Unsafe muzzle loaders?

Hey all,

I read this and cringed.

I am not sure how, if this is in fact the case, some retailers are allowed to pull off such a horrible marketing malpractice.

These are comments by Randy Wakeman, taken from the Chuck Hawks website.

"As scrutiny of the muzzleloading market quickly reveals, there are no muzzleloading standards. There are no standards for metal, bore-size, testing, or much of anything. SAAMI and the CIP have clear standards for rimfires, pistols, shotguns, as well as rifles, but it is a brave new world when you look at muzzleloaders. It is quite a mess, and has been for a long time. The term "Magnum Muzzleloader" means nothing specific at all, it's just another meaningless marketing label.

So, how do we know what a muzzleloader of reasonable build quality should do? Good question, as the manufacturers have still failed to set minimum standards or otherwise control themselves. Companies that are, in my opinion, sleazy and smarmy like "CVA" and "Traditions" can make muzzleloading a lousy to place to be.

Pressure information has long been available, as evidenced in the LYMAN Black Powder Handbook & Loading Manual written by Sam Fadala. Lyman Ballistic Laboratories data has been above reproach for decades. If you check pages 172-177 of the second edition of the Lyman book, you will quickly obtain a grasp of what muzzleloading pressures may be. You'll see that 120 grains by volume of Pyrodex RS pushing a 240 grain Hornady sabot can develop 29,900 PSI. You'll find many, many loads developing well over 25,000 PSI peak pressure. A three pellet load can develop 29,000 PSI peak pressure, as shown by Lyman. That still isn't the top pressure loads that are published; some are well above 30,000 PSI with 120 grains of Pyrodex. Loose powder loads heavier than 120 grains by volume of Pyrodex are not touched upon, though heavier loads and hotter propellants than Pyrodex are in common use.

Based on all this, the "Question" becomes obvious. If an inline muzzleloading manufacturer refuses to tell you in writing that their rifles have been designed and tested to withstand a constant diet of 30,000 PSI peak pressure loads safely, their guns should not be sold, much less used.

This is such a basic, common-sense question that no inline muzzleloading manufacturer should have any problem answering it without hesitation. If they can't, they are richly deserving of all the scorn and condemnation that we can lavish on them. It is bad metallurgy and lack of testing that keeps 911 busy for some unfortunate victims year after year."


And more....


"
It is a sad fact that many muzzleloaders produced today with Spanish barrels are marked with a pressure rating of 700 kp/cm? 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/cm? x 14.22 = psi. Directly put, these barrels are factory marked to a maximum pressure of 9954 psi.

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 barrels 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 Enron steal money from its employees, why would Morton-Thiokol okay space shuttle O-ring systems their engineers had severe reservations about? 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 SAAMI specifications? 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 been individually tested to take such pressures?

Call me dense, but 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 gun, and what pressure their gun is really proofed for? Pressure limits are no secret in SAAMI / smokeless-land; in muzzleloading, they apparently are!

Hodgdon Powder Co. 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.

Are they dangerous? I don't know. Have they ever been shown to be safe with high-octane loads? How does a modern shooter know what his gun is capable of? Shouldn't modern muzzleloaders be proved safe prior to sale? Isn't this a reasonable question for any gun owner to ask?

I think it most certainly is.

Addendum:

There are two basic types of "proof." "Provisional" proof that applies generally to barrels in the early stages of manufacture, to prevent the maker from continuing work on defective tubes. Definitive proof applies to all arms and is effected "in the white" or in the finished state.

Inspection of many Traditions and CVA guns will clearly show the Spanish House of Eibar definitive black powder proof mark. Likely you will also see the ammunition inspection proof mark as well. A pressure stamping on the barrel, typically 700KP/CM2, will follow this. That pressure is expressed in "kiloponds / cm2." The equivalent in PSI is approx. 9957 PSI.

It is well documented that 150 grain Pyrodex pellet loads pushing 250 to 300 grain saboted projectiles can exceed 2.5 X that pressure, often upwards of 25,000 - 27,000 PSI. These are common loads, not "unusual" loads. Not just the original Pyrodex patent, but many readily available independent sources such as Lyman's.

There is no evidence to show that these barrels are tested stateside in any way, and there is evidence to show that they are not, as in imported muzzleloaders arriving here a day or so after clearing customs.

If there is further testing beyond what is clearly stamped on the barrels, it is unknown--and not reflected on the original substandard proof embossed on those barrels. Nor is there any supplementary proof to indicate that this is being done.

The simple question, posed again and again, is have those guns been proofed or tested to 20,000 PSI, 25,000 PSI, or 30,000 PSI? If so, who is doing the testing, and what guns are being tested? Why are there no marks to indicate a "tested" barrel from an untested one? What specific loads are they tested with? Are they tested with pellets at all? What metal is used in these soft, extruded barrels? How do I know that my gun has been tested beyond the internationally respected house of Eibar stamp?

What reasonable assurances can be provided to a customer so he knows his individual gun has been tested?

Somehow, a terse phone call from a manufacturer that says these proofs are "not really proof marks" or "just a manufacturing mark" or "minimum pressures" or "it is ALL hogwash-- just follow the manual" seems ill-prepared, clumsy, and insufficient.

Traditions and CVA / BPI have been aware of these questions for some time. They have been unable to answer or fully address them. (Unless you think that Traditions calling me "anti-Second Amendment" or CVA starting a "Randy, you are out of your mind" thread on their forum should be construed as an answer to these questions.)

I don't know what testing there is, with what, by who, and why the Eibar Proof marks remain far, far too low. The public response from Traditions and CVA / BPI has been non-existent. If they can address these issues fully, and put the matter to rest, why haven't they? Traditions and CVA/Winchester Muzzleloading/BPI have been asked again and again why a customer should consider their recommended loads as safe, when they defy the clear barrel proofs, C. I. P. maximum service pressures, and Hodgdon Powder's own maximum load warnings.

With a mess like this, it is clear that the Black Powder Industry desperately needs an overseeing body like SAMMI. Though SAMMI participation is voluntary, it has made the firearms industry a better place by setting the rules. Only those with self-destructive proclivities would knowingly break powder manufacturer's reloading rules. Yet, if you are a muzzleloader, you are a reloader.

The educated consumers can decide for themselves what chances they may or may not be taking. As to if they are tested or safe with "their loads," I cannot possibly say either way. I wish I could say that I believe these guns to be well-tested and proven safe.

The best I can offer remains "I don't know."


Shameful.