Black powder proof

[unspellable]

Ran across a couple of articles by a fellow name of Randy Wakeman about the question of whether or not some muzzle laoders are properly proofed.  CVA and Traditions in particular.

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

Any body have any updates or comments on this issue?  Whether he's right or wrong on the adequacy of the proof, I've yet to see anything to contradict him.

Any body have anything new o nthis or any comments?

[Ramrod]

Most who have been around here a while have learned to take anything Randy writes with a grain or three of salt.

[unspellable]

It's a fact the the proof mark on my Traditions Trapper says 700 Kp/cm^2.  It's a fact that many working loads will go over that.

So what's the explanation?  Wakeman may be right or he may be all wet, but I still haven't seen an explanation of the proof mark.

By way of contrast I have a Spanish shotgun proof marked at 900 Kp/cm^2.  This is slightly higher than the SAAMI maximum average pressure for a 12 gauge so it sounds pretty reasonable as a max working pressure.

Wakeman claims he got no real answer from CVA or Traditions.  Seems like they ought to know what their own proof marks mean.

[Ramrod]

The procedure for proof testing is dictated by the government of the country where the gun is made, not by the maker. If working loads are exceeding the proof, you are overloading.

[unspellable]

The proof house itself sets the procedures for proof.  (Although the proof house may or may not be a government agency.)

Any reasonable load for a muzzle loading rifle or pistol other than for some round ball loads will exceed 700 Kp/cm^2.  That's why the question came up in the first place, 700 Kp/cm^2 is so low that it doesn't make any sense.

The obvious explanation on the surface appearance of the situation is that the piece has been proofed for lite round ball loads only but is rifled for and being sold as a firearm for the use of conicals, sabots, etc. with standard loads.  The trouble with accepting this explanation is that it fits with Wakeman's contention that they may be unsafe.

Wakeman didn't really claim out right that they are unsafe, he just asked for an explanation of the proof marks.  One that hasn't been forthcoming.  And it d**n well ought to be.

My shotgun is proofed for 900 Kp/cm^2 wich fits with the SAAMI specs, but any serious load for a muzzle loading rifle or pistol will exceed that.

So as fars as I am concerned, the question remains unanswered.

[Naphtali]

unspellable:

You're trying to get the information the hard way. Neither CVA nor Traditions proofs their firearms; they don't have to go to the extra expense. European governments operate proof houses for this purpose.

While different countries have different proof protocols, all firearms you buy from a US reseller-distributor will be safe to use the maximum stipulated load (in the owner's manual).

If you want to identify the proof, identify the country of manufacture, and perhaps the proof markings.

1. If you are a member of the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association, their staff probably has the information on file. Their magazine's editor is a documentation translator by trade.

2. If you are a member of the National Rifle Association, write to "Dope Bag." They probably have the information on file.

3. If neither of these sources pans out, try writing to a country's American Embassy (commercial consul). Your biggest problem will be an accurate translation.
***
By the way, my understanding is that Italian proof is significantly more rigorous than Spanish proof.

Hope this helps.

[unspellable]

Naphtali,

I am continuing to dig for info on his question.  I'll toss your suggestions in the hopper.

In the meantime I did learn what the proof load would be in South Africa.  Of course this has nothing to do with Spanish proof procedures.

If we assume that the firearms carrying the Traditions and CVA labels are safe to use, then why does the proof mark indicate a pressure far less than a reasonable working pressure?  I am assuming the marked pressure is supposed to be a maximum working pressure.  The proof service pressure marked on my shotgun is right in line with SAAMI specs.  Why does the muzzle loader proof look so low?

South Africa's proof for 50 caliber rifled muzzle loaders. (Pistol or rifle)

Proof load:

  200.62 grains powder, 370.38 grain plain lead bullet

Maximum service load:

   123.46 grains powder,  308.65 grain plain lead bullet

(The specification for the granularity of the black powder is rather complicated, it's not simply FFG or FFFG.)

Note that the service load will run at least three times the pressure of the Spanish "service load" of 700 Kp/cm^2  Note that traditions and CVA are recommending max powder charges in the range of 80 to 150 grains.

I don't think any 50 caliber rifled muzzleloader will gain much by going from 123 grains to 150 grains.  So we can say any practical load will be 150 grains max and probably under 125 grains.

[Naphtali]

Hi Guy. Here's my reply:

You furnish information that we both must question. "Why?" you might ask.

I think you will agree that no manufacturer-distributor in this age of "let's sue everbody" will offer a product whose proof is in fact no proof of safety for that company's stipulated safe maximum load.

They cannot do it and remain in business. And it is unlikely that many countries would allow the lawful sale of such a product.

If we can agree on this, the problem you identify doesn't go away. It becomes a different problem -- Why is your information inaccurate? Again, I'm not calling you names, I'm merely following my own logical thread.

My proximate deduction is that one or more of your sources is inaccurate -- perhaps a typographical error, or mistranslation, or other??

So how do we verify that your numbers are accurate? And this has nothing to do with your original query. It pertains to the one to which I changed it.

My first response mentions several sources for information. I believe these are still your best bet.

I wish I could give better information to you. My belief is: if reasonable conclusions from raw data look bizarre, check the raw data.

[Ramrod]

unspellable, my old Lyman Black Powder Handbook from 1975 lists the Spanish Proof House standard for muzzleloaders as 700 Kp/cm^2, so apparantly not much has changed in all these years. One thing not mentioned so far is that there is no proof testing of American firearms. Are they unsafe?

[Naphtali]

Ramrod:

Proofing (proof means "test") is a voluntary procedure in the United States. To my knowledge, every cartridge firearm manufacturer in US proofs its firearms. National Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer's Institute, I believe, is the private organization that sets US standards.

Almost certainly every MASS MANUFACTURER of muzzleloading firearms in US proofs its firearms.

However, I doubt that many limited production muzzleloading gun makers or custom muzzleloading gun makers proof their product. The nice thing is I am almost certain that you could insist on a proof from these folks, and get it.

[Ramrod]

The fact is, that each and every gun made in Italy, Spain, Belgium, Great Britain, etc. is fired with a proof load, and stamped on the barrel that it has passed. There is no such "proof" :lol: that a gun is safe under the American "voluntary" system.

[AndyHass]

The fact that a gun is only proofed to 700 does not mean it is unsafe at higher pressures...only that it has not been TESTED AS SAFE at those pressures.  I can see how a company that obtains foreign barrels would indeed sell guns stamped with the 700 required by foreign (Spanish) law in the country of manufacture, then sell them publishing a higher safe load that they had tested extensively themselves.  In such a case the design has been tested at a higher pressure than the proof mark on the barrel.
   Wakeman does indeed press the opinion that these guns are unsafe, maybe not in that particular article but I have seen it elsewhere.  Most likely this is because he has no financial interest in the companies making these arms.
   I have shot Traditions guns to 150 grains and none have ever exploded.  I didn't feel nervous about it simply because the manufacturer followed the law in their country and only proofed to 700.  Would more be better?  Yes...but I'd rather have a "burst pressure" of the design so I know what kind of safety margin I'm working with.  But that might encourage the village idiot to try and load right up to that pressure too.
   Ramrod is right.  I'll take a bag of salt with Wakeman's advice.

[unspellable]

I have been digging for information on this.  I’ll put the NRA and NMRA suggestions in the hopper.

There is proof testing of US made firearms.  It’s just that in the US the manufacturers do their own proofing instead of sending the firearm to a proof house as is done in other countries.  Look at a Winchester rifle and you’ll find obvious proof marks.

Yes, proving a barrel to 700 Kp/cm^2 does not prove it will not withstand a higher pressure.  But on the other hand it doesn’t make any sense for the proof house to prove it to 700 Kp/cm^2 when it’s common knowledge it will be exposed to higher pressures in service.

There is a significant difference between maximum design pressure and proving.  It’s already understood the design will accommodate the pressure.  The purpose of proving is to reveal any flaws in the metal or manufacture.

SAAMI is in charge of standards in the US for cartridge firearms.

I am confident my information, so far as I have it, is correct.  The joker in this deck is the proof marking on the Trapper barrel.  It just doesn’t make any sense.  There may be a good explanation for it, but I haven’t seen it yet.  (Incidentally, SAAMI comes up with stuff that generates questions with no answers too.)
 
As for a US manufacturer or distributor selling an unsafe product, it’s been known to happen.  Including firearms.  

So I am not taking Wakeman’s word as gospel.  I’m just saying he has raised a good question and somebody ought to answer it.  It shouldn’t be a secret.

[Ramrod]

It's a fact the the proof mark on my Traditions Trapper says 700 Kp/cm^2.  It's a fact that many working loads will go over that.

So what's the explanation?  Wakeman may be right or he may be all wet, but I still haven't seen an explanation of the proof mark.

By way of contrast I have a Spanish shotgun proof marked at 900 Kp/cm^2.  This is slightly higher than the SAAMI maximum average pressure for a 12 gauge so it sounds pretty reasonable as a max working pressure.

Wakeman claims he got no real answer from CVA or Traditions.  Seems like they ought to know what their own proof marks mean.

unspellable, look at the difference in barrel wall thickness between your shotgun, and your Trapper rifle. Common sense dictates that it will take a higher pressure load. But, legally, the Spaniards are off the hook if something bad happens. From what I have heard, most muzzleloader barrel bursts come from some moron loading smokeless powder. This is not new, or Savage's fault for comming out with a smokeless muzzleloader, people have been stupid far longer than that. It is is pretty hard to blow up a blackpowder gun. And the soft steel is an advantage, it will stretch rather than shatter. Look up how the old original guns were "fire blued", if you want to see something interesting. They were actually finished in an annealed state.

[unspellable]

We keep skating around the issue here.  The question is not how to or how not to blow up a muzzle loader, but what do the proof marks mean?

It's not a question of the Spanish being off the hook.  any proof house proofing any gun should be proofing it for the expected working pressures.  As the Spanish proof house did for my shotgun.  A muzzle loading pistol or rifle will run higher pressures than a nitro shotgun any day of the week, Sundays included.

The metal thinkness is NOT an indicator.  The chamber wall thickness on my S&W is thinner than on my shotgun but it is meant to take three times as much working pressure will probably take four times the bursting pressure.

It keeps coming back to the proof mark makes no sense, what's the explanation?

[Ramrod]

Spanish law. :roll: