Dangerous Muzzleloaders?

[RandyWakeman]

Unsafe Muzzleloaders?

It is a sad fact that many muzzleloaders produced today with Spanish barrels are marked with a pressure rating of 700 kp/cm²-- CLEARLY stamped on the barrels. Relying on the ignorance of the muzzleloading community, aren’t they are the most popular barrels sold in the USA today? The dirty secret is that the proof rating above is converted to PSI by the following formula: kp/cm² x 14.22 = psi. Directly put, these barrels are factory marked to a pressure of 9954 PSI MAX.

It is also well documented that so-called magnum loads, for example 150 grains of Pyrodex pushing a 260 grain saboted projectile can easily develop pressures exceeding 20,000 PSI. Much more moderate charges of 100 grains of Pyrodex pushing the same 260 grain saboted bullet can easily develop pressures in the 13,000-14,000 range. In fact, the original Pyrodex pellet patent states this quite clearly, to name only one document.

Do these soft, low-pressure barrels have any business being fired with loads that create more than TWICE the stamped barrel’s pressure rating? Does this create an unnecessary risk both to the shooter, and to those around him? Will it likely take death or dismemberment and the resultant lawsuits for this to change?

Some may think my barrel safety questions inappropriate. Why would any manufacturer market borderline or untested product? Why would Ford Motor company knowingly sell Pintos with defective gas tanks, why would Enron steal money from its employees, why would Bridgestone-Firestone sell defective tires, why would Morton-Thiokol okay space shuttle O-ring systems their engineers had severe reservations about? Why would Remington Arms (RACI Holding) continue to settle defective Walker triggers? MUST it take a “60 Minutes expose or loss of life to change or improve things?

Would anyone in their right mind reload a smokeless cartridge to TWICE the SAMMI specifications, or come anywhere proof pressures? Don’t today’s muzzleloading companies actively promote similar practices? Who is more stupid, the people that ignore pressure ratings on barrels—or the companies that tell you it is somehow “okay” to fire charges in barrels that have never, EVER been individually tested to take such pressures?

Call me dense, but what automobile manufacturer’s manual tells you to over-inflate your tires by 100% of the stamped maximum pressure on the sidewall? What smokeless powder firearms manufacturer directs you to set off any single load in any single gun at near proof pressure in any barrel under any circumstances, much less EXCEED it?  Yet, some muzzleloading companies, apparently, do it all the time. Wouldn’t a lot of people like to know what that might have to do with THEIR own gun, and what pressure their gun is REALLY proofed for? Pressure limits are no secret in SAMMI  / smokeless-land: in muzzleloading, it apparently is!

Hodgdon Powder has long warned that either 100 grains Pyrodex pellets in .50 caliber or 100 grains Triple Seven pellets in .50 caliber is THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOAD. When muzzleloading manufacturers deviate from the propellant maker’s warnings, the burden is on them to prove its safety, in my opinion.

Are they DANGEROUS? I don’t know. Have they ever been shown to be safe with high-octane loads? How does a modern muzzleloader know what his gun is capable of? Shouldn’t modern muzzleloaders be PROVED safe prior to sale? ISN’T IT A VERY REASONABLE QUESTION FOR ANY GUN OWNER TO ASK?

I think it most certainly is.

© 2003 Randy Wakeman
All Rights Reserved.
No portions of the above text may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted without the written permission of Randy Wakeman or his assigns.

[DanP]

While you have pointed out a number of examples of dangerous exclusions of important info (ie Enron), you haven't identified who is using these Spanish barrels.  Are you willing to name names?

Thanks!
Dan

[RandyWakeman]

While you have pointed out a number of examples of dangerous exclusions of important info (ie Enron), you haven't identified who is using these Spanish barrels.  Are you willing to name names?

Thanks!
Dan

Sure, but people won't like it! Many current production 700 kg/cm2 barrels are proofed in compliance with current 1989 Commission Internationale Permanente (CIP) Rules of Proof.

There are suggested loads by manufacturers that violate the very CIP rules of proof these guns are manufactured under. NO manufacturer has suggested that these barrels are reproofed in any way.

Many appear to be quite spectacularly breaking the VERY same rules the guns are proofed by. They choose not to say why, or by what authority they do so. When a manufacturer suggests breaking CIP proofs by using 250% overloads, I feel they need to explain why. Desperately so.

If any manufacturer recommended loads 250% of SAMMI load specifications, wouldn't you want to know by what means they feel they can possibly do so?

The well-respected Spanish proofhouses do not recommend loadings exceeding their proofs. The well-respected British proofhouses do not recommend loadings exceeding CIP proofs-- which are mandatory in the U.K. Naturally, the CIP itself, headquartered in Liege, Belgium, does not recommend loadings exceeding their proofs. Hodgdon Powder, #1 manufacturer of pelletized powder, does not recommend more than 100 grains of pellets in .45 or .50 caliber BP rifles.

Traditions and BPI (at least) do suggest loadings 50% higher than allowed by Hodgdon. Traditions and BPI (at least) suggest loads that violate CIP proofs-- not by a matter of a few psi, but by 14,000 PSI or so.

Yet, they have taken offense that anyone dare ask how on God's green earth these loads should be considered safe, and have offered no evidence to support their claims that they are indeed safe.

They are the ones breaking CIP rules. They are the ones breaking Hodgdon Powder Company rules. They are the ones that have not shown their products to be safe, used as THEY prescribe. Yet, they have scoffed at these questions, saying:

That you would make such untrue, defamatory and potentially libelous statements against us, as well as other Spanish manufacturers, is truly disturbing.

As was written to BPI,

If you can prove ANY posting I have made ANYWHERE as untrue or defamatory, I will happily, quickly, and publicly apologize.

So far, they have not been able to. If ever do care to provide reasonable proof why any shooter should consider 24,000 PSI of hot flaming gas next to their face as safe in a CIP proofed barrel marked sub 10,000 psi, I happily eat crow.

Looks like I'll be enjoying pheasant and wild rice under glass for a long, long time.

No muzzleloading authority or body has suggested these loads are "SAFE" in 700 kg/cm2 CIP barrels. Not Larry Weishuhn, not Ralph Lermayer, not Randy Smith, not Doc White, not Toby Bridges, not Sam Fadala, not Lyman, not SAMMI (who is working with the CIP) and not the NMLRA.

These sub-10,000 PSI barrels are clearly marked as such. Certainly, they ARE safe within the highly regarded CIP guidelines. Are they safe with load combinations that produce over 24,000 PSI, as recommended currently by BPI (CVA / Winchester Muzzleloading), Traditions, and other companies?

I would certainly like to know! Dan, wouldn't you?

[kevin]

Ok guys its time to check out these guns one is Cva, Traditions, and the real old juker gun made in spain they all match what was being said on the interesting read that was posted, now if you are crazy enough to go ot and dump over 110 grains of black powder or it equiliant down the bore of any muzzle loader its going to be rough on the shoulder and the gun any of the side locks from cva traditions and the old juker guns, your going to have and accident some time down the road and it might not happen at all but the possiblity does exsit.
    The new in-lines are outstanding that are made by the real big name companyies, but if your tha type of person to load to the same levels as 150grains if powder, down the bore, of a gun not rated for 150grains of powder something real bad is going to hapen.
   I my advice if the thing is not rated for magnum loads donot put more than maufactures recomended loads .THe manufacterer recomended loads are ther for a reason, follow it.

[bfoster]

Randy,

I've taken some ribbing from my hunting buddies for limiting my wife's modern muzzleloader to use of a .50 cal 300 grain sabot with 90 grains of Goex ffg. This develops  14,700 psi per Lyman's 2nd B.P. loading manual. I have measured & magnafluxed this barrel. It shows none of the signs of strain that I'd expect to see were the elastic limit of the steel being approached. Safe? I'm a mechanical engineer with considerable experience in arms design and manufacture. I'll only go so far as to say that IMO this individual rifle is safe as it is being used. I've not checked this load on my Oehler M43, but where I have done so, I have found that the figures Lyman publishes are generally close to what I obtain when I do check pressure.  Did my wife have the ability to use a traditional rifle well enough to reliably kill deer, I'd be somewhat happier. My own rifle? I'm happy to shoot a traditional double rifle at pressures that are below the proof.

Of course we do not have proof laws in the U.S. (arguably this wouldn't be a bad thing- the manufacturer's liability would be reduced did we have such an institution), let alone a proof house, either supported by all manufacturers, or as a government entity.

That said, the following questions come to mind.

Do you happen to know if the CIP has a protocol for testing barrels intended for use with black powder and bullets (rather than shot) to pressures greater than 700 KPa/cm²?

I've never seen a Spanish equivalent of what the St. Etienne (France) proof house offers-  black powder triple proof.  Many years ago, this protocol allowed working loads in the mid 20 kpsi range, today I believe that triple proof frorm St. Etienne corresponds to a working load of just under 18,500 psi. The first triple proofs antedated the CIP; I do not know anything about the current triple proof and its relationship, if any, with the CIP. "Grandfathered"?

Do you happen to know anything about the protocol in use in Eibar (I assume) for this particular test?

The reason that I ask the above questions is that CIP does many things quite differently than does SAAMI. For instance, in pressure testing some smokeless ammunition the transducer is located not directly over the chamber as is the case here in the States, but at some distance down the barrel. Different protocols produce different figures, this is one reason that considerable caution needs to be exercised in comparing results generated using SAAMI protocols and results generated using CIP protocols.

I'm not stating that I believe that any difference in test procedure is likely produce a difference on the order of 200%. 50% is possible, but I'd expect considerably less than that.

FWIW, in any well designed rifle, I'd expect simple barrel steels to easily withstand working pressures generated by black powder in the 16-18 kpsi range.  Beyond that, I'd want to extensively test a number of barrels and loads prior to offering an opinion.

As you might have guessed, I believe that your post was very worthwhile.

Bob Foster

[RandyWakeman]

Randy,

I've taken some ribbing from my hunting buddies for limiting my wife's modern muzzleloader to use of a .50 cal 300 grain sabot with 90 grains of Goex ffg. This develops  14,700 psi per Lyman's 2nd B.P. loading manual. I have measured & magnafluxed this barrel. It shows none of the signs of strain that I'd expect to see were the elastic limit of the steel being approached. Safe? I'm a mechanical engineer with considerable experience in arms design and manufacture. I'll only go so far as to say that IMO this individual rifle is safe as it is being used. Of course we do not have proof laws in the U.S. (arguably this wouldn't be a bad thing- the manufacturer's liability would be reduced did we have such an institution), let alone a proof house, either supported by all manufacturers, or as a government entity.

Do you happen to know if the CIP has a protocol for testing barrels intended for use with black powder and bullets (rather than shot) to pressures greater than 700 KPa/cm²?

Bob Foster

Hello Bob,

Ribbing from hunting buddies is a small price to pay for the astute care and concern you have shown for your bride. You should be applauded for your wise efforts. I would wonder just what game animal that load your wife is using cannot effectively take? Hat's off to you, Bob! The range and the woods would be a better place if there were more like you.

There has been some confusion over the markings. The Kp/cm² is kiloponds/cm², the same as Kg/cm².  C.I.P. rules and procedures have been in a state of flux for some time. The Birmingham House of Proof http://www.gunproof.com/Proofing/proofing.html has been able to shed some light on this. As Spain, Italy, the U.K., Austria, France, Chile, Germany, etc., are all members of the Liege, Belgium, C.I.P-- the standards have evolved over time. Though SAMMI has stated they are working with the CIP, SAMMI specs are not considered legal in the U.K. as of yet, for example.

H. P. White, regarded as the only truly independent testing facility in the U.S., goes far beyond SAMMI as a visit to http://www.hpwhite.com details. There has long been dispute over the "right way" to test pressures, and many feel that the older copper crusher method is more representative of actual metal stress than the current (easier, more convenient) piezoelectric sensor trends. Many feel the Sharpe strain test to be more important. The "problem" with the older proof load / blue pill methods is that they cannot possibly consider the culmulative effects of metal fatigue over time, nor any metal erosion or corrosion that can also appear over years or decades.

Bob, I certainly wish I had clear answers for you. I do not. I expected ML importers and manufacturers of CIP proofed product to have current information at the ready. They (apparently) have no clue themselves. The Spanish EIBAR proofs have been highly regarded for years, and are said to be conservative. How "conservative" is anybody's guess. They have never been indicative of burst pressure, just "a pressure" that they are proofed at. With the wide variance in quality of soft, extruded metal in times past, it is not surprising that they are proofed so low. With some muzzleloaders sold at $55 or so retail, there is scant room for much quality testing or control to be devoted to the barrel.

How anyone can get from a sub-10,000 PSI pressure proof to touting / recommending a 24,000 PSI or higher load is beyond my comprehension. My opinion is that for anyone to exceed Hodgdon's clear, specific loading maximum recommendations in these barrels is just plain nutty. If anything, a download of 10% or so as you have done is just good old common sense.

So, Bob, I'm left with far more questions than answers. I certainly would like to see products demonstrated as safe prior to sale, rather than listen to catcalls from those who can only say that their gun didn't blow up today.

Maybe it is time for "modern muzzleloading" to become more "modern" in other ways as well?

[The Shrink]

Gentlemen

You mentioned that these barrels are "clearly marked".  Where and how?  Doesn't the barrel have to be removed from the stock for this to be obvious, and once it is obvious, how many of those buying the cheaper rifles would know what it means or how to relate that information to the load they are using?  

I would like to see Outdoor Life or several similar popular magazines aimed at the general public publish this information.  It needs to be gotten into the hands of those who don't read these boards and who use their muzzleloader like they use their smokeless rifle, sight it in and take it hunting.  Keep it hanging or in the closet the rest of the year.  We all know they are out there, and may be the most likely to suffer the catastrophic failure implied in your posts simply because they don't take proper care of their rifles.

[RandyWakeman]

Gentlemen

You mentioned that these barrels are "clearly marked".  Where and how?  

Depends on model. Some proof stamp on the left side of the barrel visible with no barrel removal. Others, yes, you would remove the barreled action from the stock, as in a normal full cleaning.

There is no reason to believe any of these guns are unsafe in any way when used in compliance with the well-regarded CIP proof pressures. How they get from 10,000 PSI to 24,000 PSI is anybody's guess. I don't like guessing.

[RandyWakeman]

Randy,


Do you happen to know if the CIP has a protocol for testing barrels intended for use with black powder and bullets (rather than shot) to pressures greater than 700 KPa/cm²?

Bob Foster

Hello Bob,

Mr. C. W. Harding, of the Birmingham Proof House, was kind enough to send along current C.I.P. information on black powder weapons. It is in English, which I certainly appreciate. No dramatic distinction is made between blackpowder cartridge arms and muzzleloaders.

The C.I.P standards are clear. Their proof pressures "for guidance" are 1400 BAR. That is NOT indicated as a "recommended" service pressure in any way.

The proofing is done using piezoelectric transducers and a very specific blackpowder specification, extremely well-documented. There is no indication that the CIP uses, or has ever used, pelletized powder or blackpowder substitutes in any manner for their proofing.

The published maximum service charge for .50 caliber is 8 grams of powder, 20 grams of bullet. For .45 caliber, it is 6 grams of powder, 16 grams of shot or bullet.

There is NO INDICATION the C.I.P. employs proof charges in any blackpowder rifle exceeding 1400 BAR, much less suggests their regular use. That is an all out CIP maximum test of 20304.569 PSI, NOT (!!!) service pressure.

I choose not to break CIP rules as pertains to CIP proofed barrels. I also choose not to exceed clear pelletized powder WARNINGS from the leading manufacturer, Hodgdon Powder Company, in CIP proofed barrels. What an individual may or may not choose is obviously personal choice, and personal responsibility.

I have made the CIP blackpowder published data available for the perusal of interested parties. How an individual cares to react to this information is up to them. I believe I have executed a reasonable amount of due diligence in this matter. Several manufacturers / importers have elected not to disseminate this information-- I'll leave it up to them to say why that is the case, should they be so inclined.



C.I.P. Blackpowder Proofing Data

[waksupi]

It's interesting my post was removed with empirical evidence of dangerous quality barrels. Nice to see censorship is at work.

[Triple Se7en]

waksupi

Randy or I would like to see a copy of that post via our email address. Thank you in advance.... Joe!

[RandyWakeman]

It's interesting my post was removed with empirical evidence of dangerous quality barrels. Nice to see censorship is at work.

It is an issue that will be going on for a long time to come:

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

[waksupi]

My point was, I had made the post on this forum, under this subject heading on a particular example of a very dangerous Spanish barrel, and the post was removed. So someone on this forum wasn't too interested in having the info out, either.

[Wolfhound]

That's interesting. What brand was it? What were the specifics? I'm just curious as I didn't see the post.