HuntingNet.com Forums

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)
-   Black Powder (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/black-powder-23/)
-   -   Plunger style Inlines (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/black-powder/349496-plunger-style-inlines.html)

sabotloader 09-12-2011 07:33 AM


Originally Posted by WCW (Post 3846421)
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.

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.

Grouse45 09-12-2011 07:37 AM


Originally Posted by WCW (Post 3846421)
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.

. Again, your opinions are just opinions.

WCW 09-12-2011 08:26 AM

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.

Grouse45 09-12-2011 08:44 AM


Originally Posted by WCW (Post 3846421)
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.

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.


Originally Posted by WCW (Post 3846449)
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.


WCW 09-12-2011 09:40 AM

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.

flounder33 09-12-2011 10:13 AM

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

WCW 09-12-2011 10:26 AM

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.

builder459 09-12-2011 10:36 AM


Originally Posted by flounder33 (Post 3846489)
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

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

Grouse45 09-12-2011 10:43 AM


Originally Posted by WCW (Post 3846476)
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.

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.

Grouse45 09-12-2011 11:17 AM

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.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:13 PM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.