# unsafe muzzleloaders??



## TJay (Jan 2, 2008)

Anyone seen these reports from chuck hawks?  I don't know how long these reports have been out or if they've been posted here.  Can't vouch for the validity either, but the chuck hawks site has been around for awhile.  Read them for yourself and make up your own mind.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/dangerous_muzzleloaders.htm

http://www.chuckhwaks.com/unsafe_muzzleloaders.htm


----------



## Jim Thompson (Jan 2, 2008)

neither link is coming up tjay


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 2, 2008)

ain't workin'.....


----------



## TJay (Jan 2, 2008)

Dang, not coming up for me either.  I'll try again


----------



## frankwright (Jan 2, 2008)

http://www.chuckhawks.com/dangerous_muzzleloaders.htm

How about this?

This is a fairly old artical from the infamous/famous, highly opinionated Randy Wakeman.

No ML manufacturer would be crazy enough to make an unsafe product in this lawyer rich environment.


----------



## TJay (Jan 2, 2008)

Sorry, there was an "underscore" between dangerous and muzzleloaders.  Try it again.


----------



## bull0ne (Jan 2, 2008)

TJay said:


> Anyone seen these reports from chuck hawks?  I don't know how long these reports have been out or if they've been posted here.  Can't vouch for the validity either, but the chuck hawks site has been around for awhile.  Read them for yourself and make up your own mind.
> 
> http://www.chuckhawks.com/dangerous_muzzleloaders.htm
> 
> http://www.chuckhwaks.com/unsafe_muzzleloaders.htm



More Info: http://www.chuckhawks.com/big_deal_about_proof.htm

http://www.chuckhawks.com/unsafe_muzzleloaders.htm

Added a bottom link that works.............


----------



## bull0ne (Jan 2, 2008)

frankwright said:


> http://www.chuckhawks.com/dangerous_muzzleloaders.htm
> 
> How about this?
> 
> ...



They were crazy enough to produce and sell an unsafe product...............people got hurt and sued them into bankruptcy.

A bunch of creative paperwork got shuffled and it's back to business under a slightly different name..............using the same type of spanish made barrels as before.


----------



## NOYDB (Jan 2, 2008)

Funny, the only failure I could find googling was for the Savage that RW was so impressed with.

http://www.e-gunparts.com/forum/readit.asp?qt=38497&cat=7

I found this discussion interesting:

http://forums.huntontario.com/thread.jspa?messageID=189208&tstart=0


----------



## jcbama (Jan 7, 2008)

I've shot a CVA Kodiak for the past 3 yrs. and have had no problems shooting 110 grains of Triple 777 pellets.  I fact, it is very accurate from 100 yards.  The recall was from pre 1998 I believe and any problems were corrected.


----------



## NOYDB (Jan 7, 2008)

http://www.handgunrepairshop.com/cvarecal.htm

Apparently, it's only CVA *inline* rifles made during 95-96 that are being recalled for failures. 

I got interested, I could not find ANY reference other than RW for CVA going bankrupt. They were bought out in 99 and the new owner is still honoring the recall. 

I also couldn't find any sources for all these people that supposedly had been blown up. RW says it's confidentiality agreements from lawsuits. That's why he can't actually cite supporting evidence for his claims. But not everyone has a successful suit, and the guy standing next to them at the range isn't covered, so where are all the examples of exploding muzzleloaders?

So run it thru the logic test.

Cabela's, Basspro, Gander Mtn and every major and minor sporting goods retailer in the country, all of whom sell these brands, are all exposing themselves to major class action lawsuits because....??????.

And since 99 when the new owners took over, supposedly using the "same" low quality barrels, why haven't they been sued into oblivion if the failure, hence lawsuit, rate is the same?

There is no doubt that there are guys out there doing stupid things with excess charges. And there are some incompetents that shouldn't be allowed any thing that explodes or has sharp edges.

But that doesn't mean that YOUR ML is going to fail.

Which brings it right back to where it usually does. 

RTM.


----------



## kry226 (Jan 7, 2008)

NOYDB said:


> Funny, the only failure I could find googling was for the Savage that RW was so impressed with.
> 
> http://www.e-gunparts.com/forum/readit.asp?qt=38497&cat=7
> 
> ...



There's much more to this than meets the eye.  I was around on the ML boards when Toby Bridges had his "mishap."  The gun in question had many thousands of rounds put through it, many of those rounds shot with non-recommended and very HOT loads (duplex, etc.), and the barrel had probably reached the end of it's useful life.  At first everyone was supporting Toby and questioning the Savage.  But as more info came out on the boards, it became apparent that Toby had a recent falling out with Savage, for whom he was doing some freelance work/research regarding this ML and was probably owed some money.  The water became muddier and muddier and soon, you couldn't tell who was telling the truth.  Many began to speculate that Toby blew the rifle up intentionally, and then began his anti-Savage/smokeless muzzleloading campaign on his website.

As for me, I don't know what actually happened and don't care.  I certainly won't throw accusations at Toby.  But the incident didn't deter me from buying a Savage.  Plus, if there was a safety issue with this rifle, we would have seen other kabooms by now as the 10ML-II has been out long enough to tell.  But I can tell you that I stay within the recommended load parameters at all times, which is what everyone should do with every muzzleloader.

Randy Wakeman is an opinionated cuss, but if you can wade through all that, he's got some good info pertaining to smokeless muzzleloading.

Its interesting how T/C's website used to be very anti-smokeless with big banners and all.  It was the first thing you saw on their MZ website.  It makes sense, of course, if you only sell black powder or Pyrodex MZ's.  Yet now their aversion to smokeless muzzleloading is relegated to the fine print at the bottom of the page:

"Black Powder or an approved Black Powder substitute, such as Pyrodex, are the only propellant powders that are safe to use in muzzleloading firearms."

To me, that speaks volumes.

Didn't mean to write a book...


----------



## NOYDB (Jan 7, 2008)

kry226 said:


> But I can tell you that I stay within the recommended load parameters at all times, which is what everyone should do with every muzzleloader.
> ...



Agreed.

Wasn't dumping on the Savage. Just pointing out the lack of back up for the contention that CVAs, Traditions et al were blowing up like firecrackers on Fourth of July.

Just too much horsekerplopple floating around about "I bought one of these, so therefore it must be the best. And if you bought/are thinking of buying something else you must be mentally deficient."

Anything made by man can fail. Abuse/mis-use it and it fails sooner.


----------



## kry226 (Jan 8, 2008)

NOYDB said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Wasn't dumping on the Savage. Just pointing out the lack of back up for the contention that CVAs, Traditions et al were blowing up like firecrackers on Fourth of July.
> 
> ...



Roger that.  I believe the latter is responsible for more failures than defects in manufacturing.  Some people just always seem to think they know more than the engineers.

But you're right.  People never want to admit that their dollar didn't bring the best return, so they tout theirs as the best...whatever it is.


----------



## Jack Flynn (Jan 8, 2008)

frankwright said:


> http://www.chuckhawks.com/dangerous_muzzleloaders.htm
> 
> How about this?
> 
> ...



Well one thing for sure is that CVA did just that. What really caused all this unsafe ML stuff was the introduction of the 777 powder, and in the beginning some ML manufacturers telling buyers they could use 150 gr. of it in their ML's. Up until that point no one had even pressure tested their barrels except Doc White who owned White ML's. The tendancy of people is if it will work in that gun it should work in this one wouldn't you think? Wrong! I've forgotten the barrel manufacturer before and during that time for many ML companies. Anyway there were quite a few ruptures, many of the I believe Spanish or Italian made barrels. It actually within a hair on a knats booty almost put them out of business. It stems back to people wanting a ML to shoot like a high powered rifle. IMO I wouldn't put 150 grains of any BP or substitute powder in a ML. Shoot it in the dark and see just how much powder burns outside the barrel.


----------



## Buzz (Jan 8, 2008)

Jack - I've read a couple of sources that claim 3 Triple 7 pellets can generate nearly 25k PSI.   That's startling.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 8, 2008)

Buzz, I'd bet the farm that 150g of powder T7 will generate that pressure.


----------



## wildcatt (Jan 8, 2008)

*ml blow*

I dont know about the blow ups just asking dont the spanish have a gov proof house? seems like all the othe european contries do.10,000lb does not seem like much of a proof load.I would think that 20, would be more like it.steel tubing will hold 30 or so.just asking.


----------



## pcsolutions1 (Jan 8, 2008)

*yep*



WTM45 said:


> Buzz, I'd bet the farm that 150g of powder T7 will generate that pressure.



I'm sure it would.  85% of 150 gr is the max charge with loose 777 to be equivalent to the 150 3 pellet charge.  Something I'm sure you know.  150 gr of loose 777 is considered an unsafe load in any ML.

Tom


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 9, 2008)

pcsolutions1 said:


> I'm sure it would.  85% of 150 gr is the max charge with loose 777 to be equivalent to the 150 3 pellet charge.  Something I'm sure you know.  150 gr of loose 777 is considered an unsafe load in any ML.
> 
> Tom



Except a Knight!


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 9, 2008)

wildcatt said:


> I dont know about the blow ups just asking dont the spanish have a gov proof house? seems like all the othe european contries do.10,000lb does not seem like much of a proof load.I would think that 20, would be more like it.steel tubing will hold 30 or so.just asking.



They do not test for a max pressure, or a burst strength.
They do not know what that might be.

Does not mean a Spanish barrel will not shoot well.  It just will not accept the current trend of trying to get a muzzleloader to shoot like a centerfire.


----------



## jrry (Jan 9, 2008)

What do you think the accident rate of overloads, miss fires, blow ups were in the early 1700's - 1870's ?


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 9, 2008)

jrry, I think they were pretty minimal and almost insiginificant overall.  The reason being was the rifle was a very valued posession, necessary for survival.  It was treated well, and the shooter grew intimate with it.  I have read of riflemen that could identify the quality of their powder by its burn rate, burning a small pile of it on a flat stone.  Then they could tell how much to use in their rifle.

The Civil War brought other documented results.  Men under fire dropped many rifles that were found with multiple loads stacked up in the bores.


----------

