Safety & muzzleloaders - are we buying bombs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

duck911

New member
I want to throw something out there for the experienced ML folks on the board.

The time has arrived in my life where I have decided to enter the ML hunting game. Part of the reason for this is the LARGE bucks that run around in Nebraska from Dec 1st - Dec 31st :p , and part of the reason is that like archery, it appeals to the sportsman in me.

I've been researching what to buy, and I keep running across some interesting info. First, there is no uniform governing body (like SAAMI for rifle cartridges). Apparently this means that it's really a free-for-all with regards to standards of safety.

Barrels on guns like CVA's, Winchesters, and others (that are all made in the same shops outside of this country) have pressure limits PRINTED RIGHT ON THE BARREL that are well below an average ML load. :eek: I've also read that CVA's in particular are historically not the safest gun.

While I take some of what Chuck Hawks has to say with a grain of salt, Randy Wakeman has my attention and when he talks ML on the Chuckhawks webpage, I listen.

He seems to be on a mission with regards to ML safety. Here's a couple of articles he's written about some of the safety issues. It's interesting to note that companies aren't hiding anything, they just count on our ignornace:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/dangerous_muzzleloaders.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/unsafe_muzzleloaders.htm

I know there's been some Randy Wakeman discussion here in the past, and those with CVA's who've taken "x" number of deer safetly will have their own opinions, but am I the only one concerned about this? It seems laughably STUPID to put 3 Pyrodex pellets down the barrel of a ML that is clearly marked does not allow for those pressures.

I do know that while CVA and Winchester barrels are stamped with MAXIMUM pressures of around 10,000 PSI and not proof tested, Savage proof tests each and every one of their barrels to a number FAR greater than that.

It's one of the reasons I am in the market for a Savage or Knight ML.

Am I way off base? Have I been misled? Or does everyone else assume that because their guns are mass produced and sold across the country it is inherently safe?
 
Most American barrels aren't proof tested at all. Yet, I'd wager that an objective metalurgical analysis would be able to provide a relatively reliable qualitative estimate of any manfacturer's barrel as far as maximum black powder pressures go.
Maybe the Spanish barrels are under "proofed" or the pressure of 150 grains of Pyrodex pellets is being overestimated. Dangerous pressures are also related to barrel length and other specifications as well, including the thickness of the barrel wall, projectile weight, and you have to remember that the projectile is often pre-engraved before firing rather than while it's being fired as is a CF rifle bullet.
It's all something to be aware of I guess, but from what I've always understood, the Italian barrels are proofed for at least 1.5 times their recommended maximum black powder loading, yet the proof mark rating itself may not reflect that fact. Also, individual barrels aren't proofed, only small samples are selected from each batch for proof testing which allows the proof mark to be added to all the other barrels.
Generally speaking, I'm not concerned about any modern steel barrel blowing up, especially since I don't shoot with 150 grain loads of anything, nor Pyrodex pellets. ;)
It's always been the antique guns that have been more of a concern, and most people who actually try to blow up their barrels by doing there own proof testing I believe, have a hard time actually succeeding in doing it.
Do you know of any objective analysis where a particular barrel which was actually rated for 150 grains of powder resulted in a barrel failure by shooting it?
The science of metalurgical testing is so developed that it's difficult to believe that there's isn't a lawyer out there who would pay the pittance to blow up a few barrels to prove a safety liability issue exists, and run that company out of business with litigation.
Why do you think that hasn't happened yet? Maybe because the proof mark bears no direct relationship to the actual strength of the barrels in question?
Maybe the proof mark is not intended to be a real maximum barrel rating at all, but rather the required (or minimum) recommended rating to meet Spanish legal "proofing" purposes, and a base from which an actual 1.5 times barrel strength ratio guarantee (of sorts) is surmised by the consumer.
In other words, it may be much ado about nothing, and a legal "red herring".
Of course, any black powder shooter should always be aware of the potential for their barrel to blow up, and that's why shooters should be encouraged to be more conservative and err on the side of safety with their BP loadings, as the original barrel proof rating flap might imply. But none of this necessarily means that any particular gun is unsafe IMO, especially not without more "proof" (pun intended :D ).
 
Articap -

Thanks for the reply. Did you follow the links I posted and read them?

First, to assume barrels are safe just because if they weren't lawyers would have a hayday, may be a fallacy. CVA is a prime example. They had SUCH a problem with exploding barrels a few years back that the litigation from injured users bankrupt the company. So, this is not an imaginary problem - a substancial amount of consumers are (or, have been) injured.

There also seems to be some confusion about the minumum proof mark. You suggest that maybe it's the minumum pressure and barrel strengths are surmised to be 1.5x that amount. The standard CVA/Winchester mark is 700 kp/cm² - that is STAMPED on the barrel! Roughly equel to 10,000 PSI, even a 1.5x multiplication factor as you suggest would mean the barrel is safe for 15,000 PSI. Yet, that same gun's instructions call for a max load of 150 grains of BP, which depending on the projectile, will result in over 20,000 PSI easy.

I'm not trying to cause an argument but the math does NOT add up for me. Part of the problem I see is that there is no standard for ML firearms. With a spec like SAAMI, we know EXACTLY what to expect and companies adhere to that standard, albeit voluntarily. There are no "maybe's".

I'm going to be making phone calls to manufactorers myself and inspecting barrels at both Basspro and Cabelas this weekend. I may also explore some case law just to satisfy my own curiousity.

I understand you are safe and use lighter loads in your ML, but the average weekend warrior is likely to crack open his $109 Wal-Mart special and load it to MAX because the instructions say it's safe.

My mind is not made up... I'm playing devils advocate here so humor my arguments. But read the articles under the "Safety" section here:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/index2h.muzzleloader.htm

If I can verify for myself some of what Wakeman says, it's a scary, eye-opening problem!
 
As long as your are shooting normal loads you don't have to worry about it blowing up. If you push the envelope you'll experience the hammer re-cocking itself when you shoot.(with a percussion gun).That means back off the powder. I have seen them blow the hammer off,strip the internals of the lock and blow the drum off the side of the barrel. With a flinter you'll experience a blast back out of the touchhole!!
Now if you want to use more than 100 grains of FFG in a muzzler,you need to get a inline. They use up to 150 grains and kick like a Arkansas mule!!!!
I have double balled a 50 cal with 100 grains in it and when I got up off the ground the rifle was ready to do it again! I wasn't.
Be careful with cheap imports fron Japan or some weird country.
Buy a brand name like Lyman,Cva,Uberti,Pedersoli ans Investarms and youll be safe.
Also while carrying my capper hunting I use a piece of leather over the cap and let the hammer down on it. When I cock it to shoot, the leather falls off and she's ready to go.
My 54 cal rifle loves 85gr.FFG and that'll drop a deer easily. I have dropped hawgs with the same rifle with 75 gr.
No need for much more.
And one more thing. Watch down beside your lock where it fits to the rifle. I seen a flinter dribble powder down behind the lock and after a bit of buildup, it blew the lock off the rifle!!!
George
 
sundance44s

AS someone already touched on .. with any muzzle loading rifle you are putting the ball / bullet down the barrel from the exit point ...if you were to force something down the barrel that doesn`t fit and you have to hammer it home .. then the pressures will be much greater .. as in the story of how rifleing was invented back in the days of smooth bores.... rifleing was added to the smooth bore to releive the pressure of loading into a dirty barrel in a battle the smooth bore`s would become dangerous from the fouling so the groves we now call rifleing we first used to make smooth bore safer to load after the bore had gotten fouled .Luck have it the rifleing also caused the ball to spinn and walla we have rifleing .
 
Howdy! I may be able to add some insight to this subject. Been a muzzleloader rifle shooter/reader of info/instructor/builder/and seller for years. Haven't sold for Five years. It had been the norm for plenty of muzzleloading barrels to be made of 12L14 steel.Some surmiss that steel should not be used. Softer for machining purposes. Even major US companies have used it. Now that had been for the traditional side locks. The newer brand name "Inlines" that are advertised to be able to handle 150gr. powder ot three pellets "may" be better steel. I surely hope it is. When reports of burst barrels were compiled back when the side locks were the "thing" the biggest percentage of them were loaded to 100gr. or more "FFFg" powder and a big heavy conical bullet. Now I always considered a big conical fired with up to 100gr. of "FFg" to be safe. I instructed customers to avoid "FFFg" while firing heavy conicals. Avoid FFFg in blackpowder or substitutes. With heavy lead or saboted conicals 80gr. "FFg" will kill an Elk at the proper range. Close. Anyway,I believe that the new inlines from the reputable companies propably have better steel than 12L14 in the barrels. If not then don't fire them with over 80gr. FFg powder while using heavy conicals.. The FFg 777 Hodgdon is hotter than FFFg blackpowder so it should be reduced at least 15%. Check the distributors or the manufacturers and ask the type of steel in the barrels and do research from that point. In a prior reply it was related that to buy from a reputable distributor is wise and the names of some were given, I imagine, by a fraud reporting info they have no facts to back up their claim. CVA sells guns from Spain and from all the reports of accidents "any muzzleloader from Spain should absolutely be avoided". That is my staunch opinion. Cheap barrel steel. The accidents reports back that claim.CVA sells barrels made in Spain. Anyone touting a company that sells Spainish muzzleloaders as a reputable source to buy from is misguided and not knowledgeble. Any Spainish gun barrel on a muzzleloader should use the rule of 80gr. FFg/heavy conical(as apposed to round ball) as the maximum. Italian guns should be treated as the traditional sidelocks with the 80gr. FFg max. powder when using heavy conicals rule. Even TC Hawkens should follow the 80gr. with the heavy conical rule. The Lyman sidelocks and inlines also should follow that rule. A person could stretch the 80gr. to 100gr. if FFg is used but 80gr. is safer and is still a "womper" with the heavy conicals. This is an opinion I have from years of shooting and reading and listening to people first hand that either had an accident or knew a person that did. Naturally a traditionalist using round balls can use more than 80gr. FFg in the sidelocks. Well, I believe the reputation of the major US companies that sell inlines that are advertised as being able to handle 150gr. of powder and a heavy conical can be relied upon to be trusted. Major US companies? Knight Rifles. Thompson Center. Austin Halleck(treat the side lock as any other and use the max. 80gr. FFg with a heavy conical rule). Green Mountain Barrel company. Savage. There are some others but I can't remember them right now. A new company is coming out with an inline they say can handle 250 gr. of powder. Just stay away from any Spanish made rifle or barrel. Use the 80gr./heavy conical max. for any 12L14 steel barrel no matter who makes it and you should be safe. I believe the major US companies have a fear of litigation and probably have a large margin of error where recommended loads for rifle barrels are concerned. I believe anyone wanting to fire conicals with heavy powder charges in the 150gr. range should use a Knight Rifle or Thompson Center Rifle or the "recommended" barrel from Green Mountain Barrel Company or the Austin and Halleck inline or the Savage rifle. I believe any Italian inline should use the 80gr./heavy conical max rule just as the sidelocks should no matter who makes them. An exception I know of is October Country sells a huge rifle that can handle more than 150gr. FFg. There's a lot of pressure behind those 150gr.powder/heavy conical loads. Those loads can go into the 458 Winchester magnum range for ft./lbs at the muzzle and be more powerful than some 30-06 loads. There are loads that can be used in the inline muzzleloaders that can fire a "heavier" bullet than the 30-06 and do it a little faster. Check the velocities and bullet weights of loads from loading manuals for smokeless with the alleged velocities and bullet weights from muzzleloading load data. Those inlines can really pack a good punch and be more powerful than quite a few traditional smokeless cartridges used for hunting ect.ect. A hunter with one of those inlines has the opportunity to be ethical and kill humanely ,for sure, while stretching the distances touted as maximum by "an ethical hunter". I'm a traditionalist when it comes to muzzleloader rifle but I can appreciate the efficiency of the inlines and the opportunity a user of them has to be using a good ethical hunting tool. Now, I am stating my opinions in this reply. My opinions. I can be considered knowledeble but probably not be considered an expert. I am expert enough to form a "good advise" opinion I believe. I believe that their are some good people replying to posts in these forums on the internet but.......all the advise should be taken with a grain of salt and not be considered scientific fact and "truth". Not until you research the data or info for yourself and surmise the typed advise of anyone to be factual truth. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it "truth". Same goes for anything printed in books. Any life threatening proceedure should be fully researched before it is exercised. Shooting guns certainly can be considered a life threatening proceedure and should be approached with caution, research, and knowledge.
 
Last edited:
The directions that came with my CVA rifle CLEARLY stated not to use more than 90 grains of Ffg sized powder. I use 777 which has higher pressures and have found my most accurate load (1-inch groups of 3 at 100 yards) to be 70 grains of 777 behind a saboted 180 gr. Hornady XTP bullet which is my load for a doe, a deer, a female deer at 50 yards.:)

Maybe higher loads are required for longer distances or something but for my kind of hunting, my setup is sufficient and I believe safe, according to my calculations.
 
I'm aware that CVA has had recalls, but so have Remington 870 shotgun barrels in the past. This may not have any direct relationship to the current flap. Even in the Chuckhawks reading, it was repeatedly mentioned that he doesn't really know the true strength of Spanish barrels. Isn't it possible that the Spanish manufacturers have tested their barrels for maximum strength yet can't put their own proof mark on them due to Spanish proofing law?
When a gun barrel is proofed and stressed, there's many different ways that the barrels can be analyzed for micro fractures using x-rays, etc...
It's reasonable to think that corporate testing of this sort has been done somewhere during the design or production stages.
I tend to believe that the proof is in the pudding. Show the scientific evidence about the true strength of the Spanish barrels. The articles didn't list specific models, just a country, Spain. Traditions guns are made by Ardessa. Who even makes CVA's? Yet they are all being lumped together.
Opinions are important, but so is proof. When people start over generalizing, then it becomes sensationalism. There's a flap over the proof mark, but other than that, what is there?
I'll bet that we can all agree that more actual objective test results would be helpful.
I've also heard it said that 150 grains of Pyrodex pellets equals about 120 grains of loose Pyrodex. If pellets & loose powder are not equal, then the actual high pressure claims are also somewhat suspect in my humble opinion. Plus some barrel lengths can't even burn all of that powder. What manual or gun is the stated pressure data coming from?
BTW, which Spanish sidelocks are recommending a max. loading of 150 grains of Pyrodex pellets? Why are we talking about sidelocks at all?
Isn't this a flap about Spanish inlines? Where's the news articles reporting incidents of exploding Spanish barrels with 150 grain pellet loadings? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Ok I'll fess up, I got a CVA 1853 remington Zouave. I need no more than 60gr behind a round ball or a 500gr minnie ball. The latter is what i primarily use at a 200 pus range on a Deer, Elk, or Moose.
I have known Wayne for quite some time...long enough to know he wouldn't take the time to type all this info for just something to do. I never knew the Spanish barrels were not made as well and some others say Italian for example. I'm glad he typed that. I have been shootin' this Zouave for about 20yrs with out insident. Just because you shouldnt' exceed 80 or howerver many grs doesn't make it a bad gun for how it was ment to be used. Right?
I don't like punchin' my shoulder too hard and I do like hittin metalic silouettes from 25-100yds. 60gr has always worked well for me ..even in my .50 cal Tennessee Poorboy. Whether it's cap tin covers at 50' or a Qual at 100yds. What ever happended to workin' up a load?
Yup I'm a Traditionalist too, most of us Old farts are or those younger who like the historic value of the muzzleloader, Moutain Man, Danile Boone , Alamo, Lewis and Clark, ect...
That's probly why you generally see more talk about sidelocks. I don't even type the others name...LoL!
Ok just this once...In-Liners
 
For those of you who believe in proof marks.

Recieved a 36 Rem. repor with a .44 cylinder. This was in the factory carton, coated in the shipping grease.

I doubt they proofed that one...but it certainly had all the marks. thinking aobut the pressure issue presented in other posts, and the evidence that actual proof firing is NOT done, came to the conclusion that whatever "proof" means to the exporter doesn't seem to match our expectaions.
 
Well Smokin, a "58cal." has a big hole and big holes carry less pressure.
All I know is what I read or hear from others. I've never actually witnessed a ruptured barrel. Hope I never do. Once I read a long list of ruptured barrel incidences(years ago) and most all were using a load of FFFg in a rifle with a heavy conical. Most were Spainish barrels followed by Italian followed by U.S. barrels. Funny how some brand name rifles whether sidelock or inline just seem to carry a bad reputation for decades.
I 've shot 777 FFg in a 40cal. rifle with a 400gr. Lyman bullet with no bad effects. I reduced the load 15% compared to the 65gr. FFg blackpowder load that's usual for the muzzleloader rifle that utilizes a 40/65 barrel.
 
There was problems with barrels stamped JUKAR-Spain, they blew.
Also with the Japanese Tower flintlock pistols. Some had welded breechplugs, some had no breechplugs at all!!!!!!!!
Other than that I never heard of any decent muzzler blowing a barrel unless it was misused.
George
 
I don't know how this works, either. Spanish steel barrels won't hold a slight overload.
With the steel made today, anywhere in the world, if they bought scrap and made barrells, they would probably be a better, tougher grade of steel than 100 years ago.

Fadala says they tried 50 grs in a 32 cal, for 1,000 fps, 10,000 psi, went to 100 grs, got 1,050 fps, 10,500 psi.

Where are the people coming up with the 25,000 psi? The larger the bore, the lower the psi for a given charge.

During the Civil War they made copies of the Colt's pistols, and charged the cyl and barrell with as much powder as it would hold, PLUS double balls, and blew up less than half of them, why would the Spanish steel be so bad?

Cheers,

George
 
sundance44s

Fact is CVA has been selling cheap muzzle loading guns since the 70 `s and selling more guns than others too .. and selling to more inexperienced first time shooters than all the better made gun companys .T/C for one . So i figure with this many guns in the hands of the most inexperienced there`s probally been the most mistakes made such as heavy loaded short started loads maybe even some with smokeless powders ... who knows ...what i do know is 2 years ago i saw a CVA 50 cal muzzle loading rifle at walley world for 54 bucks lock stock and barrel new with the box .. now what kind of Spanish made quality was built into that thing ... it`s no more than a pipe bomb with a cap lock and trigger... something bad waiting to happen ..good proof testing would cost more than what they are selling this thing to walley world for . But i guess for a guy thats trying to extend his deer hunting season i guess it`s a way ..
 
Original H&R Huntsman

I remember reading a write up about the "original" H&R Huntsman muzzle loader and how a person died as a result of it's "defective breech plug" design. Please don't confuse this model with the currently produced H&R Huntsman model, the company and models are separated by decades.
The model design was based on their break open shotgun receiver, and the very first design had a non-threaded breech plug which might have been too thin. The shooter experienced a misfire and when he opened the action, the powder charge ignited latently and blew the breech plug out and killed him, if I recall correctly.
H&R made a subsequent design change to remedy the design weakness, but the company still went bankrupt, possibly from litigation resulting from the accident.
The company then had a management buyout (as well as another buyout recently by Marlin), and reorganized as New England Firearms/H&R 1871, and then after many years, they reintroduced a new Huntsman model rifle.
It's a saftey issue that people should be aware of since some of the original early production may still be on the market. Not all of them are defective, just the early 1st production models. An internet search may provide the relevant identifying information.
 
Thanks everyone for the interesting discussion and replies.

As it ended up, I decided to go ahead and get a ML that will last me for a few seasons to come.

Also, I'd read and heard enough to put a seed of doubt in my mind regarding the safety of cheap ML's. I didn't want to have to secong guess myself every time I pulled the trigger, even if the problems are a thing of the past.

It was actually easy enough to convince my wife to allow me the extra couple hundred bucks to buy the Thompson/Center Omega, "for safety reasons". Hopefully this ML will last me a few DOZEN seasons!

Now to find the right load.....
 
Sundance,

Proofhouses don't load a barrell and shoot it.

Proofhouses, even a hundred years ago, set up a train of barrells, 50 or more, and tested them all at the same time.

Them that shot, went to the inspectors, them that didn't, got fired again.

This is from the "Development of the Gun" by W.W.Greener.

Should you think you need more, I will post a link to an online version.

Cheers,

George
They ain't "pipe bombs". you guys make 'm so, with 150 gr loads for a .45 cal.
 
Articap,

I believe that 120-130gr of loose Pyrodex is about equal to 2-Pyrodex pellets, at least from a velocity standpoint. Guess I'll have to spend some time with a chrony and my Encore to tell for sure.

As for strength, well, I certainly believe and trust that a T/C Encore or Omega will stand up to 3 Pyrodex pellets. A Knight certainly should. Not sure I'd try it with a cheap NEF, Traditions or CVA though. We sell enough of the cheapies at work right before muzzleloader season too. But we try to get the guys that really want a big-booming thunderstick to buy a Knight or Thompson.

So far though, 99% of the muzzleloader hunters I know shoot 2 pellets of either Pyrdoex or 777. Very rare is the 3-pellet shooter; they're about as common as sidehammer shooters in these parts!
 
every ml i've ever seen would not shoot staight with 3 pellets anyway. what good is all that pressure if it will blow you up, and it still wont hit what you are aimimg at? i just stick with 2 50g pellets. much better accuracy out of my knight.
 
Wow, that's a real eye-opener. Glad I don't use a CVA or 'Winchester'. In any event, I never use more than 100 gr of powder in my Traditions. This deserves a LOT more detailed investigation & analysis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top