Question about CVA BP
 

I was leaning toward buying a CVA Kodiak, Nickel barrel, until I read the enclosed article.

Is there any merit to the claims about blowing up problems, or does this person just not like CVA products?



Will My CVA Muzzleloader Blow Up?
By Randy Wakeman

This is a question asked repeatedly by Guns & Shooting Online readers; a question that many advertising-driven publications would not dare to talk about, much less investigate. It is certainly valid and obviously important to muzzleloading hunters who value their well-being, as well as the health of their family members, neighbors and friends. No one expects their wives to drive them to the emergency room a couple of hours after they buy a new CVA, but that is exactly what has happened.
After numerous CVA muzzleloader failures and numerous life-changing personal injuries, a representative sampling of current and recently failed CVA product has been catalogued and sent to several independent facilities for evaluation at great expense and time. I think that their findings will trouble you.
A report from the renowned H. P. White Laboratory, Inc., dated January 24, 2007, found when examining a failed recent production CVA rifle that, “The combination of relatively soft steel and tapered threads would have created a dangerous situation. One in which the blow-out of the breech plug was likely.” This report is straight from Lester W. Roane, H. P. White Laboratory.
Consumers need to know how muzzleloaders compare in materials used. The metal used in CVA guns is relatively soft and weak, too soft and weak to be used in modern inline muzzleloaders, as far as I am concerned. In the same report from H. P. White, the hardness of the steel in CVA rifles was measured. H. P. White reports, “Further, the breech plug [Rb 99] is harder than the barrel [Rb 85] on the Black exemplar. Both of these hardness readings are low for this application." In standard engineering handbooks, the Rockwell "B" scale readings are for Soft Steel and Non-Ferrous Alloys.
The H. P. White report continues, “A U. S. made Thompson Center Arms Renegade rifle [tested] a hardness reading on the barrel of Rc 18. This is more appropriate for the application.”
Dr. William J. Bruchey, of Port Deposit, MD, analyzed three CVA rifles memorialized in a report dated March 24, 2007. Dr. Bruchey concluded his lengthy report by stating, “Other anomalies, such as tapering of the breech hole, or manufacturing or engineering design defects are a more likely cause and should be pursued further.”
This information was been arrived at independently; it can and should be shared with the muzzleloading hunting community. This is only a small portion of the body of analysis collected; there are more victims and the costly process of independent analysis continues with each additional incident. If this article saves needless pain and suffering, needless 911 calls, it had to be written. It must be publicized.
The number of cases I have evaluated grows regularly. Naturally, the more representative data we have the more pointed my opinions become, based on the most credible evidence we can gather. We have seen that CVA barrels are disquietingly softer than reputable brands of muzzleloaders, including Knight and Thompson that handle many of the same loads that CVA owners are told that it is safe to use by their owners' manuals, including the “3 pellet magnum load.” We are seeing not only relatively soft materials, but also inferior or non-existent quality control.
It is not plausible that shooter error is a factor in several of these incidents. There is no evidence that CVA ever fired these rifles with so much as recommended loads, much less proof loads, before they were sold to the consumer. CVA rifle owners are misinformed by their instruction manuals (without actually mentioning any Maximum Average Pressure values, of course) that loads developing 25,000 PSI or more (actually as much as 49,000 PSI with crushed Triple Se7en pellets) are safe to fire in these rifles. Then, sadly, it is too late.
As you read above, quoted from the H. P. White Laboratories report, the CVA inline guns tested were made from inferior, softer and weaker metal than an old Thompson Center Renegade sidelock. So soft, in fact, that the CVA materials had to be measured on the wrong scale, the Rockwell “B” scale that is used for soft metals unsuitable for firearms.
Note that the Thompson Renegade is not a “magnum muzzleloader” and is not recommended for use with 150 grain charges. However, the old T/C Renegade is clearly built from stronger material than the current CVA inlines tested by H. P. White Laboratory. It should send chills up your spine when H. P. White finds CVA materials hardness as “low for the application” and a T/C sidelock’s materials as “more appropriate for the application.”
It is vital to consider the sources of information. Note, as published by H. P. White: “H.P. White Laboratory, Inc. produces no manufactured item and is in no manner affiliated with any other research organization, manufacturer, agency or end product user. We are, therefore, the only truly independent ballistics laboratory in the United States. This unique independence has enabled the Laboratory to maintain an objectivity difficult to duplicate elsewhere.”
"H. P. White is the most respected independent ballistics laboratory in the United States and has been for decades. H.P. White Laboratory, Inc. was founded in 1936 by Mr. Henry Packard White as a ballistic research and development facility. Since that time, we have become acknowledged as the leading privately owned laboratory engaged in small arms and ammunition research, development and testing."
It is my opinion that, based on the best evidence we have, a new “used as directed” CVA muzzleloader may severely injure or destroy body parts that you don’t care to have damaged or destroyed. Regrettably, far too many incidents have already occurred to demonstrate this point.

I personally can not say that his information is right or wrong because I just do not have the facts. There are a LOT of people shooting CVA rifles and are walking around with all their body parts. Is there a chance a rifle could fail??? Sure there is. And don't limit this to just a CVA. Any rifle can fail. Even the Savage Rifle can only be loaded to fail.

All I can say is I have own CVA rifles for years. I shoot them all the time. Now granted I do not load magnum loads. But I shoot accurate loads.

Only you can decide if the warnings you read are worth paying attention to. As I said, there are a lot of CVA shooters that do not pay attention to them, and they have great luck with the rifle. If what you read bothers you then purchase a different brand.

I have been a CVA shooter for over 20years and I never had a problem with any of my CVA's and I have owned a-lot of them and still own some of the older models. I own 2 CVA Kodiak's a CVA Kodiak and a CVA Kodiak Pro. Both of them have preformed flawlessley, no problems whatsoever. Yes some of the (OLD) CVA's did have problems and since CVA was bought out by BPI (Black Powder Industries) they have really upped there standards and quality of there MLers. And in My Opinion they have and continue to build a better and quality and affordable MLer.
For me I have stuck with and will continue to stick with CVA for there quality and most of all affordable MLers that again in My Opinion are as good or better then the rest on the market for the price.
When CVA came out with there ACCURA I was totally PLEASED with the price and all I got, I cant say enough about it. As for the Kodiak I would'nt hesitate to buy one and the person that posted the crap about them blowing up is *^&%#$@! YES it can happen with any MLer if you dont do what you are suppos-to, and Im sure they are against any CVA Mler. As long as you do what you are suppos-to and take care you will be fine, if your not farmiliar with MLers and dont follow instructions then you are asking for trouble with ANY MLer you buy.
This is my 2Cents and I will continue to buy CVA's and I have never felt that owning one or shooting one would harm me in any way.
(BP)

As cayugad stated I don't know if what RW wrote is actually fact or fiction. I have owned numerous CVA MLers in the past and have a .45 Optima now. But I personaly know of one Optima that had a barrel failure beneath the scope a year or so back that resulted in damage to the guys hearing.(He was lucky it could've been a lot worse as it tore the scope into three pieces.) I can't say if it was a bad barrel or a error on his part as I wasn't there when it happened. But i still shoot one so I'm not that concerned about the safety issue of CVA guns, Although I do pay more attention now loading it to make sure I'm not at error.

H.P. White is considered the best after market independent testing laboratory in the US. There is one thing I did notice they did not mention Bergara barrels which I believe would test on a level with TC and Knight. The rest is commonly known to gunsmiths that specialize in muzzle loaders so it is nothing new. I also suspect that they probably looked over a hundred or so and picked out the worst ones.
To give credit where it is due; I must say that there designing and the quality control on the top of the line guns has steadily improved over the past 10 years and if they kept it up for 10 or 15 more they might reach the quality consistency of TC of course the price will change accordingly.

I am in the process of buying my first ml and I ran across the same report. If you go to the CVA website you will find that they had a voulentary recall just after this report was published. Since this recall no futher issues have been reported that I am aware of. If CVA rifles were blowing up and causing personel injuries either the law suits, or the Feds would put them out of business.
I have checked out most of the inline ml on the market and all of them have there pros and cons. It all boils down to how the rifle fits you, areyou sure it will do what you want it to, and does it fall into your budget if the answer is yes go for it.

The only (Recall) Im aware of is for some 1995 and 1996 model CVA MLers, back befor BPI (Black Powder Industries) bought out CVA. Yes back then there were problems with CVA's, but since BPI has aquired CVA there MLers have came a-long way.
And now most CVA MLers have a (Bergara Barrel) and I have never heard of a Bergara Barrel blowing up, they are not made of SOFT Metal like the above repot says.
Randy Wakeman has never liked CVA and he just seems to never go away with his &^$%#@$!
If Im wrong about another CVA Recall please show it to me. And if it takes another 15 years for CVA to make there MLers as good as TC I must be really missing something, I thought they were almost there.:fighting0007:
(BP)

BP you are right about the recall, I am on your side on this.
I thought this was the same report that coensided with that early recall. To judge a product by 1) Not using hardness specs, 2) not giving numarical results 3) using at least a 30 pc random production sample is way less than ideal. In fact you can tell this individual is trying real hard to get the data to convince his readers to side with him. My question is what arms manufacture is he working for as a salesman?

I shoot a CVA and I sleep good at night- no worries here. They did have that recall in the mid-90's, but other than that, I haven't heard of any problems. Their quality has gotten much, much better than it used to be, so I would have no worries about buying a new CVA. If it was used, I would check to see if it was included in that recall. If not, just use reasonable powder charges- 100 grains or less. There's no real need to use more than 100 grains anyways.

Also, Randy Wakeman who wrote the article hates CVA and has been on a vendetta against them for years. I'm not saying that he's making things up, I'm just saying that he is very biased on this issue.

thank you...
 

for the replies, a CVA Kodiak Magnum is now sitting in my gunsafe.

Congrats Wildchild04

Let us know how the Kodiac Magnum shoots.

Congrat's and hope you'll be Pleased! The only thing I disliked about mine is the Trigger Mech. is connected to the Barrel and cannot be removed for cleaning the Barrel. Other than that it's a good shooter and mine was set up with a Magnum Charge of 150gr's (3) of Pyro Pellets,a 240gr XTP Mag and Win W209 Primers.
(BP)

A big problem is when new commers in the sport come in hearing that "magnum" hype and 3 pellets crap. They assume all guns can take it. Do not get me even started on the "Smokeless powder is blackpowder cause it's black in color", another major no no. We as responsible muzzleloaders must educate the new guys. It is alarming how stupid one can be, I saw a guy get a bullet stuck in which the ram rod stuck out by one-half. He said I guess I need to shoot it out in order to get it out, he was serious. He proceeded to put a cap on and get benched up. I yelled and hollared as loud as I could "hold on", the range crew came running and I explained what I observed. He did not shoot and after the range officer said I was in the right, the guy really broke down and explained he did not read the manual etc.. and this was his first ever gun. I helped him remove the bullet and we shot together for a while and I taught him some good practices, as it works well for me. He stated there really was no information available, I told him to look at gun sites as most have the manuals for download and provided him with sites I frequent such as this one. I remember when I was a new commer many years back and I was very cautious, read the manual many times and found this site before shooting for the first time. I own all Traditions muzzys, except the TK2000 for birds and love them all, yes the Trads are spanish but who the heck needs a 150 grain charge? I use 100 grains and they are all heck of shots. Bottom line is work from small loads and work up until the gun is accurate in groupings that are comfortable to you but never go over their recommendations. With all the new powders out there charge pressures vary now more then ever. If that powder is not in my manual it does not go in the gun no matter what you tell me. Most new guys say they want speed cleaning and do not want to spend a long time mopping the bore etc. I say if that's what you want then buy a centerfire. Any gun can blow, it just seems that when a muzzy goes, that all of them are bad and labeled as such. Let's do our part to educate any time we get the chance. Just my two cents.

The ONLY Reason I mentioned above about the (3-Pellet Magnum Charge) was to say the Kodiak Magnum handled this charge well, so if it handled this well then it would also handle a smaller charge probably even better.
The Kodiak Mag and Pro were made for Magnum charges, I would never shoot anything more out of a ML if it (Was Not Made for it)
I TOTALLY AGREE a Mag Charge is not the best charge for a ML because a lesser charge will shoot better, be more accurate and do the job just as well.
I NO longer shoot a Mag Charge, I switched to 110gr's of Pyro RS because I get much better groups and it kills just as many Deer.
(BP)

There are guns out there that do handle 3 pellets well, the prob lem is the communication process is broke. I have met many guys who insist all modern muzzleloaders handle 3 pellets. This is not the case at all. What one doesn't understand is that if you load a 400 grain bullet with 3 pellets the pressure is higher than if loaded with a 300 grain bullet with 3 pellets. That usually goes by the way side, and if it is short started we all know what happens. The other thing that must be considered is in order for all the 3 pellets to burn completely you would probably need a barrel that is 6 foot in length. I would rather save that 3rd pellet and its cost. I know 2 pellets burn out in my 28" barrels just fine.

cva is as safe as any other muzzleloader out there. morons behind guns is the only dangerous part.

As a person who has done a quite a bit of pressure testing there is one thing I would like to point out. If a gun is limited to 100 or a 10 or 120 gr of loose powder then you are really pushing beyond that limit by shooting 150 gr of pellets.
Do you really need 150 gr of anything? The honest answer is certainly NOT; the very little you gain if any is matched by a large increase in pressure and recoil.
And an other point is if your gun is limited to 100 or there abouts it is questionable and risky to use 777 or Blackhorn with out reducing the load by about 20 percent especially with bullets over 300 gr.
Depending on barrel length ignition and type of powder used the peak of efficiency will be between 80 and 120 gr usually for 1-28 twist 28 inch barrels it is between 95 and 115. If you would like to figure this your self for your particular gun, bullet, powder combination the simple way of doing it is to Chronograph the loads on the powder ladder for at least 2 above and 2 below your load with 10 gr separation then figure the feet per second per grain for each load the most feet per second per grain is the most efficient load. This will not be the fastest load as you will gain in velocity as you increase the load up to the point where some of the powder does not burn while the bullet is in the barrel once you reach this point all that increases is the recoil.
Progressive powder is a different principle so this does not apply to Blackhorn or smokeless, if you increase the load with progressive powder the added pressure makes it burn faster so you can burn more powder there for a person must be doubly careful not to double charge or otherwise over load with them. Lee