I have heard over and over again people religiously saying that these can only handle the lowest of low pressure loads and that even level action ammo would be dangerous in a trapdoor. However, i have never found any actual data to back this up despite scouring the internet for any evidence to back these claims. Contacting the Pedersoli company i was told to only use trapdoor loads HOWEVER was told that they have been tested to handle the same loads as falling block guns and MUST PASS to be sold. I went further and obtained info on the actual proof tests of the firearms they sell.
(linked here) http://bpcr.net/site_docs-results_s...li_proof_rules_and_allowable_limits_09-04.htm
The email response is as follows
"To answer to your question about the ammunition, our Springfield Trapdoor rifles .45-70 caliber go through the same forced proof test of the much stronger Sharps and Rolling Block rifles actions.(By law we have to proof test all the guns in Europe).
It is true that our TD rifle is manufactured with improvements which are possible only with now- days technologies, however it comes from an original design which mechanic presented some weakness in the old days.
Therefore the suggestion is to use reloaded cartridge with black powder only that do not exceed the 18.000 PSI (1,241 bar) or to load commercial smokeless powder cartridge, light type with bullets within the 300 grains.
Our tests recorded 1250 fts with the 300 grains bullet in the Springfield Trapdoor Officer."
Once again i am dumbfounded as the trapdoors in testing have been proven (proofed) to handle any standard modern 45-70 load. EU testing means that those guns didnt just pass the test of any modern load but fired 2 consecutive shots at 30% above it. Effectively a +p load. I am at a total loss and am hopeful that anyone can link me to some data or even evidence that these guns are in practice actually limited to the loads people claim. I cannot find even so much as a youtube video demonstrating that this is dangerous in a modern gun or a first hand account attesting that modern ammo made for lever actions caused any form of damage or failure to the firearm. I make no claims to what is or isn't true but rather am desperately trying to find any actual information on the subject that isn't based on either a 120 year old gun or hearsay. I am just looking for some real information that somone can back up one way or the other.
(linked here) http://bpcr.net/site_docs-results_s...li_proof_rules_and_allowable_limits_09-04.htm
The email response is as follows
"To answer to your question about the ammunition, our Springfield Trapdoor rifles .45-70 caliber go through the same forced proof test of the much stronger Sharps and Rolling Block rifles actions.(By law we have to proof test all the guns in Europe).
It is true that our TD rifle is manufactured with improvements which are possible only with now- days technologies, however it comes from an original design which mechanic presented some weakness in the old days.
Therefore the suggestion is to use reloaded cartridge with black powder only that do not exceed the 18.000 PSI (1,241 bar) or to load commercial smokeless powder cartridge, light type with bullets within the 300 grains.
Our tests recorded 1250 fts with the 300 grains bullet in the Springfield Trapdoor Officer."
Once again i am dumbfounded as the trapdoors in testing have been proven (proofed) to handle any standard modern 45-70 load. EU testing means that those guns didnt just pass the test of any modern load but fired 2 consecutive shots at 30% above it. Effectively a +p load. I am at a total loss and am hopeful that anyone can link me to some data or even evidence that these guns are in practice actually limited to the loads people claim. I cannot find even so much as a youtube video demonstrating that this is dangerous in a modern gun or a first hand account attesting that modern ammo made for lever actions caused any form of damage or failure to the firearm. I make no claims to what is or isn't true but rather am desperately trying to find any actual information on the subject that isn't based on either a 120 year old gun or hearsay. I am just looking for some real information that somone can back up one way or the other.