Safety & muzzleloaders - are we buying bombs?
- Thread starter duck911
- Start date
- Status
Fl,
You seem to not understand anything I have typed or refuse to.
RB do not usually fly at supersonic velocities. That is 1100+FPS. It took a while to get to 1100 FPS. We talk about remaining velocity of 500 FPS, NOW, but many arms of the era you are defending never attained "supersonic" velocities.
.45 ACP was 830 FPS, and one of our best people killers since 1911, when we adopted it.
All those quotes you attribute to me about arrows, please ignore. I am not an archer. I would not dream of telling people how arrows act, other than to say that arrows have fletching to give them a spin. THAT art is a couple thousand years old. Hard to say, today, that you should not put any twist on an arrow's vanes, today, because you found a way to make them fly straight without giving them spin.
Rereading,I don't know who you are quoting. I do not think I have said 9 out of 10 things you quote
Hawg says:
"my hunting arrows with broad heads didn't spin. They were designed for the head to slip between the ribs. Spinning would have nullified that. Would have nullified any real penetration as far as that goes."
That is so BS that I don't know what to say about it. I am sorry, BUT, there is no way you are going to nock an arrow with the blades up and down and hit a deer, and slip the blades between the ribs. All the blades I have seen advertised are for the ones that flip out EXTRA cutting blades, or those that "core out" a big hole in the side of a deer.. Nobody that I know uses a 2 blade broadhead anymore. They are all 15 buck mechanical marvels.
As to that, no way in hell that you are going to shoot that arrow BETWEEN the ribs. If you HIT the DEER you are lucky. HIT the deer, and the blades are up and down, you should go hit Vegas. You'd be a millionaire overnight.
FL,
Naw,
I didn't say I don't shoot "round ball", just that I shoot them out of pistols. My Walker is capable of 1100 FPS, that is approx. supersonic. THEY do not fly all over the place, nor do they ALL fall into a single hole, just BECAUSE they are about supersoniic.
You are deluded as to your accuracy.
Cheers,
George
Oh, your quotes, allude them to the poster. Don't tell everyone that I said such and such. I did NOT!
You seem to not understand anything I have typed or refuse to.
RB do not usually fly at supersonic velocities. That is 1100+FPS. It took a while to get to 1100 FPS. We talk about remaining velocity of 500 FPS, NOW, but many arms of the era you are defending never attained "supersonic" velocities.
.45 ACP was 830 FPS, and one of our best people killers since 1911, when we adopted it.
All those quotes you attribute to me about arrows, please ignore. I am not an archer. I would not dream of telling people how arrows act, other than to say that arrows have fletching to give them a spin. THAT art is a couple thousand years old. Hard to say, today, that you should not put any twist on an arrow's vanes, today, because you found a way to make them fly straight without giving them spin.
Rereading,I don't know who you are quoting. I do not think I have said 9 out of 10 things you quote
Hawg says:
"my hunting arrows with broad heads didn't spin. They were designed for the head to slip between the ribs. Spinning would have nullified that. Would have nullified any real penetration as far as that goes."
That is so BS that I don't know what to say about it. I am sorry, BUT, there is no way you are going to nock an arrow with the blades up and down and hit a deer, and slip the blades between the ribs. All the blades I have seen advertised are for the ones that flip out EXTRA cutting blades, or those that "core out" a big hole in the side of a deer.. Nobody that I know uses a 2 blade broadhead anymore. They are all 15 buck mechanical marvels.
As to that, no way in hell that you are going to shoot that arrow BETWEEN the ribs. If you HIT the DEER you are lucky. HIT the deer, and the blades are up and down, you should go hit Vegas. You'd be a millionaire overnight.
FL,
Naw,
I didn't say I don't shoot "round ball", just that I shoot them out of pistols. My Walker is capable of 1100 FPS, that is approx. supersonic. THEY do not fly all over the place, nor do they ALL fall into a single hole, just BECAUSE they are about supersoniic.
You are deluded as to your accuracy.
Cheers,
George
Oh, your quotes, allude them to the poster. Don't tell everyone that I said such and such. I did NOT!
[QUOTEYou are deluded as to your accuracy. [/QUOTE]
You're just deluded. We've tried to explain the facts to you and you even admit you have no experience with any of it but yet you keep quoting this BS book that you must think is the be all end all of bp knowledge. Believe me it isn't. Until you get some actual experience don't make yourself sound any dumber than you already do.
You're just deluded. We've tried to explain the facts to you and you even admit you have no experience with any of it but yet you keep quoting this BS book that you must think is the be all end all of bp knowledge. Believe me it isn't. Until you get some actual experience don't make yourself sound any dumber than you already do.
Fingers McGee
New member
Keep it up guys - I'm really enjoying this thread. 
FM
FM
FL-Flinter
New member
Greg,
I'm not a scholar of CW gun but I know many similar styles did come with multi-blade or toggle-blade sights intended for use at given ranges. I do know for the average infantryman, K.I.S.S. was employed simply because you've got enough things going in battle that you're not neededing to be calculating bullet drop ... that little part about other people trying to poke holes in you kinda takes priority over ballistic charts. I do know some, I would suppose those issued only to sharpshooters, did have some interesting sight systems.
I'm not a scholar of CW gun but I know many similar styles did come with multi-blade or toggle-blade sights intended for use at given ranges. I do know for the average infantryman, K.I.S.S. was employed simply because you've got enough things going in battle that you're not neededing to be calculating bullet drop ... that little part about other people trying to poke holes in you kinda takes priority over ballistic charts. I do know some, I would suppose those issued only to sharpshooters, did have some interesting sight systems.
FL-Flinter
New member
George,
Yes, my error, I did attribute quotes to you that should have been addressed to "MacGille" - I ran through this quickly and admit my error.
You did say the following:
A mere 35gr charge of black powder in a rifle will launch a 0.490" PRB at supersonic velocity and a 110gr charge will easily push that same PRB above 2,100 fps - where are you getting your dis-information from?
I also asked you to explain:
Again - how can you connect a quality problem with the rifle and/or projectile to making the broad-based statement you did that round balls are not accurate beyond 50 yards?
Another thing - you made the comment about accuracy of the smoothbore but never answered my question as to how you can reasonably draw a correlation between a loose-fitting paper cartridge battlefield load to a properly patched load.
Now you said:
We're talking smoothbore round ball here .... why are you bringing up the .45acp without even a remotely generated hint as to how you plan on connecting that to the smoothbore PRB topic?
Yes, my error, I did attribute quotes to you that should have been addressed to "MacGille" - I ran through this quickly and admit my error.
You did say the following:
A mere 35gr charge of black powder in a rifle will launch a 0.490" PRB at supersonic velocity and a 110gr charge will easily push that same PRB above 2,100 fps - where are you getting your dis-information from?
I also asked you to explain:
Again - how can you connect a quality problem with the rifle and/or projectile to making the broad-based statement you did that round balls are not accurate beyond 50 yards?
Another thing - you made the comment about accuracy of the smoothbore but never answered my question as to how you can reasonably draw a correlation between a loose-fitting paper cartridge battlefield load to a properly patched load.
Now you said:
We're talking smoothbore round ball here .... why are you bringing up the .45acp without even a remotely generated hint as to how you plan on connecting that to the smoothbore PRB topic?
Fl,
I gotta call BS on you. You ain't sending a .490 ball downstream with 35 gr of BP over 1100 FPS
The 32-40, cartridge, 32 cal, 40 grs. was pushed at 1752 FPS. SMALL ball, light, large charge.
.45 ACP was from another thread, don't know how I posted it here, BUT, someone loaded a 1911 with BP. Shot it. How it cycled, I don't know.
"Again - how can you connect a quality problem with the rifle and/or projectile to making the broad-based statement you did that round balls are not accurate beyond 50 yards?"
That is self evident. Neither the rifle or the ball is perfect. YOU cannot expect perfection, BECAUSE tou have no perception of WHAT is imperfect.
You cannot deny that not all round ball are perfect. You MIGHT mark a balanced ball, much as a golfer buys them floater things to tell them what the least dense part of the ball is. Smack it here!
YOU don't know if you put a ball in the barrel if your preferred point of the ball actually DOES get rammed to the load. Did it rotate on the way down?
I don't know where all of you are. I'll bring a 30" Rem or Browning and try a smoothbore shoot with you. Punkin balls if necessary. Brennek or some other slugs preferred.
Cheers,
George
Oh, and I think they are 72 calibre, and they fly at about 1200 FPS. About 19 grains of Red Dot.
I gotta call BS on you. You ain't sending a .490 ball downstream with 35 gr of BP over 1100 FPS
The 32-40, cartridge, 32 cal, 40 grs. was pushed at 1752 FPS. SMALL ball, light, large charge.
.45 ACP was from another thread, don't know how I posted it here, BUT, someone loaded a 1911 with BP. Shot it. How it cycled, I don't know.
"Again - how can you connect a quality problem with the rifle and/or projectile to making the broad-based statement you did that round balls are not accurate beyond 50 yards?"
That is self evident. Neither the rifle or the ball is perfect. YOU cannot expect perfection, BECAUSE tou have no perception of WHAT is imperfect.
You cannot deny that not all round ball are perfect. You MIGHT mark a balanced ball, much as a golfer buys them floater things to tell them what the least dense part of the ball is. Smack it here!
YOU don't know if you put a ball in the barrel if your preferred point of the ball actually DOES get rammed to the load. Did it rotate on the way down?
I don't know where all of you are. I'll bring a 30" Rem or Browning and try a smoothbore shoot with you. Punkin balls if necessary. Brennek or some other slugs preferred.
Cheers,
George
Oh, and I think they are 72 calibre, and they fly at about 1200 FPS. About 19 grains of Red Dot.
Fingers McGee
New member
More - We want more 
How this went from a five year old thread questioning the safety of a certain manufacturers barrels to BP ballistics is beyond me; but it is entertaining.
How this went from a five year old thread questioning the safety of a certain manufacturers barrels to BP ballistics is beyond me; but it is entertaining.
FL-Flinter
New member
That's the attitude I and many other get for trying to put out valid and correct information?
Your ignorance shows in your imperiousness!
These forums are for the sharing of knowledge and experiences with others. However, it is the small minority such as yourself who make these contemptuous comments that serve only present your vacuous mind to the world.
You are not being forced to read anything here. If you're not interested in the discussion or cannot understand the manner in which a topic is discussed with the presentation of theories, facts and opinions from all sides; perhaps you should avoid these situations that make you publicly show your ineptness?
FL-Flinter
New member
To George and anyone else who is interested in the discussion of anything black powder / modern gun & accouterment related without having to endure the inane comments such as I addressed in my previous reply - please feel free to email me or come to my own forum linked below. I have spent more than 25 years and countless thousands of hours and dollars testing the old tried & true as well as developing new stuff and I am more than willing to share what I have learned and learn from others as well. I will occasionally address the infantile postings as I just did and I will continue to post here because I will not allow the ignorant minority to ruin the sport for everyone else!
http://members5.boardhost.com/insidetools/
Email: mark@fire-iron.biz
http://members5.boardhost.com/insidetools/
Email: mark@fire-iron.biz
Fl-,
I liked your reply to MyKeal. I've been other places where someone doesn't like the thread and carps instead of ignoring it. If it isn't interesting, please DO ignore it.
I may come visit your site, though if it is strictly smoothbore, I might not find it all that apt for me.
I shoot strictly BP revolver, as of late, 8 of them as of today when a new to me Starr 1858 showed up in my mailbox. All my revolver spin the ball, all of them CAN hold under 3 inches at 25 yards if I can do my part, and I often do.
Well, I do shoot some 22 auto and my carry gun when I get to the range. Today was to be a shooting day, but sat waiting for the mailman and the Starr. So, tomorrow.
I googled smooth bore shoot results, smooth bore shoots, and all I came up with is this page. Before you decry it, read it through. [I know you will say it's all hog, or "hawg" wash, but it does seem to indicate that the smoothbore that the rifled Enfield and Springfields replaced were inferior AT rang. Close up with "buck and ball", better as a combat weapon.
Hawg might, if he is still reading, read the part that says that shooting practice was all but non-existent, due to lack of ammunition.
Best excerpt from the page is this: "Whether firing a Model 1863 muzzle-loader or a gas-operated M1, the average citizen cannot hit the proverbial bull in the behind with a bass fiddle. Training helps, but training in marksmanship was something woefully lacking in most commands during the Civil War. Little time or ammunition was allocated to actual range practice - and many recruits went into battle without having fired a single practice round. (Coggins 39) "
And: "Instead, the men knew how to load the weapons, how to maintain the weapons, and how to fire the weapons in theory, but they didn't know anything about them in actual combat. A case in point would have to be the 24th Michigan. ``We find that it was sent to the front within a very few weeks of its formation in July 1862, and in its only recorded target practice during that time three men were wounded and one died of a heart attack'' (Griffith 88). This would be the only target practice until four months later, which again wasn't followed up. It was only after Gettysburg where the unit suffered 80 percent casualties, that serious target practice was given the men. This lack of training demonstrates that the combat performance of the weapons was less than it could have been. A soldier who is inexperienced with his weapon can not use it to the fullest potential, reducing accuracy and effectiveness."
I'm sorry if this flies in the face of your claim that they all shot tons of target practice.
Read the whole piece before you jump on me. I'm only a naysayer when it comes to smoothbores being more accurate than they actually are. They were all we had for centuries. When improvement appeared, it behhooved them who depended on their weapons for life and sustenance to "upgrade".
This was probably tough to do on the income of the time.
As a hobby, I have no bone to pick with those of you who like smoothbores. I like rifled revolvers. You like smoothbore muskets.
Cheers,
George
I liked your reply to MyKeal. I've been other places where someone doesn't like the thread and carps instead of ignoring it. If it isn't interesting, please DO ignore it.
I may come visit your site, though if it is strictly smoothbore, I might not find it all that apt for me.
I shoot strictly BP revolver, as of late, 8 of them as of today when a new to me Starr 1858 showed up in my mailbox. All my revolver spin the ball, all of them CAN hold under 3 inches at 25 yards if I can do my part, and I often do.
Well, I do shoot some 22 auto and my carry gun when I get to the range. Today was to be a shooting day, but sat waiting for the mailman and the Starr. So, tomorrow.
I googled smooth bore shoot results, smooth bore shoots, and all I came up with is this page. Before you decry it, read it through. [I know you will say it's all hog, or "hawg" wash, but it does seem to indicate that the smoothbore that the rifled Enfield and Springfields replaced were inferior AT rang. Close up with "buck and ball", better as a combat weapon.
Hawg might, if he is still reading, read the part that says that shooting practice was all but non-existent, due to lack of ammunition.
Best excerpt from the page is this: "Whether firing a Model 1863 muzzle-loader or a gas-operated M1, the average citizen cannot hit the proverbial bull in the behind with a bass fiddle. Training helps, but training in marksmanship was something woefully lacking in most commands during the Civil War. Little time or ammunition was allocated to actual range practice - and many recruits went into battle without having fired a single practice round. (Coggins 39) "
And: "Instead, the men knew how to load the weapons, how to maintain the weapons, and how to fire the weapons in theory, but they didn't know anything about them in actual combat. A case in point would have to be the 24th Michigan. ``We find that it was sent to the front within a very few weeks of its formation in July 1862, and in its only recorded target practice during that time three men were wounded and one died of a heart attack'' (Griffith 88). This would be the only target practice until four months later, which again wasn't followed up. It was only after Gettysburg where the unit suffered 80 percent casualties, that serious target practice was given the men. This lack of training demonstrates that the combat performance of the weapons was less than it could have been. A soldier who is inexperienced with his weapon can not use it to the fullest potential, reducing accuracy and effectiveness."
I'm sorry if this flies in the face of your claim that they all shot tons of target practice.
Read the whole piece before you jump on me. I'm only a naysayer when it comes to smoothbores being more accurate than they actually are. They were all we had for centuries. When improvement appeared, it behhooved them who depended on their weapons for life and sustenance to "upgrade".
This was probably tough to do on the income of the time.
As a hobby, I have no bone to pick with those of you who like smoothbores. I like rifled revolvers. You like smoothbore muskets.
Cheers,
George
FL-Flinter
New member
George,
Believe it or not, I'm not much of a smoothbore rifle shooter, actually I haven't owned one in many years now. Most of my smoothie work was with birdshot loads and the Tula chokes. Primarily I shoot rifled bores with both round ball and heavy bore-size conicals both bare and paper patched. Got a .45 x 36" x 1:18 just waiting to get my underhammer action done to mount it on and run some of my 530gr bullets through it.
I sent you an email too; if you don't get it, email me.
Mark
Believe it or not, I'm not much of a smoothbore rifle shooter, actually I haven't owned one in many years now. Most of my smoothie work was with birdshot loads and the Tula chokes. Primarily I shoot rifled bores with both round ball and heavy bore-size conicals both bare and paper patched. Got a .45 x 36" x 1:18 just waiting to get my underhammer action done to mount it on and run some of my 530gr bullets through it.
I sent you an email too; if you don't get it, email me.
Mark
Mark,
I don't really think I am going to buy a Whitworth. They're rather high in price.
I WOULD like to have a rifle in .36 or .40 cal. Possibly H&A, or some other underhammer, if there are any. Gets the cone and hammer and cap fragments out of your face. Not many of them with my C&Bers, but some.
Does anybody sell barrels or rifles with other than 1:48 or 1: 72 or whatever spin?
Then again, I may be best off with a cartridge gun, falling or rolling block, 38/55 neighborhood.
Not to refer to the above thread directly, but one of the best things Whitworth did was settle on a .451 cal. for the military rifle. Made it less punishing for the poor saps who had to shoot those .69 cal cannons. I think it about halved powder expenditure, too.
If any gun beats you too hard, you are not going to shoot it all that well. My BPs don't. My .357s don't. Depending on the load, my .44 mags DO!
Cheers,
George
I don't really think I am going to buy a Whitworth. They're rather high in price.
I WOULD like to have a rifle in .36 or .40 cal. Possibly H&A, or some other underhammer, if there are any. Gets the cone and hammer and cap fragments out of your face. Not many of them with my C&Bers, but some.
Does anybody sell barrels or rifles with other than 1:48 or 1: 72 or whatever spin?
Then again, I may be best off with a cartridge gun, falling or rolling block, 38/55 neighborhood.
Not to refer to the above thread directly, but one of the best things Whitworth did was settle on a .451 cal. for the military rifle. Made it less punishing for the poor saps who had to shoot those .69 cal cannons. I think it about halved powder expenditure, too.
If any gun beats you too hard, you are not going to shoot it all that well. My BPs don't. My .357s don't. Depending on the load, my .44 mags DO!
Cheers,
George
The truth about CVA
I spent the better part of the afternoon reading through all the posts on this site about the dangers of CVA. I also read posts that lashed out again Randy Wakeman. If you have read through those posts you might recognize my name. I am Erik Zenger and on November 4, 2001 I was hanging onto life by a thread after the CVA inline blackpowder rifle I was shooting exploded sending the bolt and spring mechanism back into the right side of my face. I have since had fourteen very painful surgeries to put the side of my face back together.
In the days following the accident I could not help but wondering what had gone wrong. I received the answer one evening a few days after the accident when I was contacted by a gentleman who stated that his son had been hurt just months prior by the same exact gun. He had heard about my accident on the news and said he immediately knew that it had to be the same gun. Over the next couple of weeks I spoke with him extensively about the guns and why the failures were occurring. It turns out that there had been a recall on the guns that were manufactured in the years of 1995 and 1996. I purchased my gun in 1999, two years after the recall occurred, from a sporting goods store in my town.
I decided to retain an attorney to try to get my mounting medical expenses covered. Over the next two years I learned a great deal about CVA guns and their poor safety record. I was made aware of others who had been injured by CVA guns, and was deposed in other cases against CVA that were preparing to go to trial. It was a long, arduous two year process of preparing for litigation. In the end I decided to settle the case with CVA and Dikar (the Spanish company that manufactures the barrels). This was after they tried to accuse me abusing the gun, using the wrong amount of black powder and even using smokeless powder. In the end it was proven that I had used the gun exactly how it was intended and I had done nothing wrong. I settled because I was tired, tired of dealing with blatant dishonesty and arrogance of Robert Hickey and his thug attorneys and tired of them trying to discredit me. I was ready to get on with my life.
Since the accident I have been made aware of, and contacted by, a growing number of victims of these poorly manufactured rifles. Up until just recently, none of the cases went to trial. CVA was quick to get out and settle the cases to prevent public knowledge through media attention that would have ensued if one went to trial. It also spared them from having to disclose information about the flawed manufacturing process of the guns.
Late last year I was subpoenaed to testify in the first CVA related injury case to go to trial. I sat there through testimony given by the Dikar representative from Spain. I was shocked and sickened by the disclosures he made while under oath about the manufacturing and testing procedures of all CVA/Dikar guns. The most shocking revelation of all was that ALL CVA rifles have a proof stamp on them indicating that they have been test fired under stress at a licensed proof house. Each proof house has a “proofmark” that is specific to them. Dikar, without permission from the local proof house, has duplicated their proofmark and apply it to every gun barrel they make, even though the gun has never been proof tested at all. I find it interesting that Europe will not allow the sales of CVA rifles as they are too dangerous, but we allow them to be sold in our country.
Where I don’t know the exact number of people injured by the faulty CVA rifles, I do know for certain of at least 53 cases and these are only the cases which were filed in Federal courts and does not include cases filed in district courts or the individuals that settled directly with CVA without ever filing a case. I have heard from very reliable sources that the number of injured actually reaches the hundreds, and not only includes guns from the 1997 recall, but also guns made and sold in the past couple of years.
The bottom line is that ALL CVA rifles are poorly manufactured and dangerous. I wish I would have come across information like Randy Wakeman is providing prior to my accident warning about the dangers of CVA guns. I hope that I would have believed him, and I hope I would have never shot my rifle again. It would have changed everything. As it is, I did shoot my gun, it did explode, and my face continues to be disfigured, and I still, eight years later, wake up at night having nightmares of being pronounced dead at the rifle range.
It is my opinion that a great deal of dangerous rhetoric abounds on this site. The argument that “I have a CVA gun, and I have never had a problem with it” is ridiculous. The numbers prove that they are not safe guns, and the fact that your particular gun has not failed yet, means nothing. Even worse are the comments made by CVA employees, assuring us that their product is “completely safe.” Very reminiscent of the Ford Company saying the Pinto was safe. But the great thing is that all of you have your freedom to choose what you will believe about CVA. In my mind shooting a CVA rifle is much like playing Russian roulette….you never know if it will be you who ends up spending years recovering from injuries sustained from one of their faulty guns. I would hope that those who do not believe Randy Wakeman, would change your minds. I would also hope that those who own a CVA rifle would never shoot it again. There are so many great options out there of guns which have truly been proof tested and which DO NOT have a long history of disfiguring people’s faces and ruining their lives. Why not choose one of those guns?
If you would like some unbiased, factual information about the law suits filed against CVA you can go to www.cvaguncases.com. This is a website being put together by Dean Wise, a private investigator who has collected a great deal of information about CVA and their manufacturing practices as well as an initial list of people hurt by CVA guns.
The x-ray found on his home page is of me and was taken minutes after my CVA Prohunter inline black powder rifle exploded projecting the bolt and spring deep into my face.
I spent the better part of the afternoon reading through all the posts on this site about the dangers of CVA. I also read posts that lashed out again Randy Wakeman. If you have read through those posts you might recognize my name. I am Erik Zenger and on November 4, 2001 I was hanging onto life by a thread after the CVA inline blackpowder rifle I was shooting exploded sending the bolt and spring mechanism back into the right side of my face. I have since had fourteen very painful surgeries to put the side of my face back together.
In the days following the accident I could not help but wondering what had gone wrong. I received the answer one evening a few days after the accident when I was contacted by a gentleman who stated that his son had been hurt just months prior by the same exact gun. He had heard about my accident on the news and said he immediately knew that it had to be the same gun. Over the next couple of weeks I spoke with him extensively about the guns and why the failures were occurring. It turns out that there had been a recall on the guns that were manufactured in the years of 1995 and 1996. I purchased my gun in 1999, two years after the recall occurred, from a sporting goods store in my town.
I decided to retain an attorney to try to get my mounting medical expenses covered. Over the next two years I learned a great deal about CVA guns and their poor safety record. I was made aware of others who had been injured by CVA guns, and was deposed in other cases against CVA that were preparing to go to trial. It was a long, arduous two year process of preparing for litigation. In the end I decided to settle the case with CVA and Dikar (the Spanish company that manufactures the barrels). This was after they tried to accuse me abusing the gun, using the wrong amount of black powder and even using smokeless powder. In the end it was proven that I had used the gun exactly how it was intended and I had done nothing wrong. I settled because I was tired, tired of dealing with blatant dishonesty and arrogance of Robert Hickey and his thug attorneys and tired of them trying to discredit me. I was ready to get on with my life.
Since the accident I have been made aware of, and contacted by, a growing number of victims of these poorly manufactured rifles. Up until just recently, none of the cases went to trial. CVA was quick to get out and settle the cases to prevent public knowledge through media attention that would have ensued if one went to trial. It also spared them from having to disclose information about the flawed manufacturing process of the guns.
Late last year I was subpoenaed to testify in the first CVA related injury case to go to trial. I sat there through testimony given by the Dikar representative from Spain. I was shocked and sickened by the disclosures he made while under oath about the manufacturing and testing procedures of all CVA/Dikar guns. The most shocking revelation of all was that ALL CVA rifles have a proof stamp on them indicating that they have been test fired under stress at a licensed proof house. Each proof house has a “proofmark” that is specific to them. Dikar, without permission from the local proof house, has duplicated their proofmark and apply it to every gun barrel they make, even though the gun has never been proof tested at all. I find it interesting that Europe will not allow the sales of CVA rifles as they are too dangerous, but we allow them to be sold in our country.
Where I don’t know the exact number of people injured by the faulty CVA rifles, I do know for certain of at least 53 cases and these are only the cases which were filed in Federal courts and does not include cases filed in district courts or the individuals that settled directly with CVA without ever filing a case. I have heard from very reliable sources that the number of injured actually reaches the hundreds, and not only includes guns from the 1997 recall, but also guns made and sold in the past couple of years.
The bottom line is that ALL CVA rifles are poorly manufactured and dangerous. I wish I would have come across information like Randy Wakeman is providing prior to my accident warning about the dangers of CVA guns. I hope that I would have believed him, and I hope I would have never shot my rifle again. It would have changed everything. As it is, I did shoot my gun, it did explode, and my face continues to be disfigured, and I still, eight years later, wake up at night having nightmares of being pronounced dead at the rifle range.
It is my opinion that a great deal of dangerous rhetoric abounds on this site. The argument that “I have a CVA gun, and I have never had a problem with it” is ridiculous. The numbers prove that they are not safe guns, and the fact that your particular gun has not failed yet, means nothing. Even worse are the comments made by CVA employees, assuring us that their product is “completely safe.” Very reminiscent of the Ford Company saying the Pinto was safe. But the great thing is that all of you have your freedom to choose what you will believe about CVA. In my mind shooting a CVA rifle is much like playing Russian roulette….you never know if it will be you who ends up spending years recovering from injuries sustained from one of their faulty guns. I would hope that those who do not believe Randy Wakeman, would change your minds. I would also hope that those who own a CVA rifle would never shoot it again. There are so many great options out there of guns which have truly been proof tested and which DO NOT have a long history of disfiguring people’s faces and ruining their lives. Why not choose one of those guns?
If you would like some unbiased, factual information about the law suits filed against CVA you can go to www.cvaguncases.com. This is a website being put together by Dean Wise, a private investigator who has collected a great deal of information about CVA and their manufacturing practices as well as an initial list of people hurt by CVA guns.
The x-ray found on his home page is of me and was taken minutes after my CVA Prohunter inline black powder rifle exploded projecting the bolt and spring deep into my face.
Last edited:
- Status