Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dangerous Guns?

Discussion in 'Blackpowder' started by txcookie, Aug 20, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. txcookie

    txcookie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Little Rock AFB
    Been lookinging into some Traditionand CVA rifles online. Have found alot of info claiming the rifles were very unsafe to shoot? Anything to worry about here?
     
  2. Smokin_Gun

    Smokin_Gun Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,632
    Location:
    Mojave Desert, California
    I guess it would depend on what they were proofed to. I see other than Traditional shooters packin' 100-120gr of whatever ain't BP and wonder what happened.:eek:
    I use 60gr of ffg or fffg on my Zouave 1863 Remington and accurately hit my mark up to 300yards. My Tennessee Poorboy too. So I guess it's up to the Shooter and how it's used. I have heard a simular rumor also , maybe it was a batch, maybe one rifle.:confused: More will be revealed.:what:

    SG
     
  3. txcookie

    txcookie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Little Rock AFB
    yea maybe! I only use 100grn charges and what I read was about the 150? That may be the :evil:
     
  4. mykeal

    mykeal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,147
    Location:
    Michigan
    Would you care to provide a reference to 'a lot of info'? I've been shooting CVA rifles for over 30 years, and I know of no such information. They did recall several guns for defective barrels about 10 years ago, and if you call them with a serial number they will tell you if it's one of those affected.

    I suspect you've been reading Randy Wakeman's rants about CVA. I'll just say that his concerns are not borne out by the public record.
     
  5. Smokin_Gun

    Smokin_Gun Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,632
    Location:
    Mojave Desert, California
    Ah Jees!:rolleyes:


    SG
     
  6. scrat

    scrat Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    6,882
    Location:
    Monrovia, CA
    i looked into this as many others did too. The only unsafe rifles they had were around 1996 on a certain type. These were all recalled. Todays cva rifles are safe to shoot with proper loads. They are no more dangerous than any other brand.
     
  7. Drgong

    Drgong Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,259
    Location:
    Ashe Co, NC and Gastonia NC
    Don't shoot any gun that is not proofed to that pressure. BP or otherwise.

    CVA where Proofed to 10,000 PSI or a few years ago. I do not know if they changed.
     
  8. Loyalist Dave

    Loyalist Dave Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,890
    Location:
    People's Republic of Maryland
    The problem with muzzleloaders is the larger room for operator error. Don't properly seat that projectile or shot column on the powder or wad, and see what happens! Doesnt' matter who makes the gun or rifle! (That's just one example - so it's tough to know why a barrel might fail or bulge in some cases.)

    The next problem is these folks who think that if 70 grains works very well, then 140 grains should work twice as well.

    There are some really BAD shots out there, who depend on huge calibers with whopping big charges to compensate for poor shot placement. GAD!:banghead: They tend to be very poor juges of distance to the game animal as well. Most deer east of the Mississippi is taken well under 100 yards. (I can't say about other areas of the country) My muzzleloader with a 70 grain charge of 3Fg gets an average of 1500 fps at the muzzle. None of the deer that I have harvested in the past four years using this rifle, and the previous one that I owned, would've known the dif if I had increased my load to 100 grains for a MV of 1800 fps.

    One of the previous posts mentioned using only 60 grains in a Zouave, which is a .58 caliber conical projectile about 3 time heavier than my bullets, yet it too will hammer deer. There really isn't a reason to use a max load (imho).

    To equate a known to an unknown....., IF one was to shoot CorBon ammo out of a 1911A1 all the time, it would shake the gun apart very quickly. The same is true if you load your ML with CorBon like loads every time.

    LD
     
  9. Drgong

    Drgong Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,259
    Location:
    Ashe Co, NC and Gastonia NC
    From what I have seen, the CVA get flack as there barrels are tested at 10,000 PSI, which is good enough for older BP loads, but in the manual it recommends that one use loads that are closer to 25,000 PSI. unless it has been proofed at that level, shooting a 25,000 PSI load for something proofed at 10,000 PSI is not sound.

    Note, I never fired a BP gun, but the Proofing goes with ANY gun. if the Spanish Steel company proofs it at 10,000 PSI, then it should be safe to do loads in the 10,000 PSI range.
     
  10. mykeal

    mykeal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,147
    Location:
    Michigan
    Drgong - where did you get your information about CVA (or their barrel supplier) proofing barrels to 10 kpsi?
     
  11. Drgong

    Drgong Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,259
    Location:
    Ashe Co, NC and Gastonia NC
    I checked from a number of sources that the spanish steel used is proofed at 700 kp/cm2 , which translates to ~10,000 PSI.

    However, I put a note that they may have recently changed the level that is proofed.
     
  12. mykeal

    mykeal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,147
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ok, how about one?

    I'm not being facetious here - I really would like to follow up on that. I'd appreciate an answer, please.
     
  13. Oldnamvet

    Oldnamvet Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Michigan
    The only things about proof testing, or the lack thereof, that I see is the stuff claimed by Randy Wakeman. I also see no references that can be checked to back up claims. I am also suspicious of the practice of "proof testing".
    The idea of tying my rifle to a tire, overloading it, and then firing makes me very nervous. Just because it stood up to that punishment, does it mean that it is now weakened to the point that a normal heavy load is going to blow it up? If a company tests a barrel out of a large batch and then discards the barrel, fine, but what does it really prove? For a quality product, how many times does the proof test fail when all the other quality checks show it to be OK?:confused:
     
  14. wvmountaineer

    wvmountaineer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    46
    I have a CVA 45 cal. flintkock mountain rifle I built in 1977 and I have shot 70 to 100 grains of powder in it and never had trouble with it,allthough 100 grains of powder was a waste of good powder, 65 to 70 worked the best, dropped a deer 174 yds with it, varified with range finder(LUCK SHOT), but all the same it dropped it.
     
  15. Drgong

    Drgong Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,259
    Location:
    Ashe Co, NC and Gastonia NC
    The mark is the three circles together that form a pyramid shape for Spanish barreled Black powder rifles.

    According to C.I.P, which is the international euro standard, kinda like our SAAMI standard body, there requirement is that BP rifles meet the standard of 700 kp/cm2 . Basically, it not saying it going to explode if you put more pressure on it, it is just that it has never been tested at that powder load. Thus it might be in your best interests to proof it yourself. Fire it three times with a pull of a string, and if it does not go "boom" your good to go.

    This is a copy of the C.I.P that goes over the proofing.

    http://members.aol.com/randymagic/bpcip.pdf

    The main guy who talks about this is Randy Wakeman.
     
  16. Voodoochile

    Voodoochile Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,144
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    I have a CVA Bobcat that I bought about 15 years ago & it does have a barrel from Spain that is proofed to 700 kp/cm2 & so far I'm still here.

    I've used up to 90gr. of FFFG Goex & 777 3F in it with .490/.015, .495/.010 PRB's & a 320gr. Lee REAL bullet with good sucess although it likes a load of 80gr. 777 3F with my .495 PRB & 70gr. FFFG Goex with the Lee 320gr. REAL bullet & like most of y-all if a lesser charge works why push it with more for medeocre results.
     
  17. txcookie

    txcookie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Little Rock AFB
    I am not a muzzle loader just as a guy who buys a bow and shoots it a few times before season is not a bowhunter. I would however like to get into it and just want to start right. I read the articles by that randy fellow but have failed to find anything else about CVA/TRADITIONS ANYWHERE. I also doubt wally world would sell the rifles if they really did have these issues! I currently own a traditions buck hunter but was thinking about getting a break open. Anyhow thanx alot for your replies I honestly feel I would be safe as long as I was smart and didnt over charger or other stupid things that stupid people tend to do!
     
  18. arcticap

    arcticap Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Messages:
    6,185
    Location:
    Central Connecticut
    The modern steel used in muzzle loading barrels today is many times stronger than the steel that was used in previous eras. For many of us, it just doesn't seem credible to say that modern Spanish muzzle loaders aren't safe for the modern loads that they are designed to shoot.
    What if a person learned that they are actually strong enough to adquately handle twice the recommended powder charges without any safety problems?
    If the law in Spain requires that a certain standard be met through proof testing, then why would the proof mark mean that it's the maximum load that can be fired and not exceeded?
    Maybe the proof mark doesn't mean that at all then, but rather only that the proof law requirement was met. The proof mark proves that it's at least that strong, not necessarily that it's the maximum rated strength of the steel.
    How many American barrels are proofed and whether they are proofed or not, does it make anyone worried about the integrity of the barrel?
    No one really worries because of the fact that modern steel is so much stronger than the inferior barrel steel that was used in previous eras. :)
     
  19. mykeal

    mykeal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,147
    Location:
    Michigan
    Drgong,

    The document you provided says the standard for .44 to .69 cal is 1400 bar (kg/cm2), or 20,300 psi. Where's the 700 bar requirement?

    You might as well know, Wakeman has no credibility with me. If all you have is his work, let's not waste our time. If, however, there's more, I'd like to see it.
     
  20. Drgong

    Drgong Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,259
    Location:
    Ashe Co, NC and Gastonia NC
    How about this

    I will email CVA and ask at what pressure there rifles are proofed at and get it from the horses mouth. Will that solve it, as the other sources I never know if they are quoting wakeman or not.

    I sent a email, will let you know how they respond.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2008
  21. wvmountaineer

    wvmountaineer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    46
    I had my CVA flintlock worked on one time,(ramrod tip stuck in barrel),and I took it to a shop named Flintfocks, this fellow built custom flintlocks only and I asked him how much powder it would take to blow this gun up. His reply was," you could fill it clear to the end of the barrel and it wouldn't blow up". He said only so much powder would burn, the rest would be blown out the barrel probably a big ball of fire.He also said, he wouldn't recommend trying it.
     
  22. scrat

    scrat Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    6,882
    Location:
    Monrovia, CA
    That i dont know about and would not want to see or try. i have used up to 150 grains pryodex 50/50 pellets in mine. I have also used 120 grains of 777 and 120 grains of pyrodex and 130 grains of goex. With that being said. i now only use about 90 grains of goex. Why because i learned its not how much powder its coming up with the right powder to load ratio. once figured out this is what gives you the accuracy
     
  23. wvmountaineer

    wvmountaineer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    46
    I agree Scrat, when in doubt, throw up a white bed sheet, back up 10yds and shoot at it, keep reducing the charge untill theres on black marks on the sheet, Perfact powder charge for that gun.
     
  24. mykeal

    mykeal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,147
    Location:
    Michigan
    Probably just a slip of the pen...you don't shoot AT the sheet, you shoot OVER it...NO black marks...
     
  25. wvmountaineer

    wvmountaineer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    46
    your right mykeal, my bad!!!!!!!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page