CVA Breech plug. Modify original or buy the BH209 plug
#1
Thread Starter
Fork Horn
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
From: Ontario, Canada
What would be more reliable. The CVA BH209 plug or modifying the original? (Drill and taping for a vent liner).
I've drilled and taped both Triumph and Knight plugs for vent liners.
Can the CVA BH209 plug be drilled and taped for a vent liner, once the flash hole gets to large?
I've drilled and taped both Triumph and Knight plugs for vent liners.
Can the CVA BH209 plug be drilled and taped for a vent liner, once the flash hole gets to large?
#2
Spike
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
I currently have everything on order to convert the factory original breech plugs since I have a couple after replacing them with the 209 plugs. The 209 plugs are going to shoot out like any other plug so it makes more sense to convert the original and use them since the liners are what wears out, not the plug itself. I have only heard of people converting the original plugs, not 209 plugs. A quarter piece is easier for me to replace after 100 rounds than a $30.00 piece after 300 rounds, so......
Last edited by ctom; 08-21-2017 at 01:43 PM.
#3
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,732
Likes: 0
From: Rapid City, South Dakota
Well i believe both plugs are equally reliable if you create a little chamber in the mouth of the standard plug when you install the vent liner. Both plugs have been tested for reliability after spending all night out with a Blackhorn load at -15°.
The CVA 209 plug works good.
The BH209 plug has a very very short flame channel. This makes installing a vent liner kinda iffy, but take some care, and i believe you can do it. The powder chamber in 209 plug is very deep. Installing the vent liner in the standard plug, one only need make the head of the vent liner about 3/8" deep, the powder chamber is then 3/8" deep, and Blackhorn powder will boom with any primer, at cold cold temperatures. The flame channel in a plug modified this way will be near twice as long, as the 209 plug.
Yes, i believe both plugs are equally reliable. The modified standard plug should absorb pressure better, and should allow more shots before cleaning??
___
The CVA 209 plug works good.
The BH209 plug has a very very short flame channel. This makes installing a vent liner kinda iffy, but take some care, and i believe you can do it. The powder chamber in 209 plug is very deep. Installing the vent liner in the standard plug, one only need make the head of the vent liner about 3/8" deep, the powder chamber is then 3/8" deep, and Blackhorn powder will boom with any primer, at cold cold temperatures. The flame channel in a plug modified this way will be near twice as long, as the 209 plug.
Yes, i believe both plugs are equally reliable. The modified standard plug should absorb pressure better, and should allow more shots before cleaning??
___
#4
Thread Starter
Fork Horn
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
From: Ontario, Canada
Thanks guys for your quick replies. I'm thinking that I'll modify the original plug. Ron, I've used the drill press method for other plugs, this should be similar.
This will be my first CVA purchase. I've got a Optima V2 package (Thumbhole stock, case and scope) on its way from Cabelas.
This will be my first CVA purchase. I've got a Optima V2 package (Thumbhole stock, case and scope) on its way from Cabelas.
#5
Fork Horn
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
From: Virginia
I also have an Optima V2 nitride rifle an pistol. I have shot both CVA BH209 plugs and Ron's modified plug. Like said both are reliable and shoot every time, but I have found the modified plug is much easier to clean after soaking in hoppes and no need to scrape out any fouling as it comes right out with a pipe cleaner. The liner has to be removed as well for cleaning.
Just my experiences and I now have both modified plugs installed in both guns with the BH plugs as backup.
Just my experiences and I now have both modified plugs installed in both guns with the BH plugs as backup.



