Plunger style Inlines
09-10-2011, 02:15 PM
#31
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Saxonburg Pa
Posts: 3,925
Sorry, when applying it to guns, your logic is flawed. 
This is not considering some behavioral aspect of gun that cannot be observed in all of a common design.
The claim of a few is that the inherent design of plunger guns makes them suspect when using 209 primers (some only with BH209). This is not based solely on personal experience but also on how the guns were designed. Seems like a reasonable topic of discussion.
I was not going to get involved since I don't have a dog in this fight, but I find it somewhat amusing/disturbing that the initial post can be taken so personally by a few. Plunger guns were/are made by all the major brands so it's not a "mine's best, yours sux" issue.
This is not considering some behavioral aspect of gun that cannot be observed in all of a common design.The claim of a few is that the inherent design of plunger guns makes them suspect when using 209 primers (some only with BH209). This is not based solely on personal experience but also on how the guns were designed. Seems like a reasonable topic of discussion.
I was not going to get involved since I don't have a dog in this fight, but I find it somewhat amusing/disturbing that the initial post can be taken so personally by a few. Plunger guns were/are made by all the major brands so it's not a "mine's best, yours sux" issue.
You are exactly right.
I would like to see all manufactures note the possibilities of what can happen. I would also like to see all the Muzzleloader manufactures lower the maximum load in these guns to 100grns by volume and 250grn bullets. I should note when using a 209 primer that is.
09-10-2011, 02:23 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's a relevant topic for me because I own plunger guns and I got my kids 209 plunger guns for their birthday. Safety isn't something to take lightly. Just ask my one eyed brother who has had a glass eye for over 30 years caused by a piece of hammer on a gun blowing his eye out. Not a pretty sight when they sewed one eyelid back on in 3 pieces . he is lucky to see out of his one eye.
09-10-2011, 07:42 PM
#34
Spike
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: MN
Posts: 72
Grouse45
If you cared to do your homework rather than pontificating you would find that most of the gun manufactures advise against using more than 100 grains of loose powder, of any kind, in their 50 caliber guns and have for years. I can only speak to what I have been told by quality control people at CVA and Traditions. I have never had reason to contact Knight or any of the others. CVA states categorically in their manuals to never use more than 100 grains of granular powder , no sabots over 300 or conicals over 400 grains in any of the guns they have marketed. .The chief of quality control at Traditions stated that although their marketing people insist on stating otherwise their bottom line is not to exceed 100 grains. Hodgdon publicly advises never to use more than 100 grains of any of their products, pellets or granular, in any 50 caliber gun no matter who manufactured it.
The fact that West Law, the largest legal data base in the world, has not recorded any litigation concerning a person being injured by a fragmented primer should tell even you that the horse you are beating to death is basically a non issue.
I have taken the time to review close to 100 postings on this forum and seldom have I seen anyone describing using more than 100 grains of powder in speaking of the loads they use in the field or on the range. This says quite a bit to me and should say something to you. You seem to be unaware of the fact members of this forum are intelligent beings who are well aware of the inherit dangers involved in using firearms.
As a psychologist, of some repute, who has been licensed to practice for over 45 years I have noted with interest that rather than attempting to repudiate statements that are opposite to your own conjecture you use the same rhetoric, in different phraseology, rather than proven empirical fact to sustain the position you have taken. Professionally I can only surmise that you made your original posting and have attempted to validate it as a form of self-edification and to question the intelligence of the other members. Unfortunately you have failed at both in my estimation.
P.S. Self proclaimed experts are an anathema to an intelligent mind.
If you cared to do your homework rather than pontificating you would find that most of the gun manufactures advise against using more than 100 grains of loose powder, of any kind, in their 50 caliber guns and have for years. I can only speak to what I have been told by quality control people at CVA and Traditions. I have never had reason to contact Knight or any of the others. CVA states categorically in their manuals to never use more than 100 grains of granular powder , no sabots over 300 or conicals over 400 grains in any of the guns they have marketed. .The chief of quality control at Traditions stated that although their marketing people insist on stating otherwise their bottom line is not to exceed 100 grains. Hodgdon publicly advises never to use more than 100 grains of any of their products, pellets or granular, in any 50 caliber gun no matter who manufactured it.
The fact that West Law, the largest legal data base in the world, has not recorded any litigation concerning a person being injured by a fragmented primer should tell even you that the horse you are beating to death is basically a non issue.
I have taken the time to review close to 100 postings on this forum and seldom have I seen anyone describing using more than 100 grains of powder in speaking of the loads they use in the field or on the range. This says quite a bit to me and should say something to you. You seem to be unaware of the fact members of this forum are intelligent beings who are well aware of the inherit dangers involved in using firearms.
As a psychologist, of some repute, who has been licensed to practice for over 45 years I have noted with interest that rather than attempting to repudiate statements that are opposite to your own conjecture you use the same rhetoric, in different phraseology, rather than proven empirical fact to sustain the position you have taken. Professionally I can only surmise that you made your original posting and have attempted to validate it as a form of self-edification and to question the intelligence of the other members. Unfortunately you have failed at both in my estimation.
P.S. Self proclaimed experts are an anathema to an intelligent mind.
09-10-2011, 08:00 PM
#35
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Saxonburg Pa
Posts: 3,925
Grouse45
If you cared to do your homework rather than pontificating you would find that most of the gun manufactures advise against using more than 100 grains of loose powder, of any kind, in their 50 caliber guns and have for years. I can only speak to what I have been told by quality control people at CVA and Traditions. I have never had reason to contact Knight or any of the others. CVA states categorically in their manuals to never use more than 100 grains of granular powder , no sabots over 300 or conicals over 400 grains in any of the guns they have marketed. .The chief of quality control at Traditions stated that although their marketing people insist on stating otherwise their bottom line is not to exceed 100 grains. Hodgdon publicly advises never to use more than 100 grains of any of their products, pellets or granular, in any 50 caliber gun no matter who manufactured it.
The fact that West Law, the largest legal data base in the world, has not recorded any litigation concerning a person being injured by a fragmented primer should tell even you that the horse you are beating to death is basically a non issue.
I have taken the time to review close to 100 postings on this forum and seldom have I seen anyone describing using more than 100 grains of powder in speaking of the loads they use in the field or on the range. This says quite a bit to me and should say something to you. You seem to be unaware of the fact members of this forum are intelligent beings who are well aware of the inherit dangers involved in using firearms.
As a psychologist, of some repute, who has been licensed to practice for over 45 years I have noted with interest that rather than attempting to repudiate statements that are opposite to your own conjecture you use the same rhetoric, in different phraseology, rather than proven empirical fact to sustain the position you have taken. Professionally I can only surmise that you made your original posting and have attempted to validate it as a form of self-edification and to question the intelligence of the other members. Unfortunately you have failed at both in my estimation.
P.S. Self proclaimed experts are an anathema to an intelligent mind.
If you cared to do your homework rather than pontificating you would find that most of the gun manufactures advise against using more than 100 grains of loose powder, of any kind, in their 50 caliber guns and have for years. I can only speak to what I have been told by quality control people at CVA and Traditions. I have never had reason to contact Knight or any of the others. CVA states categorically in their manuals to never use more than 100 grains of granular powder , no sabots over 300 or conicals over 400 grains in any of the guns they have marketed. .The chief of quality control at Traditions stated that although their marketing people insist on stating otherwise their bottom line is not to exceed 100 grains. Hodgdon publicly advises never to use more than 100 grains of any of their products, pellets or granular, in any 50 caliber gun no matter who manufactured it.
The fact that West Law, the largest legal data base in the world, has not recorded any litigation concerning a person being injured by a fragmented primer should tell even you that the horse you are beating to death is basically a non issue.
I have taken the time to review close to 100 postings on this forum and seldom have I seen anyone describing using more than 100 grains of powder in speaking of the loads they use in the field or on the range. This says quite a bit to me and should say something to you. You seem to be unaware of the fact members of this forum are intelligent beings who are well aware of the inherit dangers involved in using firearms.
As a psychologist, of some repute, who has been licensed to practice for over 45 years I have noted with interest that rather than attempting to repudiate statements that are opposite to your own conjecture you use the same rhetoric, in different phraseology, rather than proven empirical fact to sustain the position you have taken. Professionally I can only surmise that you made your original posting and have attempted to validate it as a form of self-edification and to question the intelligence of the other members. Unfortunately you have failed at both in my estimation.
P.S. Self proclaimed experts are an anathema to an intelligent mind.
Your logic is very different, but that's your opinion and you have a right to an opinion.
09-10-2011, 08:29 PM
#37
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Saxonburg Pa
Posts: 3,925
a·nath·e·ma
[uh-nath-uh-muh]
Show IPA noun, plural -mas. 1. a person or thing detested or loathed: That subject is anathema to him.
2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
3. a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
4. any imprecation of divine punishment.
5. a curse; execration.
09-10-2011, 09:01 PM
#38
Spike
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: MN
Posts: 72
Grouse45
Once again you have coped out and failed to confront issues brought forward. I can only assume that you don't fully understand the points I have made and totally disregard statements that were intentional formulated to elicit an intelligent response on your part. The essence of any Socratic debate is to have those enjoining in them to present logical statements for discussion. So far you have failed to do so with me or anyone else on this thread. Stated facts are in no way opinions and if you believe so you should do some self examination to ascertain your grasp on reality. Please do us all the favor of thinking things through before posting illogical statements. Some of us abhor the ramblings of self proclaimed experts on any subject.
Once again you have coped out and failed to confront issues brought forward. I can only assume that you don't fully understand the points I have made and totally disregard statements that were intentional formulated to elicit an intelligent response on your part. The essence of any Socratic debate is to have those enjoining in them to present logical statements for discussion. So far you have failed to do so with me or anyone else on this thread. Stated facts are in no way opinions and if you believe so you should do some self examination to ascertain your grasp on reality. Please do us all the favor of thinking things through before posting illogical statements. Some of us abhor the ramblings of self proclaimed experts on any subject.
09-10-2011, 09:33 PM
#39
Spike
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: MN
Posts: 72
a·nath·e·ma
[uh-nath-uh-muh]
Show IPA noun, plural -mas. 1. a person or thing detested or loathed: That subject is anathema to him.
2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
3. a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
4. any imprecation of divine punishment.
5. a curse; execration.