Yes TC posted that problem MANY years ago as well as the FIX for it. It has to do with shimming between the cartridge and the breech face. Since just about every cartridge is a tiny bit different (some more than tiny) in thickness it is a physical impossibility to make a system with dead correct head spacing for every cartridge. This led to TC and Bellum coming out with corrective shims. This is a case not about ML'ers in the least bit.

What are you talking about? I've owned a dozen T/C guns with no shimming needed. Are you talking about the hinge pins on the Encore frames? Or are you just talking about center fire guns??

Randy Wakeman is in the pockets of a Tulsa, OK ambulance chaser.

One of Rand Wakeman's "cases" is a guy who had a CVA gun blow up after loading a large volume charge of a medium burning rate smokeless powder.

i met a man who was on the range at the time of the wreck. He saw the smokeless powder can sitting on the range bench after the gun blew up. The witness thinks the powder was IMR 3031.

CVA sells more muzzleloaders than all other makers combined: Companies whose gun blow cant' do that.

As far as i know the entire rifle is made in Spain. They may use some imported parts but im not sure about that.

Yes they do ML hunt since a member in Spain on MML wants a ML to hunt in Spain. He found Ardesa and several of us told him the CVA rifles are better than Traditions aka Ardesa. You can even get a Vortek UL IIRC.

Nearly every country in Europe is required to meet CIP proof standards for all firearms including MLs. So if you sell a ML and claim its safe to shoot a 150gr load, it better be able to pass the proof requirements. Italy has some of the strictest standards but the Euro zone has a minimum for all MLs sold, imported or exported within the zone. There are almost no proof regulations on MLs exported to the USA though.

Now, im not jumping on the bash CVA bandwagon. I just find this very strange AND i would like to find a link for this member. His English is poor so just providing a website for him is the easiest.

I don't side with RW or TB on the vast majority of their "sponsored" opinions. The goof ball even dislikes 45cals. :p

Grouse, they are more of an accurizing thing than a necessity or safety issue. But there have been SOME folks trying to say that they have had head space problems and blowouts caused by excessive head space such as the fella tried in his lawsuit against TC that Pete posted. Here's a link that will show you what I'm talking about. It's a long drawn out thing but very informative. http://www.bellmtcs.com/store/index.php?cid=172&

Edit to add: And yes the TC lawsuit that Pete posted was about TC's CENTER FIRE barrels.

Ok, Thanks!!

There are shooters whom don't have sense about excess powder charges or proper powder types-smokeless, BP or subs.
There seems to be many CVA ambulances out there to chase.
Can you prove that anonymous person was truly at the range, or even a witness. The person saw a can of powder and THINKS it was 3031 Not a very good witness. If CVA has been contacted about potential lawsuits, don't you think they're going to break out that hush money. Sadly, many people would consider taking said money when they realize how long a case could drag on. That's one big way to get away from it. It's not all quality.

I simple posted that TC case to show companies have problems you never hear about. I had never heard about it. I didn't search that thread. It was on the Alaska forum, and I read it all the time.

I also didn't accept anything from Dudley. Just show the other side of the debate. I know i'd believe him over Randy on any subject, but especially about CVA. I'm not stupid. If I thought CVA had a problem with their present guns I wouldn't buy one. I also wouldn't recommend anybody else buy one, but I do. It's a lot of gun for the money. I'd prefer is was made in the US, but I wish my TV was too. Anybody own a US made TV?

Some of you can rag on CVA if you want. It doesn't change it from being a good gun.

Pretty much how the majority of all law suits settle. It's just how it is in these times. Nobody wants a long dragged out case. The case I posted went on for 10 years.

I have a CVA Eclipse I have been shooting for over 10 years. It has never blown up.

If you do not like your CVA guns, please send them to me.

I just thought of something. When Remington had their trigger problem it was all over national news.

Don't you think if CVA's were blowing up at the fault of the gun. That it would be on the news?

If a CVA insider (like Mike Walker was to Remington) was giving out interviews to CNBC and they had a class action lawsuit....yes it would have made the news also.

Kinda hard to compare a tiny ML market to the Rem700 and its massive multi company corporation. CVA even if it made the news would be small potatoes by comparison to the millions and millions of effected Remingtons that were sold over the years. The trigger issues go way back. Even my old Rem600/660 had a trigger recall long before any of this hit the news.

i would buy my cva optima again over any muzzleloader on the market. it shoots great groups, fits me perfectly and is an attractive firearm.
having only ever been shooting 100 grains of blackhorn 209 it has shown no signs of wear or stress as well.

Whatever you say. i would rather believe that man than an anymouse poster on a gun board. All you can do is parrot Randy Wakeman.

Stop the brand bashing you made your point.

Think before you post. You didn't supply anything substantial to this thread. You still don't know who HE was. Your own words apply to you as well. Be honest about it.

This thread was nothing more than information. A notice. If it became more, it's because one person in particular couldn't deal with the info. I do wish those that own this product much pleasure and success. Whatever decisions they make is their choice. Nothing was ever stated by me to the contrary.

As i said you made your point. And from what i have seen i know where the first stone came from.

I have a 2010 made Optima and a 2013 Wolf. I am especially fond of the Optima, my max load is 120 grains of T7 pellets and a 250 grain bullet. It is very accurate. I use a maximum of 100 grains of T7 in the Wolf but it does not fit me as well as the thumb-hole stock on the Optima so I do not shoot it much. There is a lingering doubt that will not allow me to ever load either up with 150 grains of powder. Also, I do not need that much power to kill a whitetail, the Optima will do it at 200 yards with the 120 grains of powder in my opinion. I do not want to shoot any further then that.

Now now boys, lets not bring this knit picking topic back up, every gun maker has had a recall, including knight. I'd worry about about the 7.5 million remingtons recalled for faulty triggers.

This old CVA Hawken was made back in the 1980's, the barrel probably around the same time. Well over 2,200 shots through her and never once have I run across a safety issue with ANY muzzle loader I've shot. This rifle has actually shot more powder than todays normal inline magnum loads.


Now its pretty obvious we've got some fellow here's here that WANT to start trouble and be a bunch of loud mouths about something they only know about because what they've read LOL.

When it comes to shooting CVA I believe I have a huge gain in knowledge in the department. I shot the living hell out of them before I built up my Hawken and got bitten by that bug. 5,000 shots through 3 of them in year is pretty good and I doubt I'll do that again.

Learn to read and comprehend and you'll see where I never made specific negative comment toward the product or told anyone it mustn't be used. That should be loud enough for you, expert.

I wasn't pointing at you friend.

Humble ist apologies to you!

Not true. You started this thread with information you don't know is true. You also argued it's true through the whole thread. You see yourself as someone delivering some new news, and you have to protect everyone from buying a CVA gun.

The truth is Randy is full of crap, and is paid to be full of crap. Everybody can see that, but you. You've insulted everyone who didn't agree with you with your condescending attitude. I use what I quoted as an example.

I read that article with interest in so much as I own a CVA Accura V2 and had previously owned an Optima Pro. Both rifles were and are very accurate. Do I use "Magnum" loads - No. Will I ever? Probably not. No need.
But the article takes me back to my 35+ years in quality control. First if they say that inspect 1 out of every 25 barrels, that is a a pretty weak sample size. Even a moderate sample would be 8.
Because of this will I stop using my CVA Accura? - NO

I think you just kind of outed your point there MountainDevil... That Hawken you are displaying and saying so many rounds have been fired through at high pressure isn't a CVA barrel!

Let me help you again, Muley. I wasn't talking about what Randy was saying. I was referring to the fact that I didn't make derogatory statements toward the product or the members that use them. Randy means no more to me than you do. I didn't hear know the mans name till yesterday and maybe I'll agree w/you as time goes on. But for now, you didn't refute. You're just as much a basher as you claim him to be.

So are many other people whether its from sponsoring forums with money or just being supplied free samples and rifles for review work. Opinions from sponsored sources and individuals should always be suspect and considered bias until proven otherwise.

One of these people is portraying T/C in a negative manner at every chance. More than likely because T/C would never send him a free rifle for review. Another turned on Knight after not getting his free Mountaineer for review. This same person would not review CVAs several years ago until and i quote...."When they get on board".

Not true again. By posting the link you're agreeing with it. I'd never post it, because i know it's trash. By defending it through the thread you're giving it credibility.

You sent me a PM at he beginning of this to warn me about CVA guns. I don't fault you for that, but it did show you believed Randy, and wanted to warn everyone. Why else would you post it? If you didn't believe it. Why would you post it? Nobody does that. So, the bottom line is you did believe it, and posted it as a warning. That is bashing CVA.

I'm sure that's obvious to everybody.

That doesn't make Randy innocent just because others do it. It's like saying a bank robber isn't guilty, because lots of guys rob banks.

Where did i say he was innocent? Please show me where i said that.

I said ALL these types of reviews should be suspect. Not just the ones you dislike.

I can see this thread as becoming "The never ending story." A continuation of he said, she said. Of I believe, and I know. What is good for one is not always the same with others. And I appreciate that someone believes they are looking out for my well being by posting information, no matter how old or how recent it is. But the point of all this is, some believe it, some don't. Some are concerned enough to not purchase CVA products, while other ignore the same concerns.

It all comes down to a matter of choices. We make choices every day. Some good. Some not so good. Its clear some consider the CVA as an abomination of steel and composite. Others, quite the opposite. Its all a matter of choice. So I thank all for warning me of the dangers of my purchase and use of a CVA. I use and care for my rifle in a responsible manner and so far have suffered no ill effects. In fact quite the opposite. But as of this post, I will be ignoring the rest of the thread. It is giving me a headache.

GM........You should have left it at your quote. I would have said nothing. I didn't see the point of the rest of it unless you just wanted to bash others.

So, I wasn't sure what your motive was.

You have never worked in the auto industry. Sampling 1-3 parts per shift is typical. And 1 shift produces several hundred parts.

Pedersoli proofs every barrel according to them. One look at Italian proof laws make it appear to be true.


http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/storia.asp?l=en

You know what's unknown? What if Beraga checked every barrel? Would it change anything? Would all the barrels pass?

The popular opinion seems to be if they checked every barrel they would have failures, but nobody knows that. It's just an assumption.

You haven't disproved any of it. He's in a position to know more than we do. You can't be told anything and you have a vendetta.

Ive had several friends in germany have CVA rifles shipped to them. They go through the proof house, something like a 3 month extra wait, once they pass, they are able to pick up their muzzys. CVA's biggest market is in the US. If they found it profitable to sell large quantities in europe, they would. They actually offer the apex and bergara rifles with wood stocks in europe. We get plastic camo.

No muzzleloading company checks all barrels, including TC and Knight. Knight uses what.. magnaflux to check so many barrels per run. That means, not every barrel gets checked.

No company wants to clean those barrels out.

Randy your good buddy has many articles over at Chuck Hawks.
One of those articles contains a clarification stating Dudley as saying proof marks were taken from barrels back in 2006. It sure is ethical of a company to make such lies to deceive the buying public. It's better that a barrel fail before leaving the factory before failing in some ones hands.