tn gun runner
New member
here my modern bp I design and built, 3 moving parts ,douglas barrel and TC sights, made all the rest...I had a ruger old army and it would shoot the eye out a snake, I trade it for 44-40 vaquero
CVA Electra
- Thread starter GASCHECK
- Start date
here my modern bp I design and built, 3 moving parts ,douglas barrel and TC sights, made all the rest...I had a ruger old army and it would shoot the eye out a snake, I trade it for 44-40 vaquero
I have a question.
When you ram the ball or bullet home on a traditional muzzle-loader, I assume that the air in the barrel escapes through the flash hole as the ball is seated.
I don't see anywhere in the Electra system for the air to go -- so I assume that as you ram the ball/bullet you are also compressing the air in the barrel.
Does this air-compression cause the Electra to require more effort to load?
If so, how much more effort? If not, why not?
LawDog
When you ram the ball or bullet home on a traditional muzzle-loader, I assume that the air in the barrel escapes through the flash hole as the ball is seated.
I don't see anywhere in the Electra system for the air to go -- so I assume that as you ram the ball/bullet you are also compressing the air in the barrel.
Does this air-compression cause the Electra to require more effort to load?
If so, how much more effort? If not, why not?
LawDog
rem870hunter
New member
nj won't let you hunt with that here. it can only be cap or flint. PA idea of flint only is good i guess to an extent. but keeping it as primitive as possible is not bad all. who knows that electra may be put on the ban list in the future.
but percussion cap or #209 for me. i have 1 caplock and 1 #209 . an like them both. the electric sounds nice but its not for me. maybe in the future for range time. but not for hunting. single barrel single shot is still just 1 shot. you have to make it count no matter what type of ignition it has.
but percussion cap or #209 for me. i have 1 caplock and 1 #209 . an like them both. the electric sounds nice but its not for me. maybe in the future for range time. but not for hunting. single barrel single shot is still just 1 shot. you have to make it count no matter what type of ignition it has.tn, sounds like you`ve built a few potatoe guns. thats what we used to use as igniters on them(and a few cannons)
got to agree with the point raider2000 stated as i too have been in automotive and electrical field for about 35 yrs. have seen many FAILSAFE SYSTEMS fail. i`m sure the engineers at cva have run the electra through the mill testing and have installed safety features as articap informed us on. i also work on supposedly FAILSAFE SYSTEMS all the time developed and tested by main auto manufacturers. one thing for sure i have learned through experience and schooling on electronics of anykind is that moisture and TIME are truely AN ENEMY of electronics. stop and think a minute how many guns you own 50 to 100yrs. old. another thing is, the more complex you make something mechanical(which includes a gun) more chances of something failing.just hope this particular rifle if it fails,( and i`m sure a few will, its mechanical) does not shoot at all rather than discharging by accident. as mykeal stated"we all need to be on the same side". thats true. as gun owners WE DON`T NEED ANY BAD PR. time will tell.
got to agree with the point raider2000 stated as i too have been in automotive and electrical field for about 35 yrs. have seen many FAILSAFE SYSTEMS fail. i`m sure the engineers at cva have run the electra through the mill testing and have installed safety features as articap informed us on. i also work on supposedly FAILSAFE SYSTEMS all the time developed and tested by main auto manufacturers. one thing for sure i have learned through experience and schooling on electronics of anykind is that moisture and TIME are truely AN ENEMY of electronics. stop and think a minute how many guns you own 50 to 100yrs. old. another thing is, the more complex you make something mechanical(which includes a gun) more chances of something failing.just hope this particular rifle if it fails,( and i`m sure a few will, its mechanical) does not shoot at all rather than discharging by accident. as mykeal stated"we all need to be on the same side". thats true. as gun owners WE DON`T NEED ANY BAD PR. time will tell.
44capnball
New member
Here's something maybe nobody thought of. Or maybe you don't think it's worth considering. Well here's my take on it.
The anti gunners salivate over anything that can stop your gun working. Locks, safeties, mechanisms to limit who can fire it. They would love guns to be made so they will fire for the cops and military, but not you.
Electronic ignitions are a huge leap in that direction. Next thing you know, you'll have guns that can be disabled remotely. Think about it.
Access denied. Gun, turned off by somebody with a transmitter the right frequency. If you think the idea hasnt crossed their minds, think again.
So, here's this muzzleloader that has electronics. No big thing by itself, so what. But, it's a step in a direction we shouldnt be going.
I'll take flint and percussion any day of the week.
The anti gunners salivate over anything that can stop your gun working. Locks, safeties, mechanisms to limit who can fire it. They would love guns to be made so they will fire for the cops and military, but not you.
Electronic ignitions are a huge leap in that direction. Next thing you know, you'll have guns that can be disabled remotely. Think about it.
Access denied. Gun, turned off by somebody with a transmitter the right frequency. If you think the idea hasnt crossed their minds, think again.
So, here's this muzzleloader that has electronics. No big thing by itself, so what. But, it's a step in a direction we shouldnt be going.
I'll take flint and percussion any day of the week.
FL-Flinter
New member
I got a few comments on this one....
First, the name on the circuit board comes back to a Spanish toy maker...that in itself is reason for concern.
Next, the alleged "safeties" are all on the control side of the electronics and not on the high voltage output side - that fine and dandy to prevent accidental trips caused by operator error however if the HV is not interrupted, none of them will prevent an accidental firing caused by an exterior source.
The gun rag article claims it safe against static electricity but did not mention anything about magnetic, electromagnetic or radio frequency. There are many naturally occurring as well as man-made sources of electronic interference that can play hell with electronics. It's one thing to have a permanently mounted piece of equipment and say it is protected against static discharge because the shielding can be attached to earth ground in a manner as to redirect any such discharge away from the internal components. The rifle is not going be bonded to earth ground thus they must rely upon the external housing to provide static discharge protection. Problem with this is that the external shell can itself be energized since while in normal use it will be completely isolated from earth ground. Earth ground bonding will protect against RF radiation only to a given point - your computer and cash registers are protected by a bonded metal shell, use your very low power cell phone near them and see what happens. Lastly, even a solid earth ground bonding connection cannot provide any protection from magnetic/electromagnetic forces that can easily induce electrical current flow into any conductive material.
Magnets occur naturally in the environment. Power lines are everywhere. Radio and radar signals are everywhere. Anyone remember the big power outage in Canada and the northern US several years ago - caused by sun spots that were strong enough to blow out the very well protected electrical distribution grid yet there was no direct contact of any kind.
It's got to be 30 years or more people have been trying to develop caseless ammo for the military that is fired via electric discharge and none of it has ever been adopted because in all those years they have never been able to produce a housing that will protect against discharges induced by external sources. The only ones that have shown any promise are the ground mounted multiple load units and even they are susceptible to magnetic and electromagnetic safety issues.
Any gun can discharge accidentally but adding the electronics to it simply increases the risk from sources you can't even see or feel. Just consider how many wonderful electronic devices you have owned that have crapped out for no apparent reason and ask yourself if you're willing to take the same chances with something capable of discharging a bullet when it decides to crap out? Not me, that's for sure!
First, the name on the circuit board comes back to a Spanish toy maker...that in itself is reason for concern.
Next, the alleged "safeties" are all on the control side of the electronics and not on the high voltage output side - that fine and dandy to prevent accidental trips caused by operator error however if the HV is not interrupted, none of them will prevent an accidental firing caused by an exterior source.
The gun rag article claims it safe against static electricity but did not mention anything about magnetic, electromagnetic or radio frequency. There are many naturally occurring as well as man-made sources of electronic interference that can play hell with electronics. It's one thing to have a permanently mounted piece of equipment and say it is protected against static discharge because the shielding can be attached to earth ground in a manner as to redirect any such discharge away from the internal components. The rifle is not going be bonded to earth ground thus they must rely upon the external housing to provide static discharge protection. Problem with this is that the external shell can itself be energized since while in normal use it will be completely isolated from earth ground. Earth ground bonding will protect against RF radiation only to a given point - your computer and cash registers are protected by a bonded metal shell, use your very low power cell phone near them and see what happens. Lastly, even a solid earth ground bonding connection cannot provide any protection from magnetic/electromagnetic forces that can easily induce electrical current flow into any conductive material.
Magnets occur naturally in the environment. Power lines are everywhere. Radio and radar signals are everywhere. Anyone remember the big power outage in Canada and the northern US several years ago - caused by sun spots that were strong enough to blow out the very well protected electrical distribution grid yet there was no direct contact of any kind.
It's got to be 30 years or more people have been trying to develop caseless ammo for the military that is fired via electric discharge and none of it has ever been adopted because in all those years they have never been able to produce a housing that will protect against discharges induced by external sources. The only ones that have shown any promise are the ground mounted multiple load units and even they are susceptible to magnetic and electromagnetic safety issues.
Any gun can discharge accidentally but adding the electronics to it simply increases the risk from sources you can't even see or feel. Just consider how many wonderful electronic devices you have owned that have crapped out for no apparent reason and ask yourself if you're willing to take the same chances with something capable of discharging a bullet when it decides to crap out? Not me, that's for sure!
I am so surprised...
To see a username with "Flinter" in it disparaging the merits of an electronic-ignition muzzleloader - NOT.
As a retired military combat aviator, I've seen plenty of electrically-fired ammo, particularly of the 20mm Vulcan variety, and fired many, many rounds of the same. You don't know how nervous I was about not having a ground strap going back to the earth on those sorties. From what I understand, those guns were an accident waiting to happen, just like those horrible Voere VEC-91 rifles of late.
Back to the topic at hand, and answering LawDog's question:
It ain't as much of a problem as one would think. I considered that same issue when I load my .45-70 BP rounds, and use my compression die to squeeze the powder column prior to seating the 535gr Postell bullets. I use a fiberboard over-powder wad, and squeeze the Goex Cartridge a good 1/2" with that compression die. When seating the bullet so that the base of the bullet is pressed firmly against the over-powder wad and previously-compressed BP column, I know I'm compressing the volume of air I trap in there as the bullet enters the case mouth. I don't notice any extra effort in seating the bullet, nor do I have any problems with ringed chambers or other issues usually associated with the old "short starting" error.
I'm guessing that the small amount of air compressed by the piston action of the seated bullet means little as long as the bullet is seated against the powder column. Bullet tension is more than enough to keep things in place against the "air spring", at least with respect to the long bore-riding section of my BPCR bullets. Perhaps a patched round ball or sabot may very well allow the compressed air to leak by until the shock of BP ignition obturates it for a better seal, much like the Minie' Ball.
Bottom line, compressed air or otherwise, mark your ramrod so you know your bullet is seated against the powder charge every time. The few milliliters of of air you may be compressing into the powder charge won't mean anything in the general scheme of things.
To see a username with "Flinter" in it disparaging the merits of an electronic-ignition muzzleloader - NOT.
As a retired military combat aviator, I've seen plenty of electrically-fired ammo, particularly of the 20mm Vulcan variety, and fired many, many rounds of the same. You don't know how nervous I was about not having a ground strap going back to the earth on those sorties. From what I understand, those guns were an accident waiting to happen, just like those horrible Voere VEC-91 rifles of late.
Back to the topic at hand, and answering LawDog's question:
It ain't as much of a problem as one would think. I considered that same issue when I load my .45-70 BP rounds, and use my compression die to squeeze the powder column prior to seating the 535gr Postell bullets. I use a fiberboard over-powder wad, and squeeze the Goex Cartridge a good 1/2" with that compression die. When seating the bullet so that the base of the bullet is pressed firmly against the over-powder wad and previously-compressed BP column, I know I'm compressing the volume of air I trap in there as the bullet enters the case mouth. I don't notice any extra effort in seating the bullet, nor do I have any problems with ringed chambers or other issues usually associated with the old "short starting" error.
I'm guessing that the small amount of air compressed by the piston action of the seated bullet means little as long as the bullet is seated against the powder column. Bullet tension is more than enough to keep things in place against the "air spring", at least with respect to the long bore-riding section of my BPCR bullets. Perhaps a patched round ball or sabot may very well allow the compressed air to leak by until the shock of BP ignition obturates it for a better seal, much like the Minie' Ball.
Bottom line, compressed air or otherwise, mark your ramrod so you know your bullet is seated against the powder charge every time. The few milliliters of of air you may be compressing into the powder charge won't mean anything in the general scheme of things.
FL-Flinter
New member
Gewehr,
I suppose my screen name gives away my bias... LOL I don't suppose you're biased towards the Mauser either? 
Actually the Vulcan's are fairly safe because the fire voltage/current is controlled with mechanical switches within the firing circuit itself and not just in the control circuitry. Obviously any number of things can go wrong but unless the barrel drive motor is turning, it's almost impossible for the Vulcan to have an accidental discharge. Zuni's and other similar devices having very poor transient & induced current protection were far more dangerous as was made quite evident in 1967 onboard the USS Forrestal.
Seriously, my bias toward traditional ML's and especially flintlocks has nothing to do with my comments as they relate to this particular rifle - my comments are based solely on the lack of reliability within electronic devices with a control side that is separate from the discharge side when there is no mechanical interlock within the discharge side. Anyone who has worked around strobe lights that operate on the same principle as this rifle knows full well the occasional unitentional flash of a strobe that is turned "off". Construction and emergency service workers know about this because most often the flash of the light is triggered by a cell phone or portable radio being used within proximity to the light that has been effectively disconnected from the main power source on the "control" side of the circuit. Sorry, I trust devices with this kind of circuitry about as much as I trust beating on a Mk84 fuse with a 3 pound hammer.
As for the air being compressed, yes it can cause issues depending on how well the bore is being sealed off by the item you are trying to ram down it. Anyone who has an ML shotgun or uses a wad under a solid projectile in a ML rifle has seen the effects of compressed air pushing back when loading. In a ML shotgun you have two options, insert the wads only far enough to allow building the entire projectile load at the muzzle and pushing it all down together or cutting a notch in the side of the OS wad to allow the air to vent past it as you push it in. Same if you use a tight sealing wad like a nitro card under a roundball or conical, the wad will effectively seal the bore and if the projo also seals the bore good enough, it will take time and constant pressure to get the projo seated until all the air bleeds out - otherwise the projo either won't seat fully or will get pushed back out of position as you remove the ram rod.
I suppose my screen name gives away my bias...
LOL I don't suppose you're biased towards the Mauser either? Actually the Vulcan's are fairly safe because the fire voltage/current is controlled with mechanical switches within the firing circuit itself and not just in the control circuitry. Obviously any number of things can go wrong but unless the barrel drive motor is turning, it's almost impossible for the Vulcan to have an accidental discharge. Zuni's and other similar devices having very poor transient & induced current protection were far more dangerous as was made quite evident in 1967 onboard the USS Forrestal.
Seriously, my bias toward traditional ML's and especially flintlocks has nothing to do with my comments as they relate to this particular rifle - my comments are based solely on the lack of reliability within electronic devices with a control side that is separate from the discharge side when there is no mechanical interlock within the discharge side. Anyone who has worked around strobe lights that operate on the same principle as this rifle knows full well the occasional unitentional flash of a strobe that is turned "off". Construction and emergency service workers know about this because most often the flash of the light is triggered by a cell phone or portable radio being used within proximity to the light that has been effectively disconnected from the main power source on the "control" side of the circuit. Sorry, I trust devices with this kind of circuitry about as much as I trust beating on a Mk84 fuse with a 3 pound hammer.
As for the air being compressed, yes it can cause issues depending on how well the bore is being sealed off by the item you are trying to ram down it. Anyone who has an ML shotgun or uses a wad under a solid projectile in a ML rifle has seen the effects of compressed air pushing back when loading. In a ML shotgun you have two options, insert the wads only far enough to allow building the entire projectile load at the muzzle and pushing it all down together or cutting a notch in the side of the OS wad to allow the air to vent past it as you push it in. Same if you use a tight sealing wad like a nitro card under a roundball or conical, the wad will effectively seal the bore and if the projo also seals the bore good enough, it will take time and constant pressure to get the projo seated until all the air bleeds out - otherwise the projo either won't seat fully or will get pushed back out of position as you remove the ram rod.
Both of those items have receivers though. Where is the receiver in the Electra?
Also, what toy manufacturer manufactures the circuitry and where is the information coming from?
Has there been any scientific testing that verifies even the remote possibility of a misfire with the CVA ignition system?
It's one thing to be concerned and to form a personal opinion, even if only based on fear or a gut feeling, but any scientifically unsubstantiated claims are just that...unsubstantiated.
I know someone who recently bought a brand new Browning O/U shotgun that misfired by the simple jiggling of being carried. He was approaching downed game with the safety off at the time it happened. Luckily it went off and fired into the ground in front of his foot. We're all suppose to know through basic firearms training that mechanical triggers and safeties aren't fail proof.
It's simple enough to turn off the battery pack when loading if one wants to, and even to pull the trigger on an empty barrel afterwards. If there's established evidence that the loading procedure, or any other aspect of the design or components is potentially unsafe when loading or using this CVA Electra rifle, then let's see it and examine it.
Also, what toy manufacturer manufactures the circuitry and where is the information coming from?
Has there been any scientific testing that verifies even the remote possibility of a misfire with the CVA ignition system?
It's one thing to be concerned and to form a personal opinion, even if only based on fear or a gut feeling, but any scientifically unsubstantiated claims are just that...unsubstantiated.
I know someone who recently bought a brand new Browning O/U shotgun that misfired by the simple jiggling of being carried. He was approaching downed game with the safety off at the time it happened. Luckily it went off and fired into the ground in front of his foot. We're all suppose to know through basic firearms training that mechanical triggers and safeties aren't fail proof.
It's simple enough to turn off the battery pack when loading if one wants to, and even to pull the trigger on an empty barrel afterwards. If there's established evidence that the loading procedure, or any other aspect of the design or components is potentially unsafe when loading or using this CVA Electra rifle, then let's see it and examine it.
FL-Flinter
New member
arcticap,
I did some custom work for a manufacturing plant, upgrade on a production line that included installation of an arc discharge unit to cut the product at a precise length. The unit operated on the same principle, electronic amplifcation circuitry charged up a capacitor bank and when triggered, the cap's would fire a high voltage high current arc between two copper electrodes that cut the product. The unit was fairly well protected from the mfg, sealed in an all metal case that was bonded to earth ground. Nonetheless, the unit would fire when it wasn't supposed to. This wasn't cheap stuff either, the control side circuit board alone cost more than three times what the entire Electra rifle does. The mfg replaced the all the parts in the existing unit twice then replaced the whole unit going so far as to send one of their engineers to the plant to oversee the installation and operation of the replacement unit. He spent nearly two weeks in the plant trying to figure out why the unit was firing when it wasn't supposed to, he even went so far as to install all kinds of additional shielding. The electronic fire control circuitry was finally replaced with an electromechanical contactor that physically broke the connetion between the cap bank and the electrode. A low-tech solution to a high-tech problem.
Has nothing to do with a device having a receiver or not, it has to do with the nature of electronic controls, no matter how well they are made, they can be susceptible to interference even if well shielded. The cutting units didn't have any receiver either, nor did the Zuni rocket that triggered the disaster on the USS Forrestal in 1967.
Sorry if you think I'm being hard on this one but it has nothing to do with it being a muzzleloader, I'd express the same concerns if it was a centerfire or any other device that had the capability of being dangerous. I don't trust a electronic gadgets to run my vehicles either, if I'm driving it, I know what and where the input is coming from - no, it's not fool proof nor will it prevent a mechanical failure but at least I have the peace of mind that some little two cent electronic component isn't going to crap out for no reason and send me to the promise land.
The name imprinted on the circuit board as pictured in The American Rifleman - search the company, all that comes back to that name is an electronics toy mfg in Spain. (sorry, I can't locate the book to give you the specific name off hand but it's clearly visible in the picture)
No testing that I can find either verify or dismiss the possibility of remote firing. I emailed CVA more than a month ago and again before Christmas specifically asking about remote firing safety testing but have yet to receive a reply.
Very true, you can disconnect the battery but the highvoltage high current capacitor that does the actual firing can remain at the ready long after the battey is removed.
Absolutely correct but adding electronics into the mix just multiplies the fail factor possibilities.
I did some custom work for a manufacturing plant, upgrade on a production line that included installation of an arc discharge unit to cut the product at a precise length. The unit operated on the same principle, electronic amplifcation circuitry charged up a capacitor bank and when triggered, the cap's would fire a high voltage high current arc between two copper electrodes that cut the product. The unit was fairly well protected from the mfg, sealed in an all metal case that was bonded to earth ground. Nonetheless, the unit would fire when it wasn't supposed to. This wasn't cheap stuff either, the control side circuit board alone cost more than three times what the entire Electra rifle does. The mfg replaced the all the parts in the existing unit twice then replaced the whole unit going so far as to send one of their engineers to the plant to oversee the installation and operation of the replacement unit. He spent nearly two weeks in the plant trying to figure out why the unit was firing when it wasn't supposed to, he even went so far as to install all kinds of additional shielding. The electronic fire control circuitry was finally replaced with an electromechanical contactor that physically broke the connetion between the cap bank and the electrode. A low-tech solution to a high-tech problem.
Has nothing to do with a device having a receiver or not, it has to do with the nature of electronic controls, no matter how well they are made, they can be susceptible to interference even if well shielded. The cutting units didn't have any receiver either, nor did the Zuni rocket that triggered the disaster on the USS Forrestal in 1967.
Sorry if you think I'm being hard on this one but it has nothing to do with it being a muzzleloader, I'd express the same concerns if it was a centerfire or any other device that had the capability of being dangerous. I don't trust a electronic gadgets to run my vehicles either, if I'm driving it, I know what and where the input is coming from - no, it's not fool proof nor will it prevent a mechanical failure but at least I have the peace of mind that some little two cent electronic component isn't going to crap out for no reason and send me to the promise land.
i`ve been reading some of the other forums and some members talk about leaving ml`s loaded for a period of time. some have mentioned from season to season. although this is a practice i don`t do there are people who do it. that said,electronics is a field changing everyday and if i were one of those people leaving load in an electra i don`t think i would feel very safe. if static electricity for example can set off b/p,i`d sure hate to have an electra loaded and two years down the road some eletronics genuis develope a way to accidently discharge my weapon from 50 miles away or the circuit board just shorting out period. as responsible gun owners, we are obligated to question these kind of modifications on all guns. when we do we better think of what may develope in the future 
I get the distinct feeling...
That some folks here would be scared poopless to handle, let alone shoot, a Remington 700 EtronX rifle.
I know how that goes. Them danged newfangled circuits - it's why I took the electronic ignition out of my Shovelhead and retrofitted it back to points and condenser.
That some folks here would be scared poopless to handle, let alone shoot, a Remington 700 EtronX rifle.
I know how that goes. Them danged newfangled circuits - it's why I took the electronic ignition out of my Shovelhead and retrofitted it back to points and condenser.
FL-Flinter
New member
Shortwave,
Black powder is not as sensitive to static electric discharge than most folks would have you think it is. BP is coated with graphite after it's ground to keep it from lumping and so it flows better. Since graphite is an extremely good conductor, current flow from static discharge is carried by the graphite layer and flows safely around the granules. I know several others have tried lighting BP off with simulated static from various power sources, one used neon lamp ballasts, I used ignition coils myself and tried it up to 55Kv ( more than six times the voltage you'll pick-up from carpet or a piece of furniture). The only way I was able to obtain ignition was by allowing the powder to come in contact with the heated electrode which had nothing to do with the electrical current other than that's what made the steel electrode hot enough to light the powder.
Black powder is not as sensitive to static electric discharge than most folks would have you think it is. BP is coated with graphite after it's ground to keep it from lumping and so it flows better. Since graphite is an extremely good conductor, current flow from static discharge is carried by the graphite layer and flows safely around the granules. I know several others have tried lighting BP off with simulated static from various power sources, one used neon lamp ballasts, I used ignition coils myself and tried it up to 55Kv ( more than six times the voltage you'll pick-up from carpet or a piece of furniture). The only way I was able to obtain ignition was by allowing the powder to come in contact with the heated electrode which had nothing to do with the electrical current other than that's what made the steel electrode hot enough to light the powder.
Yep. It's heat, not electricity that sets off black powder. Which means that all you need to set off the powder is the presence in the powder of a resistive impurity - one that will heat up when the spark that is freely flowing through the graphite contacts it. Hmmm. Somehow I don't feel safer. I think it's still prudent to take care to prevent static electrical discharges around black powder.
Yes, except that their ignition points are significantly higher, thus requiring greater heat buildup.
Last edited:
By way of explanation...
BP substitutes are purposely designed to be harder to ignite, to satisfy DOT and other regulations with respect to shipping and storage. Those regulations have made the availability of Holy Black spotty at best these days. I drive a couple hours to my favorite source, and purchase Goex Cartridge, FFFg, and FFg one-pound cans by the dozen.
It's also why you won't see Pyrodex used in the flash pan of a flintlock.
BP substitutes are purposely designed to be harder to ignite, to satisfy DOT and other regulations with respect to shipping and storage. Those regulations have made the availability of Holy Black spotty at best these days. I drive a couple hours to my favorite source, and purchase Goex Cartridge, FFFg, and FFg one-pound cans by the dozen.
It's also why you won't see Pyrodex used in the flash pan of a flintlock.
