Author Topic: Older Inlines  (Read 2736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AndyHass

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Re: Older Inlines
« Reply #30 on: November 12, 2009, 08:42:01 AM »
No testing is done on spanish made muzzleloaders.

Randy says they ARE tested, just not the way he wants:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/unsafe_muzzleloaders.htm

Please provide links to the numerous reports that must be out there of these guns blowing up if they are unsafe.

Further, let me ask you this -- what is the tested safe load of Triple Seven or BH209 in any modern muzzleloader?  From the multitude of threads out there on numerous boards asking this very question, it is obvious that once the market expanded past pyrodex ALL of the manufacturers have shied away from publishing approved max loads in their manuals even though these new powders are not equivalent (by volume) to their predecessors.  We all assume 777 is 15% more powerful than pyrodex and go on our merry way.  Perhaps someone has bought a gun more recently than me and they are now publishing loads for the newer powders, but I have yet to see it.  Occasionally someone reports calling in and being told X or Y, but if this were tested why is it not clearly stamped on the barrel or printed in the manual?

ALL manufacturers, IMHO, are deficient in this regard.

Proofing is nothing but a minumum legal standard.  If you need a proof stamped on the barrel to make you feel safe then I ask you what your max charge of BH209 is and what PSI it generates because I'd like to know and unless you know, you have no idea whether you are within proofed limits or not.  Until someone does failure tests on barrels and publishes the result, we will never know the SAFE limit.

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: Older Inlines
« Reply #31 on: November 12, 2009, 08:48:54 AM »
A friends Knight was spitting back in his face enough to burn it with the specks . He called Knight  And I called the 777 people and was told 777 should never be used more than 2 pellets at a time . He was using 3 .
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline sabotloader

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
Re: Older Inlines
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2009, 08:59:56 AM »
SHOOTALL

For legal and liability reason Hodg has always said 100 grains is their max load recommendation for volume loads.

Meanwhile other manufactures have measured pressures created with the powders in their guns and have provided other recommendations.

Most all manufacturers have OK'ed 150 grain 'pellet' loads...
Keep shooting muzzleloaders - they are a blast....

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: Older Inlines
« Reply #33 on: November 12, 2009, 09:12:32 AM »
With a 15% increase over other powders would that not equal a 172.5 gr load of "other" powders ?
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline AndyHass

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Re: Older Inlines
« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2009, 09:19:31 AM »
With a 15% increase over other powders would that not equal a 172.5 gr load of "other" powders ?

The pellets are "down-loaded" the other direction.  150gr 777 pellets is equivalent to 150gr loose pyrodex, not 150gr loose 777.

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: Older Inlines
« Reply #35 on: November 12, 2009, 09:22:09 AM »
Thanks !
The Knight could not deal with it though , the gun was returned an a T C Encore replaced it .
If ya can see it ya can hit it !