The gun has been 100% safe for me, and everybody I know who owns one.

So, if you all want to end the thread with the gun being 100% safe. That's fine with me.

short-starting
double-loading
wrong (smokeless) powder
powder volume beyond owners manual maximum allowances
bullet grains beyond owners manual maximum allowances

Avoid these and you avoid MLs blowing up, ones not listed on recall data sheets.

Whoa wait a minute here Muley.......this is getting out of hand.

No fire arm - none - not any one is ever 100% Safe! Ever......Stop this.

I am speaking NOW as a Hunter Education Instructor. There is a human factor involved here. Nothing is 100% safe to use not even water. So stop for a minute collect your thoughts and stop this.

Yes I know this would have been or should have been better suited via a PM but then this is meant for everybody!

One can find recall data on every brand of firearm if you care to conduct some search time.

JW

Of course no gun is safe when you factor in human error. I just don't think Berara barrels blow up when everything is kept as recommended.

Otherwise CVA would recall them, and fix it. Their history shows that's what they'd do.

Pete, everyone but yourself can see you have provided nothing to back up your opinion. Notice that many of these were settled. If BPI weren't at fault, do you think they wouldn't have fought it? The question also remains: What non disclosure agreements did BPI benefit from in the process? Many of these are old, but some are newer.
http://www.theohiooutdoors.com/showt...?6535-cva-wolf . See post #5-7. Pete, now it's your turn. Show some evidence or keep quiet.

What's to stop any injured shooter from exclaiming he didn't load two powders and two bullets?..... he didn't short-start the load?......... he didn't load 250 grains of powder first?.

The only times injured shooters have no (truthful or lying) beef.... are when smokeless powder loads are used. It's easy for investigators to uncover smokeless in the bore. Other than that, the injured parties can lie thru their teeth and get compensated.

CVAs (as per Grouse) have the weakest barrels. You should ask Grouse for proof of that. CVA also sells the most MLs by-far. So they have a reason for being #1 in the Complaint Department.

Actually Triple7 there are several tests that can be done on an exploded barrel to see just exactly what happened. The steel can be tested to see if it was up to code, stress fractures can be identified within the steel to determine (based on steel strength) the load used to explode the barrel. Pattern of the breakage can be used to determine the type of problem, I.E. double loaded or whatever. Many ways to see if someone made a mistake on the owners end.

T-7,You're throwing out hypotheticals you can't prove. Are you going suggest that only BPI users do such things? Where is the injury track record from other MZ companies that BPI has? Show your list of personal injury cases from other MZ companies, if you can.

I've already mentioned it. Until I see testing on Bergara barrels from an independent party that show the barrels blowing with recommended loads. I'll continue to blame owners for the barrels blowing.

It's so easy to blow a barrel by doing the wrong thing. I see guys who use more than the recommended load of BH 209. Which is 120gr. I see guys using 150gr of T7 with hot primers. They have to be getting horrible crud rings. It would be easy for them to assume the bullet is seated on the powder when in fact it's on the crud ring. The barrel blows, and they didn't think they did anything wrong. It easy to double load if you aren't paying attention. Easy to do at a range when friends are with you talking to you. There's so many ways to get it wrong, and the victim may not even be aware he did anything wrong.

You also have smokeless powder in the scene now. They read guys using smokeless powder in muzzleloaders, and if they are new they might think it's alright to use. We know what happens when they try. You also have guys who know what they're doing (sort of) who think a duplex load of smokeless and BP is ok. Again we know what happens when that's tried. Don't anybody try that if you're reading this.

So, how do I prove the barrel are safe when they're fine with proper loads. Someone would have to progressively increase the load in testing until the barrel blew. Then see how far past that is to recommended loads. I can't do that, but someone could do that. Frankly, I believe CVA does that, and they know what it takes to blow it up, but that's speculation.

So, we're at a standstill. I can't prove the barrels are safe other than the number of barrels in use without problems, and my own observations. Your proof is nothing more than the law suits from people who have blown up the barrels. I don't see proof that the barrels were at fault other than the owners in the law suits. Are they lying, or not aware they're at fault?

CVA paying off is not proof. That's normal practice to stay out of court, and the publicity it brings. It's not a sign of guilt. Don't you think CVA would cure the problem if there was one? It's a lot easier than paying off law suits.

So, that's my stand. Prove to me the barrels are at fault, and i'll shut up. If you can't then i'll continue to think it's owner error. In court it's the prosecutors place to prove guilt. You're the prosecutor in this discussion. It's your place to prove guilt on the barrels. CVA payoffs is not proof.

btw I'm not the only one who feels this way, so stop saying everybody but me feels this way.

Has that been done in a CVA case?