things equal.

As for newbies bearing the brunt of exploding barrels, the only evidence i can offer is the way I load today, which is much more concientious, involvinga regimenof safety checks to ensure the loading is correct and safe. I am more concerned and concientious as I grow older and learn more.I am of the opinion thatI am not the exceptionwhich is why I proferred the theory. I really do think that being experienced and being safe are related.

geoffh

I totally side with your opinions on this issue,Dave.How much did Ford save on the Firestone tire deal and I'm sure that all started as a rumor too.It's a shame that it's not a standard procedure for all manufacturers to pay for proof testing. Withthe amount of controversy surrounding this issue I'd think they'd have bitten that bullet by now with the hope of dispelling any rumors...as long as nobody's profit is affected I guess it would be business as usual for these companies.I have to wonder:how much profit is to be made in a 150 dollar gun? How much more would it cost for proof testing, really? I can't see, other than maximizing profit, why this isn't done across the board. On a high volume basis, how much more would it be to manufacture barrels of the same quality and strength as a magnum centerfire rifle? I'm not trying to sound pretentious but I believe if you can't afford to do something right, you can't afford to do it!
Who would spend 40 bucks on 1 snap on wrench when a 4 dollar cheapie would get the job done? A mechanic who gets tired of splitting knuckles to the bone, that's who.

frontier gander

I was a little suprised to find it that high but atleast i now know where its shooting @ 50.