Author Topic: Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Part II  (Read 2436 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sport240

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Part II
« on: July 25, 2003, 05:48:14 PM »
Well, if no one else did it...I got to the bottom of the story...

After reading this thread I was very concerned as I own a Traditions E-Bolt in .50 cal.  This is a gun that I enjoy alot and has provided for some very good hunting in the past...however, with all the talk out there about unsafe barrels at regular hunting pressures (loads) I was quite concerned, so I sent an E-Mail directly to Traditions Inc. regarding this issue.

The next day I received mail asking me to give them my telephone number so that a representative can contact me regarding this issue.  I obliged...(xxx)xxx-xxxx.

The next day as I'm sitting at my office desk, my secretary, announces a call on line #1...I pick up the call...and it's Traditions on the end of the line.

I discuss with the person concerning their barrels (since they are made in Spain...and are directly concerned within this question)...what I learn is quite reassuring.  Turns out that the stamped pressures on the barrel are IN NO WAY A MAXIMUM NOR A MINIMUM...it is simply the pressure at which the Spanish test the barrels as such, being what can be described as an "old world standard".  From what was explained to me, this has absolutely nothing to do with the actual "resistance" or "tolerance" of the barrel but rather, a benchmark test at which they are tested.

The representative told me that the company tests the barrel at 2 and 3 times these pressures and....not to get into any legal or liability issues, that thes barrels have been tested and approved WAY beyond the 150 gr Pyrodex recommended limits without fault.  It seems that the Spanish quantifier is just that...a quantifier...it does'nt imply that the barrels are dangerous beyond or below...they just state that they have been tested at those pressures.  The representative was quite open about the fact that no North American standards actually regulated this industry and that he wished that there would be such standards established to qwell all the worries.

The Brass Tax about it all...the representative was quite direct and convincing to the effect that these barrels could withstand WAY more pressures than what was indicated as a "mark"...not a reference.

As I concluded my conversation with this fellow, I asked for his name....and he casually answered..."JAY BRENNEMAN...OWNER OF TRADITIONS..."...WOW...I was truely amazed!!!...That the owner of this company get in touch with me to dispel such myths was a true honor!!!

To me, the fact that the owner of the company can call me at the office and tell me that all this business of unsafe barrels is HOGWASH, is the true mark of a responsible company which respects it's clientele.

I was also informed that those who have been promoting such myths (unsafe barrels), seem to have opposing or conflicting interests (what a surprise!!) and have received gratuitous test barrels from Traditions for testing, but never got back to them as to the results (what a surprise!!)

Folks....Nothing is as it seems!!

Tonight I write to you as a convinced man that my Traditions E-Bolt is a safe weapon which will allow me to take game with no risk to myself.

I also want to specify that I have no direct or indirect link to the Traditions Company, I have no interest in their business, I know no person which works for this company....I am just a guy...who was concerned about what has been said about their barrels....and I inquired...I also want to specify that Mr. Brenneman told me that I was the first to inquire about such a question...

The internet is a free medium which is great to consult and acquire knowledge....I must say that I have received a true lesson as to the quality of the knowledge freely distributed by others.

Sport240

Offline johnt

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2003, 06:23:55 PM »
Well done! And well said!
  I kinda blew off the hole thread the first time I saw it.
 The USA, sad to say is very "litigus"? If some clown spills hot coffee for goodness sakes they get a few million dollars!
  If there was a problem,we'd all here of it.
 Yes,there are accident's,most are due to culpable neglegance.(spl?) :D

Offline 1860

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2003, 12:30:51 AM »
Since it seemed to do with inlines, I kind of ignored the whole thing, and that wasn't easy because it was all over the net.

So, have any of these bbl.s burst or failed in some way, how many?  I have not seen any posts about a barrel bursting, except one White rifle.

1860

Offline mamaflinter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 166
    • http://mamaflinter.tripod.com
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2003, 04:24:07 AM »
You all should rest assured that when muzzleloader barrels are proofed, they are tested WAY BEYOND the pressures you would expect to encounter with blackpowder or any of its subs.

I don't know what possessed Randy Wakeman to begin all this stuff on virtually every message board pertaining to muzzleloaders he could find and trust me he found a bunch. But to blatantly accuse a company of producing something that has the potential to maim or kill someone due to unsafe business practices is ludicrous without one shred of evidence.

Randy if you are reading this, you must know that you don't know all the business practices of CVA, nor do you know to what extent they go to test their barrels. You only know what you see on the barrel as a proof mark. That may only be one of many that they perform.

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2003, 07:13:22 AM »
"The testing house in Spain which follows CIP rules states that the barrels must withstand 700 Kgs/cm2 in order to leave the proof house and will be marked as such.  

Jim Bruno
Traditions Performance Firearms
1375 Boston Post Road
P.O. Box 776
Old Saybrook, CT 06475
Phone - 860-388-4656 ext. 26"

For Traditions to say they have "never been asked the question" is just plain nuts. They have already taken the step of calling Austin & Halleck to ask "what they are doing to do about this."

Traditions and CVA remain the two companies that are unable to explain how or if their guns are tested, and with what loads.

The barrel "proof" is just that-- so says the CIP, Austin & Halleck, Doc White, Toby Bridges, and the Birmingham Proof House.

Are the soft, extruded, non-heat treated barrels safe over time with 150 grain pellet (CVA) or powder (Traditions) loads? I don't know. I'll restate what has already been stated.

When "BPI" (ownership unknown) puts barrels on guns (metal unknown) and markets them as magnum guns (testing unknown) and says 150 grains of pellets are recommended (reasons unknown) and over 100 grains of loose powder is MAX. (reasons unknown) and conicals over 400 grains are dangerous (reasons unknown), and has great difficulty explaining proof marks on their barrels (reasons unknown), that is just a few too many UNKNOWNS for me. For others, it may not be. People are free to do their own research, and draw whatever conclusions they will. I elect not to follow what CVA / BPI employees regurgitate at me. Their paychecks come from the same place-- what would anyone expect them to say?

My reasons for asking a few questions here should hardly be unknown. If others had no questions of their own, they would hardly be bothered to post on this thread- here or anywhere else.

Stated and restated, are CVA / BPI guns proven safe with 150 grain pellet loads, particularly the new models that have NO history and are hitting the stores for the first time right now?

That is UNKNOWN TO ME.

I hope that the unresolved issues are addressed eventually.

It is not strictly a BPI issue, but there are certainly enough pieces of conflicting information to wonder what is going on. BPI gets credit for introducing the amazing new concept of "minimum pressure."

I wonder why the CVA manual tells you their Optima may blow-up with use of conicals over 400 grains, and sells 405 grain Powerbelts at the same time? I also wonder how CVA can publish a 100 gr. powder limit, and promote their guns as "magnum" guns using 150 grains of pellets at the same time?

I wonder how Traditions can use barrels that are NOT claimed to be in any way stronger / made from different metal than CVA / BPI product can be supplied with an owner's manual that allows 150 grains of loose powder and a projectile of ANY weight?

I also really wonder how Remington's stamped barrel warnings and owner's manuals do not match their catalog / website load info? (Example: 90 gr. loose powder max. in a Remington 700ML .45 caliber max.)

White, Knight, Savage, Thompson Omega / Encore barrels are all tested to over 2.5X the pressure of any load they recommend. Austin & Halleck tests their barrels in-house and out of house, and has taken the additional step of updating their proofs to be more reflective of their gun's capabilities. BPI can't? Traditions can't? Remington still says 90 grains "MAX." in a 700 ML .45?

It should surprise no one that this topic has not been explored fully in heavily advertising-driven magazines, regardless of author. It should be. The appearance is that some companies only want "magnum" dollars without magnum responsibility.

To those who feel these questions are inappropriate, I think that to NOT ask them is negligent. To those who say these questions "could be bad for the industry", the answer is that MORE safety / testing questions SHOULD have darn well been asked before the defective CVA Apollo and defective H&R threadless breechplug guns were foisted on innocent victims.

More "damage to the industry" has already happened at the hands of the CVA Apollo and the early H & R Huntsman product than ever could happen by merely asking questions on the Internet.

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2003, 07:30:04 AM »
Quote from: mamaflinter
You all should rest assured that when muzzleloader barrels are proofed, they are tested WAY BEYOND the pressures you would expect to encounter with blackpowder or any of its subs.


No, Mamaflinter, they are not. What is your source for saying this? There are no CIP specs or testing parameters for anything but plain blackpowder- not Triple 7, not pellets. CIP proofs mean exactly what they say-- confirmed by the CIP, Birmingham Proof House, and Austin & Halleck.

If they were "proofed" to a higher pressure, they would be stamped as such. Austin & Halleck already has addressed the issue by flying their brass to Spain, and updating their barrel proofs to twice the current level of Traditions and CVA product. That was not done because they felt this was some sort of "non-issue."

When MMP, Hornady, Larry Weishuhn, Toby Bridges, Doc White, etc., etc., all agree that the questions posed are not only fair-- but is a subject that has been overlooked for far too long, you can bet there is substance to it.

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Re: Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Part II
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2003, 07:53:30 AM »
Quote from: sport240

Tonight I write to you as a convinced man that my Traditions E-Bolt is a safe weapon which will allow me to take game with no risk to myself.

Sport240


The Traditions E-bolt 209 here, bought at retail, fires itself once out every 10-15 times as you close the cock-on-close bolt. Safe? Not to me! If all it takes is a phone call to "convince you," that is your choice.

I work for no firearms company, and what anyone chooses to shoot is their business. This, however, is not a trivial issue, and it isn't going away.

You won't see a Traditions banner on Toby Bridges' website anymore-- that hardly stopped him from saying what he thinks about the issue.  

http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/update.html

As for
Quote
"Turns out that the stamped pressures on the barrel are IN NO WAY A MAXIMUM NOR A MINIMUM"
--

Traditions and CVA would make a lot more sense if their respective stories were the same-- for they are not. CVA/BPI has repeatedly stated that it IS a "minimum pressure." They are both quite wrong-- it is a CIP stamp by a CIP proofhouse, and follows CIP rules.

Traditions touts their ported Evolution model as having "30% less recoil" due to the porting. Fine, the test gun here kicks like a mule. I asked Traditions how they could publish "30% less recoil," and asked for anything to show that it DID somehow reduce recoil. The answer was, "Randy-- we don't know, you tell us. We have never shot one."

So much for their "testing."

Offline kevin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 144
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2003, 03:21:48 PM »
Randy, i'll agree with you , but upon reading the owners manual of all manufacturers firearms they all publish recomended powder charges, am I right???, as long as people would follow directions no problems would exsist is that also not right???, so i will ask you again sir WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? and please stay off the soap box.
                                                kevin
TOS violation warning given 4-2-05 Account deactivated 4-5-05. E-mail GB to get reinstated.

Offline propredator

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 114
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2003, 03:58:12 PM »
Randy if austin Halleck uses the same spanish barrels as cva and tradtions why do they go to spain to raise the barrel proof on the barrels?
 If they have tested these barrels that come from the same place as the cva,tradtioins do,wouldnt the barrels on cva,tradtion guns handle the same pressures?
 Or is there some thing they do to the metal of the barrel after it leaves spain?
 I just need it more clear what makes the difference between the same barrels.

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2003, 04:26:04 PM »
Quote from: kevin
Randy, i'll agree with you , but upon reading the owners manual of all manufacturers firearms they all publish recomended powder charges, am I right???, as long as people would follow directions no problems would exsist is that also not right???, kevin


1) Many manufacturer's manuals are contradictory and make no sense. Catalog, website info says one thing-- the manual, another. Remington is a vivid example of this.

2) Powder charge is only part of the issue-- with what type and weight projectile? Same soft, extruded metal in Traditions Evolution and CVA in-lines. CVA says your gun "may" blow up with more than 100 grains loose powder MAX. Use of over 400 grain conicals is prohibited in any case.

Traditions? 150 grains Triple 7 loose powder is allowed, and a projectile of ANY weight.

How we get from a sub-10,000 PSI barrel proof to recommended loads exceeding 25,000 PSI is a big question mark. BPI / CVA and Traditions were contacted long ago, and yet to provide any answers. NOT SO with White, Knight, Savage, Thompson, Savage, Austin & Halleck.

If Traditions or CVA will tell anyone what their metals are made from, how / if / where they are tested, please let me know.

It was not all that long ago that the CVA "Apollo" was introduced to the buying public. Had you asked them if the CVA Apollo was safe at the time, just what do you think the answer would have been?

After a steady string of horrific gun failures and injuries, some two years later-- the guns were recalled, after far too much needless human suffering. They have yet to get them all back today, and they are still being sued.Those guns were claimed to be well-tested and safe by CVA as well-- "follow the manual." They gave no more testing documentation then than they do now. Are current guns safe with 150 grain pellet charges over time? I don't know.

Some think that until their neighbor gets hurt, it is "okay." I feel muzzleloading manufacturers need to show that guns are ready for market FIRST, rather than needless injuries proving that they are not.

Whether Bridgestone / Firestone, Ford Pinto gas tanks, etc., the "never happens" stuff has already happened far too often. If a "60 Minutes" expose can't convince Remington to replace defective triggers, what will? Remington is doing yet another recall, as their web-site shows.

3) "Follow the directions, and everything is fine."

A consumer has absolutely no way of knowing that with Traditions or BPI product.

Don't you really think we should?

Offline crow_feather

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1359
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2003, 04:34:37 PM »
Randy,

I see that you have strong feelings about this topic.  I agree that anything unsafe should not be sold.  I once bought a mauser action for $40.00 from an add in shotgun news.  I took it to my gunsmith who told me I had an expensive anchor because neither he nor any other competent gunsmith would touch the action except to weld it shut forever.  A friend bought rifle reloads from a small company at a local gun show only to bring his rifle in the next day with a blown action.  

He and I failed to remember to old addage - you get what you pay for.  While I have stayed mainly with Thompson, Lyman, and Pedersoli, I have tried a few pistol kits from "other companies".  Screws broke in half when tightening, a brass triggerguard broke when being installed into the wood.
I learned once again that you get what you pay for.

I have read about a person in Santa Rosa Calif that loaded a new T/C with powder from the can - just poured a bunch of powder down the barrel - and topped it off with a large wad of toilet paper.  He blew off his left hand when he pulled the trigger.  A person with a CVA knocked himself about 5 feet from the line when he "loaded from the can" and loosed a load that as he stated - felt a little stouter than a 458 mag.

Personally, I think that as long as you can't controll the people that buy and shoot black powder- you're only safe when you shoot some place away from others or only with trusted friends around you.

As for those people who buy from companies that sell less expensive rifles, its like buying cheap ammo or a $40.00 action - you get what you pay for.
IF THE WORLD DISARMED, WE WOULD BE SPEAKING THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE AGGRESSIVE ALIENS THAT LIVE ON THE THIRD MOON OF JUPITOR.

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2003, 04:37:49 PM »
Quote from: propredator
Randy if austin Halleck uses the same spanish barrels as cva and tradtions why do they go to spain to raise the barrel proof on the barrels?
 If they have tested these barrels that come from the same place as the cva,tradtioins do,wouldnt the barrels on cva,tradtion guns handle the same pressures?
 Or is there some thing they do to the metal of the barrel after it leaves spain?
 I just need it more clear what makes the difference between the same barrels.


They use the same "vendor." This is what Terry Eby, BPI National sales manager, had to say: "Your statement that BPI obtains its barrels from the same source as Austin and Halleck is also overstated. While we do obtain some raw materials from the same source (for less than 50% of our barrels), the design specifications, finishing and testing of all of our barrels is done by us, not by any outside source. If indeed Austin and Halleck does no testing beyond 10,000 PSI, that’s their procedure not ours.

Austin & Halleck does use Spanish barrels, but they are hardly "the same." One look at the huge 1" half-octagonal section on an Austin & Halleck shows it clearly.

Austin & Halleck has also had an ongoing in-house testing program in place, and independent outside testing in conjunction with the labs of Browning Arms, including destructive testing.

With the body of testing A & H has already formed, updating their proofs may have been quite easy for them. Apparently, it was. With Traditions / BPI, I have no idea.

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2003, 04:48:41 PM »
Quote from: crow-feather
Randy,

I see that you have strong feelings about this topic.  I agree that anything unsafe should not be sold.  I once bought a mauser action for $40.00 from an add in shotgun news.  I took it to my gunsmith who told me I had an expensive anchor because neither he nor any other competent gunsmith would touch the action except to weld it shut forever.  A friend bought rifle reloads from a small company at a local gun show only to bring his rifle in the next day with a blown action.  



Incidents like this seldom make the news. Actually, this topic is far from my favorite. In testing 20+ muzzleloaders for a couple of videos, I ask a few questions as a formality.

Little did I know the apparent panic that would strike BPI and Traditions. Some companies faxed over testing data. Some required signing of non-disclosure agreements - - - SOP.

What came from Traditions / BPI was a steady string of hate mail and phone calls-- yet no documentation or information. Not what I expected from companies who claim to be "major muzzleloading companies" at all.

Offline Underclocked

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2003, 05:48:17 PM »
Randy, just what are the issues described thusly, "seem to have opposing or conflicting interests" ??

And could someone tell me exactly what THAT means?  The same as "seem to have been proof tested but don't worry about it"??

Bet there are a couple of guys in Utah that wish someone had thrown up some red flags before gun parts joined their anatomies.
WHUT?

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2003, 07:50:24 PM »
Quote from: Underclocked
Randy, just what are the issues described thusly, "seem to have opposing or conflicting interests" ??


You bet, UC.

The notion that I have any horse in this race is false on its face. I have no financial ties to any muzzleloading manufacturer, foreign or domestic, nor any firearms industry company in any way.

There is nothing for me to win or lose, and there are no "opposing or conflicting" interests or motives present-- as I believe you can attest to personally.

SAMMI was formed to make hunting a shooting a better place, and it has done just that. The insincere lament of a muzzleloading manufacturer suggesting that there "should be standards" hold little water.

Of course there should be, and there are only four major players in the inline industry that need to be able to agree on them. There is nothing to show that that process has ever been attempted, much less actively sought.

There is no qualified gunsmith that has ever suggested barrel proofs should be approached, much less exceeded. The 150 grain equivalent loads suggested break CIP rules, and Hodgdon Powder Company rules. Hodgdon has long preached, if you go over 100 grains of pellets in .50 caliber, you are on your own-- a warning that appears on every package of Pyrodex or Triple Seven pellets sold. When a company instructs you to break other manufacturer's rules, they certainly should be well-prepared to show why this is a reasonable thing to do.

Somehow, "take 3 pellets and call me in the morning" seems inadequate.

Offline bfoster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 94
    • http://www.cardingtonmachine.com
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2003, 07:55:00 PM »
The lack of open response from BPI & Traditions strikes me as odd in today's legal environment, if this is true. (I'm not questioning Randy, but I've not written to these concerns myself). Let me recount a story:

A few years ago I was at the facility of an arms manufacturer that is a customer of my tool and business. One thing mentioned was that a pistol had been returned with significant damage, along with a note that said that several other pistols had been returned to a (very well known) competitor. Some sample ammunition was also provided with the returned pistol. As my company has a pressure gun and other analytical equipment I was given a part of the returned ammunition to analyze. The first thing that I did was to break down one cartridge. It contained an orange powder which I was 99% sure was manufactured by Olin/St. Marks. After determining average grain size and specific gravity I called a powder chemist I know at St. Marks. The reaction was instantaneous, open, truthful and complete. The powder was not a propellant, but a product used in detonators, explosive bolts etc. It is sold to only one customer, a contractor for the DOD. The Olin/St. Marks legal department wanted to know the source (gunshow- "load this like Bullseye" ???). The chemist expressed his doubts that firing this cartridge in my pressure gun (which has a barrel just under 2" diameter, and a very strong breech) would be safe... needless to say, I took his advice. BTW, the fellow that destroyed several pistols was not injured.

The point is that I don't see how an arms company can protect itself if it does not have an extensive testing program. While the raw data understandably might not be released into the public domain, it is reasonable to expect a consistent set of recommendations for use of a rifle. As data for SAAMI (smokeless) proof test ammunition and protocols is available it is also reasonable that any manufacturer of muzzleloaders of would be proud to openly state that their rifles are able to pass a test consisting of an XX% overload under conditions A, B, C, etc.

The obvious concern with conflicting loading instructions is that this leaves the manufacturer open to perhaps indefensibly complex legal action should any mishap occur, no matter where the fault lies.

Given the pressures we're talking about, the materials that are used in the construction of some of these arms, and some features common to some in line designs, my concern as an mechanical engineer with many years of arms industry experience centers more around the possibility of metal fatigue over many firing cycles rather than the prospect of an immediate burst barrel. I do not have enough data to make an informed judgement, but a "flag" is raised in my mind whan a business appears to be unwilling to discuss basic testing protocols used to insure product safety, particularly when there is a lot of open literature on the topic.

Bob

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2003, 07:04:47 AM »


There are two basic types of "proof." "Provisional" proof that applies generally to barrels in the early stages of manufacture to prevent the maker from continuing work on defective tubes.

Definitive proof applies to all arms and is effected "in the white" or in the finished state.

Inspection of many Traditions and CVA guns will clearly show the Eibar definitive black powder proof mark as shown by #2 above. Likely you will also see #9, the ammunition inspection proof mark as well. This will be followed by a pressure stamped on the barrel-- typically 700KP/CM2. That pressure is expressed in "kiloponds / cm2." The equivalent in PSI is approx. 9957 PSI.

It is well-documented that 150 grain Pyrodex pellet loads pushing 250 to 300 grain saboted projectiles can exceed 2.5 X that pressure, often upwards of 25,000 - 27,000 PSI. These are common loads, not "unusual" loads.

There is no evidence to show that these barrels are tested stateside in any way, and there is evidence to show that they are not as in imported muzzleloaders coming here a day or so after clearing customs.

If there is further testing beyond what is clearly stamped on the barrels, it is unknown - - - and not reflected on the original substandard proof embossed on those barrels, nor is there any supplementary proof to indicate that this is being done.

The simple question, posed again and again, is have those guns been proofed or tested to 20,000 PSI, 25,000 PSI, 30,000 PSI? If so, who is doing the testing, and what guns are being tested? Why are there no marks to indicate a "tested" barrel from an untested one? What specific loads ARE they tested with? Are they tested with pellets at all? What metal IS used in these soft, extruded barrels? How do I know that MY gun has been tested beyond the internationally respected house of Eibar stamp?

WHAT reasonable assurances can be provided to a customer so he knows HIS individual gun has been tested?

Somehow, a terse phone call from a manufacturer that says these proofs are "not really proof marks" or "just a manufacturing mark" or "minimum pressures" or "it is ALL hogwash-- just follow the manual" seems ill-prepared, clumsy, and insufficient.

Traditions and CVA / BPI have been aware of these questions for some time. They have been unable to answer or fully address them. (Unless you think that Traditions calling me "anti Second Amendment" or CVA starting a "Randy, you are out of your mind" thread on their forum should be construed as an answer to these questions.)

I don't know what testing there is, with what, by who, and why the Eibar Proof marks remain far, far too low. If anybody has an answer, I'm here to learn.

The public response from Traditions and CVA / BPI has been non-existent. If they can address these issues fully, and put the matter to rest, why haven't they?

The educated consumer can decide for themselves what chances they MAY OR MAY NOT be taking. As to if they are tested or safe with "their loads," I cannot possibly say either way. I WISH I could say that I believe these guns to be well-tested and proven safe. The best I can offer remains "I don't know."

Offline propredator

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 114
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2003, 12:37:13 PM »
Randy i think you are right about the Austin Halleck barrels,got the chance to hold one today,first time for me.Good looken gun.Dont look like any barrel i ever saw on any traditions or cva.I was half tempted to buy it,but i just bought a rifle the other day.

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2003, 10:52:31 PM »
Quote from: bfoster
The lack of open response from BPI & Traditions strikes me as odd


Bob,

It should strike anyone as "odd." As mentioned here, and elsewhere-- it is all over the net. If anyone thinks that BPI and Traditions brass have no clue as to any of this-- well, they certainly do-- as they have complained about it.

If the "air needs to be cleared," a Traditions or BPI representative certainly could have publicly addressed it and done so-- long, long ago.

They have not. Why not?



As for A & H-- yes, they are great shooters as well!

Offline sport240

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2003, 05:44:07 PM »
....It should strike anyone as "odd" that someone who has absolutely no interest whatsoever relating to this question, that he should plaster the internet with foul air about certain companies and their barrels....you know, I've read here, there and truely just about everywhere muzzleloaders are mentionned on the Net, to find this subject brought up by Randy Wakeman....I really am weary of people who's voice burries all others and all other comment is fiercely opposed and discarded without value...our nations capital's are full of these people...some call them politicians...some call them other things, but very often they have something else on their mind than the safety and welfare of others....hummm......

When I served in the military, I was always told that in emergencies listen for those who say nothing, because they need your attention, ignore those who squeal and holler, because they have plenty of energy left and usually they try to make their case more interesting than it really is in order to get your attention....but they don't deserve it...

Sport240

Offline Underclocked

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2003, 11:26:05 PM »
Sport, your "getting to the bottom of this" has been nothing more than a personal attack on Randy Wakeman.  What FACTS can you offer up as to the lack of credibility or sincerity of Mr. Wakeman?

You are attempting to discredit an individual by offering up the same kind of "evidence" given as answers to legitimate questions.   That you have distrust of Mr. Wakeman's motives isn't really all that relevant, is it?

If the facts are there, why aren't they on the table?  What do opinions based upon supposition or hearsay matter?

FACT: Spanish muzzleloader barrels wear a PROOF MARK that represents pressure substantially below that achievable from using loads recommended by the marketer of those barrels.   PROOF MARK

Question:  Why?

The answer, whatever it is, has nothing to do with your opinion of Randy Wakeman.

My opinion is that if you asked a valid question about an issue having possible direct and severe impact on the health and well-being of yourself, a family member, a friend, or even Joe Blow and  were given nothing more than garbled, meaningless response and insults - you might get vocal.   Shouldn't there be something more than ramblings to support the safety of a device that places an "explosion" inches from your face?

Safety issues can be pushed to an extreme, even to the point that a solid product or process is made unusable or not viable financially, but that is hardly the case here.  I can see the failure to provide any adequate answer to this question of barrel integrity doing FAR more harm than simply the asking.
WHUT?

Offline johnt

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2003, 02:46:04 PM »
The "FACT" is simple,

 None of the spanish proof marked barrels,using recomended loads by any company have BLOWN-UP ,
It's a silly argument for an intelligent person, there's lawyer's chompin on the bit for an answer to this one!
 It's like this, I have a 57 chevy,I get in an accident. Do I sue Chevy,the state,or the Fed., because my son was not protected by an "air bag"?
  Have ya noticed lately,nobody what's ta tell ya how to "lighten a trigger"?

I have seen people do stupid sh!# with bp gun's. ALL,,not paying mind to recomendations of barrels maker's,Gun makers,or their cohorts.

Want a really good example of a future law suit against ML Sportsmen?

Savage 10ml!!!!!  :D

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2003, 04:29:33 PM »
Quote from: johnt
The "FACT" is simple,

 None of the spanish proof marked barrels,using recomended loads by any company have BLOWN-UP ,


Of course they have. BPI is being sued right now, and it was the CVA's defective Apollo that put CVA out of business in the first place. Ask yourself, if you were the original purchaser of a new Apollo, what you "think" CVA would have told you if YOU asked IF that gun was "well-tested" and proven safe?

This specific thread was not started by me. I wish Traditions and BPI WOULD clear the air-- this issue is one they have been aware of for some time. The proofs and CIP ratings are public knowledge-- as are pressures for anybody who has ever read Lyman's.

Somehow, a telephone call from a manufacturer saying "forget about it" seems lacking.

Offline KING

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
Dangerous Muzzleloaders/Unsafe Barrels...Pa
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2003, 05:57:29 PM »
:shock:   O.K. Gentleman....personally......... I think that this has gone far enough.  When it gets this carried away it is time to put a stop to it........nuff said...........king
THE ONLY FEMALE THAT I TRUST IS A LABRADOR.......AND SHE DONT SNOORE,AND DONT COMPLAIN ABOUT MY COOKING...THE ONLY GODS THAT EXIST ARE THOSE THAT HAVE ONE IN THE CHAMBER,AND 19 IN THE MAG.......