Unsafe Muzzloaders??
12-23-2007, 12:29 PM
#1
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicopee, Massachusetts
Posts: 385
Unsafe Muzzloaders??
I found this article more than a little unsettling as I have a CVA Renegade in .50 caliber that has the same proof markings as are in this article. This is a forum that I reallyI enjoy reading and I appreciate the expertise that is shared here and welcome your input.
My typical load is 85g of FFFg T7 powder pushing a PRB (.490 ball, .015 patch) or a 370g Tc bufflo bullet with a felt wad. This is a max load specified by CVA.
Is there a way to determine how much pressure is generated by my loads. I have looked for charts and info online and I can find nothing??
I know that I can tone down the powder charge and still get good groups. What would I have to go to to be under the "10,000 psi proof test"??
I also realize that it is an inexpensive BP rifle should I turn it into a "wall hanger", or should I not worry about it???
Unsafe Muzzleloaders?
By Randy Wakeman
It is a sad fact that many muzzle loaders produced today with Spanish barrels are marked with a pressure rating of 700 kp/cm² clearly stamped on the barrels. Relying on the ignorance of the muzzleloading community, aren't they are the most popular barrels sold in the USA today? The dirty secret is that the proof rating above is converted to psi by the following formula: kp/cm² x 14.22 = psi. Directly put, these barrels are factory marked to a maximum pressure of 9954 psi.
It is also well documented that so-called magnum loads, for example 150 grains of Pyrodex pushing a 260 grain saboted projectile can easily develop pressures exceeding 20,000 psi. Much more moderate charges of 100 grains of Pyrodex pushing the same 260 grain saboted bullet can easily develop pressures in the 13,000-14,000 range. In fact, the original Pyrodex pellet patent states this quite clearly, to name only one document.
Do these soft, low-pressure barrels have any business being fired with loads that create more than twice the stamped barrels pressure rating? Does this create an unnecessary risk both to the shooter, and to those around him? Will it likely take death or dismemberment and the resultant lawsuits for this to change?
Some may think my barrel safety questions inappropriate. Why would any manufacturer market borderline or untested product? Why would Enron steal money from its employees, why would Morton-Thiokol okay space shuttle O-ring systems their engineers had severe reservations about? Must it take a "60 Minutes" expose or loss of life to change or improve things?
Would anyone in their right mind reload a smokeless cartridge to twice the SAAMI specifications? Don't today's muzzleloading companies actively promote similar practices? Who is more stupid, the people that ignore pressure ratings on barrels or the companies that tell you it is somehow "okay" to fire charges in barrels that have never been individually tested to take such pressures?
Call me dense, but what smokeless powder firearms manufacturer directs you to set off any single load in any single gun at near proof pressure in any barrel under any circumstances, much less exceed it? Yet, some muzzleloading companies, apparently, do it all the time. Wouldn't a lot of people like to know what that might have to do with their gun, and what pressure their gun is really proofed for? Pressure limits are no secret in SAAMI / smokeless-land; in muzzleloading, they apparently are!
Hodgdon Powder Co. has long warned that either 100 grains Pyrodex pellets in .50 caliber or 100 grains Triple Seven pellets in .50 caliber is the MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOAD. When muzzleloading manufacturers deviate from the propellant maker's warnings, the burden is on them to prove its safety.
Are they dangerous? I don't know. Have they ever been shown to be safe with high-octane loads? How does a modern shooter know what his gun is capable of? Shouldn't modern muzzleloaders be proved safe prior to sale? Isn't this a reasonable question for any gun owner to ask?
I think it most certainly is.
Addendum:
There are two basic types of "proof." "Provisional" proof that applies generally to barrels in the early stages of manufacture, to prevent the maker from continuing work on defective tubes. Definitive proof applies to all arms and is effected "in the white" or in the finished state.
Inspection of many Traditions and CVA guns will clearly show the Spanish House of Eibar definitive black powder proof mark. Likely you will also see the ammunition inspection proof mark as well. A pressure stamping on the barrel, typically 700KP/CM2, will follow this. That pressure is expressed in "kiloponds / cm2." The equivalent in PSI is approx. 9957 PSI.
It is well documented that 150 grain Pyrodex pellet loads pushing 250 to 300 grain saboted projectiles can exceed 2.5 X that pressure, often upwards of 25,000 - 27,000 PSI. These are common loads, not "unusual" loads. Not just the original Pyrodex patent, but many readily available independent sources such as Lyman's.
There is no evidence to show that these barrels are tested stateside in any way, and there is evidence to show that they are not, as in imported muzzleloaders arriving here a day or so after clearing customs.
If there is further testing beyond what is clearly stamped on the barrels, it is unknown--and not reflected on the original substandard proof embossed on those barrels. Nor is there any supplementary proof to indicate that this is being done.
The simple question, posed again and again, is have those guns been proofed or tested to 20,000 PSI, 25,000 PSI, or 30,000 PSI? If so, who is doing the testing, and what guns are being tested? Why are there no marks to indicate a "tested" barrel from an untested one? What specific loads are they tested with? Are they tested with pellets at all? What metal is used in these soft, extruded barrels? How do I know that my gun has been tested beyond the internationally respected house of Eibar stamp?
What reasonable assurances can be provided to a customer so he knows his individual gun has been tested?
Somehow, a terse phone call from a manufacturer that says these proofs are "not really proof marks" or "just a manufacturing mark" or "minimum pressures" or "it is ALL hogwash-- just follow the manual" seems ill-prepared, clumsy, and insufficient.
Traditions and CVA / BPI have been aware of these questions for some time. They have been unable to answer or fully address them. (Unless you think that Traditions calling me "anti-Second Amendment" or CVA starting a "Randy, you are out of your mind" thread on their forum should be construed as an answer to these questions.)
I don't know what testing there is, with what, by who, and why the Ebro Proof marks remain far, far too low. The public response from Traditions and CVA / BPI has been non-existent. If they can address these issues fully, and put the matter to rest, why haven't they? Traditions and CVA/Winchester Muzzleloading/BPI have been asked again and again why a customer should consider their recommended loads as safe, when they defy the clear barrel proofs, C. I. P. maximum service pressures, and Hodgdon Powder's own maximum load warnings.
With a mess like this, it is clear that the Black Powder Industry desperately needs an overseeing body like SAMMI. Though SAMMI participation is voluntary, it has made the firearms industry a better place by setting the rules. Only those with self-destructive proclivities would knowingly break powder manufacturer's reloading rules. Yet, if you are a muzzleloader, you are a reloader.
The educated consumers can decide for themselves what chances they may or may not be taking. As to if they are tested or safe with "their loads," I cannot possibly say either way. I wish I could say that I believe these guns to be well-tested and proven safe.
The best I can offer remains "I don't know."
My typical load is 85g of FFFg T7 powder pushing a PRB (.490 ball, .015 patch) or a 370g Tc bufflo bullet with a felt wad. This is a max load specified by CVA.
Is there a way to determine how much pressure is generated by my loads. I have looked for charts and info online and I can find nothing??
I know that I can tone down the powder charge and still get good groups. What would I have to go to to be under the "10,000 psi proof test"??
I also realize that it is an inexpensive BP rifle should I turn it into a "wall hanger", or should I not worry about it???
Unsafe Muzzleloaders?
By Randy Wakeman
It is a sad fact that many muzzle loaders produced today with Spanish barrels are marked with a pressure rating of 700 kp/cm² clearly stamped on the barrels. Relying on the ignorance of the muzzleloading community, aren't they are the most popular barrels sold in the USA today? The dirty secret is that the proof rating above is converted to psi by the following formula: kp/cm² x 14.22 = psi. Directly put, these barrels are factory marked to a maximum pressure of 9954 psi.
It is also well documented that so-called magnum loads, for example 150 grains of Pyrodex pushing a 260 grain saboted projectile can easily develop pressures exceeding 20,000 psi. Much more moderate charges of 100 grains of Pyrodex pushing the same 260 grain saboted bullet can easily develop pressures in the 13,000-14,000 range. In fact, the original Pyrodex pellet patent states this quite clearly, to name only one document.
Do these soft, low-pressure barrels have any business being fired with loads that create more than twice the stamped barrels pressure rating? Does this create an unnecessary risk both to the shooter, and to those around him? Will it likely take death or dismemberment and the resultant lawsuits for this to change?
Some may think my barrel safety questions inappropriate. Why would any manufacturer market borderline or untested product? Why would Enron steal money from its employees, why would Morton-Thiokol okay space shuttle O-ring systems their engineers had severe reservations about? Must it take a "60 Minutes" expose or loss of life to change or improve things?
Would anyone in their right mind reload a smokeless cartridge to twice the SAAMI specifications? Don't today's muzzleloading companies actively promote similar practices? Who is more stupid, the people that ignore pressure ratings on barrels or the companies that tell you it is somehow "okay" to fire charges in barrels that have never been individually tested to take such pressures?
Call me dense, but what smokeless powder firearms manufacturer directs you to set off any single load in any single gun at near proof pressure in any barrel under any circumstances, much less exceed it? Yet, some muzzleloading companies, apparently, do it all the time. Wouldn't a lot of people like to know what that might have to do with their gun, and what pressure their gun is really proofed for? Pressure limits are no secret in SAAMI / smokeless-land; in muzzleloading, they apparently are!
Hodgdon Powder Co. has long warned that either 100 grains Pyrodex pellets in .50 caliber or 100 grains Triple Seven pellets in .50 caliber is the MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOAD. When muzzleloading manufacturers deviate from the propellant maker's warnings, the burden is on them to prove its safety.
Are they dangerous? I don't know. Have they ever been shown to be safe with high-octane loads? How does a modern shooter know what his gun is capable of? Shouldn't modern muzzleloaders be proved safe prior to sale? Isn't this a reasonable question for any gun owner to ask?
I think it most certainly is.
Addendum:
There are two basic types of "proof." "Provisional" proof that applies generally to barrels in the early stages of manufacture, to prevent the maker from continuing work on defective tubes. Definitive proof applies to all arms and is effected "in the white" or in the finished state.
Inspection of many Traditions and CVA guns will clearly show the Spanish House of Eibar definitive black powder proof mark. Likely you will also see the ammunition inspection proof mark as well. A pressure stamping on the barrel, typically 700KP/CM2, will follow this. That pressure is expressed in "kiloponds / cm2." The equivalent in PSI is approx. 9957 PSI.
It is well documented that 150 grain Pyrodex pellet loads pushing 250 to 300 grain saboted projectiles can exceed 2.5 X that pressure, often upwards of 25,000 - 27,000 PSI. These are common loads, not "unusual" loads. Not just the original Pyrodex patent, but many readily available independent sources such as Lyman's.
There is no evidence to show that these barrels are tested stateside in any way, and there is evidence to show that they are not, as in imported muzzleloaders arriving here a day or so after clearing customs.
If there is further testing beyond what is clearly stamped on the barrels, it is unknown--and not reflected on the original substandard proof embossed on those barrels. Nor is there any supplementary proof to indicate that this is being done.
The simple question, posed again and again, is have those guns been proofed or tested to 20,000 PSI, 25,000 PSI, or 30,000 PSI? If so, who is doing the testing, and what guns are being tested? Why are there no marks to indicate a "tested" barrel from an untested one? What specific loads are they tested with? Are they tested with pellets at all? What metal is used in these soft, extruded barrels? How do I know that my gun has been tested beyond the internationally respected house of Eibar stamp?
What reasonable assurances can be provided to a customer so he knows his individual gun has been tested?
Somehow, a terse phone call from a manufacturer that says these proofs are "not really proof marks" or "just a manufacturing mark" or "minimum pressures" or "it is ALL hogwash-- just follow the manual" seems ill-prepared, clumsy, and insufficient.
Traditions and CVA / BPI have been aware of these questions for some time. They have been unable to answer or fully address them. (Unless you think that Traditions calling me "anti-Second Amendment" or CVA starting a "Randy, you are out of your mind" thread on their forum should be construed as an answer to these questions.)
I don't know what testing there is, with what, by who, and why the Ebro Proof marks remain far, far too low. The public response from Traditions and CVA / BPI has been non-existent. If they can address these issues fully, and put the matter to rest, why haven't they? Traditions and CVA/Winchester Muzzleloading/BPI have been asked again and again why a customer should consider their recommended loads as safe, when they defy the clear barrel proofs, C. I. P. maximum service pressures, and Hodgdon Powder's own maximum load warnings.
With a mess like this, it is clear that the Black Powder Industry desperately needs an overseeing body like SAMMI. Though SAMMI participation is voluntary, it has made the firearms industry a better place by setting the rules. Only those with self-destructive proclivities would knowingly break powder manufacturer's reloading rules. Yet, if you are a muzzleloader, you are a reloader.
The educated consumers can decide for themselves what chances they may or may not be taking. As to if they are tested or safe with "their loads," I cannot possibly say either way. I wish I could say that I believe these guns to be well-tested and proven safe.
The best I can offer remains "I don't know."
12-23-2007, 12:57 PM
#2
Dominant Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 21,193
RE: Unsafe Muzzloaders??
I would guess the great majority of the forum members are aware of Randy Wakeman's articles reference unsafe muzzleloaders. To totally dismiss Mr. Wakeman's comments would be wrong. Everyone who shoots a muzzleloader needs to always remember that these rifles are technically dangerous. No matter who manufactured the barrel. A good example was the post just a short time ago, that showed someone who loaded smokeless powder into a T/C Renegade and blew that rifle up. So while we are not going to be loading smokeless powder in the majority of the rifles, we are loading a charge that has potential danger if done wrong.
The proof marks found on the BPI/CVA, New Frontier, Traditions, and some other rifles is the minimum proof testing of a barrel,that is required in Spain where the barrels are made, in order to be shipped out of country. Does that mean the barrel can take more pressure? Well we really do not know do we, as their is no conclusive official tests to indicate these facts. Would you consider the fact that thousands of people shoot these brand rifles with loads the far exceed the proof marks on the barrel as evidence that the rifle barrel can take more pressure? Judge for yourself.
Use common sense when you load your rifle. If the manufacturer says the maximum load is 100 grains, then do not exceed that. If the rifle worries you, then I guess you should sell it and purchase something that does not. There are ways to test these barrels of course, but none that we as general consumers would be able to do, because of limited funds, limited testing facilities, and just limited knowledge by many.
The proof marks found on the BPI/CVA, New Frontier, Traditions, and some other rifles is the minimum proof testing of a barrel,that is required in Spain where the barrels are made, in order to be shipped out of country. Does that mean the barrel can take more pressure? Well we really do not know do we, as their is no conclusive official tests to indicate these facts. Would you consider the fact that thousands of people shoot these brand rifles with loads the far exceed the proof marks on the barrel as evidence that the rifle barrel can take more pressure? Judge for yourself.
Use common sense when you load your rifle. If the manufacturer says the maximum load is 100 grains, then do not exceed that. If the rifle worries you, then I guess you should sell it and purchase something that does not. There are ways to test these barrels of course, but none that we as general consumers would be able to do, because of limited funds, limited testing facilities, and just limited knowledge by many.
12-23-2007, 01:28 PM
#3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,009
RE: Unsafe Muzzloaders??
ORIGINAL: cayugad
I would guess the great majority of the forum members are aware of Randy Wakeman's articles reference unsafe muzzleloaders. To totally dismiss Mr. Wakeman's comments would be wrong. Everyone who shoots a muzzleloader needs to always remember that these rifles are technically dangerous. No matter who manufactured the barrel. A good example was the post just a short time ago, that showed someone who loaded smokeless powder into a T/C Renegade and blew that rifle up. So while we are not going to be loading smokeless powder in the majority of the rifles, we are loading a charge that has potential danger if done wrong.
The proof marks found on the BPI/CVA, New Frontier, Traditions, and some other rifles is the minimum proof testing of a barrel,that is required in Spain where the barrels are made, in order to be shipped out of country. Does that mean the barrel can take more pressure? Well we really do not know do we, as their is no conclusive official tests to indicate these facts. Would you consider the fact that thousands of people shoot these brand rifles with loads the far exceed the proof marks on the barrel as evidence that the rifle barrel can take more pressure? Judge for yourself.
Use common sense when you load your rifle. If the manufacturer says the maximum load is 100 grains, then do not exceed that. If the rifle worries you, then I guess you should sell it and purchase something that does not. There are ways to test these barrels of course, but none that we as general consumers would be able to do, because of limited funds, limited testing facilities, and just limited knowledge by many.
I would guess the great majority of the forum members are aware of Randy Wakeman's articles reference unsafe muzzleloaders. To totally dismiss Mr. Wakeman's comments would be wrong. Everyone who shoots a muzzleloader needs to always remember that these rifles are technically dangerous. No matter who manufactured the barrel. A good example was the post just a short time ago, that showed someone who loaded smokeless powder into a T/C Renegade and blew that rifle up. So while we are not going to be loading smokeless powder in the majority of the rifles, we are loading a charge that has potential danger if done wrong.
The proof marks found on the BPI/CVA, New Frontier, Traditions, and some other rifles is the minimum proof testing of a barrel,that is required in Spain where the barrels are made, in order to be shipped out of country. Does that mean the barrel can take more pressure? Well we really do not know do we, as their is no conclusive official tests to indicate these facts. Would you consider the fact that thousands of people shoot these brand rifles with loads the far exceed the proof marks on the barrel as evidence that the rifle barrel can take more pressure? Judge for yourself.
Use common sense when you load your rifle. If the manufacturer says the maximum load is 100 grains, then do not exceed that. If the rifle worries you, then I guess you should sell it and purchase something that does not. There are ways to test these barrels of course, but none that we as general consumers would be able to do, because of limited funds, limited testing facilities, and just limited knowledge by many.
12-23-2007, 06:28 PM
#6
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicopee, Massachusetts
Posts: 385
RE: Unsafe Muzzloaders??
Thanks for the quick responses I have been shooting it for years with no problems but I ran across this article and was a littler concerned.
Heinz hit the nail on the head with me. I tend to be a little AR, well maybe more than a little, and I overtink things some times.
Frontier is right I mis-typed the rifle is a percussion CVA Mountian Stalker. I nknew that the recall was for the inlines and eventhough itis a cheap rifle itis a good shooter.
Thanks again to all for the quick replies.
Bob
ORIGINAL: heinz57
If the manufacturer says the maximum load is 100 grains, then do not exceed that.
[DON'T OVERSTUDY IT]
If the manufacturer says the maximum load is 100 grains, then do not exceed that.
[DON'T OVERSTUDY IT]
Frontier is right I mis-typed the rifle is a percussion CVA Mountian Stalker. I nknew that the recall was for the inlines and eventhough itis a cheap rifle itis a good shooter.
Thanks again to all for the quick replies.
Bob
12-23-2007, 11:23 PM
#8
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Unsafe Muzzloaders??
Seems like I read something on this many years ago. The article said Spanish barrel makers only use the one stamp that shows the minimum export proof test but actually proof test to double the customers' recommended max loads. But that was a long time ago, before the influx of in-lines. No idea whether it still holds true or not.
12-24-2007, 08:25 AM
#9
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,585
RE: Unsafe Muzzloaders??
A proof test is to establish a point at which you should stay below by 10% be safe. When they talk about minimum proof they are refering to legal requirements each individual gun should be tested to. If you check all the known info you will likely come to the conclusion that 75 gr of black or pyrodex will give you the pressure that those guns were tested for; I wonder how old that law is because thats about what they used for a load in the civil war days does any one happened to know? Actually I believe proof testing was developed to fined flaws in a gun barrel [like laminations for instance] there was some testing of custom made muzzleloadingguns done by some gunsmiths back when custom Kentucky long rifles and Hawkens were popular where they used twice the ball weight and two patched balls and used a gun vise in a protected area and set them off from a distance, I know when I had Marcus proof my Hawken he used 240 gr FF black and two patched balls then magna fluxed it [ that is an interesting process]. I guess I am a bit leary of the spanish barrels, the processes they are made by are prone to flaws and shooting twice the load that it is proofed too just does not seem real smart as it is supposed to work the other way around, and even though they are not in the same strength range as the knight or TC barrels they do make some fine barrels if you do not happen to get on with a flaw in the metal. Lee
12-24-2007, 08:39 AM
#10
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Unsafe Muzzloaders??
I'm sure technology has outstripped the old laws. Back when muskets, Hawkens and Kentucky rifles was about all there were, my era I guess you could say, nobody could have ever foreseen the urge to turn muzzleloaders into the equivalent of centerfire rifles, capable of 200+ yard shots. I don't have the slightest bit ofconcern about Spanish barrels, but then I'm a traditionalist and am sticking with the old stuff and the relatively mild loadings.