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.