Thank you for this thread
 

Grouse 45:

I was not aware of this possible issue with the plunger style inlines. The idea of moving to a #11 cap is something I will look into.

While I understand that some do not like this thread, it has been helpful to me.

Thanks man, if it helps just one i'm happy. My findings so far are pretty simple. I feel you can use a 209 primer if you don't exceed 100grns by volume of powder and a 250grn bullet.

The 300grn bullets and heavier are creating in consistent results. Over the next couple weeks i hope to figure out a safe powder range and heavy bullet for a 209 primer in a plunger gun.

Though i have found and advantage with Knights using the red plastic jacket. The primer does not come apart and the jacket comes out pretty safely so far. I'm hoping to video my finding this month if possible.

The last thought I intend to inject into this thread is simply this. On the barrel of almost all the muzzle-loaders their manufactures stamp an instruction that the shooter should read the guns manual before using it. In none of the half dozen I have downloaded and have on file do the manufactures advocate the use of more than 100 grains of granular powder. In fact they all say that the most accurate loads for their guns are between 70 and 90 grains. They are somewhat vague as to projectile weight but a phone call to their customer service departments easily clarifies their position.

In speaking with several of the manufacturer’s spokespeople I have been assured that the manuals were formulated after extensive testing and have been fully vetted by their legal departments for the accuracy of their content.

I am fully cognoscente of the fact that it is necessary for all of us to work up loads for our guns but I for one would never do so outside of the guidelines set forth in the guns manual. If I ever felt compelled to do so I would first contact the guns maker for advise before doing anything. A word of warning. If one were to intentionally exceeds the recommended load for their gun and they or anyone else were to sustain an injury as the result of doing so I doubt that they have an avenue of legal recourse open to them.

I can only assume that the author of this thread believes that most or us other members of this forum either do not possess the manuals for our guns or are incapable of comprehending their content. He seems to feel that we are somewhat obligated to seek guidance from him. He also advocates that gun manufactures take steps that they all have done for years.

P.S. If anyone possesses a plunger type in-line that they feel would be dangerous to shoot in its present configuration please send it to me. I know that I would have no problem finding a good home for it.

Thanks for your opinions.

i still see internet postings of guys firing muzzleloaders without eye protection and without hearing protection too. A good pair of safety glasses will protect ones eyes from any piece of primer that gets ejected from a muzzleloader under some worse case scenario.

Just came from another website where folks are having a cat fight about the requirement to wear safety glasses and hearing protection on certain firing ranges.

Yep, folks have a right not to wear safety glasses while shooting. They also have the right to complain after losing an eye.

I always were hearing protection. My personal eye glasses I feel would stop a projectile like a piece of primer. But an interesting point about safety concerns. Thanks Falcon. We can never over look anything that "might" happen.

T/C shows 150grns by volume the max load of ffg powder with a 470grain Maxi hunter in a Black Diamond with a 209 primer. Does anyone have CVA'S max loads in plunger guns?

Go to CVA's website and download the manual for their guns like an intelegent person would do and you will find it to be 100 grains.

Thanks for the information.

You could also give them a call as their customer service people have ready access to information on every gun they ever marketed. So do the people at Traditions, Lyman, T/C and Knight. Do your own homework.

Looks like the Buckhorn is a magnum ML and can use 150grns of powder in pellet form with powerbelt bullets.

One thing i like about CVA is they say to wear shatterproof glasses because of fragmented caps. I would think the 209 primer would be worse but we will see. They already recognize the problem which is good.

I always do, and thanks for your help.

I think what happened was that when the "magnum craze" seemed to take over in the muzzleloader world people didn't want to buy a gun that couldn't handle the large loads. I know that Knight told me over the phone that my Bighorn could handle 150 grain loads of Triple 7 powder.
I don't think I ever shot more than 100 grains of powder in any of these rifles. I know I have never used anything other than a #11 cap or a musket cap on occasion. At the time I read as much as I could find to read about shooting and most people (that I had the impression that they knew what they were talking about) shot between 70 and 90 grains of powder.
I do shoot some heavy conicals. I don't try to push them too fast.
With what I shot I never felt unsafe.
For what its worth,
Art

You know Art I really think you are correct. And I must say that i am a violater... I consistently shoot 110-120 grains of T7-3f in both my Big Horn and my MK-85 with 250 and 300 grain bullets. It did not take me long to figure out that shooting caps is the way to go because of the extra safety configurations built into the cap hammer.

I think one thing that gave me a head start on this was my Remington - I really new what to expect on an open breech gun and it was easy to make the decision to shoot caps instead of a bare 209.

WCW... I do not know but back in the old days when i shot CVA products the 100 grain, loose rule, was always in effect with a 150 grains of pellet powder being OK with bullets up to 300 grains in weight.

If you were to follow this rule with a 100 grain load of T7 and a 300 grain bullet - it would be very possible to push a 209 primer out of the breech plug and possibly launch it or parts of it... other than the breech plugs of those days were constructed with oversized vent holes to help reduce pressure to keep the primer in. CVA and most every other manufacture knew bare 209's were a possible concern. I do not actually agree with Grouse's word "dangerous' but then again in the hands of a novice (beginning) shooter - you never really know!!! So maybe he might be right! Experiance is a great teacher.

So maybe??? for some this thread might have put a flicker in the light bulb.

If you call the people at the gun companies and press them hard enough they will admit that they advertize and put information in their manuals that their guns can handle 150 grains of granular they will admit that it is a marketing gimmick aimed at the bigger is better crowd. They all contend that it is safe but recommend that you should never exceed 100 grains by volume. My man at Hodgdon told me that to get an complete burn of 150 grains of powder you would need a barrel at least 40 inches long. He contends that even with 100 grains of loose or pellets you can't get complete burn in any barrel shorter than 30 inches. Out of curiosity I had a friend, a real camera nut, take pictures of me firing my CVA Wolf, 24 inch barrel, loaded with 100 grains in the dark. It shocked the hell out all of us that there was around eleven inches of flame coming out of the barrel. Using pellets the flame was still around six inches. The guy from Hodgdon says that all this magnum crap is straight up B.S and a waste of powder and money. His policy is to never recommend using more than 100 grains of any of their products in a 50 caliber gun.

I would say that I think you are pretty much incorrect in most of this information in this post amd I think others can and will confirm. If you get a chronograph out and measure the velocities it will tell you exactly when you hit the rule of diminishing returns...



Look at this chart and you will see a velocity increase with greater than 100 grains... CVA has even acknowledge that in their recent manuals... CVA and Traditions of yesterday did say exactly what you are indicating but now that they are producing rifles with better quality barrels thet also have changed their thoughts.

But, I would agree that 100 grains in most instances is probably all you would need...

The powder companies do have to protect their liability and recommend powder loads thatr are safe for ALL rifles - good ones and not so good ones. Manufacturers then test their own guns and set safe load data for their guns.

This is the load data set for Knight Rifles. This load data is good for all black powders and approved black powder substutues including BH-209..

The operative question when determining whether a particular model is dangerous is to not only test whether the primer particles are leaving the receiver area or not, but whether those particles could potentially cause injury.
I personally try not to ever fire a muzzle loader without wearing eye protection even when hunting.
If eye protection is what is required then that is clearly an important warning for folks to be aware of.
If it's discovered that one particular model allows particles to actually cause injury, then I don't think that automatically means that all plunger rifles are unsafe across the board. They all have slightly different designs that may affect the degree of potential injury such as the size of the receiver opening, the strength of the plunger spring, the size of the flash channel, how tight the primer hole is, whether having a scope mounted blocks injury causing particles etc...ad nauseum.
I have several plunger guns including a Marlin .54, a Lyman Cougar .54, a Traditions 12 ga. shotgun which all utilize #11 nipples and I recently bought an older unfired Knight Bighorn .50 with a triple ignition system.
I have a TC weather cover to enclose the action that secures with Velcro to help keep the scope finish from getting damaged by the hot gases and which I think would help to contain any flying particles.
If that wasn't used then I think that the scope and rings might block any particles if the spring weren't strong enough to keep the plunger closed.
The #11 nipple contains many of the gases too. The Bighorn uses the full plastic jackets but there's the optional breech plug for using bare 209's, and Traditions also offers a similar conversion breech plug.
I've never found a need to use 209's but then I generally don't load with over 100 grains of powder. 100 grains of ffg is equal to about 90 fffg, and installing the conversion breech plug doesn't increase the recommended powder capacity of the rifle, even though the larger bore sizes might allow them a higher rating.
And loose 777 powder is suppose to be reduced by 15% according to Hodgdon anyway, so if these were .50's they would only be rated for 85 grains of 777 and not 100 grains of loose 777.
I realize that the newer magnum plunger version by Traditions is rated for 150 grains of pellets, and I don't know whether that's dangerous enough to cause injury or not. Or if it did what is the practical prevention for it without affecting performance.
Wearing safety glasses, or using a weather cover, or having a scope mounted over the top of the open receiver, or having a better made and improved breech plug, or a stronger plunger spring? I don't know.
But let's not condemn across the board without evidence for each and every individual plunger gun without some kind of proof that an injury can actually be possible.
To warn about a model based on facts is good. To warn about all plunger models based on conjecture could be worthy if it's based on bona fide evidence.
But simply flying particles by themselves are not necessarily evidence of a potentially serious degree of injury any more than any other muzzle loaders.
The warning needs to be commensurate to the degree of injury possible verses all other muzzle loaders.
It was Cayugad who was hit with a flying piece of musket cap flange in the forehead not too long ago when shooting one of his TC sidelocks. He posted a photo of the blood and flange. The angle of the hammer may have prevented it from being able to strike his eye directly at all, I'm not sure.
But possbily worse damage to the eye can be done by a scope not having enough eye relief, or if it's mounted or held to close to the eye during firing.
That doesn't necessarily mean that all scopes are dangerous when mounted on any and every muzzle loader. But we all know the potential for receiving scope eye by mounting a scope on any recoiling rifle.
And we don't categorize all sidelocks as dangerous as a result of one cut from a musket cap flange. And how many people have complained about CCI discontinuing their 6 flange caps in favor or only producing their 4 flange reenactor musket caps?
CCI thought it's important enough to discontinue the use of 6 flange caps over the potential, yet some reenactors still prefer the 6 flange type.
Sure, muzzle loading has a lot potential for injury in many different ways. For example, using real black powder is more dangerous to load than substitute powders are because it has a lower ignition temperature which can lead to the increased potential for cook offs. But we generally don't announce it far and wide that loading with real black powder should be avoided in favor of substitute powders because that would discourage flintlock shooting as being more inherently dangerous. That would be offensive to all of the people who load with black powder and do so safely.
Flintlocks can spew a lot of particles too from the flint, the frizzen, the pan and the vent.
So let's keep everything in perspective and not over hype it and make a mountain out of a mole hill.
This could be something that folks should be aware of so that they can deal with it accordingly.
But if safety glasses are the practical solution, then wearing them should already be a part of everyone's muzzle loading safety regimen.
If safety glasses aren't enough then how much worse could the injury be?
Are these particles any worse than having a cook off during loading and not knowing enough to keep one's head away from being bent over the muzzle during ramming?
Of course these small particles won't blow a person's head off.
Since cook offs during ramming are deadly & dangerous too, should we proclaim far and wide that all muzzle loading is deadly & dangerous?
Well folks it can be deadly & dangerous.
But we try to educate folks about how to deal with the dangers and put the odds in perspective.
In real terms, what are the odds of being injured, what could the nature of the injuries be and what are the practical solutions?
To never load over a certain amount of powder, to always wear safety glasses, to find ways to block the particles, to identify the particular guns that can be proven to actually cause injury or what?
All of the guns are capable of causing injury if the shooter doesn't practice safe methods.
But in order to blame some guns as being inherently more dangerous needs to be put into
perspective verses all of the other BP guns and all of the other BP hazards of which there are a multitude.
It can be easily shown how particles coming from a flintlock can injure people's eyes too if they don't wear safety glasses. And I suspect that the same kind of prevention is what's required to deal with any potential particles coming from these magnum 209 plunger guns too.
So it makes sense to continue to inform people about how all of the basic safety rules of muzzle loading
are important for all folks to follow at all times when they are participating in the sport.

Sabotloader, WCW is a perfect reason why it's so important to do testing and supply people with information that they can try on there own if they want. Hodgon and CVA gave him false information. but everyone has opinions and opinions is all they are.

Grouse45

So now you profess to know more than the professionals. The people at CVA and Hodgdon are well aware of the legal ramifications of disseminating false or misleading information and will avoid doing so at all costs.. I guarantee that any information they provided me is backed up by documentation of extensive tests they have preformed that substantiate what they say. I have toured Hodgdon's test facility and their people have forgot more about guns, bullets and powder than you, I or most of the members of this forum collectivly will ever know. In that firearms are inherently dangerous I wholeheartedly believe that all testing should be done by those who have the knowledge and equipment do do so. Not egotistical amateurs who believe that they are always right and those who disagree with them are dead wrong.

I am not sure that Hodgdon or CVA's information was 'false' at the time.

Hodgdon still maintains that 100 grains of loose T7 is the max that the 'company' will recommend in shotting a muzzleloader. Personally i think ths might be a fair stance by Hodgdon. This recommendation provides them a safety margin considering all of the different ML out there that one find and shoot, including older and newer models. Plus it takes in account all the different weights of projectiles one might put down the bore. Western covers themselves the same way maintaining 120 grains as their max, and they are even being a little more generous that Hodgdon's, but they can be somewhat because BH requires a 209 ignition source unless you duplex.

CVA's information on the other probably was quite responsible at the time they were using the 100-300 recommendations. Back in the early days of the orginal CVA followed by the BPI-CVA models barrels and breech plugs were not of the quality that are using today, so their 100 grain max may well have been warranted...

Even their (CVA) expression and thought - that after 100 grains anything else might be wasted could have been accurate with some of the poorer quality black powders and ignition systems of the time.

I think most are aware of the 'law of diminishing returns' shooting black powder or black powder subs from a ML. One of the easiet methods to measure this effect is by shooting through a chrono graph.

If you look at the chart i posted, i think you can see that i reached that point 'diminishing return' shooting 130 grains of T7, the velocity at 130 consistenty was lower than 120 grains. Yet if you look at BH velocity continued to climb between 120 and 130 a testiment to the 'progressive burning' nature of BH

WCW You are aware that manufactures also do their own independant testing of their equipment and post their own load recommendations for a given firearm.

These recommendations are done in test facilties for the companies and/or by independent testers approved by the companines. And, as you say these companies are surely and certainly not going to post information that might end with them in court some place.

Certainly if you follow Hodgdon's recommendations or the Manufactures recommendations you and everyone else that follows those recommendations are most certainly somewhat safe, but no matter there is always a possibility of the opposite everytime you pull the trigger on ANY weapon.

. Again, your opinions are just opinions.

Grouse45

It is about time you came up with a new line. Anytime anyone posts a factual statement that you don't like you dismiss it as only the other parties opinion. I find it hard to believe that you don't know the difference between the two.

Your wrong again, I listen to everyone. I then take the information and find out what's best for me. Then I form an opinion and post it. But again, just an opinion.

Grouse45

I realize that your postings are nothing more than your own opinion but I find fault with your inability to provide empirical documentation or steer one toward it , as Sabotloader does, to support your position. I also note that you are very reluctant to enter into a logical debate on the issues you raise. You are exceptionally pedantic in your postings. You should realize that what others have to say is often correct. If proven wrong by supportable fact I am the first one to admit it. I am in the habit of applying logic to anything I read and hopefully use the same standard in what I say.

This is my last post on this one as I have already said too much and hurt my reputation in the process, so it goes. I would say it the same way in person.
I just find it odd that someone who promotes exceeding manufacturer's guidelines in powder volumes is all of a sudden concerned about people shooting a firearm in a manner in which they are following what the manufacturer recommends. Every gun we shoot and any thing we do in this world has limitations. The limitations on plunger style inlines are very real and should be followed just as they should be followed for bolt style inlines. Saying it is ok to break the rules with one type but not another is just not right. I work with dangerous equipment every day. The dangers in muzzleloading pale in comparison but that does not prevent me from being safe with them to the best of my ability.
In this thread, it is my sincere belief that the safety factor was only brought up because plunger type inlines are not the rifle of choice for this poster and he feels the need to convince others to feel the same way. This is illustrated in the original post where he says a plunger types inline used with #11 cap is great for those that "need" it. Well, I don't "need" it but I like them anyway.
To each their own, but I feel we would all get along better without the arrogant attitude that "my way is best", which implies the rest of us are just a little bit beneath the original poster.
Respectfully, Art

Art:

Well said. You have my utmost gratitude for posting your message publicly. By the number of private messages I have received expressing the same sentiment quite a few agree with you. I can only surmise that those who have contacted me just do not want to call attention to themselves by making statements on a open forum.

Spoken like the true gentleman and i agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. Ray

Alot of testing to do yet. A couple days at the range doesn't validate anything. Alot of work to do yet. For most that's enough but not me.

Flounder33, I agree you should quit posting. You shoot from the hip and make statements that are not true. An example is I shoot loads that are not reccomended by the manufacture? Knight rifles clearly states what is approved in there guns. I also have seen the pressure trace tests from Western powders on BH209. They also have knight barrels for testing as we speak. As far as what gun I'm pushing, this thread is about all manufactures and safety.

There is no end to this guy. You can't insult him or draw him into a one on one logical debate on points he or anyone else have raised. It seems to me that his soul intent is create discord among members of these forums and degrade anyone who questions the position he has taken. As a psychologist, with over 45 years of experience, I have sent him a private message in an effort to get him to understand what he is doing. It most likely was a futile effort.

He won't see the light, since he's blinded by his own ego!

What you don't understand is it takes time. The only fact I have is metal is flying and people are getting cut. No reason for me to argue about any of it. Wasting way to much time answering these posts. I just saw your PM and was reading it.

Just my thoughts... but you as a trained professional, why would you even try to insult or bait or even take part in this type of direct conflict. Are you trying to create a challenge that might errupt in a back flash??? And then why would you do it in a public forum? Unless maybe that was the goal all along...

Following a flash of information from a small group of people might not be the best thing in the world to do in the first place...

But remember I really un-trained in this area you are the professional.

How many times have we heard that, talk about trying to be the intellectual superior. What you retired now and have nothing better to do? The last thing needed is a head shrink psychoanalyzing every post. Gimmee a break. And if it was a private pm why make sure everyone knowsAbout it ? I think-the shrink needs a shrink. Psychoanalyze this :D

Weasels Rule! X2

If you can please explain what you have against mental health professionals. Was there an incident in your life that caused it? I highly suspect that there was. Either that or you are jealous of people you use their educations to make a living. If you knew anything about psychologists you would know that we all regularly seek help from another therapist. I see mine on a monthly basis even though I am semiretired. I don't think that my intellect is better than anyone else it is just that I did the hard work to get the education I needed to practice in the field of my choice.

This has to be the lamest cop out I have ever heard. Over the years I thought I had heard every excuse for a person to avoid facing an issue but your's is all new to me and really takes the cake.

That is kinda what I thought...

WEASEL should rule more often...

But the small flash mob would not like it....