Plunger style Inlines
 

I noticed on another thread Flounder33 mentioned his favorite inlines are plunger style. I would really like to hear other opinions on this as well.

In my opinion plunger style inlines with a 209 primer are just plain dangerous. The same plunger type gun with a #11 ignition i think is great for those that need to use it.

Again, just my opinion and i would like to here yours.:happy0001:

All my plunger guns are #11 except for the new knights of the kids. Their littleHorns are plunger with a 209 so I hope they aren't dangerous. The BigHorn is a plunger gun and it is a 209. Interesting thought though.

I own eight plunger style inlines. Two of them use 209 ignition systems. I see nothing dangerous about them. Now my Whites use #11 although I could put the 209 breech plug in them, but choose not to. The Black Diamond XR could use any of the three ignitions and again, I use 209 primers. I have shot hundreds of rounds through the rifle and never saw any problem other then when I used BlackHorn 209 powder. But note, the powder was not made for that rifle. My CVA Stag Horn Magnum uses 209 and again, I have not seen any problems with it either.

I am curious Grouse as to what you find dangerous with a plunger style inline using 209 primers.

Oh man! have you opened another can of worms...

Open breech plunger guns or even the older open breech bolt appearing guns such as the Remington 700ml, Ruger 77, and several CVA's are really a plunger action inside the bolt housing.

Any of these guns I considered somewhat of a safety concern when using a 209 primer either bare prime or a primer inside a FPJ. Not sure I would go to the dangerous label, but certainly a concern for ME...

If you look at the design of the 'plunger gun' hammers including the older bolt type guns. The plunger has a cavity to cover the explosion of the cap on the post and even when blow back causes the hammer move back from the nipple the cap tends to stay inside the cavity and at the end of the shot you may finds parts of the cap laying in the bottom of reciever.

MOST hammer assemblies that shoot a 209 primer do not have this same cavity to the extent the cap hammers have.

I have shot a lot of 209's from different styles of plunger guns. Normally using T7 powder you do not get the blow back pressure on the nose of the primer you can get with BH a progressive burn powder. But even then the only way I would consider shooting a plunger style gun with an open breech is with a FPJ around the primer to hold it together or with a metal shroud that coompletely surrounds and contains the possible flying parts.

This picture shows the shroud installed on a Remington Bolt gun which is really a plunger gun... This metal shroud keeps all the parts in the breech area - IF they were to come apart or be pushed out of the breech plug.



If you look at these bare primers closely in these pictures I think you can see the possibility of the possible flying part idea...



If you look at this picture of FPJ's you can see that the primers tend to say intact even though the FPJ is blown off the post and may become somewhat of a projectile itself.



I do have some additional pictures of this problem on my other computer that I will add as soon as I can get to the other computer.

Just to add, I personally after all the experiances that i have had prefer to shoot caps on a plunger - even though I violate that statement with the White Umag. But after shooting it last week I had all but decided to move back to a #11 in that gun also...

Stay tuned for some additional pictures of a MK 85 shooting bare primers... not good...

Granted the primers could come apart from the back pressure. And I could lie and say this is one reason I seldom shoot large charges of powder out of plunger guns. But I shoot smaller charges for accuracy reasons only. If a magnum charge brought me accuracy, believe me.. I would be shooting them. But in all honesty.. I have shot stout loads out of the Black Diamond XR (150 grains of loose powder) and the primers stayed in tact.

OK I found the pictures of a MK-85 outing...

The picture says 100 grains of T7 but my notes say 110 grains.

There is also no doubt in my mind that if I used a lighter bullet or back the powder back down - this would not be an issue... but even then the situation always exists because you just never know...

But here are the pics....



Now I also want you to know that this same load with a #11 cap works great and while the cap is in pieces it is all inside the cavity of the hammer.

And I would say they do because the breech plug allows the pressure to vent off enough before pushing the primer or the entire assembly out of the primer pocket... but we pay for that venting with amount of carbon found in the breech and bolt area....

Before becoming disabled my wife of many years was a plaintiff's attorney who enjoyed an excellent reputation among her peers. I asked her if she had ever head of a action being filed against a gun manufactured because of a primer disintegrating. She had not so out of curiosity I went to West Law to see how many had been filed. Any way I attempted to shepardize the subject I drew a blank. If plunger action guns presented any inherit flaw that would cause injury to an individual Traditions and CVA would not be marketing them now There would have been a massive recall of guns by the manufactures if just a few sought monetary gain by filing punitive actions.

I queried my gunsmith on the subject and he feels that if it were to happen it would most likely be caused by a defective breach plug that should be replaced immediately, improperly seated load or an excessive amount of propellent. He went on to say that multiple of thousands of plunger action guns are in use today and he had never heard of this problem arising.

In my humble opinion to categorically brand any type of fire arm as unsafe based on one's personal experience and observation without seeking an experts input is beyond ridiculous and a disservice to others.

I like my plunger style guns. I use percussion caps in all of them.
I guess I like them for a few reasons, mostly because I just have a fun time shooting them which is what its all about.
The plunger style guns are a simple, proven design. A little dirty yes. Who cares. If I was to worry about that I may as well shoot a centerfire.
The plunger style guns I own are either White rifles with Wilson barrels or my Knight mk 85's made before they used the Green Mountain barrels. Two of them have Lothar Walther barrels and the other is made by Bill Wiseman.
I think all these rifles have triggers that are better than you get on any brand name muzzleloader you might buy today. They are accurate to say the least. I don't feel they are dangerous but I know their limits.
I guess that sums up why I love my plunger style inlines.
The End

I don't like metal hitting my face. Other then that nothing at all. I can video tape a Knight, CVA, and a T/C throwing metal from the 209 primer out of the open breech area.

I would highly suggest nobody used more then 100grns of powder by volume and a 250grn bullet. Here again just my opinion and people can and will do what they want.

You're so full of crap it comes right out of your ears.

Sabotloader,
I understand there are ways to keep it from hitting you or the scope. Your pictures show options very well. My point is, out of the box (new gun) metal parts are flying out of the breech area. I don't know any other word to use other then dangerous. Unsafe, scary, possible problem, all mean the same to me. Again, my opinion only.

Thanks for all those pictures and range reports. Pretty much validates my point.

Lol....okay.

I shoot .460 gr conicals with as much as 80 gr of powder from my Knight wolverine with the 209 primer and the red plastic jacket and have never had any issues ever! i also have never heard of any problems with primers, except with BH209 and heavy bullets and loads.with as many of these rifles that knight sold over the years, i think it's safe to say if they were indeed dangerous the design wouldn't have been around as long as it has.i have also learned that i can and do adjust my plunger,so it does not deform the primers when shooting.in fact the primers look almost as good as the ones fired in my triumph. just a lot more fouling due to the design.the same person who posted this thread advocates using 140 gr BH209 in his Knight rifle and then spews this garbage.. shame, shame,shame!! i second what flounder said about the poster!! Ray

Since this is my thread i will post this.

The way a few of you post on this forum is sad. It's obvious why there is so much violence and fighting and problems in the world today.:sad::sad:

I would agree that shooting bh209 out of a plunger style gun is not recommended. I have no interest in doing that.
Most of the shooters that I respect believe that you achieve the best accuracy in your gun by using a primer that gives you just enough flame to have consistent ignition. I tend to agree with them. That is why I prefer the caps over the shotgun primers.

It is pretty obvious to most anyone that frequents this forum that you are the one who is stirring the post whenever you come by Grouse. I have stayed out of it until you got me involved by trying to ridicule my choice of rifles.
I wonder if Knight Rifles is aware of your behaviour on this forum. If not they ought to be because you do them a real disservice.
Art

You should email them a link to this thread. You cant have people posting false information that's for sure.

100grns by volume, a red plastic jacket plug, and a 250grn bullet or lighter it will be fine. The red plastic jacket keeps the primer contained and heavier. I have never seen that combination fly out of the gun. And if you use a scope that protects you as well. I have been shooting the plunger guns open sights only.

In all the years of shooting plunger guns, the only time I got caught was shooting BlackHorn 209 out of my Black Diamond. And yes, the primer blew apart. I blame that on my choice of powder. I have shot a ton of primers through the Stag Horn Magnum and Black Diamond using regular powder, but perhaps Grouse is on to something.. I seldom shoot more then 100 grains of powder out of them.

Now I have had primers come apart. But they always seem to be in the plunger area of the rifle.

In my three Knight Wolverines, I shoot #11 caps and that combination works sweet. I did get a chunk of musket caps once off my Black Mountain Magnum that got me good. It kind of surprised me when it buried that flange off the top hat in my forehead. I forget the powder charge that day.

Thanks for your honesty Cayugad. Most people dont shoot enough or really understand what's happening. 110grns of 777 and 300grn and heavier bullets is brutal. BH209 needs to be kept under 100grns in my opinion.

BTW- I got hit more then once. I actually got disgusted and told sabotloader he can handle the plunger gun with Knight. Sabotloader has already found a safer way to make the plunger gun, and a much better alternative in the Knight Extreme.

Dangerous, i don't think so. i have two plunger guns, a CVA StagHorn that has been fired at least 1,000 times using 209 primers, and a TC Black Diamond. When using the 209 primer setup, the Black Diamond is the dirtiest gun in the whole world. Mine is set up for musket caps using the plain old musket nipple: It works well and makes for a much cleaner gun.

One of my guns is a CVA Mag Hunter set up for 209 primers. That gun has been fired hundreds of times using 130-150 grain charges of Pyrodex. i call it a firing pin gun. Its a heavy firing pin, that maybe could be be called a plunger. The CVA bolt handle locks the bolt closed.

It's like this falcon. When you show Grouse that the guns are fun to shoot, accurate to the nth degree and easy to maintain, basically that they fit the bill for just about anything you might want to do in hunting in our Continent he gets frustrated. Then he pulls the Safety Card out of his bag of tricks and tries to convince everyone that they are unsafe. I have seen him do this same thing with other Muzzleloader subjects. He does this because they are not the type of gun he is promoting at the moment. Talk about a Randy Wakeman wannabe. He grates on my nerves something fierce. I shouldn't let him since I know that is the whole reason he started this thread.

I've owned and shot many plunger guns. No safety concerns for me either. The primer cup will be sideways sometimes out of my 700ML but never once have I had a piece leave the breech area.

FWIW, I've shot 460g Bullhshops and over 100g out of them for years.

Lol....so you are also calling cayugad a liar. That's okay, it doesn't matter what you think or consider safe.

Absolutely not, Dave (Cayugad) is a man with integrity. He also has a way of disagreeing with someone's opinion in a amicable way. He is someone you could learn a lot from about both muzzleloading and personal conduct.

“Lol...so you are also calling cayugad a liar. “

I don't believe that anyone is calling anyone else a liar in this thread. From my viewpoint it seems to me that some posters have an agenda other than the free exchange of view points. They adhere to the good old American standard of “If I don't like it no one else should”. In perusing threads on several gun forums I often run into people creating controversial threads simply to call attention to themselves and pontificate on their own theories. The majority of these people are self proclaimed experts who lack the bona fides to promulgate empirical information other than their own opinions.

If primers coming apart and hitting you is safe? Then your entitled to that opinion. To me, like I said in the very first post, in my opinion it is not. If you don't think the loads should be at 100grns by volume and lower, shoot and use what you want. It's really that easy to say the least. I got hit, cayugad got hit with Bh209, not sure about Sabotloader. If any of the info supplied does not sound right or make sense, don't use the information.

Grouse45

I have noted that others say that they have had the same problem but nowhere in their postings do I see that they sought qualified expert input as to why it happened. If any gun I own malfunctions the first one I consult is a qualified gunsmith followed by contacting the guns manufacturer. I never try to correct the problem myself.

When one of my Labs was young she jumped up and broke my nose. The same thing happened to one of my friend's wife with their lab and I have heard of it happening to other lab owners. By your way of thinking I should declare Labradors, the most popular breed of dogs in this country for the last nine years, as an unsafe breed of dogs to own. Simple logic prohibits me from doing so.

Sorry, when applying it to guns, your logic is flawed. :wink: 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.

hubby11,
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.

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.

I think I smell a LIBERAL.

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.

:lmao:Your logic is very different, but that's your opinion and you have a right to an opinion.

:sign0016::sign0016::sign0016:

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.

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.

It surprises me that you know how to use a dictionary. If I use words or phrases that your are unfamiliar with I apologize for my indiscretion. I am used to correspond with others in my field who are adept at understanding the English and several other languages. Please forgive me, I try my best not to speak in a manner that I feel is over your head.

I still don't but learning. Thanks for your opinions.